Time cannot be created

[STT]

refers back to post 231 Time cannot be created

what’s your point Re: directionality? temporality?

I am afraid that it doesn’t help if you don’t elaborate. The discussion was long and I am not sure if you followed all posts.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

This argument doesn’t work, because – although your first premise is that there’s no temporal framework (after all, that’s what sets you up for showing the contradiction) – your following premises rely on exactly the opposite premise. Therefore, you’re proving that time exists through premises that presume (implicitly) that time exists.

Actually, Georgias, the first premise is vicious: when STT says “Let’s suppose that there is no temporal framework prior to creation”, he is already affirming what he supposedly intended to put in suspense.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

For STT, time is a kind of intangible substance. It seemed to me that your notion was more rational, as you did not have any comment on the interpretation I made of one of your explanations: time would be our act of comparing one movement or change against another movement that features the peculiarity of periodicity. Did you change your mind?

Yes, a movement against another movement and this movement against another movement and … To measure time. That is infinite regress. We are aware of duration. Duration is simply time elapsed between two events in a specific system, standard clock. It is real since allows that the events happen with a specific order.

I don’t know what happens there, but in this part of the world we do measurements this way: if we want to know what the length of an object is, we compare it against another object that we have adopted as a reference. We have adopted a unit system in which the basic unit of length is called “meter”. Nothing prevent us from doing as many comparisons as we wish, but if we just want to know the length of a given object we just do one. It is because we are very smart.

We also compare velocities. And to do that we have adopted another reference. We call it a “second”. What is it? It is, for example, one turn of one of the hands of my watch. So, if I observe that an object moves a distance of 20 meters while the hand of my watch gives 10 turns, I say that the object had a speed of 2 m/s (two meters per second). I am comparing the linear velocity of the object against the angular velocity of the hand of my watch. I could also use as a reference the tangential velocity of the hand of my watch, but I still would call it a"second". As in the case of distances, nothing prevent us from comparing indefinitely, but as we are smart people we don’t do that when we just want to know the velocity of a given object. Our extended practice and our common sense have shown us that that would be unnecessary and even preposterous.

Sometimes we use the expresión “to measure time”, but we know what we are talking about; and nobody here pretends that there is a kind of thing called “time” that we can take piece by piece and measure with the movement of our watch. That makes no sense.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Hello and good day:

Not sure, but I suspect that there are more aspects of time than just one way of looking at it. There is a similar situation with light. Although it may seem contradictory, light can be viewed as either a particle or a wave.

Under certain conditions light behaves like particles; and under other conditions it behaves like waves. “Time” displays no behavior.

What are the aspects under which “time” unfolds before you?

 

[JamesATyler]

Is time even a “thing” that can or cannot be created ? Seems like time is an idea. God created the physical world. I mean, all you have to do is create space and fill it with things. Sort of get time in the process since things move at certain speeds. Would there be any reason to directly create time as if it were a “thing” that can exist on its own?

Probably, it is more like you need stuff to exist to have the idea of time to exist. You need stuff to exist to have stuff that can change. I think that looking at time as a substance is an error. I think that is the error that makes this thread possible. Hehe. Can someone prove that time is anything other than an idea made possible by the existence of the universe?

 

[Gorgias]

The necessity of time comes in the last step of my argument if you read it carefully! You need to show that where is the time in the first and second premises. Time implicitly enters when we assume that there was a uncaused cause which caused change between point one and two.

I don’t have to show it. You’ve just admitted it: “time implicitly enters”. In other words, you’re attempting to show time exists by presuming that time exists. That’s faulty reasoning. If you can’t see that this is the case, there’s not much we can do for you here.

That is the conclusion. If you don’t like that argument then you have to show that one of the step before is wrong.

I have: you presume your conclusion.

Well, then you have to show that the rest of my argument is blah blah

No, really I don’t. I just have to show that your premises create circular reasoning. I’ve done precisely that. There’s no need to examine the rest of your argument, given that we’ve already shown that the argument is faulty.

Well, lets see if we could accept these facts

Re-stating your case doesn’t help you here. You have to refute the argument that you’re inserting time into your argument and thus setting up a logical fallacy.

 

[STT]

I don’t know what happens there, but in this part of the world we do measurements this way: if we want to know what the length of an object is, we compare it against another object that we have adopted as a reference. We have adopted a unit system in which the basic unit of length is called “meter”. Nothing prevent us from doing as many comparisons as we wish, but if we just want to know the length of a given object we just do one. It is because we are very smart.

We also compare velocities. And to do that we have adopted another reference. We call it a “second”. What is it? It is, for example, one turn of one of the hands of my watch. So, if I observe that an object moves a distance of 20 meters while the hand of my watch gives 10 turns, I say that the object had a speed of 2 m/s (two meters per second). I am comparing the linear velocity of the object against the angular velocity of the hand of my watch. I could also use as a reference the tangential velocity of the hand of my watch, but I still would call it a"second". As in the case of distances, nothing prevent us from comparing indefinitely, but as we are smart people we don’t do that when we just want to know the velocity of a given object. Our extended practice and our common sense have shown us that that would be unnecessary and even preposterous.

Sometimes we use the expresión “to measure time”, but we know what we are talking about; and nobody here pretends that there is a kind of thing called “time” that we can take piece by piece and measure with the movement of our watch. That makes no sense.

I already define standard clock and duration. Duration is simply time elapsed between two events in a specific system. The clock is a system with a set of chronological events. The two events that we observe in a clock are not time.

 

[STT]

I don’t have to show it. You’ve just admitted it: “time implicitly enters”. In other words, you’re attempting to show time exists by presuming that time exists. That’s faulty reasoning. If you can’t see that this is the case, there’s not much we can do for you here.

Well, the necessity of time enter to equation when we discuss about the fact that any act is time dependent. So in reality I am proving the necessity of time in the last step of my argument.

I have: you presume your conclusion.

I don’t. You are just not following me.

No, really I don’t. I just have to show that your premises create circular reasoning. I’ve done precisely that. There’s no need to examine the rest of your argument, given that we’ve already shown that the argument is faulty.

It is no circular reasoning. It is very linear.

Re-stating your case doesn’t help you here. You have to refute the argument that you’re inserting time into your argument and thus setting up a logical fallacy.

I didn’t restate any thing!

 

[STT]

Is time even a “thing” that can or cannot be created ?

Yes, time is a thing and cannot be created.

Seems like time is an idea. God created the physical world. I mean, all you have to do is create space and fill it with things. Sort of get time in the process since things move at certain speeds. Would there be any reason to directly create time as if it were a “thing” that can exist on its own?

Time is not an idea. The speed for example is the ration of change in position respect to time elapsed.

Probably, it is more like you need stuff to exist to have the idea of time to exist. You need stuff to exist to have stuff that can change.

Change is not time.

I think that looking at time as a substance is an error. I think that is the error that makes this thread possible. Hehe. Can someone prove that time is anything other than an idea made possible by the existence of the universe?

Well, I have an argument that shows that change is not possible without time. Is that what you are looking for?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Is time even a “thing” that can or cannot be created ? Seems like time is an idea. God created the physical world. I mean, all you have to do is create space and fill it with things. Sort of get time in the process since things move at certain speeds. Would there be any reason to directly create time as if it were a “thing” that can exist on its own?

Probably, it is more like you need stuff to exist to have the idea of time to exist. You need stuff to exist to have stuff that can change. I think that looking at time as a substance is an error. I think that is the error that makes this thread possible. Hehe. Can someone prove that time is anything other than an idea made possible by the existence of the universe?

I completely agree with you.

I don’t know of anyone who has provided a valid and sound argument to prove that time is a thing. STT has repeated ad nauseam his assertion that time is a thing, and he acts as if he believed that after two or three repetitions (if and only if it has been his repetitions) an assertion becomes a sound argument. STT has elaborated certain sequences of propositions that he believes make up a valid argument, but sometimes even common sense is enough to discard such presumption.

One of STT’s “arguments” is this:

We have a change in a system therefore we have two states related to change which are different. These two states cannot be at the same point since the state of system becomes ill-defined. Therefore these two states should be placed on different points. There is also a directionality in change because one state (first state) comes before another state (second state), this is another property of change. Up to here we realize that we need to a variable with at least two points which the first point comes before the second point. There should however be a duration between these two points otherwise the second state will never take place. This variable is therefore time.

It is necessary to work on it a little bit first to put it straight, right?

The “argument” would start with the proposition:

1. There is change.

I think this is quite acceptable. And this proposition takes for granted that everyone understands what change is, which seems reasonable to me. But STT will try to explain:

1. Change is a sequence of at least two states of a system.

And he stresses that those states must be different to each other (otherwise there would be no change, right?, but he prefers to be redundant). So, the proposition must be:

1. Change is a sequence of at least two different states of a system.

CONTINUES…

 

[JuanFlorencio]

And also everybody knows that if we say that a system changes we mean that first it was in a certain state and then it is in another state; and that when the second state becomes, the first state is no more. This is implicit in the word “sequence”, right?; but as STT is fond of redundancy he will want to see it in his proposition. So, the second proposition needs to be reformulated:

1. Change is a sequence of at least two different states of a system where the second comes after the first.

Suddenly, STT “realizes” that besides change there must be a “variable” (but evidently if it is “variable”, it is change, isn’t it? Nevertheless STT doesn’t realize it. For him, it must be a thing, a different and independent thing). So, his third proposition would be:

1. We realize that a variable is needed for change to be intelligible. We call it “time”.

You can see that this proposition is not a logical conclusion of the first two premises. STT sees this as well, that is why he says “we realize…”, instead of saying “we infer…”.

And then, his conclusion:

1. A thing which we call “time” exists.

Let’s put the whole list of propositions together:

1. There is change.
2. Change is a sequence of at least two different states of a system where the second comes after the first.
3. We realize that a variable is needed for change to be intelligible. We call it “time”.
4. A thing which we call “time” exists.

And that is the “argument”!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

As STT’s sequence of propositions is not a logical argument, we could assist him elaborating one. It would go as follows:

1. If there is a thing which changes, then there is another thing which we call “time”.
2. There is a thing which changes.
   Therefore,
3. There is another thing which we call “time”.

Of course, we can ask STT if “time” is a thing which changes. STT will indefinitely evade the question. But there are just two options: “Yes”, or “No”.

If STT responded “Yes”, then the argument would have to be used recursively to demonstrate that an infinite of different things called “time” exist (What would make them different any way?)

STT is very much afraid of infinite regressions, but he might love this infinite progression.

Once STT has said concerning time that “Up to here we realize that we need to a variable [time] with at least two points which the first point comes before the second point”, he should not be able to respond “No”; but you never know. So, we would have to remind him of what he said and tell him that he is refuting himself (of course, he will say that we didn’t understand and that if we are interested he will offer an argument that he has shown before, or somewhere else).

 

[Gorgias]

Well, the necessity of time enter to equation when we discuss about the fact that any act is time dependent. So in reality I am proving the necessity of time in the last step of my argument.

No, you’re not proving it, you’re just asserting it. Big difference.

We’re disagreeing with you that time is prior to creation. So, you need to prove it. You can’t just say “oh, time has to enter the equation here” – prove it!

I have: you presume your conclusion.

I don’t. You are just not following me.

I am following you. That’s why I’m trying to get you to see that you’re aren’t offering a workable proof of your assertion.

No, really I don’t. I just have to show that your premises create circular reasoning. I’ve done precisely that. There’s no need to examine the rest of your argument, given that we’ve already shown that the argument is faulty.

It is no circular reasoning. It is very linear.

No… it’s circular. Here: read up on this example of what you’re doing in your ‘proof’.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Another of STT’s arguments is based on the class of physics that is taught in secondary school: Velocity and many other rates of change are expressed in units of “x” (meters, for instance, or temperature, or energy…) divided by “t”, and everybody knows that “t” represents “time”. Therefore, time exists! (And he will add that it must be a “thing”).

So, STT has discovered that speed, for example, is a distance that we divide by a thing called “time”. What on earth does that division mean? Imagine yourself trying to divide 10 meters by a thing like an apple, for instance. My mind freezes!

But who will dare to say that “speed” is a thing? Who will dare to say that an arithmetic operation is a thing? We see things moving, but we don’t see “speeds” dancing before us. So, what is speed? It is our mental representation of an aspect of things moving. And it is in this mental representation (an arithmetic division) where we include “time”.

Ask STT if “time” is a perceivable “thing”. He has acknowledged somewhere else that it isn’t (because it is not the first time STT shares his confusions about time in the forum). So, if it is already nonsensical trying to divide distance by apples, imagine how it is trying to divide it by a thing that you don’t perceive. And if now he prefers to say that time is a perceivable thing, he just have to point at it with his finger. All arguments would become irrelevant.

What do we really do when we determine, for instance, the speed of a big object? Don’t we observe the movement of the body and the movement of our chronometer? Don’t we measure the distance traveled by the object and see the marks in our chronometer? Don’t we just do an arithmetic division based on these two observations? And that is it! Where on earth appears that unperceivable “thing” that STT calls “time”.

Now, STT has resorted on the so called “Occam’s razor” to settle a discussion. Such principle would apply here, but… would STT apply it to himself? Of course not! But will he offer a reason? None!

 

[JamesATyler]

Well, I have an argument that shows that change is not possible without time. Is that what you are looking for?

Your argument is straight forward. If there is a sequence of changes then time exists as a “thing”. Can you outline why it is a thing as opposed to an idea. Forgive me if you did so previously. I may have missed it. I see no reason yet to believe that time must be a thing. All that seems necessary is for the physical matter to exist and change. Would you agree that time cannot exist, as neither a thing or an idea, unless other things also exist?

 

[STT]

our argument is straight forward. If there is a sequence of changes then time exists as a “thing”. Can you outline why it is a thing as opposed to an idea. Forgive me if you did so previously. I may have missed it. I see no reason yet to believe that time must be a thing. All that seems necessary is for the physical matter to exist and change. Would you agree that time cannot exist, as neither a thing or an idea, unless other things also exist?

Time is not an idea. It is a thing which allows change. Here is the argument: A change minimally is two events which happen at two points chronologically, for example change in position of a particle in a system. The question is how long does it take to reach from one state to another state. There are three options available: (1) It takes no time. The process is timeless. This however leads to a problem, system is ill-defined sine you could only have one even in timeless framework. (2) You could say that there is a duration between two events. That is one feasible case. But you need time for this option. (3) You could say that there is a eternity between two events. This means that the change will never take place.

As you can see there is only one option which is feasible, option (2). This means that time is a thing which allows the change since a change could not take place otherwise.

 

[STT]

No, you’re not proving it, you’re just asserting it. Big difference.

We’re disagreeing with you that time is prior to creation. So, you need to prove it. You can’t just say “oh, time has to enter the equation here” – prove it!

I am following you. That’s why I’m trying to get you to see that you’re aren’t offering a workable proof of your assertion.



No… it’s circular. Here: read up on this example of what you’re doing in your ‘proof’.

I provide the argument for the last time, it is up to you to put effort to understand it: A change minimally is two events which happen at two points chronologically, for example change in position of a particle in a system. The question is how long does it take to reach from one state to another state. There are three options available: (1) It takes no time. The process is timeless. This however leads to a problem, system is ill-defined sine you could only have one even in timeless framework. (2) You could say that there is a duration between two events. That is one feasible case. But you need time for this option. (3) You could say that there is a eternity between two events. This means that the change will never take place.

As you can see there is only one option which is feasible, option (2). This means that time is a thing which allows the change since a change could not take place otherwise.

 

[STT]

It is necessary to work on it a little bit first to put it straight, right?

The “argument” would start with the proposition:

There is change.

I think this is quite acceptable. And this proposition takes for granted that everyone understands what change is, which seems reasonable to me. But STT will try to explain:

Change is a sequence of at least two states of a system.

And he stresses that those states must be different to each other (otherwise there would be no change, right?, but he prefers to be redundant). So, the proposition must be:

Change is a sequence of at least two different states of a system.

CONTINUES…

Good up to here.

 

[STT]

And also everybody knows that if we say that a system changes we mean that first it was in a certain state and then it is in another state; and that when the second state becomes, the first state is no more. This is implicit in the word “sequence”, right?; but as STT is fond of redundancy he will want to see it in his proposition. So, the second proposition needs to be reformulated:

(2) Change is a sequence of at least two different states of a system where the second comes after the first.

I agree that you don’t need the bold part.

Suddenly, STT “realizes” that besides change there must be a “variable” (but evidently if it is “variable”, it is change, isn’t it? Nevertheless STT doesn’t realize it. For him, it must be a thing, a different and independent thing). So, his third proposition would be:

(3) We realize that a variable is needed for change to be intelligible. We call it “time”.

No, you are missing a few steps here: I argue in favor of existing a duration between two points of the variable.

Here are the steps: The change cannot be timeless since that impose that two points coincide on each other. Therefore the points are related to a variable with specific duration between them.

You can see that this proposition is not a logical conclusion of the first two premises. STT sees this as well, that is why he says “we realize…”, instead of saying “we infer…”.

And then, his conclusion:

A thing which we call “time” exists.

Let’s put the whole list of propositions together:

(1) There is change.
(2) Change is a sequence of at least two different states of a system where the second comes after the first.
(3) We realize that a variable is needed for change to be intelligible. We call it “time”.
(4) A thing which we call “time” exists.

And that is the “argument”!

I think the argument should look like this:

(1) There is change.
(2) Change is a sequence of at least two different states of a system.
(3) We realize that a variable is needed for change to be intelligible. This is a variable with two points which the first point is related to first state of the system and the second point is related to the second state of the system.
(4) These two point either are separated by no time, timeless, or there a duration between them.
(5) The change cannot be timeless since that impose that two points coincide on each other, against premise (2). Therefore there must be a duration between two points.
(6) This variable we call it time.

 

[STT]

As STT’s sequence of propositions is not a logical argument, we could assist him elaborating one. It would go as follows:

(1) If there is a thing which changes, then there is another thing which we call “time”.
(2) There is a thing which changes.
Therefore,
(3) There is another thing which we call “time”.

I cannot how did you reach to this argument. This is different from the argument that you have posted before.

Of course, we can ask STT if “time” is a thing which changes. STT will indefinitely evade the question. But there are just two options: “Yes”, or “No”.

Yes, time is a thing which change constantly.

If STT responded “Yes”, then the argument would have to be used recursively to demonstrate that an infinite of different things called “time” exist (What would make them different any way?)

STT is very much afraid of infinite regressions, but he might love this infinite progression.

I don’t understand how you get the bold part?