Time cannot be created

[MountCarmel]

STT - The ‘uncertainty principle’ only works if you are inside ‘time’ - I believe that God is outside as well as inside ‘time’, indeed that He has complete knowledge of the full run of physical and temporal time, from the alpha to the omega.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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”.
before.

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

This is a valid argument for what you want to prove (take into account that “valid” does not mean “sound”: your conclusion is false). It is a typical modus ponens argumental form.

JuanFlorencio:

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?

I will use the recursion twice. I hope you can realize that it can go on indefinitely:

(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”.
But
(4) “Time” is a thing which changes.
Therefore
(5) There is another thing which we call " time’ "
But
(6) " Time’ " is a thing which changes.
Therefore
(5) There is another thing which we call " time’’ "
But…

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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.

Ups! You really have no idea about what a logical argument is. Have you ever heard about inference rules?

Go back to the notion of change:

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

And that is it. No “points” besides the “states” of the system are required. No extra “variable” is needed. It is only when you want to determine the speed of the change that you need a reference (your “variable”). And if it is the speed of a change what you want to measure, you need to resort to another change that you will use as your reference.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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.

So, your argument is this, in brief:

1. If time exists, then time is a thing.
2. A change minimally is two events which happen at two points in time, for example change in position of a particle in a system, therefore, time exists.
   Therefore
3. Time is a thing.

But the same structure can be used to argue:

1. If time exists, then time is an idea.
2. A change minimally is two events which happen at two points in time, for example change in position of a particle in a system, therefore, time exists.
   Therefore
3. Time is an idea.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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, let’s suppose that time is a thing. Is it perceivable?

 

[JamesATyler]

I would also be interested in exploring time as a thing. What would be the nature of such a thing?

 

[Gorgias]

I provide the argument for the last time

That’s probably a good thing.

it is up to you to put effort to understand it

I do understand your argument. I just reject it.

A change minimally is two events which happen at two points chronologically

OK… stop. Just stop right there and look at what you’ve written.

The very first premise that you begin your argument with has a presumption embedded in it: the points are “chronological”. That is, your argument presumes that time exists. Since you’re trying to discuss a “system” that examines the creation of the universe, your argument presumes that time exists prior to the creation of the universe. Yet, your argument is attempting to prove that time exists prior to the creation of the universe.

You can see the problem here… can’t you? Your argument starts off by presuming what you’re attempting to prove. That’s not a valid argument. I’m sorry. If you can’t see that, then I understand why you’re frustrated at our reactions to your assertions.

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.

I can see that your initial premise includes your conclusion. Therefore, I can see that your argument is logically unsound.

 

[JamesATyler]

STT. Is the idea that time is a constant thing which always exists, what we are going for with this argument? I would also agree with Gorgias in the above post. If you say something like the word sequence in the premise you don’t have to make any further claims. You could just say:

There is a sequence so time exists.

If when you say time cannot be created do you also imply that time cannot have a beginning?

Do all sequences have a beginning? If time is a sequential thing then how do we make the argument that this thing has no origin?

It seems that you have two arguments to make. One, time is a thing, and two, it has no origin.

Both seem pretty hard to prove. Would it be reasonable to say, “In order for something to begin, something must precede it?” For a beginning is the first in a sequence. Yet if something is first, then nothing must precede it. So nothing is that something. So in a sequence it is [nothing, beginning, middle, end]. Or in terms of time it is, [before time, beginning of time, middle of time, end of time, and presumably after time]. Yet, if I understand you correctly, if anything is a part of a sequence, it has a place in time. So you conclude that that it is illogical that time begins? Is this anywhere near a correct understanding of your thoughts?

I would also add that the religious view is like this, as I understand it. [God is before time, beginning of time, middle of time, end of time, and God is after time]. Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

“In order for something to begin, something must precede it?” For a beginning is the first in a sequence. Yet if something is first, then nothing must precede it. So nothing is that something. So in a sequence it is [nothing, beginning, middle, end]. Or in terms of time it is, [before time, beginning of time, middle of time, end of time, and presumably after time].

There is this limitation in our language: To say “…before time existed…”, or “…after time stopped existing…” is contradictory, because the words “before” and “after” indicate temporality already. However, that is not a proof that time is a thing and that it has always existed and will always exist. It is just that, in our temporality, we cannot conceive other mode of being but temporality.

 

[STT]

STT - The ‘uncertainty principle’ only works if you are inside ‘time’ - I believe that God is outside as well as inside ‘time’, indeed that He has complete knowledge of the full run of physical and temporal time, from the alpha to the omega.

No, the uncertainty principle that is an intrinsic property of material entities. It say that position and momentum of a particle cannot be measured with infinite accuracy.

 

[STT]

This is a valid argument for what you want to prove (take into account that “valid” does not mean “sound”: your conclusion is false). It is a typical modus ponens argumental form.

I see but that is not my argument.

I will use the recursion twice. I hope you can realize that it can go on indefinitely:

(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”.

But

(4) “Time” is a thing which changes.

Therefore

(5) There is another thing which we call " time’ "

But

(6) " Time’ " is a thing which changes.

Therefore

(5) There is another thing which we call " time’’ "

But…

I see but that is not my argument.

 

[STT]

Ups! You really have no idea about what a logical argument is. Have you ever heard about inference rules?

Go back to the notion of change:

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

And that is it. No “points” besides the “states” of the system are required. No extra “variable” is needed. It is only when you want to determine the speed of the change that you need a reference (your “variable”). And if it is the speed of a change what you want to measure, you need to resort to another change that you will use as your reference.

No, these points have to be ordered in specific way and there should be a duration between them otherwise we are talking about two isolated points. You say one point comes after another point. It is a legitimate question to ask about duration of this process.

 

[STT]

So, your argument is this, in brief:

If time exists, then time is a thing.

A change minimally is two events which happen at two points in time, for example change in position of a particle in a system, therefore, time exists.

Therefore

Time is a thing.

But the same structure can be used to argue:

If time exists, then time is an idea.

A change minimally is two events which happen at two points in time, for example change in position of a particle in a system, therefore, time exists.

Therefore

Time is an idea.

No, what I am trying to show that there is a duration between two events otherwise the second event never takes place. Therefore time is real.

 

[MountCarmel]

If what controls all ‘laws’ and has omnipotence over creation and the run of time, and IS the eternal source of knowledge and power, then for God there is actually NO UNCERTAINTITY - He knows the way everything will work - ALL THE CAUSES AND THE OUTCOMES - NO SURPRISES.

Obviously IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THIS, THEN IN YOUR OWN MIND YOU CAN START TO LIMIT GOD to your own perceptions… Oh, and yes, I also believe God has some of His own ‘limitations’, such as not being able to terminate Himself, create a weight He cannot ‘lift’, or truly make that which has ‘happened’, ‘un-happen’, or directly do evil.

 

[MountCarmel]

STT - So I take it you do not believe in ‘cause and effect’ law?

 

[STT]

STT, let’s suppose that time is a thing. Is it perceivable?

We don’t have any sense to perceive time but yes we can experience internal rhythm which has duration. We experience speed for example. You experience the speed of cars every time you want to cross a street so you can know whether you will be safe or not if you want to cross the street. Speed however is created by brain. There should be a duration between two events in our brain otherwise speed cannot be created.

 

[STT]

…
There is a sequence so time exists.

No, I am saying that if there is a sequence of events therefore there should be a duration between these events otherwise given the first event the second event will never takes place.

If when you say time cannot be created do you also imply that time cannot have a beginning?

No. time can have a beginning without the need to be created.

Do all sequences have a beginning?

Any sequence is made of at least two event one follows another one.

If time is a sequential thing then how do we make the argument that this thing has no origin?

I don’t think that time is sequential given the above definition. It flows however.

It seems that you have two arguments to make. One, time is a thing, and two, it has no origin.

I have two argument in here. One is that time cannot be created. Another one is that time is a real thing since there is always a duration between two events otherwise the second even will never takes place.

Both seem pretty hard to prove. Would it be reasonable to say, “In order for something to begin, something must precede it?”

No. I can imagine time with a beginning and nothing precede it. In fact we have a contradiction to talk about something before beginning of time.

For a beginning is the first in a sequence. Yet if something is first, then nothing must precede it.

Yes.

So nothing is that something. So in a sequence it is [nothing, beginning, middle, end]. Or in terms of time it is, [before time, beginning of time, middle of time, end of time, and presumably after time].

You have this sequence for time: [beginning of time, middle of time, end of time]. You have a contradiction if you use before time since before is s temporal thing.

Yet, if I understand you correctly, if anything is a part of a sequence, it has a place in time.

Yes, given the the definition of sequence.

So you conclude that that it is illogical that time begins?

No, I don’t say that. I don’t know how this follows from your previous statement.

Is this anywhere near a correct understanding of your thoughts?

I hope this post makes things clear.

I would also add that the religious view is like this, as I understand it. [God is before time, beginning of time, middle of time, end of time, and God is after time]. Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end.

God as I understand from your teaching is timeless.

 

[STT]

If what controls all ‘laws’ and has omnipotence over creation and the run of time, and IS the eternal source of knowledge and power, then for God there is actually NO UNCERTAINTITY - He knows the way everything will work - ALL THE CAUSES AND THE OUTCOMES - NO SURPRISES.

Obviously IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THIS, THEN IN YOUR OWN MIND YOU CAN START TO LIMIT GOD to your own perceptions… Oh, and yes, I also believe God has some of His own ‘limitations’, such as not being able to terminate Himself, create a weight He cannot ‘lift’, or truly make that which has ‘happened’, ‘un-happen’, or directly do evil.

There is no need for a laws holder. Elementary particles are stable and the laws of nature is nothing more than how the particles react to each other.

Do you think that it is logically impossible that God create something which can live on its own?

 

[STT]

STT - So I take it you do not believe in ‘cause and effect’ law?

No, I believe in cause and effect in the sense that psi(t1)->psi(t2) which psi is the wave function of a systemand the Schrodinger equation tells us what the arrow in the above equation is. The problem with microscopic world is that particles moves based on Schrodinger equation without any problem, cause and effect holds, until a conscious agent try to observe them. That is where the uncertainty principle comes to play.

 

[JamesATyler]

No. time can have a beginning without the need to be created.

Ok. Wait a minute. MountCarmel is making a valid observation when asks whether you believe in the cause and effect law.

If what you wrote if true then time begins as an effect without a cause. If time is the first thing to exist then the whole sequence of creation is presumably:

Effect → cause → effect → cause and so on. That is unconventional thinking. (or is it. Someone enlighten me.)