Time cannot be created

[STT]

Well, because there must be a reason why THOSE “things exist” here and now, and why those things that do exist have the specific properties that they do have and not some others.

There is no reason why things exist. Why the reason should be hidden in underlying reality? What is the purpose? What is the meaning?

You don’t suppose that THAT entire aspect of reality ought to be ignored and left unexplained do you?

The existence doesn’t need any explanation. That includes God if there is any.

All of that just happened magically for no reason and requires no explanation, is that what you suppose?

Nothing happened magically.

 

[HarryStotle]

Nothing happened magically.

That is very interesting.

Except, what you say about “things” and “reasons” below is pretty much the definition of “magic.”

There is no reason why things exist. Why the reason should be hidden in underlying reality?

The existence doesn’t need any explanation.

So it the existence of things needs “no reason” to explain them, and any reason need not be hidden because it doesn’t exist, how is that not merely invoking magic?

And if existence itself doesn’t need an explanation, how is that not admitting that the existence of things is no different from magic?

You need to make up your mind: is the existence of things merely magical or does it need to be explained?

 

[STT]

That is very interesting.

Except, what you say about “things” and “reasons” below is pretty much the definition of “magic.”

There is no magic in what I said. Things just exist for no reason. The magic is in fact the very act of creation that you believe.

So it the existence of things needs “no reason” to explain them, and any reason need not be hidden because it doesn’t exist, how is that not merely invoking magic?

And if existence itself doesn’t need an explanation, how is that not admitting that the existence of things is no different from magic?

You need to make up your mind: is the existence of things merely magical or does it need to be explained?

I already ask you this question but you ignore it. Does God’s existence have any reason? You just accept it as brute fact. Why then do not accept the brute fact that things exist for no reason as well.

 

[HarryStotle]

I suppose the difference between positing brute facts with no ultimate explanation – and thereby just accepting that there is no ultimate explanation – and believing in God, is that by positing God, I am committed to the idea that in God everything will ultimately be explained, since the explanation for everything can and will be found in God.

In simple terms, you don’t think everything can or will be explained, while I think everything will be explained because God isn’t merely a “brute fact,” but, rather, that God is the full and complete explanation for everything.

Ultimately, you don’t seem to want the reason for anything to be explained because you are happy that brute facts with no explanation to ground all reality, whereas I am committed to the view that everything can be explained because the ultimate ground of reality does explain itself and everything else.

See the difference?

 

[AlNg]

The ‘uncertainty principle’ only works if you are inside ‘time’

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.

How do you define momentum without time?

 

[AlNg]

In simple terms, you don’t think everything can or will be explained, while I think everything will be explained because God isn’t merely a “brute fact,” but, rather, that God is the full and complete explanation for everything.

Ultimately, you don’t seem to want the reason for anything to be explained because you are happy that brute facts with no explanation ground all reality, whereas I am committed to the view that everything can be explained because the ultimate ground of reality does explain itself and everything else.

Do you think that there may be some events that may be random or do you rule out randomness absolutely?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Time does not exist and is not created as a substance. Time is a record being kept on the rotation of circles within circles.

What man records as time is not necessarily time which has no primary existence alone or time existing as it’s own entity.

Time is the record of movement or the travel of things that move within or outside of gravity.

Time is a record of things subject to the aging process of creation.

Time within this definition becomes a value of measurement only existing to the intellect of man, who labels time as an instrument of measurement to gauge and record the birth, life, death of things visible.

Time also can be used as a measuring standard to measure distance.

In summary Time itself was not created as it’s own entity. Time is created by the intellect of man to record circles within circles.

S to S has no time recorded element. S to S is the travel of visible and invisible creation moving at a distance from one position of nothing into a position (not time) of something.

The cause of this movement from S= nothing into S= creation is God not time. When God is the cause of movement, time does not exist, before, during, and after creation.

Peace be with you

 

[HarryStotle]

Do you think that there may be some events that may be random or do you rule out randomness absolutely?

Random, defined as: “a set of elements which has an equal probability of occurring,” or…
random as in: “an event occurring for no apparent cause or reason?”

The first seems to occur all the time. The second isn’t a coherent idea because it ultimately undermines the very idea of coherency.

Yes, I know, “…but, but, but… quantum physics…”

 

[AlNg]

Time is created by the intellect of man

No because aging occurs without the intervention of man or his intellect.

 

[AlNg]

I am committed to the view that everything can be explained because the ultimate ground of reality does explain itself and everything else.

There is a problem. If everything happens for a reason and can be explained as being caused as a result of something that came before it, then do you have control over your actions? What is the cause of your making that supposed free choice? But if your choice is already determined and caused by what came before, then how can you be free.
IOW, free will is incompatible with the idea that everything can be explained by some previous cause, because then it would be those previous causes which determine your choices and not your free will.

 

[HarryStotle]

There is a problem. If everything happens for a reason and can be explained as being caused as a result of something that came before it, then do you have control over your actions? What is the cause of your making that supposed free choice? But if your choice is already determined and caused by what came before, then how can you be free.
IOW, free will is incompatible with the idea that everything can be explained by some previous cause, because then it would be those previous causes which determine your choices and not your free will.

You are conflating “for a reason” with the idea of physical cause and effect. The idea of explanatory coherence or complete explanation might mean some things are explained by causation in the second sense, but it doesn’t mean all things must be. What “determines” and explains your free will choices is your free will. That would have been the “determiner” of what you chose, so free will is compatible with the idea that everything has an explanation because that explanation need not be a physical cause. Indeed, in the case of free choices, the “determiner” and explanation is your free will.

Even random rolls of dice can be explained as “random” events which are fully determined, but there were six equally possible options and which ended up occurring was still random.

Free will choices might have some relationship to a similar kind of event. That is, the physical or causal order might create a number of equally possible outcomes, leaving the outcome to a choice entirely determined by your will. That choice might be an informed one, I.e., a rational one, but I don’t suppose that needs to be the case. It could be an irrational one which simply goes with a strong desire or motive. Still that doesn’t mean the strong desire or motive “caused” the choice. It simply means the will went with the influence of the desire or motive and didn’t go with sound reason or conscience. Ergo, the choice was not determined for the will by some overwhelming external force. The will allowed itself to be moved by that force. It wasn’t, then, the extrinsic force that caused or determined the choice, it was the will that permitted it. Still a coherent explanation but not a cause in the sense you assume.

To say the will determined the outcome and therefore the outcome was inevitable or determined and therefore wasn’t free is to succumb to the ambiguity of terms and the fallacy of retrospective determinism.

 

[HarryStotle]

If everything happens for a reason and can be explained as being caused as a result of something that came before it,…

Here you assume the explanation for a thing is “the result of something that came before it,” which means you assume cause and explanation are the same thing. That isn’t true, necessarily, unless you assume a kind of eliminative materialism and a restricted view of causation along the lines of accidental as opposed to per se causality. Why should we limit our understanding of causation merely to bolster you world view and to explain away arising difficulties?

That also assumes a view of causation that is restricted to something like efficient causality, completely forgetting that, in Aristotelian terms, there are four aspects to causation: formal, efficient, material and final.

Materialism, in the end, seems to try to circumvent completely the principle of sufficient reason by appealing to “brute fact,” which is, in itself, telling with regard to its commitment to finding a complete explanation.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I am not sure what you are objecting to?

Aging is a process of a substance moving from one position to another. Time does not exist here in the aging movement process.

Man records time from the intellect to measure the distance between the movement of an aging process.

Thus Time is created by the intellect of man to be used as a measurement standard.

Aging has nothing to do with the intellect of man. Time has everything to do with the intellect of man. Because Time alone does not exist without the intellect of man.

 

[Gorgias]

Because Time alone does not exist without the intellect of man.

I think you’re making an inaccurate distinction.

If you were to say that time is not measured explicitly without the intellect of man, then I’d agree with you. However, time doesn’t “come into being” when humans begin measuring things.

(After all, we measure things that occurred far in advance of the presence of humans on this earth. That requires time in order to make the measurement. Yet, if we were not around, then our intellect was not around… and by your assertion, time also was not around. That assertion just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

[STT]

I suppose the difference between positing brute facts with no ultimate explanation – and thereby just accepting that there is no ultimate explanation – and believing in God, is that by positing God, I am committed to the idea that in God everything will ultimately be explained, since the explanation for everything can and will be found in God.

In simple terms, you don’t think everything can or will be explained, while I think everything will be explained because God isn’t merely a “brute fact,” but, rather, that God is the full and complete explanation for everything.

Ultimately, you don’t seem to want the reason for anything to be explained because you are happy that brute facts with no explanation ground all reality, whereas I am committed to the view that everything can be explained because the ultimate ground of reality does explain itself and everything else.

See the difference?

I see what you are saying but I don’t think that what you believe is ultimate explanation. It is an only a view. Mine is a view too but is simpler.

 

[STT]

How do you define momentum without time?

What does it mean to be outside time?

 

[AlNg]

What does it mean to be outside time?

This is not something I was talking about. Why not ask those who are using this concept to explain what it means.
My question remains:
How do you define momentum without time? I don’t think it is possible because momentum involves time.

 

[AlNg]

Aging is a process of a substance moving from one position to another.

In this process of moving positions, can you move back and forth from one position to another?

 

[Gorgias]

Mine is a view too but is simpler.

H.L. Mencken is often (somewhat misquoted) as having said, “For Every Complex Problem, There Is an Answer That Is Clear, Simple, and Wrong”.

 

[HarryStotle]

I see what you are saying but I don’t think that what you believe is ultimate explanation. It is an only a view. Mine is a view too but is simpler.

Not only is your view “simpler,” it also just sidesteps everything that might complicate it by just supposing all of that simply doesn’t exist. No evidence, no reasons, just presumptions.

Anything can be made “simpler” just by chopping off everything that isn’t simple. That would be Ockham’s Razor in the hands of an inept butcher.