Time cannot be created

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Benadam said:
I mighty be way off but aren’t acts in the temporal realm a process that requires time, and acts in eternity not a process and so not requiring time?
Click to expand...
Isn’t the act of creation an act which causes something after you had nothing? This requires time as we need time to differentiate two states of existence, nothing and something.
 
Wesrock said:
Incorrect. You are continuing to think of God’s act of creation in the wrong terms.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you this question? Could God decide to not create? If so what you had right now? Only God. This means that the the state of only God is fundamental. You could then have either God+universe or God only depending on what God decide.
 
Wesrock said:
The second and third statements are not correct.

This moment in time is as much an act of creation as the first instant was.
Click to expand...
They are correct. There was a creation ex nililo. You keep looking the problem from God perspective. I invite you to look at the problem from temporal point of view.
 
STT said:
Isn’t the act of creation an act which causes something after you had nothing? This requires time as we need time to differentiate two states of existence, nothing and something.
Click to expand...
Isn’t the pushing or pulling of an object at rest an act which causes movement after the object was not moving? If in your opinion this requires time to take place, go back to my post #59 and respond to my question.
 
STT said:
40.png
Gorgias:
You didn’t. I did, based on a classical definition of ‘change’. Time is a measure of change of physical objects. Without physical objects, there is no change, and no variable ‘time’ with which to measure change.
Click to expand...
I don’t accept that definition (bold part) of time. Time is a thing which allows change.
Click to expand...
Ahh… but change of what?

(Physical things!)
Gorgias said:
No. The ‘problem’ is that you’re asking the dimension of time to pre-exist creation. This is illogical.
Click to expand...
It has to and it is not illogical, otherwise you cannot define changes.
Click to expand...
This is why I’ve pointed out to you that you need to shore up your understanding of the metaphysics of the change known as “coming into being”… 😉
The reality is the creation is also a change in state of existence.
Click to expand...
However, it’s a different sort of change…
 
STT said:
I don’t accept that definition (bold part) of time. Time is a thing which allows change.
Click to expand...
Except that you don’t know and can’t prove (at least, you haven’t proved) that time “allows” change. We don’t know which direction, if any, the dependency flows. It would be like claiming space “allows” location, when the two may, in fact, be the same thing depending upon how you are deciding to view the relationship.

In other words, the dependency may merely be relative to you as an observer attempting to explain how you see things, but, in reality, time and change, space and location, may not even permit any kind of discrete separation between them. Time may simply be change and space may simply be something like “locatability.”
 
STT said:
…This requires time…
Click to expand...
The world’s leading physicists disagree. The Big Bang was the beginning of time. Some postulate a thing they call “imaginary time,” but it is indeed a theoretical construct, experimentally unverifiable, and indeed quite different from post-Big Bang chronological time.
 
Last edited:
Time is a part of Creation. It did not precede Creation. In fact it is a mistake to think of Creation taking place at some point in time. Creation takes place from the standpoint of eternity, wherein there is no before and after.
 
STT said:
That would be the definition of your derivative dS/dt.
Click to expand...
Not true. What has been defined is a one sided derivative. It is not the same as a derivative. Take for example the function f(x) = the absolute value of x. Both one sided derivatives will exist at x = 0, but the derivative does not exist at x = 0.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Ahh… but change of what?
Click to expand...
Change in anything, a state of a physical system for example.
Gorgias said:
This is why I’ve pointed out to you that you need to shore up your understanding of the metaphysics of the change known as “coming into being”… 😉
Click to expand...
Metaphysics only applies when there is an underlying reality. One of course has to prove that such a underlying reality exists. I cannot show and I don’t need that.
Gorgias said:
However, it’s a different sort of change…
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.
 
HarryStotle said:
Except that you don’t know and can’t prove (at least, you haven’t proved) that time “allows” change. We don’t know which direction, if any, the dependency flows. It would be like claiming space “allows” location, when the two may, in fact, be the same thing depending upon how you are deciding to view the relationship.

In other words, the dependency may merely be relative to you as an observer attempting to explain how you see things, but, in reality, time and change, space and location, may not even permit any kind of discrete separation between them. Time may simply be change and space may simply be something like “locatability.”
Click to expand...
No, I can show that that is time which allows change:
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.
Click to expand...
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
The world’s leading physicists disagree. The Big Bang was the beginning of time. Some postulate a thing they call “imaginary time,” but it is indeed a theoretical construct, experimentally unverifiable, and indeed quite different from post-Big Bang chronological time.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that that is not an argument.
 
AlNg said:
Not true. What has been defined is a one sided derivative. It is not the same as a derivative. Take for example the function f(x) = the absolute value of x. Both one sided derivatives will exist at x = 0, but the derivative does not exist at x = 0.
Click to expand...
We are talking about time in which it just exist for t>=0. What I am arguing is that time should definitely exists at t=0 otherwise we are dealing with a contradiction.
 
What if the act of creation wasn’t a change? Then it wouldn’t need to be mediated by any pre-existing substance.

Christi pax.
 
Lucretius said:
What if the act of creation wasn’t a change? Then it wouldn’t need to be mediated by any pre-existing substance.

Christi pax.
Click to expand...
It of course is a change otherwise the universe just has existed since t=0.
 
@STT

Or it didn’t exist, and then it was created.

If it changed, we have to ask what was changed.

It’s hard for us to understand this mystery because we have only encountered material change, so we can only draw analogies from that.

Christi pax.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
I am afraid that that is not an argument
Click to expand...
Have you made an argument? Because it seems the only one convinced by you is you. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top