Time cannot be created

[STT]

That would be like saying the laws of physics “allow” the physical universe to work. That isn’t exactly true, though, is it?

No, laws of physics do not allow the universe to work. They just define how the universe evolve.

The laws of physics describe how the universe works by characterizing the orderliness and relatedness of the various sub-components of the universe. The laws of physics don’t, however, do anything. They aren’t efficacious in the sense that they don’t actually cause anything to occur. There are underlying causes, the metaphysical substrate that actually does bring about and maintain the order and workings of the universe.

There is no metaphysical substrate. Particles are actual and they interact with each other.

Time, then, isn’t causal. It doesn’t create change, neither does it “allow” (in whatever sense you mean) change. Roughly speaking, time is an aspect of universe, just like the workings, order and precision that are described mathematically by the laws physics are aspects of the universe, but neither time nor the laws of physics have any active role in the creating or sustaining the universe. Something obviously does, but both time and the laws of physics are ways that we try to quantify the causal order to try and make sense of it. Neither of them actually “allow” anything.

I didn’t say that time cause. I said time allows. Perhaps it is better to say that time is required for any change, if that sounds better to you.

 

[STT]

No, that’s not the point you were making. At time t=0, the universe springs into existence. So, at t=0, time is ‘created’ by virtue of the physical universe coming into existence. At some time t+ε, we can compute a derivative by comparing the state of t=0 with the state at t+ε.

However, there is no t<0, so there is no time t-ε. Therefore, there is no derivative to be calculated by comparing the state at t=0 with the state at t-ε (since there is no ‘state’ and no physical universe at that point).

In a weird sort of way, you’re asking “how ‘blue’ is the color blue, prior to the creation of the universe?”. The definition of the color ‘blue’ doesn’t change at the creation of the universe; rather, it simply becomes a definition concurrently with the creation of all matter. There’s no ‘change’ involved (from a physical standpoint). ‘Blue’ doesn’t have to pre-exist the universe in order for blue things to be ‘blue’ at the start of the universe.

So you agree that time exists at t=0? Then when it was created?

 

[Gorgias]

Time is required for change if that sounds better to you. I have an argument for that: 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 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.

I’m cool with that. However, you then turn from this (reasonable) explanation, and attempt to assert that at some time prior to the existence of the system, the variable that delimits and measures the system is already in place. That’s just bad science. The measure comes into existence when the thing to be measured comes into existence, not prior.

Time didn’t come into existence. You fall in trap of infinite regress if you want to prove that time can come into existence or created. You either have a contradiction as it is discussed in OP.

No, not really. What’s the “infinite regress”? (It only exists if you posit that time pre-exists creation – after all, if time itself has “coming into being” change, then it must be measured by something, no? And if so, then time must measure itself, or must itself be measured by something already in existence! Therefore, if your assertion is right, we fall into either an infinite loop or infinite regress. And therefore, your assertion must be in error.

There is no underlying reality that time is derived from. Time is fundamental.

Fine. So… what creates ‘time’?

 

[AlNg]

You fall in trap of infinite regress

I don’t see infinite regress as a trap. For example, on the real line,you have the point zero, which can represent the present time t=0. then you have the positive numbers,which could represent the time t=1, say one hour from now. And you have the negative numbers, t= -1, which could represent the time one hour ago. And the line extends infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future and there is no logical contradiction, or mathematical trap, in positing this.

 

[STT]

I’m cool with that. However, you then turn from this (reasonable) explanation, and attempt to assert that at some time prior to the existence of the system, the variable that delimits and measures the system is already in place. That’s just bad science. The measure comes into existence when the thing to be measured comes into existence, not prior.

Was there a point that nothing existed? We have a change when universe came into existence otherwise the act of creation is meaningless.

No, not really. What’s the “infinite regress”? (It only exists if you posit that time pre-exists creation – after all, if time itself has “coming into being” change, then it must be measured by something, no? And if so, then time must measure itself, or must itself be measured by something already in existence! Therefore, if your assertion is right, we fall into either an infinite loop or infinite regress. And therefore, your assertion must be in error.

If time is created then there is a point at which it didn’t exist. Is that right?

Fine. So… what creates ‘time’?

Nothing.

 

[STT]

I don’t see infinite regress as a trap. For example, on the real line,you have the point zero, which can represent the present time t=0. then you have the positive numbers,which could represent the time t=1, say one hour from now. And you have the negative numbers, t= -1, which could represent the time one hour ago. And the line extends infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future and there is no logical contradiction, or mathematical trap, in positing this.

Time cannot extend into infinite past as it is required infinite waiting to reach from infinite past to now.

For what regards infinite regress, if time is created then we are dealing with a change. It can be shown that any change requires time therefore one needs time in order to create time. That leads into infinite regress.

 

[AlNg]

Time cannot extend into infinite past as it is required infinite waiting to reach from infinite past to now.

I don’t agree because it does not take an infinite waiting time to arrive at t=0 on the real line, even though it extends infinitely into the past which is modeled by the negative numbers There is no contradiction or mathematical trap with assuming the infinite regress of t from the zero point as we see from the real line. From any point of negative value, say -M, it will take you M units of time to reach the present, t=0. You don’t go back to infinity. It is just that for any time in the past -M, there will always be a further time -(M+1) which is at a greater distance from t=0 than -M.

 

[STT]

I don’t agree because it does not take an infinite waiting time to arrive at t=0 on the real line, even though it extends infinitely into the past which is modeled by the negative numbers There is no contradiction or mathematical trap with assuming the infinite regress of t from the zero point as we see from the real line. From any point of negative value, say -M, it will take you M units of time to reach the present, t=0. You don’t go back to infinity. It is just that for any time in the past -M, there will always be a further time -(M+1) which is at a greater distance from t=0 than -M.

I agree with you on this that time has a starting point which is not at infinite past.

 

[SalamKhan]

I should point out, creation ex nihilo, does not mean that the universe changed from one state to another. Non-existence is not a thing, or a state, or a mode, etc. Therefore, for the universe to be created from nothing, does not entail change. Prior to the creation of the universe, time=/= -1, but time=0, meaning it was non-existent, but after the universe began, time=1.

 

[Gorgias]

Was there a point that nothing existed?

I hope that’s not a trick question.

Yes, creation occurred, and so it has a ‘beginning’. No, there was no “time” with which to measure that beginning, because there was nothing to be measured.

We have a change when universe came into existence otherwise the act of creation is meaningless.

Here is where your thought begins to become imprecise, and therefore, leads you into error.
A change is a change from something to something else. There is no ‘something’ that exists ‘prior’ to the universe, and therefore, you cannot measure anything with respect to the nothingness. It would be like attempting to divide by zero – it is undefined.

If time is created then there is a point at which it didn’t exist. Is that right?

Time came into existence along with the coming-into-existence of the universe. Correct.

Fine. So… what creates ‘time’?

Nothing.

Fine. (No, not really, but for the sake of argument. )

If so, and if the raison d’etre of time is to measure the change in things… what does it measure if nothing exists?

Moreover, how do you posit its existence – as the one ‘necessary’ being?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So… Time is your ‘god’?

 

[STT]

I should point out, creation ex nihilo, does not mean that the universe changed from one state to another. Non-existence is not thing, or a state, or a mode, etc. Therefore, for the universe to be created from nothing, does not entail change. Prior to the creation of the universe, time=/= -1, but time=0, meaning it was non-existent, but after the universe began, time=1.

Was there a point that only God existed?

 

[SalamKhan]

If you mean a point in time, then the question itself is invalid. God is without time and space, without beginning and without end.

 

[STT]

I hope that’s not a trick question.

Yes, creation occurred, and so it has a ‘beginning’. No, there was no “time” with which to measure that beginning, because there was nothing to be measured.

You didn’t answer my question. Was there a point that nothing existed?

Here is where your thought begins to become imprecise, and therefore, leads you into error.

A change is a change from something to something else. There is no ‘something’ that exists ‘prior’ to the universe, and therefore, you cannot measure anything with respect to the nothingness. It would be like attempting to divide by zero – it is undefined.

To me nothing to something is also a change. It is problematic to think that there was no change due to act of creation.

Time came into existence along with the coming-into-existence of the universe. Correct.

I think we agree on the fact that one need time for any change.

Fine. (No, not really, but for the sake of argument. )

If so, and if the raison d’etre of time is to measure the change in things… what does it measure if nothing exists?

No, time is not measure of change. Time is required for any change.

Moreover, how do you posit its existence – as the one ‘necessary’ being?

Because the very act of creation is a change too.

So… Time is your ‘god’?

No. I think that God is bounded to time too.

 

[STT]

If you mean a point in time, then the question itself is invalid. God is without time and space, without beginning and without end.

We can reach to the point to show that that point that only God existed is a point in time. Again was there a point that only God existed? If the answer is yes then there is another point that God and creation exist. This, God → God+creation, is a change. I can show that change is not possible without time: 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 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.

 

[SalamKhan]

And again, the question itself is invalid. And again, creation ex nihilo, is not something changing from one state to another. It only suffices to say that God was, when there was nothing else, without asking how. Of course, because we operate at our own finite level, being unlike God, we cannot know of these things in detail from reason alone, but only in general.

I suggest taking the time to read this first:

Searching Faith Philosophy

Start from the existence of God. In Islamic theology, we say that there are three judgements: legal judgements, empirical judgements, and intellectual judgements. Science is related to empirical judgments, whilst the question of whether God exists is related to intellectual judgements. Read the following carefully, and multiple times if need be. There are three types of intellectual judgements: Necessary- the non-existence of which cannot be conceived of in the mind. Impossible- the existen…

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

I hope that’s not a trick question.

Yes, creation occurred, and so it has a ‘beginning’. No, there was no “time” with which to measure that beginning, because there was nothing to be measured.

You didn’t answer my question. Was there a point that nothing existed?

I really did answer your question. However, the way you framed it up was in words that imply a temporal framework. I’m not gonna fall into that trap, my friend.

Yes, the universe was created. No, it did not exist eternally, as something causally prior to God.

STT:

A change is a change from something to something else. There is no ‘something’ that exists ‘prior’ to the universe, and therefore, you cannot measure anything with respect to the nothingness. It would be like attempting to divide by zero – it is undefined.

To me nothing to something is also a change. It is problematic to think that there was no change due to act of creation.

And this is why I’m (patiently) informing you that your metaphysics are in a shambles. To equate “something->something else” with “nothing->something” is sloppy and inaccurate.

Time came into existence along with the coming-into-existence of the universe. Correct.

I think we agree on the fact that one need time for any change.

Not the “coming-into-existence” of the universe, though. There, we disagree, although you provide no rationale for your point of view.

Fine. (No, not really, but for the sake of argument. )

If so, and if the raison d’etre of time is to measure the change in things… what does it measure if nothing exists?

No, time is not measure of change. Time is required for any change.

Again: “'change from something to something else is distinct from ‘change from nothing to something’.” Until you address this distinction, your assertions will continue to fail.

Moreover, how do you posit its existence – as the one ‘necessary’ being?

Because the very act of creation is a change too.

It’s a “coming-into-being”.

So… Time is your ‘god’?

No. I think that God is bounded to time too.

So… you think time “pre-exists” God?

You’ve got a serious philosophical problem, then: if God (who is being itself, and who is omni) does not pre-exist time, then who ‘creates’ God? And, if time pre-exists God, then He does not fit the definition of God (all omni), so you move the goalposts and undefine God, which doesn’t hold up.

In order for your assertions to work, you have to raise ‘time’ above what it is, and lower ‘God’ below who He is. It just doesn’t hold water. Sorry.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

No problem!: Think of a body that moves vertically upwards with decreasing speed under the influence of gravity. It reaches a height where speed decreases to 0 m/s, then it begins to move down at increasing speeds. Therefore, there is a moment and a position in space where the object is at rest (0 m/s) and then it starts moving again. Obviously, as it is not moving at that instant of maximum height, when it starts moving again it occupies the same spatial position. And it is in that same spatial position where the change in the state of motion of the object takes place.

So, what is the time elapsed when the state of motion of the body changes from rest to movement?

And please, this time respond candidly as it corresponds to someone who is in search of the truth.

The object is at rest at the highest point but it is free.

So what!

Any way, what is the time elapsed when the state of motion of the body changes from rest to movement?

You insist that you could argue that there is no change without time. In physics, it is customary to distinguish between rest and movement as two different states of motion of bodies. Obviously, if a body is at rest and then it starts moving (for whatever cause), that is a change in its state of motion. But no time is required for this change. While for any change in position, or for any change of speed, or for any change of acceleration, a finite time elapses, a change from rest to motion takes no time. Therefore, your idea that every change involves time is false.

With this, you are left without basis to argue that the change from non-existence to existence involves time.

 

[STT]

And again, the question itself is invalid.

Why the question is invalid?

And again, creation ex nihilo, is not something changing from one state to another.

If there was not a change then universe has existed since its beginning.

It only suffices to say that God was, when there was nothing else, without asking how. Of course, because we operate at our own finite level, being unlike God, we cannot know of these things in detail from reason alone, but only in general.

In fact we can know a lot from reasoning if you follow me.

I suggest taking the time to read this first:

I read what you suggested but I don’t understand how it is related to this topic.

 

[STT]

I really did answer your question. However, the way you framed it up was in words that imply a temporal framework. I’m not gonna fall into that trap, my friend.

Yes, the universe was created. No, it did not exist eternally, as something causally prior to God.

I cannot help you if you do not want to accept the fact: There was a change if the universe was created.

And this is why I’m (patiently) informing you that your metaphysics are in a shambles. To equate “something->something else” with “nothing->something” is sloppy and inaccurate.

They are different but we have change in both case.

Not the “coming-into-existence” of the universe, though. There, we disagree, although you provide no rationale for your point of view.

Was there any change due to the act of creation? If not then the universe simply has existed from its starting. If yes then my reasoning follows.

Again: “'change from something to something else is distinct from ‘change from nothing to something’.” Until you address this distinction, your assertions will continue to fail.

I distinguish the difference but there is a change in both case.

It’s a “coming-into-being”.

Yes, from nothing.

So… you think time “pre-exists” God?

I think that God and time coexist.

You’ve got a serious philosophical problem, then: if God (who is being itself, and who is omni) does not pre-exist time, then who ‘creates’ God?

There is no problem here. There is no relation between what I am saying and what you are suggesting (bold part).

And, if time pre-exists God, then He does not fit the definition of God (all omni), so you move the goalposts and undefine God, which doesn’t hold up.

God simply lives in time. You can have all omni but omni-present in all time. By the way God decide, doesn’t He? For that you need to embed God in time.

 

[STT]

So what!

Any way, what is the time elapsed when the state of motion of the body changes from rest to movement?

You insist that you could argue that there is no change without time. In physics, it is customary to distinguish between rest and movement as two different states of motion of bodies. Obviously, if a body is at rest and then it starts moving (for whatever cause), that is a change in its state of motion. But no time is required for this change. While for any change in position, or for any change of speed, or for any change of acceleration, a finite time elapses, a change from rest to motion takes no time. Therefore, your idea that every change involves time is false.

With this, you are left without basis to argue that the change from non-existence to existence involves time.

Is there any difference between a suspended body and a body with speed of zero but free?