No, any stable thing doesn’t have any tendency for change.
Things are constantly changing as we can justify it from observing reality. Unstable energy just existed at the initial point.
Existence has a beginning and it is subject to change as time dictates.
It is necessary if things are subject to change. The idea of an unchanging being or thing is self-contradictory. Everything has to have a beginning because time is real, you cannot deny it and cannot be created. I already argue in favor of the fact that time cannot be created. I am waiting for your rebuttal.
We know that time is necessary since it cannot be created.
That is not correct. You just need to imagine the beginning of time and the burst at the same point.
You haven’t shown that what is wrong with my argument in favor of necessity of time and the fact that it cannot be created.
Time in simple word allows causality to be real.
Time cannot be created. Where your counter argument?
You cannot have nothing since time cannot be created. Time cannot be eternal so it has a beginning.
Well, there should be a way out of this puzzle: Time allows causality to be real. Time is changing. You need time if the changing in time has a cause in another word the change was the result of potentiality into actuality. This leads to infinite regress. The only way that I see to resolve the paradox is to accept the fact that changes in time is not result of an potentiality into actuality. What is your solution?Let me guess your answer, “time transcends existence”.
Lets see what is your answer to the puzzle.
You cannot simply say a contradiction and let it go. You need a counter argument for my argument.
And what is your solution for the puzzle?
That is not correct. I argued in favor of it.
How could it be a moment in time if time didn’t exist yet ?
Argument from incredulity fallacy.
I already did. You are not interested in logic. You are interested in your theory being correct, but it’s so irrational it couldn’t possibly be correct. You are redefining things and making things up to suit your idea. You have reduced the concept of time to a meaningless place holder on which you assert the rest of your argument. How can anyone reason against that?
Time is the measure of change in the physical world.
The concept of time is meaningful in my understanding. Time is fundamental variable which dictates how fabric of the universe should change. It allows change or causality. So everything is clear by now. Let me know if you think otherwise.
You don’t need to worry about others.
That is not correct. Change is the result of causality and we have evidence for that. Time does not describe change but it allows us to have a rate in which things change in term of time, like velocity.
The retort that your argument is a contradiction is a counter argument.
Yes.
Why? It just has a beginning, starting point. I have an argument that prove that time cannot be created: Time is the fundamental variable of any theory and cannot be an emergent property of the same theory. This means that there exist not a theory with time as an emergent phenomena. Therefore time cannot be created or initiated.
I don’t think so.
If time isn’t simply a measure of change, but instead is absolutely distinct from space and matter, existing of its own accord with its own being, then how come science does not know of its existence? You are the first scientist i have ever come across that has said time is the ontological cause of physical change and is in fact the foundation and cause of the universe.?
Science is also about how things changes by time. It tells you why things are the way they are too.
Yes. The change is allowed because time exists. We only experience motion though, motion doesn’t ontologically exist.
I didn’t say so. The unstable stuff was just there at the beginning of time. It moved because it was unstable. You don’t need a mover.
