Time Paradox
Does it make sense to ask whether time had a beginning or not? Suppose for the moment that it does. So, does time have a beginning?
Suppose time did have a beginning and it was 13.8 billion years ago with the so-called Big Bang. Although some have said to ask what happened before the Big Bang? is akin to asking what is north of the north pole? it seems reasonable to consider not space-matter-energy but a time before the Big Bang. In effect it always seems reasonable to ask, for any posited beginning of time itself, for a time before that beginning. This leads to an infinite regress - for any beginning of time we can always ask for a time before that purported beginning. This then implies that to say time had a beginning is nonsensical. It (time) can't have a beginning. So, if time has no beginning, is the past infinite?
Ergo,
1. Time has no beginning i.e. the past is infinite
The problem with an infinite past is that the present then becomes impossible for it requires infinite time to have gone by and that is an impossibility. Infinity can't be completed for it is, by definition, something that has no end and the end, if the past is infinite, is now, the present. So, the past can't be infinite.
Ergo,
2. The past can't be infinite i.e. time has to have a beginning
1 & 2 is a contradiction.
What gives?
Suppose time did have a beginning and it was 13.8 billion years ago with the so-called Big Bang. Although some have said to ask what happened before the Big Bang? is akin to asking what is north of the north pole? it seems reasonable to consider not space-matter-energy but a time before the Big Bang. In effect it always seems reasonable to ask, for any posited beginning of time itself, for a time before that beginning. This leads to an infinite regress - for any beginning of time we can always ask for a time before that purported beginning. This then implies that to say time had a beginning is nonsensical. It (time) can't have a beginning. So, if time has no beginning, is the past infinite?
Ergo,
1. Time has no beginning i.e. the past is infinite
The problem with an infinite past is that the present then becomes impossible for it requires infinite time to have gone by and that is an impossibility. Infinity can't be completed for it is, by definition, something that has no end and the end, if the past is infinite, is now, the present. So, the past can't be infinite.
Ergo,
2. The past can't be infinite i.e. time has to have a beginning
1 & 2 is a contradiction.
What gives?
Comments (158)
I don't think it is reasonable to say time had a beginning, and then speculate on how we deal with time before that. If time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of time before it is nonsensical, and can't be palmed off as 'infinite'. Whatever existed before the Big Bang (even assuming the concept of 'existance' is any more valid than 'time' to describe it) time wasn't part of it. Even that statement is absurd, because there is no 'before' the Big Bang.
We poor humans don't have the brains or language to deal with this problem!
Why is it "nonsensical" to ask of time before the Big Bang? What is particularly "nonsensical" about it? Does it lead to a contradiction? How? Where?
Time Before the Big Bang (sensationalism?)
If you're saying time began with the Big Bang surely you can't talk about time before the Big Bang - any more than you can talk about what's north of the North Pole. 'Northness' starts with the Pole. If you're saying time existed before the Big Bang it's a different question. So you have to decide which route to go down as the Big Bang theory has to differ according to your choice..
I agree with what you said but I'm questioning the very idea of a beginning. It's nonsensical to talk of a beginning at all in a sequence (time is a sequence) in which every point has another point that precedes it. Can I not say e.g. 15 billion years ago or 100 billion years ago? Yes, I can and there's no x years ago that can be a beginning because for every x years ago point in time there's another point x - 1 years ago.
But there is a phrase I use often that many people seem reluctant to use. I recommend it...particularly when contemplating questions like this:
Beats the shit out of me!
That...and the other variations of "I do not know" are as important as answers...
...as is "4" when asked, "In base 10 what does 2 + 2 equal?"
This is why it is better to look at time starting from the perspective of the present. We can see that as time passes, the past is coming into existence, it is growing. So the present is the beginning of the past, which is determined existence, and in the same sort of way, it is the ending of the future, which is indeterminate.
Further, if we adopt the principle, that time only has real existence as it passes, then past time is the only real time. This means that the future, properly speaking, is outside of time. And in this way it makes sense to speak of things outside of time.
Now, we can project this principle hypothetically, counterfactually backwards in time. So for example, we can hypothesize about "this time yesterday", when it was the present, before today had any real temporal existence. We can also hypothesize about free will, whether someone had done that, instead of this, removing the real choice which was made, through the assumption that the future has no real existence. You'll see that the person's choices are necessarily constrained by the actuality of the past time. So the actuality of past time puts constraints on future possibilities.
Let's project this point all the way backwards, to a hypothetical point when there is absolutely no past time, and only future. This would mean that there is absolutely no constraint on the possibilities for the future at this time. However, since there is no past at this time, there is nothing acting and therefore nothing to choose, or to bring about any possibility into existence, in any way. So this is problematic, implying that there is either no such first point in time, or there is something outside of time, which can act. That there is no first point can be dismissed for the reason you gave. So we must conclude that something acts from outside of time.
This is not incomprehensible because the premises of the description place the future as outside of time. So what we are left with is the conclusion that there is something acting in the future. What this means, is that as time passes, there is something in the future, from our perspective (the present), which is acting to determine how things will be as the past comes into existence at the present. This activity, these actions are not observable from our perspective, because our perspective is at the present, and these action are in the future in relation to us. Then we can see that all the things we observe at the present, which appear to be determined by the past (constituting natural laws), are really determined by these activities in the future. These activities we have no capacity to interact with, or interfere with, because they are outside our grasp (the present), being in the future. We look at them as fixed natural laws, making the appearance of past existence consistent, but this is really just a reflection of the consistency in these activities which are occurring outside of time, in the future.
Leaves you speechless?
Quoting TheMadFool
Insofar as "infinite" denotes unbounded (like a e.g. circumference, cycle, möbius strip) - yes, spacetime is "infinite" (or, more precisely, unbounded yet finite like the surface of a sphere or torus). '13.81 billion years' is the currently estimated 'age' only of this non-planck radius universe (which is emergent, or non-fundamental (Rovelli et al)) and not of the planck vacuum itself. :sweat:
This view agrees with "many ancient beliefs" of time being cyclical in nature - solves the twin problems of:
1. a beginning being impossible
2. Infinite time also being impossible
So, does this inevitable conclusion lead to the Big Bounce theory (oscillatory universe)?
Time being cyclical itself leads to contradictions because any moment in time is both before AND after another moment in time.
:up:
Perhaps another paradoxical way of looking at time is in a pragmatic sense viz. ex nihilo. We need the past and future in order to cognize and exist.
For example, when I think of a thing existing, that thing must have had a past at one time, because it exists. And while I'm doing the actual thinking about that existing thing, I need the future for me to cognize about its existence. That cognizing then required future time for that thing to even come into existence, in my mind. Thinking requires time.
And so we really don't need the present. We need the past and future to make things exist.
Otherwise, the brute mystery that relates to the Time paradox involves change. If time started with the Big Bang, did change exist before time?
Good stuff TMF!
I don't know. Penrose, for example, thinks so, but Carlo Rovelli doesn't seem to. A "universe" (i.e. spacetimemass manifold) might not be fundamental; if so, then "it" isn't "oscillating" and might merely be a dissipative aspect of, or fluctuation in, an encompassing environment (i.e. planck vacuum). The "paradox", it seems to me, is (mostly) apparent: "time" describes only "the universe" and not that from which "it" might have emerged (Plotinus???) :eyes:
Quoting 3017amen
"Before time"? Like ... north of the north pole??? :mask:
..only once it's started - not before. At 'point 1' of time there was no 'before' as that's when time was created. Your concept of time seems to assume that it must be linear and unbounded. Einstein would disagree I think..
Quoting TheMadFool
You can talk in theory of 100 billion years ago just as you can talk in theory of time travel. The fact that we can conceptualise these ideas does not guarantee that in the universe they are possible..
By free, perhaps lax, application of sufficient reason, we'd then expect a cause.
An "outside", "atemporal" cause.
(This is more or less the kalam cosmological argument.)
By another application of sufficient reason we get something else.
A definite earliest time means an age, like 14 billion years, say.
Yet, with an "atemporal" cause of the universe, there's no sufficient reason that the universe is 14 billion years old and not some other age, any other age in fact.
We'd then expect an infinite age.
At a glance, both of these appear to have some intuitive import, except they render a contradiction.
Hence, the principle of sufficient reason and the like are not applicable in this case.
An antinomy? What gives?
(Besides, spacetime is an aspect, or are aspects, of the universe, and "before time" is incoherent. Causation is temporal, and "a cause of causation" is incoherent.)
I think the problem with this is we assume that the present is important atleast when thinking about reality. I'm not trying to depress you, but i'm sitting in my house right now (present), ten minutes from now i could walk outside and get bitten by a copper head snake or i could get in a serious car accident.
I think your theory is too contigent on whether the "present" is important.
If something always existed or if matter & mass always existed, then heat & movement always existed.
If a creature always existed even if it was "spiritual" creature, it would probably have thoughts or feelings if it was creature. Perhaps these thoughts are just connected visual representations of reality.
Either way i don't think it is entirely implausible for movement, heat, matter & time to have always existed. The matter of whether there is a present doesn't matter. The "present" is only important based on context, like if a person likes living in the present. What i mean by like is if that person has positive feelings associated with being in the "present". If a person has negative feelings associated with being in the "present", they not see the "present" as so important.
Currently i enjoy not working, so i like being in the "present". I'm not trying to make you feel bad.
What makes it impossible?
On what grounds?
I haven't mentioned anything about causality.
Imagine, for the moment, that we have a clock that's keeping time for the universe. From our vantage point, the universe began 13.8 billion years ago; this beginning can be thought of as 12 midnight (0000 hours military time) by that clock. It is not impossible to imagine winding back this universe clock to another time like 11 PM or 6 PM before 12 midnight (when the Big Bang is supposed to have occurred).
Some argue the condensed universe (similar to a black hole) could only break free of gravity under wierd circumstances involving alignment of something (like most theories going back this far its a Pop sci article for the most part). Perhaps the universe always existed (heat & movement) but for much of its history it was just a really dense and small thing of matter/mass (alot of stuff in a small space). Time goes back forever possibly but some areas of history just don't matter that much (pardon the pun).
This however isn't a satisfactory answer. Why? Take the oldest idea about the structure of time viz. past, present, future. These 3 divisions of time are inseparable in that the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past and none of them make sense if considered to the exclusion of the other two. Since the Big Bang was, at some point in time, a present (now), there must be a time before it, the past, just as it had a future which we're currently experiencing.
I suppose to some extent (and you would agree) these questions don't matter. My biggest problem with the big bang being the beginning is it is possible that dense mass in the beginning sat for X (?trillion years?) time prior to exploding.
On a different note i don't have a problem with eternal matter, eternal heat, eternal pressure, eternal movement, eternal time but maybe i'm just stupid.
How are you defining "time" and "beginning" when you pose this question?
Good question. Time meaning that which is measured by a clock and beginning in the sense of coming into existence. Did that which a clock measures come into existence (time began) or was it always there (infinite past)?
Different kinds of clocks measure different phenomena--the movement of a shadow on the ground, the oscillations of a pendulum, the vibrations of a quartz crystal or cesium atom. Which of these is time?
Quoting TheMadFool
How are you defining "existence"?
This premiss straightforwardly begs the question. If time began with the Big Bang, then the Big Bang was never in the future.
I had to reply :smile:
Yes, that I'm beginning to notice. Anyway, how does the present come to be? There are 3 to consider: past, present and future. Take note of how time passes and that the past, present and future are tied together in the sense that the future turns into the present and the present into the past. So, here we have the Big Bang (imagine we're now 13.8 billion years ago at the precise moment it occurred) as the present. It couldn't have been in the past for the past never becomes the present; ergo it must've been in the future. If the Big Bang was in the future, there must be a past, a time before the Big Bang to which the Big Bang was in the future of.
Wonderful words to read, kind person. I appreciate your words. Thanks. :up:
I cannot continue this conversation unless and until we establish your definition of time--and now past, present, and future, as well.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, still begging the question. If time began with the Big Bang, then there was no past at that present, so it was never in the future.
What does it mean to say time began with the Big Bang? It means that there was no such thing as a time before the Big Bang. In other words, here we have a situation in which there was a present but there was no past. How can that be? The notion of the present is predicated on the notion of a future - all presents can be only if they existed as a possibility in the future. If so, then even the Big Bang must've been in the future of some other point in time, no? In other words, there was a past to the Big Bang and even that past has to have a past and so on ad infinitum.
Can I ask about your knowledge of physics? You seem to cling to an pre-scientific concept of time which is strictly linear, unending, outside and beyond the other forces in the universe; and, if you believe the claims of relativity, wrong.
How does your understanding square with the observed fact that time slows down depending on your speed and the gravity acting upon you? If, like a light beam, you travel at the 186,000 miles per second time stands still - it effectively ceases to exist. For a light beam there is no past and no future. But for others observing it 'time' continues as 'normal'. Time is no longer seen as a set-in-stone governing property of the universe. As I understand the Big Bang theory it was born in the Big Bang, along with space, matter and energy. The real question nowadays for physicists is whether time exists at all outside our minds.
No, begging the question yet again. Insisting that every present must have both a past and a future obviously entails that time could not have begun with the Big Bang (or anything else), and also cannot ever end. Moreover, future possibilities do not exist unless and until they are actualized in the present, when they become past. See why I asked you to define all these terms?
Quoting aletheist
The confusion is entirely my fault. Let me try again. Can you give me an example of a present (now) moment which doesn't have a past? You can't and if you say the Big Bang is one then that would be begging the question for what you'll be saying is the Big Bang is the beginning of time because the Big Bang is the beginning of time.
That would be the million dollar question if you accept the contradiction in my OP for contradictions are impossible. Ergo, time could be unreal.
Exactly--if time began with the Big Bang, then that moment had no past; and if every moment has a past, then time did not begin with the Big Bang. Neither position is logically necessary or logically impossible by itself, so one must make a case either way on other grounds.
For example, we could assert that we directly perceive time as strictly continuous, and on that basis rule out both a beginning of time (Big Bang or otherwise) and an end of time. Nevertheless, we could still maintain that there was a first event (Big Bang or otherwise), before which there was time but no events. Of course, someone who equates time with events would reject that solution and argue instead that if the Big Bang was the first event, then it was also the beginning of time.
No, that question falls under metaphysics, rather than physics.
Quoting TheMadFool
I started a whole thread rebutting this notion not long ago.
I'm making (trying to) the case that time has no beginning. Every time we have ever dealt with can be put into the framework of past, present and future. You can't deny that. So, if for no other reason than statistical ones, the Big Bang too must fit into this model of past, present and future i.e. there was a time before the Big Bang. An argument against this, a claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, doesn't exist at all.
:up: great work
I know, but the mistake is thinking that it is logically necessary that time has no beginning, such that it is irrational to believe otherwise.
Quoting TheMadFool
How do we know that? Maybe time began at the moment I was born, or just five minutes ago, and the "past" before that is all just an elaborate delusion or myth. In any case, none of us were around for the alleged Big Bang to "see" whether there was any time before that.
Quoting TheMadFool
Statistical reasons have no bearing on this. No one claims that the Big Bang was just another moment in time; they call it a "singularity" for a reason.
Quoting TheMadFool
Sorry, this is just blatantly false.
Indeed, that is my aim here - to show the logical necessity that time can't have a beginning.
Quoting aletheist
And yet you don't provide anything that can be considered a proof.
My proof (very simple I'm afraid):
1. Time flows: the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past (undeniable)
Ergo,
2. Every present must've been in the future (from 1)
3. The Big Bang was a present (at one point in time)
Ergo,
4. The Big Bang (or any point considered to be the beginning of time) must've been in the future of some other point in time, say x.
Ergo,
5. x must be a point in time before the Big Bang (or any point considered to be the beginning of time)
Ergo,
6. No time can be considered as the beginning of time for every such point can be shown to have a past, a time before it.
Imagine a special clock that runs backwards and is unaffected by anything that this universe can throw at it. It begins at this very instant and ticks off time in reverse but not at a faster rate than time is flowing forwards. After 13.8 billion years in the future it the clock would read the time that corresponds to the Big Bang and the question is, what prevents this clock from continuing to show time before the Big Bang? It would continue, unaffected by anything as defined, to give time before the Big Bang; in other words time doesn't have a beginning.
As I said, it is not a matter of "proof." It is not logically necessary that time had a beginning, and it is not logically necessary that time had no beginning.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, that is indeed what we observe now. However, it does not entail that time has always flowed in that fashion. Again, one can argue that it is reasonable to suppose that time has always flowed in that fashion, but it is impossible to prove this.
Where would this clock exist, if not within this universe that is subject to time? What would such a clock be measuring?
This is a contradiction. Either time has a beginning or time doesn't have a beginning and to say neither of them are necessarily true is to say that both time has a beginning and time doesn't have a beginning. Sorry, noticed it only now. It's actually the contradiction I was looking for.
Quoting aletheist
As I said, this clock is special enough to be immune to any changes the universe is undergoing. The clock will continue to show time even before the Big Bang and it fits quite well with the fact that physics defines time as that which a clock measures.
No, no, no. You are confusing two very different propositions:
1. Necessarily, time either had a beginning or did not have a beginning.
2. Time either necessarily had a beginning or necessarily did not have a beginning.
#1 is true, #2 is false. Whether time has a beginning or not is contingent, not necessary either way.
Quoting TheMadFool
As I pointed out before, every clock operates entirely by virtue of changes that the universe is undergoing--a moving shadow, an oscillating pendulum, a vibrating quartz crystal or cesium atom. How does yours work?
Quoting TheMadFool
That is not how physics defines time. As I pointed out before, every clock measures physical phenomena within the universe. Again, how does yours work?
i'm not sure you understand either. Most scientists don't claim to know what the universe was prior to the big bang explosion. And time does exist according to most physicists, but it is hard to measure accurately similar to the reason you described. Time ofcourse at the very least exists as an "iteration of events". Once again measuring time "accurately" can be problematic, but that is not to say it doesn't exist.
You lost me. :roll:
I agree with #1. It's a premise in my OP. #2 would be false only if both disjuncts are false i.e. time necessarily had a beginning is false AND time necessarily didn't have a beginning is false but notice these disjuncts are contradictions and being so they'll always have opposite truth values and so the the compound statement will always be true, not false.
Quoting aletheist
I've tried a couple of arguments with you but none have convinced you. So, at the risk of repeating myself...
At a very basic level of the concept of time, it can be divided into 3 parts: past, present, future. In these concepts lie the essence of time, that of becoming: the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past and this 3-phase cycle continues all throughout.
If one takes any particular point as a beginning of time then, it must've been the present at that beginning but the present can only become the present if it was in the future. The present exists only because it was there to become so in the future. Since, every present can't become so without being in the future, any point considered as the beginning of time, necessarily being a present can become the present only if it was in the future of some other point of time preceding it. In other words, every point in time, necessarily being or becoming the present has a past point in time at which time it lay in the future.
The point I'm trying to get across is what I alluded to in my previous post that time is in flux and the becoming of the future into the present and the present into the past is what we need to take note of. There can't be a present if that present wasn't a future at a time preceding it.
This doesn't really follow logically from 'it could be any age'. If something could be any age, it is a definite, specific age, but that age is unknown. That's what's implied when you say that the universe is "an age". But this is inconsistent with "infinite age", which is not any particular age at all.
Consequently, your dismissal of "sufficient reason" is unsupported.
Quoting christian2017
I think you have this backward. The present is what gives context. Without the present there is no context to time. You might like to think that you could point to any random point in time, to give temporal context, but it would be you, living in the present doing that. Take away beings living in the present, and there would be absolutely no temporal context whatsoever.
Quoting TheMadFool
Isn't this redundant? Isn't the universe itself a clock keeping time for itself?
Quoting TheMadFool
If you could wind that clock back, then it wouldn't actually be keeping time for the universe, would it? If you wind back your clock, then the time it gives is no longer true, if it had the true time before. But winding it back doesn't affect when it started keeping time.
Quoting TheMadFool
As I explained in the post which left you speechless, 'time before the beginning' is only as incoherent as 'the future' is incoherent, when it is claimed that the future is a part of time. At the so-called "beginning", there was no past, and only a future. But that future then, existed just as much as the future now exists. So, if the future is construed as a part of time, then it is fully coherent to say that there was time before the beginning, a wide open future.
Quoting TheMadFool
When you consider that the present marks the division between past and future, you'll see that it marks the end of one, and the beginning of the other. It doesn't make sense to talk about future and past without a present, but it does makes sense to talk about a future without a past, and a past without a future. Before a person is born, they have a future with no past, and when a person dies they have a past but no future. So, we can talk about the future, or the past, in exclusion of the other, but we cannot talk about the present without implying both future and past.
i agree with this. You would have to see what i referring too. In short i agree with you. Perhaps i took the OP out of context. I don't feel like writing a 5 page essay about why i put that phrase in with what i said.
But yes in short i agree with you. I understand we base our reality on what is happening in the present and what we percieve as having happened in the past or past presents.
Make that two of us.
The clock thought experiment makes sense though. If we could reverse time i.e. make the universe travel backwards in time and have a special clock to record the passage of time then in 13.8 billion years into the past we will reach the Big Bang singularity, the clock will read 13.8 billion years. Now, what stops the clock from continuing to give time beyond the Big Bang singularity? It matters not that the clock may disappear in the singularity for the purpose of a clock is just to keep track of time and even if there were no clocks time would still flow, backwards in my thought experiment.
Even though time told on a clock is relative to how fast the clock is moving (velocity or speed) (a clock moving 5 mph is going to tell time faster than a clock moving 100,000mph), if you did have one clock in the whole universe that is treated as the universal clock regardless of whether it matches all the other clocks in the universe. There is a philosophical concept associated with a universal clock, i'll have to look it up because it dates back several 100 years.
From a secular perspective this hypothetical clock doesn't exist. But considering hypothetical means "for the sake of argument", people should be able to understand the basic premise.
Firstly, the clock gedanken experiment can't be dismissed so easily.
For your consideration I'll restate it here:
The clock runs normally but the universe is traveling back in time. When the universe reached the Big Bang singularity, the clock reads 13.8 billion years and vanishes into the singularity. That the clock is no longer there is of no concern for even if we destroy all the clocks in the world, time will still flow. Does time stop? No, it'll continue on to before the Big Bang and beyond and had the clock survived, it would've given us pre-Big Bang time.
No, that is not how modal logic works--the negation of "X is necessary" is "X is not necessary" rather than "not-X is necessary." Denying that time necessarily had a beginning does not entail affirming that time necessarily did not have a beginning. Instead, both disjuncts are false: time did not necessarily have a beginning, and time did not necessarily not have a beginning. In other words, whether time had a beginning or not is contingent.
Quoting TheMadFool
That is because you vastly overestimate the strength of your arguments. They are all question-begging, assuming what they set out to prove. For example ...
Quoting TheMadFool
This is an assumption, not a conclusion.
I never said that the negation of "X is necessary" is "not-X is necessary". You said the following:
Quoting aletheist
I don't have a problem with #1 but look at #2: Either time necessarily had a beginning or time necessarily did not have a beginning. Since this disjunction consists of contradictory statements, they're necessarily true (tautology wise).
If not, what are the contradictions of: a) time necessarily had a beginning and b) time necessarily did not have a beginning?
Quoting aletheist
To be frank, I'm struggling with this topic. I'm not overestimating myself here at all. I'm trying to build a good argument and now that I've gone through a couple of possibilities with you and others what about the special clock thought experiment I put forth with you and others?
For your kind consideration, the following:
Imagine there's a special clock that records time in the normal way but the universe is now traveling backwards in time. We will relive history as it was made until we reach the big bang singularity at which time the clock will read 13.8 billion years from the present but into the past. Does the clock stop at the moment the singularity is reached? Suppose the clock can't withstand the forces acting on it and simply disintegrates. Does the destruction of the clock mean time will stop flowing? The answer to both questions is "no" and if it survives the big bang singularity, it will continue to give time in terms of so many years in the past, going beyond even the big bang into time before it. The same argument applies to any point in time posited as the beginning of time. There simply is no good reason that such a clock should come to halt at the point proffered as the beginning.
I was responding to what someone else said in terms of why a universal clock wouldn't work, thats why i mentioned special relativity in the comment.
:ok:
Have you ever considered that the concept of time is a fabrication? I think its about time we come up with a new concept that pertains to what is experienced as a succession of moments. If only TPF could behave more as a thinktank, and less as a shitbowl.
Let me start.
I agree, the past is finite, we call it history, I believe. Time has a beginning too, and it is not in history, it is "now".
Coronaviris
No. Relativistic physics denies that premise. NOT every time we have ever dealt with has a past and a future. You seem unable to comprehend the concept of time having a beginning. Time is not a philosophical term any more, but a scientific one. Your attempt to discuss this question purely in philosophical terms is therefore flawed. You seem to be denying what is perceived by physicists as scientific truth, either through ignorance or some counter belief. Unless you can expound your counter theory and it stands up to investigation, your argument has no merit to me.
Not only that, but there is an intuitional, instinctual, built in, or hardwired perspective of what the present is. Look at it like we have a window of observation onto the passing of time, and we call this observational perspective "the present". This, what we call "the present", must be a length of time, perhaps a couple hundredths of a second or something like that. Now imagine if that window was just a nanosecond, or if the window was a million years. The world we perceive would be completely different if this were the case. So, the world we perceive, what we sense, is very much shaped by that temporal perspective.
Quoting TheMadFool
Is the clock outside the universe then? If it continues on, it must be. But how is that possible? You are assuming a thing (the clock) which is outside the "universe", which by definition includes all things.
If it is true that past, present, and future are required to cognize reality, how does that square with the law of non-contradiction?
In other words, all three comprise the idea of Time. It seems that taking any one out of the equation precludes cognition, no?
And so, could time be another illogical form of existence?
Truth be told, I'm just exploring the topic. Nothing definitive that I can call mine.
As for your comments, all I have to say is that barring an actual logical contradiction, there really is no valid reason to say that contemplating a time before any given point in time is nonsensical when it comes to that point in time being a posited beginning of time itself.
aletheist was kind enough to point out no one has proved that either time has or doesn't have a beginning. Actually, in my OP I proved that time has to have a beginning for the simple reason that the past can't be infinite.
My attempts in this discussion with you is to discover if proving time couldn't have a beginning is possible or not. You'll find my views on the matter in my posts in this thread.
As for science, if some online encyclopedias are worth their salt, it doesn't have a theoretical definition of time and utilizes a very simple operational definition which, to me, clearly evinces they don't have a handle on what time actually is. So, if I were you, I wouldn't take scientific claims about time to be some kind of gospel truth.
i agree.
its hypothetical clock. its so far away from the condensed universe, and the clock is traveling at a slow velocity or not at all, it has almost no effect on the other part(s) of the universe. Its a hypothetical (for the sake of argument) clock.
I was in search of a contradiction but nothing turned up.
Really? :)
There'd be more time than time?
Quoting TheMadFool
My comment was really just about sufficient reason, much like the opening post but analogous, deriving a contradiction from sufficient reason instead.
Quoting jorndoe
Thanks for replying. The principle of sufficient reason you touched upon is germane to my point in the form of the argument for god from first cause according to which everything has a cause and ergo, an infinite chain of causation extending backwards into infinity. God then became the first cause, the uncaused cause but such an argument is self-refuting, no? It begins with everything having a cause and then draws the conclusion that there's an uncaused cause.
That time has a beginning is a similar claim to that of the uncaused cause because just like in the latter we may always ask what the preceding cause was, for every moment in time, even those posited as beginnings, there isn't anything wrong in asking about time before it.
No, again, that is incorrect. This is Modal Logic 101.
Quoting TheMadFool
The contradiction of (a) is "time did not necessarily have a beginning"--i.e., "time might not have had a beginning." The contradiction of (b) is "time did not necessarily not have a beginning"--i.e., "time might have had a beginning." Notice that these two propositions can both be true, such that we can combine them into one: "time might or might not have had a beginning"; i.e., whether or not time had a beginning is contingent, rather than necessary either way, as I have been saying all along.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, there is. The clock measures some physical process, such as a moving shadow, an oscillating pendulum, or a vibrating quartz crystal or cesium atom. Going backwards to the Big Bang, all such motion would cease at that moment, so the clock would show that time had stopped.
Nice handle, but you spelled it wrong--merkwuerdigliebe, German for "strange love." Anyway, please see this thread on "The Reality of Time."
We had this discussion already, in the thread that I just linked.
No, you assumed that an infinite past would entail an actual infinity, and that this is impossible. As I mentioned upstream, an alternative is that time itself had no beginning, but there was nevertheless a first event (e.g., Big Bang). Time would then be a potential infinity, rather than an actual infinity, which is not problematic.
And in a succinct fashion, what was your answer, again? The reason I ask to re-visit that so-called phenomena (relative to time) is because both TMF and I are suggesting that there are contradictions associated with same.
But more specifically, your answer in the other thread you linked I believe, was in a different context, no?
So I'll restate the question: can you remove the past, present, and future from the concept of Time itself? (And if you could, what would that look like?)
I would say no--time is a real law that governs existing things, not itself an existing thing--but you have steadfastly refused to give your own definition of time. Instead, you keep talking about clocks, which obviously are material.
Quoting TheMadFool
That sounds like what I just described--time extends infinitely into the past, but events began with the Big Bang.
No, but that has no bearing on whether time logically could have had a beginning. Instead, the issue is whether time is entirely continuous or had at least one discontinuity--a present that was not preceded by a past.
Agreed. And I understand the other point you and TMF are arguing. But it is an intriguing answer nonetheless. And by maintaining the OP/paradox, if we are saying that the past, present and future all consist of Time itself, is that not somehow a contradiction?
For example:
1. Time is both present and not present.
2. Time is both past and not past.
3. Time is both future and not future.
4. For me to simply cognize or think (i.e., the act of thinking itself about items 1thru 3), it requires perception of all three at the same Time.
Are those propositions sound? If they are true, then the infamous apple can't be red and not red at the same time (bivalence/vagueness/law of non-contradiction). It has to be either true that its color is red, or false that it is red. The properties of Time then, can't be exclusively one or another. It is vague. It is a mottled color of red. It transcends the principle of bivalence, correct?
Maybe the question is more relative to consciousness and Time, and the paradox of same.
As discussed in the other thread, it is a mistake to treat time as a concrete thing composed of individual moments whose contents are individual events, and past/present/future as abstract qualities or relations that are predicated of time as a whole or of those moments and events. Instead, time is truly continuous, and past/present/future are its three general determinations at which different states of things are realized.
That is something I can agree on. :ok:
...And? aletheist, were you able to answer my questions, through the lens of propositional logic?
I mean, I agree with you that it is continuous. But can we agree that it is either paradoxical or somehow contradictory (does it transcend logic)?
No, again, time is not a concrete thing and past/present/future are not abstract qualities or relations that we predicate of it. It is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future.
If time is a potential infinity and it had no beginning and time as an actual infinity too has no beginning, there's no difference between actual and potential infinity re time is there?
This is getting interesting. I await further word from you.
Time is not something actual at all, because it does not act on or react with anything. In other words, time does not exist, even though it is real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. That is why time itself could be infinite, even if there was a first event--i.e., a beginning of actuality.
Okay, let me try to understand you. You are saying that Time is " a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time."
You seem to saying that Time is then paradoxical or somehow contradictory, no?
Also, when you said " All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future".
That would be incorrect. When we think of a thing (cognize), it requires the future. It requires the phenomenon of Time itself. How do you reconcile that against your "anticipation"?
In other words, what do you mean by the act of anticipation? Thinking itself, does not require any volitional act of "anticipation". Thinking can also be involuntary. In cognitive science, it is known as the stream of consciousness. Otherwise, in the context which we are discussing, to think about a thing by choice, does not involve any conscious anticipation or sense of wonder.
Again, please explain whether Time is paradoxical or somehow contradictory (or specifically address my previous questions). I'm not exactly following you aletheist. It doesn't square with your notion that " time is not concrete...are not abstract qualities... ."
So in your view, if Time is neither concrete or abstract, what is it?? An unexplained phenomenon, a metaphysical construct, something beyond logic... ?
No, why do you keep saying that? Please specify the alleged paradox or contradiction.
Quoting 3017amen
Nonsense, all thinking (cognition) takes place in the present.
Quoting 3017amen
Who said that anticipation is volitional? Most anticipation is involuntary, which is why surprises have such a forceful effect.
Quoting 3017amen
You already quoted my answer: "a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time."
"And by maintaining the OP/paradox, if we are saying that the past, present and future all consist of Time itself, is that not somehow a contradiction?
For example:
1. Time is both present and not present.
2. Time is both past and not past.
3. Time is both future and not future.
4. For me to simply cognize or think (i.e., the act of thinking itself about items 1thru 3), it requires perception of all three at the same Time.
Are those propositions sound? If they are true, then the infamous apple can't be red and not red at the same time (bivalence/vagueness/law of non-contradiction). It has to be either true that its color is red, or false that it is red. The properties of Time then, can't be exclusively one or another. It is vague. It is a mottled color of red. It transcends the principle of bivalence, correct?"
Quoting aletheist
Really? Thinking requires Time (past, present, and future) in order to perform cognition/consciousness. Otherwise, explain how you can remove one component of Time, and still cognize properly, about any thing?
Quoting aletheist
Not according to most dictionaries, hence:
Anticipation: The act of expecting or foreseeing something; expectation or presentiment.
The only exception I know of would relate to subconsciousness.
Quoting aletheist
1. Who is "they"? The laws of Time itself? Who wrote the laws?
2. "Contrary determinations" are what phenomena? Are they logical?
Rather than repeating a blizzard of words, please summarize in one sentence what you find paradoxical or contradictory about time as I have outlined it.
Quoting 3017amen
How so? Again, all thinking takes place in the present. It indeed requires time, but that is why the present must be an indefinite lapse rather than a durationless instant.
Quoting 3017amen
I have no idea what you mean by "remove one component of Time." Also, why are you consistently capitalizing "Time"?
Quoting aletheist
Quoting 3017amen
Concrete things.
Quoting 3017amen
Possessing vs. not possessing an abstract quality or relation.
Well, I tried to be helpful. You seem unable to address my argument. If you wish, I will abide by your request: Time is paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence. Surely that's not going to help you, does it? If not, pass go, and repeat step one (read my explanation-or your interpretation of my 'blizzard of words')… .
Quoting aletheist
Be careful not to dichotomize. It's not an all or nothing campaign here. Yes, I agree some so-called phenomenal features of consciousness occur in a nanosecond. However, a complete thought, using logic, would take longer, even much longer depending on the context. Otherwise, an interesting factoid here:
Quoting aletheist
Excuse me? Now, you had said "all thinking takes place in the present". Yet you are saying Time is "continuous..." , so which is it? I'm asking you to remove, in your case, either the past or future, from the concept of Time itself, in order to see what that would look like. Get it?
Quoting aletheist
What are concrete things relative to the discussion of Time?
Quoting aletheist
But, as you say ( and I agree) if Time is continuous, then are we possessing and not possessing abstract relations/qualities at the same Time?
Only because I have been unable to discern your argument.
Quoting 3017amen
Bare assertion. How is time paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence? What two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other?
Quoting 3017amen
I said nothing whatsoever about a nanosecond. I said that the present is an indefinite lapse of time.
Quoting 3017amen
No, I still have no clue what you are talking about.
Quoting 3017amen
Concrete things endure and change over time, such that they can (and do) possess different abstract qualities and relations at different determinations of time.
Quoting 3017amen
No, a thing that possesses a certain quality/relation at one determination of time can only not possess the same quality/relation at a different determination of time--never at the same determination of time, because that would violate the principle of contradiction.
Let's take one at a time (no pun intended):
And by maintaining the OP/paradox, if we are saying that the past, present and future all consist of Time itself, is that not somehow a contradiction?
For example:
1. Time is both present and not present.
2. Time is both past and not past.
3. Time is both future and not future.
4. For me to simply cognize or think (i.e., the act of thinking itself about items 1thru 3), it requires perception of all three at the same Time.
Are those propositions sound? If they are true, then the infamous apple can't be red and not red at the same time (bivalence/vagueness/law of non-contradiction). It has to be either true that its color is red, or false that it is red. The properties of Time then, can't be exclusively one or another. It is vague. It is a mottled color of red. It transcends the principle of bivalence, correct?"
altheist, we agree that Time is continuous, but when you try to make it mutually exclusive to one or the other (past , present, future) is where you encounter the illogical phenomenon and/or paradox. And you tried to make it that by saying Time is only present... .
And yet what followed was the same incoherent mess that you keep repeating. If I could not make heads or tails of it the first three times, what makes you think that it will magically make sense to me the fourth time? I asked for two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then we have nothing further to discuss.
Quoting 3017amen
Where have I ever said that time is only present? Please use the quote function.
Where have I ever said that time is only present? Please use the quote function.
altheist said: "...all thinking takes place in the present..." .
So, if all this makes no sense to you then, I agree, we will agree to disagree. I'm not sure what else I can say other than repeating myself. Accordingly, this may or may not help you (otherwise, thanks for the opportunity to engage):
Quoting 3017amen
Please notice: I did not say that time is only present, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. Those are two completely different statements, and you are misinterpreting the latter if you believe that it entails the former.
Quoting 3017amen
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result. The best way to make a paradox or contradiction evident is to identify two (or more) propositions that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. Unless you can do that regarding time as I have outlined it, I have no reason to believe that there is anything paradoxical or contradictory about it.
Quoting 3017amen
That video again? Seriously? The entire thread on "The Reality of Time" is my rebuttal to it.
Oh, I apologize for the redundancy. I did take the opportunity to do a cursory read of your previous OP and couldn't find where you were able to reach any consensus on your arguments. (Were you able to determine whether time was an illusion or a reality?)
Quoting aletheist
Can you elucidate a bit more on that aletheist? I think you draw an interesting distinction, however, you may need to give some more thought and/or examples of the point you're trying to make.
Just sayin
You would need to read the entire thread, not just the OP.
Quoting 3017amen
The thread title is "The Reality of Time," and the OP directly rebuts McTaggart's claim that time is unreal.
Quoting 3017amen
All I can do is point out once more what should be quite obvious: We are never thinking in the past or in the future, only in the present. Put another way, the temporal present always directly corresponds to whatever is present to the mind.
I will challenge you to support your claim. Explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect.
Quoting aletheist
Of course. Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe you were successful in making your case. ( From what I read, the majority did not agree with you--myself included.)
Be well!
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not claim that we never use past/present/future to express/convey/verbalize thought, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. We can (and do) think about the past and the future, but we are always and only thinking at the present.
Quoting 3017amen
The success of a philosophical argument is not ultimately determined by majority vote of a small subset of participants in an online forum. Most of us are pretty confident in our preexisting opinions, and my observation over the years is that persuasion otherwise is extremely rare.
Quoting 3017amen
You, too.
I will ask you again, in order to support your claim, explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect.
Quoting aletheist
Two things seem to be emerging:
1. Does that mean you are unable to engage in discourse?
2. Are you unable to answer my questions because you simply can't support your arguments? In other words, are you acquiescing by your silence?
We can with no trouble imagine an interminable future, but it is impossible to comprehend what an eternal past would be in comparison to the content of human experience; we know of nothing that has no origin, with our cognition being hardwired to look at everything as caused. An infinite regress of causes defies our mental makeup to seek the root of things, which in circumstances of the ordinary leads us by increments to a closed system of mechanisms that further phenomena fit into as progress. This enigma is reinforced by incipience of our own perception at infancy; to have existed forever as potential in a past that never began is nearly inconceivable.
We thus look to creational explanations for even the universe as a whole, that it is a cycle of big bangs or some other kind of cycle: the closest we can get is a notion of perpetual rebirth. Our profoundest myths and scientific accounts of the cosmos presume a beginning, even though the whole idea is based on mere reflexive presuppositions of our thinking, that what is permanent but changing must come from something or somewhere. There may be a conceptual null set but there is no null substance, and there is a conceptual infinite set but no perceivably infinite substance, the paradox that forces us to choose philosophically between spontaneous generation out of nothing or an uncaused cause, or remain suspended in uncertainty.
I already did, but apparently I am misunderstanding what you mean by "use Time" in this context. Also, you still have not answered one of my questions--why do you consistently capitalize "Time" as if it were a proper name?
Quoting 3017amen
Not at all, I am just realistic about the (un)likelihood of persuading others whose minds are already made up. As you might have noticed, most of the content on this website consists of debates between people who disagree.
Quoting 3017amen
Not at all, I am unable to answer your questions because the way that you pose them is such that I honestly do not know what you are asking. Above is the latest example.
That could be one of the possible inferences of my argument. :up:
The idea of a beginning isn't a problem for the notion of past, present, & future. What follows are my findings in this regard:
Suppose time had a beginning and let's call it B. B can't ever be the future because there is no time preceding it for which it can serve as a future to. So, B is either a present or a past. At the instant B becomes "real" B gets the chance to be the present. For all times that follow B, B becomes what I call the absolute past referring to it being the limit of what can be past since there is no time before B.
So, B is a special case in that it breaks from the norm - becoming the present without ever being the future. The usual way things develop is for a moment in time to first be the future, then the present and last but not the least, it becomes the past.
I don't think those terms, "far away", and "slow velocity" have any meaning outside the universe.
TMF!
In your scenario, I think about the concept of change.
1. Change and Time: what is the nature of these things...whether it is the idea's of time zones, planck time, being and becoming, cosmology, etc., something had to change before time was created. Like the laws of thermodynamics, something was causing emergent properties to come into existence. That idea alone I think begs at least two questions; is change synonymous with time, and is time a human construct that arbitrarily measures same (AKA: the paradox of time zones).
When we talk about the beginning of time, I think it is just an arbitrary construct that creates an illusion. The concept of change is what should be considered.
2. Consciousness and Time: Can we remove time and change from our process of actual thinking itself(?). The answer of course is probably not. However, what if we thought that we could remove one of the three properties of time (past, present and future), what would that look like... . Our process of cognition (consciousness/subconsciousness) relies on past, present, and future input to process thought itself. For instance, you can't stop the present, otherwise you stop the future. And you can't stop the past because the present and future relies on the past. All three are dependent upon each other for their existence.
universe is just another phrase for the known matter and energy, so if you have an extremely condensed universe one end and then trillions of miles away you have the clock that "mad_guy" was talking about, yes these terms do have meaning.
We are both ignorant arm chair physicists. Don't pretend otherwise.
or if you like that hypothetical clock is apart of the other very dense part far away, but that hypothetical clock just happens to be a piece that is trillions of miles away from the very dense part.
I think you understand the concept but you are just playing dead like a dog.
if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this.
You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this.
Not true. Where there is no heat, there is no movement, where there is no movement there is no time.
If the universe was just a black hole there would still be time.
But if there was ever a time when matter was 0 degrees kelvin or if matter didn't exist then yes there would be no time.
To some extent light is matter because it is altered by gravity, i would imagine if there is light then there is heat and thus there is movement and thus if light exists then there is time.
Special relativity dictates for various reasons that time is very hard to measure accurately but it does not say it doesn't exist at all. Time is the iteration of events.
How could there be change without time? What does it even mean to talk about anything happening "before" there was time?
Quoting 3017amen
It does not beg those questions, it prompts them.
Quoting 3017amen
This still makes no sense to me. Cognition cannot receive past or future input, only present input, although it is sometimes about the past (memory) or future (anticipation).
Quoting 3017amen
As a proponent of the "growing block" theory of time, I deny the existence of the future; only the past and present exist. Specifically, the present is when future possibilities and conditional necessities become additional past actualities.
Quoting christian2017
Quoting christian2017
Those are two possible definitions of time, but certainly not the only ones. For example ...
Thanks. I thought it was merkwuerdigichliebe. Too many characters I think, can't remember.
Thanks for the link
I don't agree with this, because spatial measurements are only valid within our universe. You can't assume to step outside the universe and measure trillions of miles outside the universe, that's a nonsensical idea. Our concepts of space and time are not valid outside the universe.
Quoting christian2017
No, I really can't see how anyone can make sense of the concept of a clock outside the universe. It seems inherently contradictory.
Quoting christian2017
Again, I don't see how the concept "far apart" can be applicable outside the universe. The hypothetical clock in the example must be outside the universe. But "universe" is defined as the collection of all existing things, so how could a clock get outside of this? It's pure contradiction.
I think Peirce is taking more of a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach such as what Einstein and later Physicists took.
Of course he is, because time is a metaphysical concept. Defining it as "the iteration of events" is no less philosophical. Besides, this is "The Philosophy Forum," not "The Physics Forum."
What gives, as with so many of your posts, is your inability to understand maths.
my statement was based on the matter that exists or the hypothetical matter that exists in the universe. Even modern Physicists can't account for exactly 100% of all matter in the universe. If there is some object a trillion miles away as the "mad_guy" hypothetically proposed, that hypothetical situation he proposed is still not ridicoulous. You are trying to hard to make this hypothetical situation of his seem stupid.
On the comment you made about the 2 black hole hypothetical situation:
If two objects are far apart as i stated earlier (black hole or an apple or a clock) they are still apart of the same universe.
Once again, i stated those two black holes and the clock were all the matter in the universe. Reread the hypothetical situation i proposed to make "Mad_guy"'s hypothetical situation not seem obsurd.
There was nothing wrong with "mad_guy"s hypothetical situation and there is certainly nothing wrong with mine. I'll repost below my 2 black hole with a clock hypothetical universe situation, and if you reread it you'll see you are not complying with the way i listed that hypothetical situation. Once again you are trying to hard to say a hypothetical clock is not possible.
"if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this.
You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this." -me
Well now that you finally acknowledged this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum, thus implying that most of us are arm chair quarterback physicists, i agree, your guess (guess) is probably only slight better than my guess (guess).
Where have I ever implied otherwise?
Quoting christian2017
Are you suggesting that only physicists are qualified to provide definitions of time that are more than guesses?
well i could go on and on about the first question, but we would both be making accusations not worth defending. Perhaps i'm just the typical jerk on this forum. There is a strong possibility i fall into that subset.
As for the other question, i agree philosophy does atleast play some small role in physics. Its just in my experience, i'll post an article as semi proof of a concept, and then someone will say thats just a pop sci article. But then they will post a pop sci article to defend what they believe.
This is typical banter on this forum.
That is beside the point. Time has mathematical, phenomenological, logical, and metaphysical aspects. It does not belong exclusively (or even primarily) to the subject matter of physics, but rather falls squarely within the purview of philosophy.
true.
No, I just don't know what is meant by "a hypothetical clock". Either the clock is supposed to be a real clock, keeping time as a real part of the universe, or it's a fictional clock, in which case it's irrelevant to the universe, as fiction.
Anyone else has more to say about this, or any physicist?
A hypothetical situation doesn't directly (directly) relate to fiction and here is why. I hope you can make the connection. The word hypothetical is used in scenario planning and also in science. After reading the definition for hypothetical, you are more than welcome to go back to the beginning of our conversation and see what was meant by "hypothetical clock". Or if you would like you can wait several days for me to list out the whole conversation. We can also do this in private if you would like.
Here is the defintion of hypothetical and why it doesn't directly (directly) relate to fiction:
1 -of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.
"that option is merely hypothetical at this juncture"
synonyms:
exploratory · investigational · probing · fact-finding · trial and error · trial · test · pilot · speculative · conjectural · tentative · preliminary · probationary · prototype · under review · under the microscope · on the drawing board · empirical · observational · untested · untried
antonyms:
finished · theoretical
2 -supposed but not necessarily real or true.
"the hypothetical tenth planet"
synonyms:
theoretical · speculative · conjectured · imagined · notional · suppositional · supposed · assumed · presumed · putative · made up · unreal · academic
antonyms:
real · actual
logic
3 -denoting or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q.
NOUN
(hypotheticals)
hypothetical (noun) · hypotheticals (plural noun)
4 -a hypothetical proposition or statement.
"Finn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Rosen"
All of these definitions are commonly understood by people who commonly use the word hypothetical in a phrase. Its not really a big word. A high school student who goes to a public library would have no problem mastering the use of the word "hypothetical".
I could give you a boring explanation. A really interesting video is "10 dimensions explained" or "the 10 dimensions explained" on youtube. Its not a long video at all, and it is really entertaining.
This doesn't address the problem, which is the logical impossibility, of a clock which is outside the universe. A hypothetical, or hypothesis, which involves something that is logically impossible because of self-contradiction, ought to be rejected as worthless.
Read the previous posts, i clearly said it was apart of the universe. The hypothetical clock was apart of this augmented hypothetical universe. The reason why i say augmented is because this hypothetical clock augments the rest of the hypothetical universe.
Reread the previous posts or i can re-display them. I never said this hypothetical clock was not apart of the universe in this hypothetical situation.
I'm of the opinion that change is relevant to time only in the sense of time's value and time's perceptibility, having no effect on time itself.
1. Time's value: if I were an immortal being i.e. I am changeless, time would lose its value
2. If the universe was changeless we wouldn't perceive the passage of time
Changelessness doesn't imply that time doesn't exist nor that it doesn't pass.
But then it's not consistent with TheMadFool's hypothetical clock, which is running when there is no universe. That's the hypothetical clock which I had the problem with.
Good point TMF! Also, said another way, if Time is more arbitrary than not (Relativity/time, paradoxical time zones, and other human constructs/perceptions of same) and Time is subordinate to change, then change seems to precede Time. Change seems to have special status or privilege over Time (change preceded the Big Bang).
Perhaps much like the idea of existence over essence, the existence of the physical/metaphysical/phenomenal world, in general, is either unknown or at best mysteriously paradoxical. Change and time seem synonymous with existence over essence. We don't understand the essence of things/the true nature of existing things. We only have existence to observe (we don't know the nature of those things).
For example, as an analogy, in understanding gravity, we observe a falling object first, then we figure out thru math how it works. And same with music; we can play/hear music first, then we figure out the structure of it (Time signatures, key signatures, syncopation, rhythm and so on). But we don't know how/why math and music exist.
And so another question becomes, like mathematical formulas/laws used in engineering and physics which abstractly describe & create things (along with music theory of course), how are time and change relative to each other? In other words, like math, does Time underlie the phenomenon of change, or does the phenomenon of change underlie Time? Which is more abstract? Which is more arbitrary?
Or like Music. Does the music itself come before music notation/written music and music theory, or does music theory come before the sound of music itself?
And with all of that said, this is yet another reason why your question about the beginning of Time itself, seems paradoxical and illusionary.
Quoting TheMadFool
I agree!
Not true, reread what he wrote.
The following will help with the intrigue (regarding my argument of Time subordinate to change) of the subject matter:
"Time is something different from events, we do not perceive time as such, but changes or events in time. " ---Robin Le Poidevin, Professor of Philosophy/Metaphysics at the University of Leeds
We therefore perceive time as the space or relation between occurrences of events (change).
You can see him here, I hope you enjoy!
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/whats-real-about-time#video-4604
Change, on the other hand, is, quite literally, chained to time for without time, there can be no change. This is the precise reason why a universe without change maybe taken to be timeless. Nothing changes and so time need not pass. While a changeless universe has time we wouldn't be able to perceive it and also, it wouldn't matter for each passing moment is identical to another.
TMF! I would rather rephrase that by saying something like:
There's this causation (energy or force) that moves change through time.
Quoting TheMadFool
And I've been suggesting the opposite (much like LePoidevin), that without change, there can be no sense or perception of Time.
Maybe the way to parse it would be the simple definitions first:
1. Change (Noun) : 1.the act or instance of making or becoming different.
2. Time (Noun) 1.the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
3. Causation (Noun): the act of causing something (the relationship between cause and effect).
Metaphysical questions: Can you observe change, or can you observe time? During such observations, which is more abstract and which is more concrete? And finally, did time cause change, or did change cause time?
Sorry, I already read it two or three times, and it just doesn't make any sense to me. It's quite plausible that my interpretation is "not true", but that's because I can't make any sense of it.
Time is not observable in the way change is: the latter (change) instantiates continuously in the world we inhabit and is perceivable through our senses - changes in shapes, colors, smells, sounds, sensations, etc. can all be sensed but the former (time) is not something that our sensory apparatus can detect in a similar fashion. In this regard then, time is more abstract than change. The fact that time can be measured with a clock doesn't affect the status of time as a more abstract entity because a clock is simply regular oscillatory change; in other words we make sense of abstract time by means of concrete change (regularly repetitive change).
That said, there is such a thing as subjective experience of time as indicated in the expression, "a watched pot never boils"; this too, as you can see, is an instance of abstract time being experienced in terms of concrete change. In this particular case, the change (the pot boiling) serves the function of a clock (which has slowed down subjectively)
As for time being a cause of change, I feel that change is a material phenomenon and time is immaterial and hence it's more plausible that time lacks causal power over the material domain. I liken spacetime to a theatrical stage on which all material phenomena occur and like the stage is causally inert.
youre right, i'm from the deep deep deep south, and i never made it past the 6th grade. My deepest apologies.
What you asked me to reread is TheMadFool's hypothesis. That is what I found to be incomprehensible. Truthfully, I find your writing quite clear, but you didn't succeed in making TMF's writing intelligible. Probably because it's not.
ok
I won't pretend that I understand all of this
TMF!
And just to take a slight turn or detour here: I'm suggesting in a hierarchical fashion, something like:
cause--->change--->time (you questioned earlier in your OP about the beginning of Time)
In that matrix, it's possible they all could be abstract. In other words, depending upon how we think about them, they could all be immaterial and/or not observable. Kind of like the old debate between what is concrete v abstract.
As a common example, of course, through mathematics we define objects and other material phenomena in a purely abstract way. Similarly, there are many things that relate to the foregoing change that we can't really observe or see in a concrete way such as; air/oxygen, wind, heat, cold, calculating entropy, the entire universe, happiness, sadness, the will, etc.. And even still, but to a lessor degree, the theory of human change/evolution, is simply that, a theory. It's not something that is/was scientifically observable in a concrete way.
And so I'm thinking that if one wants to wonder about why or how (or what is) causation, change and time all came into being, those in themselves would be considered abstract (metaphysical) concepts. Maybe if one thinks about causation in an ontological way (the Will), I'm almost certain that that would lead to some sort of paradoxical happenstance (theories about consciousness).
Relative to the human condition, do you think cause, change and time, can be explained in a concrete ontological way (problem of universals/properties)? Maybe worth exploring in another thread... .
:sad: I hope it's because the subject matter is tough, requiring more knowledge and experience than I have.
Quoting 3017amen
You seem to cast a wide net, into topics I'm not familiar with but if one were to try and establish a hierarchy for cause, change, and time then, in my humble opinion, it would be 1. time, 2. change, 3. cause. Time is immaterial and although we know time never stays still (it always changes one moment relinquishing its place in the present to another that was in the future) what I intuit, perhaps mistakenly, is we have to distinguish what time is from what happens to time. ; just like there's matter and there's change that happens to it. Time is first.
Change, since there always has to be something that experiences it, comes second. No matter, no change; no time, also no change.
Causality is change in matter but with a temporal component: x causes y iff there's some change and x temporally precedes y. So, causality occupies the third station.
Does this come close to answering your question of an ontological hierarchy to cause, time and change?