Can nothingness have power or time not exist?

Quoting Gregory

What do you think is needed in order to prove the reality of time

A clock.

What right had Einstein to put time into his equations? What do they even stand for if his B theory is correct?

Location in a fourth dimension.

Quoting Gregory

What right had Einstein to put time into his equations? What do they even stand for if his B theory is correct?

It sounds like you're confused. "B theory" is not Einstein's; it's McTaggart's, introduced in McTaggart's work "The Unreality of Time". In McTaggart's work, he also introduced "A theory" and the lesser discussed "C theory". Time in Einstein's relativity theories is just a coordinate; one with an observer-dependent "orientation" (analogous to how "down" has an observer dependent orientation for those on earth). Time as in the thing McTaggart argues is unreal has nothing to do with time as in the thing in Einstein's relativity equations.

Heidegger would say location IS the fourth dimension

Quoting Gregory

So, if something comes from nothing, there must have been an action. I don't know if this means there must have been an agent (personal or impersonal), but it doesn't seem to me that nothingness can have infinite power. There is an infinite distance between something and nothing, so an infinite power is needed. I am going back to my quasi-materialist paradigm however. In my thought, there is no "origin". It never existed. There is simply the first motions, the second, third, and on until now. There was nothing before the first motion (or pull or material force). The idea of time itself, then, needs to be thrown out for my position to stand.

What do you think is needed in order to prove the reality of time

An understanding of this reality, for starters. Read Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’. He effectively dismantles and then restructures our notion of time, and I think goes some way towards supporting your position.

But consider, too, that ‘nothingness’ IS infinite potentiality prior to any action...

Quoting Possibility

An understanding of this reality, for starters. Read Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’. He effectively dismantles and then restructures our notion of time, and I think goes some way towards supporting your position.

Thanks! I've been wondering, in a very Wittgensteinian way, what time adds to the concept of motion

Space and truth are nothing, but I can conceptualize them still. I can abstract from their non-existence something to ponder on. Wittgenstein is too Zen for me in general because I think if you can think about something, why not try to see how far you can run with the idea? Instead of closing off the road before the race..

Time however.. what is it? I can't abstract any idea of it out of nothing or something. So the idea must be empty

Quoting Gregory

What do you think is needed in order to prove the reality of time

Well, it's been a whole since you asked this.


And there is your answer.

@Gregory

You might reconsider the approach your are taking to philosophical issues. Could it be that the words you use are misleading you, antigonish-ly?

Perhaps the man who wasn't there shows how we might treat "nothing leading to something"?

Common words tend to fail when dealt metaphysically. Could your perplexity be little more than crossed words?

I suspect so.

Quoting Banno

Could your perplexity be little more than a crossed words?

The thought about time being before the "origin" is not a word game. There are substantial thoughts involved. Truth may be insubstantial, but thoughts are real

To give more analogy, the disagreement between Christians and Mormoms is partially substantial, partially not. Whether we call the world a creation or an emmanation of God, whether we say God has a spiritual body of not, whether we say the world is contingent or full of God just to a lesser degree than He has,.. all these questions are subjective. I agree to that. But the Mormoms also say God the Son is inferior to God the Father. I think that is a substantial thought, and one among many issues religious people think are true questions, IF one of their religions turns out to be true

Quoting Gregory

The thought about time being before the "origin"

You will be aware of answers of the sort proposed by Hawking, in which infinite causes proceed asymptoticly within a limited time. You don't have to accept that explanation to see how divergent explanations of the origon of the universe may be from our regular experiences.

Just as the man who wasn't there misleads one into wishing he would go away.

Reply to Gregory Perhaps you feel a need to ask these questions in order to compound your religious beliefs? One can imagine a cult worshiping the sublime mystery of the Man Who Wasn't There...

Quite a bit of thinking has taken place since Aquinas.

Anyway, at least now you know that time is real.

Quoting Banno

at least now you know that time is real.

"According to the C-theory of time, it is not possible for this Universe to have run in the opposite direction of time, for there is no such thing as ‘the direction of time’ that could be reversed."

That's what I was proposing. B theory is just Einstein's theory, with eternity ruling time. A theory is the time ruling over eternity (Bergson). All these positivists on this forum are voicing Hume's doubt over what force, power, and energy even mean. Physics leads to philosophy

Reply to Gregory

Positivists?

Quoting Gregory

Thanks! I've been wondering, in a very Wittgensteinian way, what time adds to the concept of motion

It adds a dimensional aspect of awareness.

Quoting Gregory

B theory is just Einstein's theory

Why do you keep saying that? What has Einstein's theories to do with B theory?

Quoting Banno

You will be aware of answers of the sort proposed by Hawking, in which infinite causes proceed asymptoticly within a limited time. You don't have to accept that explanation to see how divergent explanations of the origon of the universe may be from our regular experiences.

Right, some, like Hawking's are illogical.

However, we can narrow the field by rejecting such unsound proposals.

Quoting InPitzotl

"B theory" is not Einstein's; it's McTaggart's, introduced in McTaggart's work "The Unreality of Time". In McTaggart's work, he also introduced "A theory" and the lesser discussed "C theory".

Actually, McTaggart's landmark 1908 paper did not say anything about the A/B/C theories, only the A/B/C series:

• The A series is "the series of positions running from the far past through the near past to the present, and then from the present to the near future and the far future."
• The B series is "[t]he series of positions which runs from earlier to later."
• The C series is "a series of the permanent relations to one another of those realities which in time are events."

The A series and B series are both temporal, consisting of individual "moments," but the C series is not; "it involves no change, but only an order" of individual events--the "contents" of moments--and "while it determines the order, [it] does not determine the direction." The B series also involves no change, because the relations of earlier and later between different moments and events are permanent, "and consequently the B series by itself is not sufficient for time, since time involves change." On the other hand, "the A series, together with the C series, is sufficient to give us time."

I make my case for the reality of time, contra McTaggart, in this recent thread.

Quoting InPitzotl

What has Einstein's theories to do with B theory?

Einstein posited a "block universe" in which time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, such that all "positions" in time are fixed along with all positions in space--consistent with McTaggart's B series (and C series). In other words, the past, the present, and the future all exist, a view also known as eternalism. The main alternatives are presentism, in which only the present exists, and the so-called "growing block" theory--it really needs a more respectable name--in which the past and present exist, but not the future.

Action relies on the existence of time that has beginnings and ends, but the overarching dimension of time is eternal.

Presentism is A Theory. Eternalism is B Theory. It is easier to reconcile some type of spirituality with the latter. I struggle to reconcile my materialist C theory thoughts with Hegelian idealism. I have to posit two souls in me, one subjective and the other objective

Quoting Possibility

It adds a dimensional aspect of awareness.

Exactly. Like Heidegger said. From a purely materialistic perspective time doesn't mean anything. Descartes knew this. He believed in C theory it appears

Quoting Banno

Positivists?

A lot of people say on here that language studies can fix philosophical problems. I don't think language studies go far in discovering anything, and certainly nothing about philosophical questions. It's a hoax

There is no conceivable way of truly understanding language. It is too dynamic of a thing. To get to its roots would consist almost entirely of conjecture.

Quoting neonspectraltoast

There is no conceivable way of truly understanding language. It is too dynamic of a thing. To get to its roots would consist almost entirely of conjecture.

I agree. Can anyone state two definite items of thought that has been proven by language theory? Nothing philosophical certainly. I feel like its a jacuzzi of haze

"The sense of the world must lie outside the world." -wittgenstein

Heidegger and Kant were capable of writing whole books about this. Sartre maybe too. Not so much Wittgenstein

When two people "feel pain", their experiences must be analogies but possibly very different. Same for joy, sorrow, hatred, and humility. We've know this long before language theory and it really is all that theory is trying (so hard) so analyze

I get the question. So it's about power then, think, at the time of nothing, there is nothing, but also no time.

It's a question of what was there, not what is.

Quoting ztaziz

It's a question of what was there, not what is.

Life, as in it's reality, starts with motion. The world is life. There was nothing before the first motions. There was no origin

Quoting Banno

in which infinite causes proceed asymptoticly within a limited time.

Beautiful phrase, but it's still propounds a supertask, which has difficulties

Quoting Gregory

A lot of people say on here that language studies can fix philosophical problems. I don't think language studies go far in discovering anything, and certainly nothing about philosophical questions. It's a hoax

And yet there it is in your OP. Oh well.

That's not positivism, by the way.

Quoting Gregory

The thought about time being before the "origin" is not a word game.

So... time before time is not a word game...?

Quoting Banno

And yet there it is in your OP. Oh well.

Where?

Quoting Banno

So... time before time is not a word game...?

Nope

Again, name one thing the language studies have proven about philosophy..

Quoting Gregory

Again, name one thing the language studies have proven about philosophy..

Love it!

"Thousands of Chinese people have corona virus!"

"Yeah? Name one."

:lol:

Quoting Gregory

Where?

You can't see it. I can't help that.

It is false that "what can be said can be said clearly". Truth doesn't work that way. Things can be implied, hinted at, because they so far hidden, so far. The greatest joy in life, for me, is seeing a truth on the horizon. One you have it you want more. Only the absolute experience of Truth which Hegel wrote of will satisfy me. I don't know what Wittgenstein's goal in life was but to travel the roads of this world

Quoting aletheist

Actually, McTaggart's landmark 1908 paper did not say anything about the A/B/C theories, only the A/B/C series

Fair, A-theory and B-theory are strictly Richard Gale's coinage. But Gregory here is talking about something he is calling "B-theory" and attributing it to Einstein. In Richard Gale's coinage, McTaggart's name is literally in the title; A-theory is just a view of time like the A-series, and B-theory like the B-series.
Quoting aletheist

Einstein posited a "block universe" in which time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, such that all "positions" in time are fixed along with all positions in space--consistent with McTaggart's B series (and C series).

Not quite. In Einstein's theory, time is not "the" fourth dimension; it is "a" fourth dimension. The future direction of time depends on your reference frame (SR) and on how spacetime (which is a single entity) is shaped (GR; e.g. in black holes, the shape of spacetime is distorted so extremely that the time coordinate points towards the center).

To fit relativity onto this, you need some interpretation:
Quoting aletheist

The B series is "[t]he series of positions which runs from earlier to later."

That ordering is not always defined; in particular, space-like events have no time ordering requisite to call events "earlier and later" ala B-series or having a well defined order ala C-series. Time-like events, mind you, can be ordered, so they can fit. But it's also easy to have events X, Y, and Z such that X,Z is space-like, Y-Z is space-like, but X-Y is timelike. That's the biggest distinction; relativity basically gets rid of "moments". You only wind up with partial ordering; specifically, local ordering.

But for the third time I want to point out... nobody is discussing this, and Gregory's off and running calling B-theory Einstein's theory. Why? Because he wants to use the big guy's name?

Quoting InPitzotl

Gregory's off and running calling B-theory Einstein's theory. Why? Because he wants to use the big guy's name?

It's the same theory with another name

Heidegger would agree with space-time being the fourth dimension. This way there is not three dimensions spatially, but infinite directions going spherically in every direction. The most profound thing someone has said to me on this forum was that there is no difference bewteen infinity and finitude. That idea takes a lot of work. Positivist are ok with that task because it's about bland numbers. More colorful ideas scare them. They call them spiritual. But you can never know exactly what someone else is experiencing, as Wittgenstein even said. You can't know how smart someone is. What is smart for Einstein is different from what is smart for a silver back gorilla. Kant says understand the representations of life with morality, knowing in a sense you are alone but in a very real sense in a world populated with beings. What your opponent truly thinks may be closer to your own than you realize

Quoting Gregory

It's the same theory with another name

"The same theory with another name" implies a two way lexicon. Mapping from B-series to Einstein's conception of time requires a revision.
Quoting Gregory

The most profound thing someone has said to me on this forum was that there is no difference bewteen infinity and finitude.

That's another fun thing; relativity has this. The measure of time is a metric; and there are "horizons". From a theoretical POV one person can measure an infinite amount of time to a horizon, and another a finite amount of time (the black hole scenario is one example). Just slipping this in whilst I disagree w you about the other thing.

Reply to Gregory You seem to be flapping in the wind.

Anyhow, been while now since I proved time exists. How's that sitting?

Quoting InPitzotl

From a theoretical POV one person can measure an infinite amount of time to a horizon, and another a finite amount of time (the black hole scenario is one example).

That's very interesting

Quoting Banno

How's that sitting?

What has passed since you posted that? What is it? What substance does it have? Is it an entity? Is it pure potential?

I think time is best understood with intuition, not reason. Children have keen intuition in learning language. They start with no knowledge of words. I've thought much about how you get from knowing not a single word to knowing a language. If I pick up a rag and say "rag", how does the child know he is talking about the rag and not the act of picking up? This kind of logic goes wild in all directions. We can communicate because of intuition, expressed through language

To give another example, suppose a mother and child are cuddling and both feeling love. The mother says "love", but how does the child know it refers to the feeling and doesn't mean "this will pass"?

Quoting Gregory

I think time is best understood with intuition, not reason.

Almost...

There's a way of understanding time that is not set out in a bunch of statements, but lived through.

That's not something special about time. It's the same with many things.

Not an intuition, though. It's understood in the doing, the use.

Quoting Banno

It's understood in the doing, the use.

A world religion book I have said the African religions are like that. Very Heidegarrian. I like the world of ideas though also. There is a box in my garage that says "this box is happy to see you too". A medieval scholar would say it's a joke or a "nice sentiment". A modern philosopher would take it much more seriously. I think that's cool