Nothing to something is logically impossible
Here is my simple argument in syllogism form:
P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3)
P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3)
Comments (207)
P1) Time is needed for any change
OK
P2) Nothing to something is a change
It's not. If it is possible, it is creation. (Nothing cannot be changed since it doesn't exist.)
P3) There is no time in nothing
There is no time --contained or involved-- in something either. Things are not composed of time. (P1 indicates that time is involved in change.)
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3)
OK, but it doesn't follow from P1-P3.
Which means there must always have been something and time never started.
Time could be a trillionth of a second or even less, lots can happen in that time and we would not see it happen.
Quoting MoK
If you mean that something existing where nothing existed before, then you might be right. A tree in your garden where there was none when you moved in 25 years ago does not mean that it came from nothing.
The idea that the universe came from nothing is in my opinion an unfounded statement, because they have no idea what exactly was there before. If the big bang theory is correct then there was something there before.
Quoting MoK
Time is attached to action, not objects.
Quoting MoK
Yes maybe so, but not using your syllogism. Try this.
P1. Inside the cubic volume A there is a complete vacuum.
P2. Objects need material to exists
P3. There is no material in a A
C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore there can be no changes in space alone.
Therefore your screen is blank and you are me.
This is a statement made by @MoK. I just confirmed it. It is to him/her that you should be addressed.
Let me point out a weakness that needs to be resolved here.
P1. Time is needed for any change.
What is time? Without this definition nothing can be proven.
P2. Something appearing within nothing is a change.
Sounds good.
P3. There is no time in nothing.
Since you have not defined time this cannot be declared as true or false.
Cool. I have to add that time is a substance that allows change. By substance I mean it is something that exists and it has a set of properties. The property of time is the rate at which it changes.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I am not interested in discussing the creation from nothing here since it is off-topic (I can show that this act is logically impossible as well). I will open another thread on this topic shortly. I can however argue that nothing is a state of affairs that could exist. By nothing I simply mean, no spacetime, no physical, no God,... Therefore, nothing to something is a change.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The premise is correct because time is a substance and because nothing is the absence of anything.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It does follow from P1-P3.
Quoting MoK
But I don't agree we can posit "time" as if it was a prior substance that some other prior substance like a "thing" or a "nothing" (or a thing seeking to change) combines with in order to build a "thing changing over time" or a "something from nothing." Speaking like this may help animate an argument, but to say "in nothing" at all presupposes something (not sure what but you at least have a "nothing" with an "in").
This is the problem of motion, Parmenides resolved by simply denying motion. Since something cannot come from nothing, or since nothing has no thingness that could be changed to something else, change or motion is impossible.
I disagree with Parmenides that he has said anything of actual things. Motion still is. He has noticed something about the limits of logic and speaking. We speak by fixing immobile things, nouns, and then predicate them. We separately, move, are moved and experience motion. Drawing from the experience of motion a stagnant, unmoved, unchanging permanent definition of what motion is, how motion is, this is a problem. We are seeking to fix motion permanently in explanation, but by fixing motion, we deny motion.
I think it is a problem because motion, and the explanation of motion, are not the same kind of thing. Explanations, if they are good ones, never move or change. Explaining explanation moves one towards something that does not move. Explaining moving things, or typical things, creates a conflict of two different types of things - namely, things and explanations.
But it's a problem.
Basically I agree with your conclusion but don't see your argument.
That is not possible as well since we are dealing with an infinite regress in time.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I also don't understand the implication of this to the first premise as well.
Quoting Sir2u
Cool, so you agree with the second premise.
Quoting Sir2u
Time is a substance that allows change. Therefore, this premise is also correct given the definition of time and nothing.
Quoting Sir2u
It follows from my syllogism.
Quoting Sir2u
I cannot understand how your conclusion follows from the premises.
To be more precise, space and time are part of a single manifold so-called spacetime. I dropped space to make things look simpler but one has to replace time with spacetime in all premises to be more accurate.
Right. It is impossible for time to have begun, since a beginning is an event and time is necessary for anything to change and any event is a change. It is impossible for something to have begun existing, because that would have been an event.
Therefore, logically, nothing exists.
OK
Quoting Philosophim
Ok, let's see if I can resolve the weakness.
Quoting Philosophim
Time is one component of spacetime that allows change to happen. Spacetime itself is a substance, by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. Spacetime's property is its curvature.
Quoting Philosophim
Cool.
Quoting Philosophim
This therefore a valid premise given the definition of time and nothing. That is true since spacetime is a substance and nothing is the absence of anything including spacetime.
Time is a component of spacetime that allows change to happen. Spacetime is a substance, by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. The property of spacetime is its curvature. The gravitation wave was observed experimentally. This confirms that spacetime is a substance.
Quoting Fire Ologist
How about now? I defined time as a substance so it cannot exist in nothing.
Well, time cannot begin to exist since this is a change, and time is needed for it (this leads to infinite regress as well)! Time however has a beginning. By beginning I mean a point that time exists at that point and afterward. Things can be created or come into existence once there is a time.
No. The timelessness that existed before the beginning of time would put that "before" state in a time-frame. The beginning of time would have been a change from timelessness, and change cannot take place in the absence of time. Therefore, time cannot have begun.
"Time" is only a metric; to conflate, or confuse, a metric with what it measures as you do, Mok, is a reification fallacy (e.g. a map =|= the territory). For instance, AFAIK, quantum fluctuations are random (i.e. pattern-less), therefore, not time-directional (i.e. a-temporal), and yet vacuum energy exists; so it's reasonable to surmise that "time" (re: spacetime) is not a fundamental physical property only an abstract approximation (i.e. mapping) of "something".
That's P1 and P3 out.
:meh:
"Time is needed for any change." Although "time" is treated as a substance here, and "change" is really the question here, I can grant this premise. I also don't like "needed." I would replace this premise with "Change, measurable over time, is."
Nothing to something is a change. Parmenides broke this down as being and not-being, which I like better for such a concise argument. I can grant this premise too as "Not-being to being, or nothing to something, is change."
So we've asserted the existence of change, asserted time measures it, and then asserted one example of change as nothing to something, or not-being to being.
"There is no time in nothing" This needs more explanation to be a meaningful statement. I mean I get what you are driving at, but this premise is supposed to do all the work in the argument, and it ranges from meaningless, to meaning not enough to do the work. Let's pretend there is nothing. Then let's pick a point and pretend it is time 1. Now let's wonder about was before time 1 and after time 1. There still is nothing before time 1 and nothing after time 1, no seeming change, nothing to mark or measure, but by now we have still asserted there is time in nothing. The point is, to merely assert "there is no time in nothing" without explanation, as to what time, and a concept such as "in nothing" are, I am left wondering if we can conclude anything yet. But you then just leap to your conclusion.
Quoting MoK
I get it. I agree something from nothing is a logical impasse. And I agree that there is physical, changing, moving substance. But the above isn't an argument.
[b]Parmenides said:
"Being is; for To Be is possible, and Nothingness is not possible."
"What is, is. Being has no coming-into-being or destruction, for it is whole of limb, without motion, and without end. And in never Was, nor Will Be, because it Is now. How, whence could it have sprung? Nor shall I allow you to speak or think of it as springing from Not-Being; for it is neither expressible nor thinkable that What-Is-Not, is."
"Nor will the force of credibility ever admit that anything should come into Being... out of Not-Being."
[Just as Being cannot come from nothing], how could Being perish? How could it come into being? If it came into being, it Is Not; and so too [it Is Not] if it is about-to-be at some future time. Thus coming-into-Being is quenched, and Destruction also, into the unseen."[/b]
Parmenides would agree with you that something from nothing, or nothing to something, are impossible. But his reasoning is from the fact that motion itself is impossible because motion itself requires what is not, to change into what is, which is impossible.
Parmenides was saying you can't pull a rabbit from what is utterly not-rabbit, and therefore, there is no such thing as change, as in change from what was not into what will be, also as in change from nothing to something.
You seem to be arguing that, just because there is change, just because we see rabbits come from things that were not rabbits, it still can't be true that something can come from nothing. Time as something that sits with things, but something that cannot sit with nothing, doesn't really do the work to explain how change is possible, or rule out how change is impossible. In fact Parmenides used the same assertion (something can't come from nothing), to more logically demonstrate quite a different result - time and change are not.
I've always had problems with this problem.
I can visualize a sphere reducing to a point and vanishing... or not existing then appearing but how does it happen physically?
The big bang theory is usually presented with a time component of 13.8 billion years but is time really a physical component or just a derived measure of physical matter. Probably just derived so it's not fundamental.
That's as far as I get. At a loss for a solution.
And the expert opinions seems to change.
It never works out well.
Not a problem! We're here to think with each other. Also welcome to the forums. You will encounter some people who will talk down to you or passively insult you for just bringing an idea up. Please ignore them.
Quoting MoK
Good start. Can time exist apart from spacetime? If so, can you describe what it is? If not, then we have to change premise one from "Time" to "Spacetime".
It's like we are being asked to run a number line backwards to zero. Math can do that but what are the physics? And how can logic work if we don't know the physics to begin with.
I might have supposed that the logic is the structure given to our statements in physics. Rather than one of logic or physics having precedence over the other, there is an interplay, such that each changes along with the other.
But at the least, we try to make physics consistent, even if that implies that it must be incomplete.
And in addition, in order to do physics (amongst other things) we supose there to be something to talk about, so that there is not nothing is taken as granted.
In a sense the OP takes what is presumed and tries to render it instead as a conclusion.
The result is an odd sort of circularity.
There has been a series of threads of this sort recently.
It's winter. Lots of people are suffering from cabin fever.
Metaphysics without logic too.
Same just-so story.
But I have far more demanding issues to contend with - Wife wants me to put gherkins in the potato salad! 'Oh, the humanity!"
Philosophical problems are more often than not, just confusions of language. But folk do not want to be show this, or genuinely can't see it.
Quoting 180 Proof
I think the OP logical, but it doesn't connect to anything. Spinning wheels.
:up:
I'll need more than that, if I'm to stay in the air conditioning!
I'm having a bit of difficulty in bringing out the validity of the OP. Three assumptions and a conclusion - something is usually missing, or superfluous.
I had a go at parsing the argument in to something that was valid, but I can't see it.
Anyone?
Your pseudo-syllogism doesnt produce a logical contradiction and, thusly, doesnt prove the logical impossibility of nothing becoming something. Your argument, in its form (as best as I could infer), is:
P1: T ? C
P2: E ? C
P3: N ? !T ? !C
C: E ? (C & C!)
The conclusion doesnt following from the premises.
Secondly, I think you are thinking that nothing being unrestrained by time entails it cannot spontaneously be involved with temporal sequences, which doesnt necessarily follow. I dont see why one would believe that.
Thirdly, P1 seems false to me or, at least, requiring further elaboration: I dont think there needs to be an actual change in the sense of a sequential, temporal movement of one thing to another thing even if the temporal relations are real. Time, in the sense of actual movement (of change in terms of what you seem to be talking about) is simply a form of ones experience: it is a mode by which your representative faculty intuits and cognizes objectsit does not exist beyond that.
Hmm. T is equivalent to C?
I suspect it's an implication - "if there is a change then there is a passage of time" or some such.
But the problem is that the "nothing" is embedded in a relation - "nothing to something" - except in (3). Somehow the parsing needs to quantify nothing...
There isn't a way to quantify over "nothing", without treating of an individual. So "nothing is red" can be quantified, it might be parsed as
~?(x)(x is red)
(read: it's not the case that there is an x such that x is red)
But "there is nothing" can't be treated in this way.
Hence the general criticism, that these sorts of arguments reify "nothing" by treating it as an individual.
Pickles would be better, but gherkins will do in a pinch. Chop them very small. See if there are some capers handy, and chives.
The potato salad of family tradition consists in white potatoes, cut into small cubes and boiled in well-salted water until precisely al dente, then combined with chopped boiled egg and chives, the very best olive oil and a mild vinegar, usually white wine; seasoned with pepper and salt. That's it.
A thing of subtle beauty, it will not be adulterated with gherkins, pickles, capers or any other abominations.
And certainly no mayonnaise.
All of which is somewhat off the task at hand here, so I'll add that your "time cannot have begun" might just mean that there was no point in time at which there was no time... which is I think a point of grammar rather than a bit of ontology?
A substance is something material; it consistse of matter. Time is not physical. It doesn't actually exist. It is a dimension. We use it to measure change and motion, as well as for description purposes.
Quoting MoK
A state is a condition. It has attributes. How can "nothing" be a state, of affairs or anything else? Nothing is simply absence of existence. absence of anything. How can something that doesn't exist be anything at all?
@Banno How about:
1) Assumption: If change, then time
2) Assumption: If nothing to something, then change
3) Assumption: Nothing to something [object of reductio]
4) Therefore, change [2,3 MPP]
5) Therefore, time [1,4 MPP]
6) Therefore, nothing [3, some kind of a fortiori inference, like &elimination, seems reasonable]
7) Assumption: If nothing, then not-time
8) Therefore, not-time [6, 7 MPP]
9) Therefore, time and not-time [5,8 & introduction]
10) Therefore, NOT nothing to something [RAA]
Or something like that. May have missed out some bits. What lines do you cite for a reductio?
At the planck scale P1 is arguably meaningless or false. For example, does it take time for particles to pop in to, or out of, existence?
No, it is not proper to talk about the point before the beginning of time because time does not exist before its beginning and you need another time to investigate the state of affairs before the beginning of the former time.
Brain; (abstraction 1)
Brain; (abstraction 2)
Do you see the problem with applying logic?
According to the dictionary, nothing is a pronoun that means not anything; no single thing. Nothingness is a noun that means the absence of existence. To me, here by nothing I mean a state of affairs that there is no spacetime, no physical,... By something, I mean a state of affairs that there is spacetime, physical,...
Quoting 180 Proof
According to general relativity, time is a component of spacetime that allows change to happen. Spacetime is a substance that curves near a massive object.
Quoting 180 Proof
I cannot understand what you are trying to say here. Spacetime to me is fundamental, by fundamental I mean it cannot be created or pop into existence.
Tsk, tsk, you just did.
Quoting MoK
Another time Before the beginning of Former time!?? Now you have three iterations of the impropriety of pre-time affairs. I think you should stop painting that floor.
(PS I don't need any of this nonsense)
[quote=Banno]Folk trying to do physics without the maths, again.[/quote]
Great to see that you agree.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I cannot understand what you mean by "Change, measurable over time, is.". Do you mind to elaborate?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Glad to see that you agree.
Quoting Fire Ologist
What do you mean by time measures the change?
Quoting Fire Ologist
If we agree that time is a substance (or better to say spacetime a substance) then the premise follows trivially since nothing is a state of affairs that there is no spacetime, no physical,...
Quoting Fire Ologist
True, what I mentioned is not an argument but a physical fact.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I have to read his argument a few times to understand it well. I however disagree with him that change is impossible.
Does time exist in this picture? What I am trying to say is that time does not exist in nothing and it is required for change, nothing to something, therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Time is fundamental, by fundamental I mean it simply exists, it cannot be created or pop into existence. Time is a substance as well.
Thanks for letting me know! I am happy to see a person who is open to a new idea.
Quoting Philosophim
Well, space and time are interconnected and inseparable in the classical theory of spacetime, such as special and general relativity. There are quantum theories of spacetime though in which physicists discuss time as an emergent thing without classical spacetime. There is debate about these theories between physicists though. I however think that spacetime is fundamental and cannot be created or emerge so I agree with you that it is better to replace time with spacetime in P1 and P3.
As far as the big bang theory goes, it's a method of working things backwards. The universe is expanding so if you go backwards the universe would reduce to a point. Something like that.
At that point things are left to our imaginations.
Is it really a point? Do the laws of physics still apply? Like I said, I don't know. Difficult to find a handle.
One view of time is that it is basically the same thing as change. Time starts when change happens. Not sure if this fits with science or not.
No, C is biconditionally implicated to T; not equivalent.
This is fair that one needs to explicate what they mean by nothing. I happen to believe nothing is just the systematic negation of things: it is a potential infinite of negations; and, to be charitable to the OP, I am interpreting their use of 'nothing' as an actual infinite of negativity.
So they can absolutely quantify over an entity of 'nothing' without admitting that that entity exists; as weird and uncomfortable as that is: we are constrained within our language to speak of nothingness in this way.
Likewise, I agree that a relation of 'nothing to something' is wholly unknown to us, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim positively that it cannot exist because nothing cannot be treated in a manner required in order to posit the relationship (which is what you seem to be saying).
Anyways, probably the biggest problem with the OP is that it doesn't prove it is logically impossible; even if the premises are granted.
Ok, with that, lets see if we can break down the underlying essence of what makes the argument compelling.
Spacetime is 'something". Its an existent measurement. And its required for us to have change. Which means that 'change' in your definition, is something that can only happen when things exist.
Now have we proven that spacetime is required for change? No, what we've done is declare it by definition. This isn't necessarily wrong or bad, but we have to be aware it is by definition, and not by empirical discovery.
So then what we've done can be simplified as follows:
1. Spacetime is needed for any change
Basically we say we need something for change to happen. Specifically that something is spacetime. (Though the actual detail of 'spacetime' will be irrelevant to our conclusion. We could call it "A" and it wouldn't matter)
2. Nothing to something is a change.
But we noted earlier that we need something for there to be a change. The only way this still works is if something appears. And this makes sense. Nothing to nothing isn't a change, but nothing to something is.
3. There is no spacetime in nothing
This still works. But does our original conclusion?
C: Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.
With our clearer breakdown, we can no longer conclude this. Point two notes that a change can occur when we go from nothing to something. What is is impossible is that nothing to something cannot occur 'without spacetime'.
Revised C: Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible without spacetime also appearing.
This is the real logical conclusion we can make based on our definitions and premises so far.
But lets follow up a bit because one conclusion out of a set of revised terms doesn't mean that we still don't want to prove our original intent. Maybe with a change we can still do so. To preserve our original intent we can add one thing.
P: Spacetime cannot appear within nothing.
The problem is, this is only by definition and not empirical proof. Meaning at this point we haven't proven anything, we've simply declared it. So I still don't see a way to my mind of salvaging our original intent which was to prove that change nothing to something is logically impossible. But what do you think?
That's what logical equivalence is. Ok, so you think it means something like that if time passes, then change happens, and if change happens then time passes. I guess so.
The quantification to which I gestured is "U" and "?". So "Nothing is red" parses as ~?(x) (x is red), or as U~(x)(x is red), but "U" and "?" cannot be used to parse
Quoting Bob Ross
Yep.
We need a microscope to take measure of tiny things. We need time to take measure of change.
You said "Time is needed for any change." It sounded like time was in one bucket over there, and then something grabs some time, because it needed it, to make some change, sitting over here in this other bucket. So I meant to incorporate time and change into a similar premise as you and came up with really two premises: Change exists. Time measures change.
Change is the more substantial thing, but really time is the mental overlap with change in the physical. Time is just as real, but only recognized (or constructed) by a mind recognizing physical change.
Time doesn't exist in the actual world. Time is a priori condition for perception and experience in Kant, and I believe it is correct. Changes take place totally unrelated to time. Time has nothing to do with changes. Human mind perceives the duration or interval of something starting and ending, and that is all there is to it.
Time is simply a civil contract to say that it is 1 year for the earth to rotate around the sun, and 1 day for the earth to rotate itself to the same point on the geographical location. Without those planetary movements, the time as we know it wouldn't exist at all. It follows that changes don't need time. So we could say that changes generate the perception of time.
Quoting MoK
A change is from something to something else. Why is it nothing to something?
Quoting MoK
An ambiguous statement. This cannot be accepted as a premise for its ambiguity. Time is a concept and a priori condition for perception and experience. Nothing is a concept to denote a state of non-existence. You must define what "nothing" means before making the statement for consideration.
Quoting MoK
Can nothing be something? Then it can be possible for nothing to something. Hence the conclusion would be wrong. Because "Therefore, nothing which is something is logically possible." would be right.
But if nothing is not something, or if it is a state of non-existence, then the conclusion would be ambiguous, and invalid, because it doesn't clarify what "nothing" is, and it doesn't follow from the premises. There is no necessary logical connection from the premises to conclusion.
Time is not ontological entity. Time is epistemic entity.
??M -> ??T
?M1t1?M2t2 ??Ag,T,M
Time is not defined in the OP. It could be referring to anything.
Quoting MoK
More or less, if you are saying what I thought you were saying.
Quoting MoK
As I said, you gave no definition for time. But to claim that time is a substance would mean that it has some sort of physical presence, which is a long stretch of the imagination. Could you maybe explain that a bit better.
Quoting MoK
My apologies,you are right there is a bit missing.
C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing in cubic volume A.
No. It is material equivalence.
By my lights, one could parse nothingness as ~?x (x) or ~?x (Exists
That doesnt make any sense, unless you are just conveying that time is just the form of experience.
I dont know what this is supposed to be conveying.
Odd.
Whatever.
:meh:
:kiss:
Which part is odd? And why?
Equivalence: Usually "?", sometimes ??, means "(p?q).(q?p)"
But ~?x (x) is not well-formed - it doesn't say anything.
And ~?x (Exists
I guess you could go for a free logic and write something like ~?x (?!(x)) which (I think) just says that "It is not the case that there exists an x such that there exists exactly one x.", at the expense of throwing out classical logic. Why do that?
The thing about parsing is that one has to be specific about what one means, and that is absent in the OP.
Or we might follow Quines' "to be is to be the subject of a predicate" and only talk about non-empty domains...
Quoting SEP: Nothingness
...in which case there is never nothing.
Suits me.
(But I suspect this is going nowhere.)
It says what it means. It is a simple and clear statement which reflects the nature of time. I am not sure if it needs explanation.
Quoting Bob Ross
M = Motion
t = time
Ag = agent
The argument follows from premises but it is not obvious because of the hidden premises (HPs). Please find the new version of the argument in pseudo-syllogism form in the following:
P1) Time is needed for change
P2) There is no change when there is no time (From P1) (HP)
P3) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing (HP)
P4) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P2 and P4)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P3 and C1)
I am not logician so I cannot write the argument in syllogism form. I would appreciate your help if you convert the argument to syllogism form.
I think I can write another argument in reductio ad absurdum form but I need time to think about it.
Quoting Bob Ross
I cannot follow you here. Do you mind elaborating?
Quoting Bob Ross
There are two things that I need to show: (1) Time is needed for any change and (2) Time is a substance.
1) Consider a change, A to B. A and B cannot lay at the same point otherwise A and B are simultaneous and there cannot be a change. Therefore, A and B must lay at two different points of a variable. Moreover, the second point, that B resides, must come after the first point, that A resides, if there is a change. This variable we call time.
2) According to general relativity, time is a component of spacetime. Spacetime is a substance though. By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. Spacetime's property is its curvature. Two phenomena confirm that spacetime is a substance or in other words confirm general relativity, namely gravitational wave and gravitational lens.
I think P1 is valid no matter how fast is the process.
Time is a component of spacetime. Spacetime is shown to be a substance experimentally. Two phenomena confirm spacetime is a substance, namely gravitational lens and gravitational wave.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
By the state of affairs, I mean a situation.
The laws of physics cannot apply to the singularity.
Ok, I have an argument for that: Consider a change, A to B. A and B cannot lay at the same point otherwise A and B are simultaneous and there cannot be a change. Therefore, A and B must lay at two different points of a variable. Moreover, the second point, that B resides, must come after the first point, that A resides, if there is a change. This variable we call time.
Quoting Philosophim
Cool.
Quoting Philosophim
Well, if we accept that spacetime is a substance then nothing to spacetime is also a change that is logically impossible since we need another spacetime for this change.
Time changes but it is not the same thing as change in physical.
Quoting bert1
No, spacetime is a substance on its own and can exist without physical.
There are two changes when there is a motion: Change in attributes of an object, such as its position, and change in time. So time does not measure the change. Time however is needed for change since otherwise all events lay at the same point and are simultaneous.
Quoting Fire Ologist
By time is needed for any change I mean that change is not possible without time.
No, time is a component of spacetime. Spacetime was first claimed to be a substance by the general theory of relativity. It is also confirmed by observation of gravitational wave and lens.
Quoting Corvus
Because nothing is a condition in which no thing exists. Something is a condition in which at least one thing exists. Therefore, nothing to something is a change as well.
Quoting Corvus
No, time is a substance and nothing is a condition in which no thing exists. Therefore, the premise is correct.
Quoting Corvus
No, nothing is not something. The conclusion also follows from the premises. No time, no change. Time does not exist in nothing. Therefore, nothing to something, that is a change, is not possible.
You are confusing the observation of the wave with time as a substance. Observed motions are not time itself.
Quoting MoK
Nothing is a condition, and something is a condition too. So a condition to a condition means nothing has changed.
Quoting MoK
What do you mean by substance? Is it a physical object you can see and touch?
Quoting MoK
Until you clearly define what nothing, something, change and time is, the conclusion is nonsense. The first thing wrong is the concept of time, which doesn't exist in the actual world.
According to the general relativity, time is a component of spacetime in which it allows change to happen. Spacetime is shown by the theory of general relativity and observation to be a substance. Gravitational wave and lens are two main observations that confirm spacetime as a substance.
Quoting Sir2u
I defined time to a good extent in the previous comment. Please let me know if you need elaboration.
Quoting Sir2u
Ok, I see. But I think the correct conclusion (from P2 and P3) is: Therefore nothing exists in cubic volume A.
This is a nice attempt, but its just an empirical observation of change withing spacetime. What we haven't observed is if its impossible for spacetime to emerge from nothing. Now, to be clear, what we're talking about is a negative. Proving a negative is nigh impossible. For example if I said, "Empirically demonstrate that a unicorn does not exist", the best answer we can give is, "We have not discovered one yet." With a unicorn especially, there isn't even any logical evidence that it needs to exist. So we can probably dismiss that claim.
But can we do the same with 'nothing to something'. There is another age old question which is the idea that as we work up through causality we either reach a point in which there was nothing prior, or we have an infinite regress. Of course, in both cases we ask the question "What caused there to be anything at all?" It can't be something else, as we've reached the limit. In the case of the finite regression, its obvious. A little less obvious, but we also conclude the same with an infinite regress when examining the entire thing as a set. There is no prior cause for why anything should exist. Meaning, something existed despite there being nothing to cause it to exist.
Quoting MoK
That's not quite what I was going for. My point is that we would need spacetime to form at or slightly before something else. In other words, what your notion is proves is that any change from nothing to something must be the emergence of spacetime. You definitely give a valid argument that something cannot form without there being spacetime, but you haven't demonstrated in any logical proof that spacetime cannot emerge within nothing.
Lets take it one more way so you can see it from another angle. Perhaps we cannot empirically demonstrate that something came from nothing, but we also cannot empirically demonstrate that something always existed either. We need a logical reason why this would be, and I believe there are other compelling logical arguments that infinite time passing to get to our existent point today doesn't make any sense. Its a difficult subject for sure. :) But what do you think about this?
Is that right though? I'm not sure what it could mean for time to change. Things move from one place to another, that is a kind of change. They do so at a speed, which involves a concept of time. But can't we just replace the concept of time with counting movements? We know Earth rotates 365 times in a year. A year is a unit of time. But we don't need that do we? We can say the Earth rotates 365 times for every one rotation of the Earth around the Sun. That's just movement and counting, no? Is time reducible to that? Or is time something over and above measuring one set of movements against another? If everything stopped moving, would there be any time? What does it mean for time to 'pass' sans movement in space?
I should do a basic physics course.
No, the observed motion was a change in the fabric of spacetime.
Quoting Corvus
No, there is no thing in nothing and there is at least one physical entity in something. Therefore, nothing to something is a change.
Quoting Corvus
Spacetime curvature can affect the motion of physical objects. This effect however is very small so it goes unnoticed unless you are close to a very heavy object, such as a black hole. Physicists however observed gravitational lens and wave despite the effect being very small.
Quoting Corvus
I defined nothing, something, and time so what is left is the change. Change is a variation in the physical attributes of something.
It sounds like a voice from the deepest well of confusion. Will leave you to it. :yawn:
I cannot understand. Why the argument is an empirical observation?
Quoting Philosophim
I already argue against that.
Quoting Philosophim
OK.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, that is one explanation, something can simply exist without any cause. Spacetime is one candidate for such a scenario.
Quoting Philosophim
That is impossible because spacetime is a substance.
Quoting Philosophim
There are two arguments against the infinite past. One is based on heat-death. According to the second law of thermodynamics entropy in a closed system increases. Maximum entropy is reached when the system is uniform. In this case, no energy exchange is possible so no work is possible as well. This means that we are in a state of heat-death. Of course, it takes some time before we reach to heat-death state but if the universe has existed eternally in the past then we should be in a heat-death state. We are not in such a state therefore the universe has a beginning. Another argument is dealing with infinite regress in time. Infinite regress is of course not acceptable. Therefore, the universe has a beginning.
Yes.
Quoting bert1
It means that we go from one point in time to another point.
Quoting bert1
Yes, exactly right.
Quoting bert1
Yes, we can say that. But we cannot get rid of time since it takes a specific amount of time for Earth to rotate around the Sun. Time is especially important when you want to know the speed of Earth in this rotation.
Quoting bert1
Time persists to exist even if there is no change.
Quoting bert1
I am a physicist so I can tell you what you need. I mainly studied the philosophy of mind so I am bad in other areas of philosophy. You can tell me what I need and correct me. Deal? :)
Because our logic comes from and involves things that already exist. No one has every empirically observed 'nothing' then seen something come from it. Meaning that so far we have not seen this happen. That's the best we can say. We can't say its impossible within our general meaning of the term, 'possibility'.
What i like to do for instances like these is introduce a new term, 'plausibility'. Basically we can logically imagine and conclude all sorts of things. But its not really 'possible' unless its been empirically observed at least once. Anything which could logically be but has not been empirically observed or denied would be 'plausible'. Thus it is plausible that spacetime came from nothing. Of course, it would be equally plausible, at this point, that spacetime has always existed. Since we have two competing plausibilities, and it is currently outside the realm of empirical verifiability, we must demonstrate that one of the arguments is implausible.
Quoting MoK
If something exists without cause, that means 'nothing caused it'. And I don't mean that nothing literally caused it, but that there was nothing, and then something.
Quoting MoK
All you've been able to logically note so far is that for change to occur, there must be spacetime. You did not prove that spacetime cannot come out of nothing.
Quoting MoK
I don't disagree with you. I think ultimately the logic that there is an infinite past doesn't work out. Some people don't agree with me though, and I'm always open to being shown otherwise. :)
Quoting MoK
If the universe had a beginning, what is there before a beginning? Nothing.
Speed is irrelevant. At the level of fundamental physics the temporal order of cause and effect is, arguably, contingent.
If the temporal order is contingent at some level, then there is change without the need of time as we know it.
Would grant me that spacetime is a substance, nothing to spacetime is a change, and spacetime is needed for a change? If yes, then it is obvious that we are dealing with an infinite regress when we deal with nothing to spacetime.
Quoting Philosophim
No, it simply means that it exists.
Quoting Philosophim
So we have to see what is your opinion about my argument: Spacetime is needed for any change. Nothing to something is a change. There is no spacetime in nothing. Therefore, nothing to something is impossible.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, I agree.
Quoting Philosophim
If you grant me that nothing to something is logically impossible and spacetime is a substance then it follows that spacetime cannot come out of nothing.
Quoting Philosophim
It is not proper to say what was before the beginning of spacetime because you need other spacetime to investigate that. If there is such a spacetime then we are dealing with spacetime as a substance before the beginning of former spacetime instead of nothing.
Speed is irrelevant. At the level of fundamental physics the temporal order of cause and effect is, arguably, contingent.
If the temporal order is contingent at some level, then there is change without the need of time as we know it.
/quote]
Could you please let me know what you mean by the contingent here? The article you cite is interesting but I think I need a day or so to understand it properly.
So I think what you're going for here is saying we would need spacetime to be for spacetime to appear. But that doesn't really make sense right? If spacetime already exists, it doesn't need to create spacetime. The simplest and clearest statement is that "There was nothing, then spacetime". We don't violate that we need spacetime for change. Spacetime appeared from nothing, therefore change. So no, I don't see a reasonable infinite regress that makes sense here.
Quoting MoK
For the first part, if I were to grant you that nothing to something was impossible, that would preclude the conclusion. That's what we're trying to prove, so I can't grant you that before we've proven it. I can definitely grant you that spacetime is a substance, but I don't see anything here that grants that it cannot come out of nothing. Granted, it doesn't mean we can't still attempt the conclusion, but we need some other premise here for a logical proof.
Quoting MoK
I didn't quite get this. You don't need spacetime for spacetime. Spacetime either exists, or it does not. If we say there is a first or beginning, that means at one point it did not exist. Since we don't believe an infinite amount of time (which is a property of spacetime) has existed, then it means that spacetime has not always existed. Meaning that before spacetime, there must have been nothing.
According to this article on Time and Physics there might not be a temporal structure at a fundamental level (referring to recent theories of quantum gravity).
If they're right, then time may be an emergent property, or contingent as in being relative to observers, time-symmetry, or detachable from causation (as described in that other article on Backwards-Causation).
No, you said time is a substance. you were asked you to explain how you reached that conclusion.
Time is defined as the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event.
Time if anything is a human construct used to understand the passage of events.
Well, that, nothing to spacetime, cannot happen. I think we agree that spacetime is a substance. Therefore spacetime is something. Let's plug spacetime as something into the argument and see what we get.
Quoting Philosophim
Well, if you grant me that spacetime is a substance, in other words, it is something, then we can plug this into the argument and see what we get.
Quoting Philosophim
What is before the beginning of time and nothing to something are sides of the same coin. It is not proper to say what is before the beginning of time since there is no time before the beginning of time.
Any theory in which time is an emergent property within must be a dynamical theory. Time however is the main variable in any dynamical theory. This means that time has to be emergent and at the same time the main variable of such a theory. This is however problematic since time is required for the emergence of time.
Spacetime is a substance and has a curvature around massive objects. Spacetime can affect the motion of any other objects so in this sense it exists and has a property, its curvature.
It may not be mathematical but conceptual, such as suggested by Sartre in 'Being and Nothingness-. It spans the logistics of maths and ideas of meaning. So, I would say that the problem with this thread is to reduce it to a formula. 'Nothing' may not be a specific value, but an area of meaning and linguistics,which may go beyond logistics of mere binary divisions and thinking.
I think you've made a pretty good argument so far, but here is where you're stuck. I think its fine to call spacetime a substance, but plugging it into the argument we haven't proven that spacetime cannot come from nothing. We never noted that substances couldn't come from nothing, only that they needed spacetime. Saying, "Nothing to spacetime cannot happen" is the conclusion, so we can't use it as a premise. We have to have true premises that necessarily lead to the conclusion being true, without the premises needing the conclusion to be true.
Quoting MoK
Here you run into another problem. If there is no time before the beginning of time (spacetime), then what is there? There can't be something that's different from spacetime because you required that spacetime exist for change to happen. And you can't have infinitely regressive time as you've already ruled that out. The only option left is that nothing was before spacetime.
Quoting Banno
Though OP says time is needed for change, he does not say it is sufficient. Time is needed for change, so where there is change there is time, always. However, it is not always that where there is time there is change.
We are looking for this, where X is the result.
So it would be instead that T ? C.
https://www.ncl.ac.uk/webtemplate/ask-assets/external/maths-resources/economics/sets-and-logic/necessity-and-sufficiency.html
https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/truth-tables/truth-tables.html
OK, this is the last arrow in my quiver: Any theory in which time is an emergent property within must be a dynamical theory (for example the theory that explains nothing to spacetime). Time however is the main variable in any dynamical theory. This means that time has to be emergent and at the same time the main variable of such a theory. This is however problematic since time is required for the emergence of time.
Quoting Philosophim
There is simply no point before the beginning of time so we cannot say what is before the beginning of time. Think of the beginning of time as a solid and impenetrable wall. We cannot get through this wall and ask what is before. In fact, we are committing an error in saying what is before the beginning of time since before indicates the existence of a time before the beginning of time. This time however does not exist since we are talking about the beginning of time.
I can define nothing as a condition that there is no thing, no spacetime, no material,...
Nothing to something is F, change is C, nothing is n, time is t.
P1) ?x(C(x) ? t)
P2 is a repetition of P1.
P3)
P4) n ? ¬t
C1)
C2) ¬?x(F(x))
This the best that I managed after a few tries, but I can't write change in nothing.
Quoting Jack Cummins
:up:
I see what you mean.
Quoting Lionino
Thank you very much for putting in the effort to convert my pseudo-syllogism into a syllogism.
So my argument looks like this after your correction:
P1) Time is needed for change
P2) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing
P3) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P1 and P3)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P2 and C1)
We don't usually write the implication backwards. C ? T.
But, in the absence of further clarification, I Understand to be making the claim that time is necessary and sufficient for change, hence T ? C.
I think this an incorrect assumption, and that time can pass without change.
But again, I think the whole framing of this issue here is misguided. Logic does not allow us to derive anything that is not in the assumptions, and hence logic alone cannot deduce the existence of god or of a first cause or of something never coming from nothing. A logic does not have ontological implications outside of whatever presumptions that logic makes.
Logic is just a way of talking clearly.
Trying to throw in some extra vocabulary doesn't solve the issue. Lord knows its a common tactic among many on the forums. :D We should be able to explain everything in simple terms. Simply put, if your conclusion is part of your premises "that something cannot emerge within nothing" then its not a viable argument. Remember as well, time cannot exist on its own, so we always have to be referencing spacetime as well. Spacetime is a substance, not emergent.
Quoting MoK
Again, the added vocabulary and sentence structure does not negate the simple fact. There was either something, or nothing. If you claim we cannot reference before spacetime, that means there was nothing before spacetime. If you claim spacetime always existed, then we have an infinite regress. There is no third option, just a desire that we not pick one of the two. 'Nothing' and 'something' are binaries. If there is not something, there is nothing. If there is not nothing, there is something.
Quoting Banno
I thought you were making the point that T ? C when replying to Bob. But nevermind.
Quoting Banno
Exactly. The good old defining something into existence.
Please provide a link to this information. As far as I know it is nothing but a concept used to refer to points in time in space. But I an interested in viewing anything you have to further my knowledge.
I think the correct statement is that time is necessary for change. By this, I mean that there cannot be any change if there is no time.
Quoting Banno
You are correct. Time can pass without any change (for example in the state of heat death).
Quoting Banno
Thanks. I get your point. I couldn't argue anything without those premises.
Ok, I can simplify this even further. I think we can agree that spacetime is necessary for change. I think we can agree that nothing to spacetime is a change as well. This means that we need spacetime for this change, nothing to spacetime. But there is no spacetime in nothing therefore nothing to spacetime is not possible.
Quoting Philosophim
Well, non. :) I said before that nothing to something and nothing is before the beginning of time are sides of a coin. If we accept that there is nothing before the beginning of time then it follows that nothing to something is possible. That is what I am trying to prove, nothing to something is not possible. So if we agree that nothing to something is not possible then it follows that it is improper to say that there was nothing before the beginning of time.
Well, that is a lot of reading but here you go (what I quote and write may be enough):
1) Introduction to general relativity
2) This, gravitational lens, explains how a massive object bends light from a distant source as it travels toward an observer.
3) Gravitational wave
No, I don't think so because what you've concluded is that we need spacetime for other changes besides spacetime. You haven't proven that spacetime itself cannot come from nothing. We could also say change must involve spacetime. Nothing to something is a change, and it involves spacetime.
Quoting MoK
This is assuming the conclusion is assuming the conclusion is true. This is classical logical fallacy called "Begging the question". If the only way your premises work is if you assume the conclusion is true, then nothing has been proven.
I think it was a good start, but you've reached the logical end with the premises and definitions you've put forth. I'm not saying you shouldn't keep trying, but at this point you'll need a new tact. Either new definitions, or a revision of premises is required.
We have to agree whether nothing to spacetime is a change or not. Yes or no?
Quoting Philosophim
Actually, I have two strategies to argue that it is improper to say what is before the beginning of time: (1) There is no point before the beginning of time. If there was such a point then it means that spacetime exists before the beginning of time so what we assume as the beginning of time is not the beginning of time and (2) Nothing to something is impossible which is the subject of discussion.
Yes. :) And the above still applies.
Quoting MoK
If there is no point prior to spacetime (remember, you noted earlier time cannot exist alone, its a property of spacetime) then there is nothing.
Quoting MoK
But spacetime is a substance, and has the property of time. You can't say spacetime existed before time. That would be like saying my red hat existed before red. Its not about what we assume to be the beginning of time, its about if there is something before time.
Quoting MoK
Right, but as its been noted, that's your conclusion. If you assume the conclusion is true, you haven't proven the conclusion is true. Its just a belief at that point.
With how you've defined everything, you've worked yourself into a corner. You can't have something before spacetime, which means that nothing was before spacetime. And you can't have infinite amount of time that has passed prior to now, which means spacetime couldn't have always existed. But keep trying!
I'm not sure it's valid. I see a conflict of scope in the way "nothing" is used (you've made a post somewhere pretty much addressing this).
Let me make it as short as possible:
The two P's I'd accept inuitively:
P1) Time is needed for any change.
P2) There is no time in nothing.
The logical conclusion here is: There is no change in nothing.
Now let's assume:
P3) Nothing to something is a change.
The logical conclusion here is, then: The change from nothing to something doesn't occur in nothing.
I sort of have a hunch that either P2 and P3 are inconsistent with each other, or they're not the same modality ("P3) If nothing to something occurs it's a change.") But who knows.
Maybe set-theory can help? The set of all existing things is called "nothing" when empty, and "something" when not. There's temporal continuity, and what's in the set depends on "when" we look. That would leave the empty set with an undefined time if there's no time before the beginning of time (as he later states). We can't check the empty set, because there's no time t(n-1) at t(0), and at t(0) the set is no longer empty, as it contains t(0). Not familiar enough with set-theory to know if that makes any sense (I have a hunch that the "set of all sets that don't contain themselves" may trip me up here).
Well, if nothing to spacetime is a change then we need spacetime for it! That is true since spacetime is necessary for any change.
Quoting Philosophim
No, please see below.
Quoting Philosophim
True, and that is the problem. Saying that nothing exists before the beginning of time assumes that there is a point at which nothing exists at that point.
Quoting Philosophim
Let's see how our debate proceeds in regards to nothing to something is impossible.
Please note that I renewed my argument because of a hidden premise (HP). Please find the new argument in the following:
P1) Time is needed for change
P2) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing (HP)
P3) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P1 and P3)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P2 and C1)
Ah, I missed that. I'll need some time to think (primarily, if I can construct a coherent theory of change and time based on what you've said).
The argument seems valid. The issue is that many premises are doubtable. Is it even possible or rational to talk nothingness about and what properties it has? "There is no time in nothing" seems to mean absolutely nothing without further elaboration.
Well, this has proved to be a contentious issue, which is to me somewhat puzzling. There are plenty of folk hereabouts who will agree with you, but I am not one. I see no reason not to say that changes can occur across distances, as well as times. And I think the mathematics and physics back up this approach, since we can calculate change over distance (?x/?y) for various things, and we have the physics of statics, Hook's law and so on.
I'd be interested in why you think this to be the case.
Quoting MoK
Cheers.
I suspect so. The usual conclusion is that one cannot have a set of all sets. If that is what your "set of all existing things" is, then it's ill-formed. But a big part of the problem here is that it is very unclear what "nothing" and "existing" and "something" are doing; they are not being used in the way they are usually used, and so it is unclear what conventions are in place.
And I'd point out again that it seems highly contentious that a logical argument could reach a conclusion that was not somehow implicit in the assumptions of the argument - that something could "pop into existence in a puff of logic", to misquote Douglas Adams.
Again, I think the style of this argument is corrupt, that there is something amiss in the way the issue is framed.
Quoting MoK
But if spacetime appears, we have spacetime. If you're saying we need spacetime before spacetime, that doesn't make any sense. The only thing you've noted is that we need spacetime for other changes besides spacetime itself. You have not proven, only asserted, that spacetime cannot come from nothing. That doesn't work. Prove it, and you have an argument. If not, you're stuck.
Quoting MoK
Its not an assumption, its a logical conclusion based on your point. If you say spacetime has a beginning, and spacetime is the only way for other things to change, there can only have been nothing before spacetime. You can't win on this one Mok. If you say, "Begin" that implies there was something before. If there was not something before, then nothing was before. And if you say something was before, then it looks like something can cause spacetime to appear. And if that's the case, what is that something? So either way, you cannot prove that something cannot come from nothing with your current set up.
Is says there does not exist any proposition x, such that is it true; and this was not my original intention, admittedly, but it is nevertheless well-formedunless you were referring to how it isnt a successful parsing of nothingness into logic.
Predicate logic. There does not exist any entity such that it has the property of existing.
Fair enough, and agreed.
There cannot be such a thing as a epistemic entity because it is, when taken literally, a contradiction in terms: an entity implies something within the ontology of reality, and epistemology pertains solely to knowledge (and specifically not ontology).
Ok, so ??M -> ??T is it is necessary that every motion is ??? and that entails that it is necessary that there exists a time. That doesnt make any sense to me.
?M1t1?M2t2 ??Ag,T,M means there exists a motion and time such that there exists another motion and time and that entails it is necessary that there is an agento, time, and motion. Again, I dont know what this is trying to convey.
I see. Heres my understanding of it in syllogisms (and let me know if I am misunderstanding):
P1: If an entity is the pure negation of all possible existence, then it cannot be subjected to temporality.
P2: Nothing is the pure negation of all possible existence.
C1: Therefore, nothing cannot be subjected to temporality.
P3: Change requires temporality.
P4: Nothing cannot be subjected to temporality.
C2: Therefore, nothing cannot be subjected to change.
P5: Nothing becoming something requires change.
P6: Nothing cannot be subjected to change.
C3: Therefore, nothing cannot be subjected to becoming (something).
Firstly, I underlined entity in P1 to denote that this sort of entity is not something but must be analyzed as if it were: it is the incoherent positing of something which is itself nothingand there is no way, in language, to say it otherwise. Analyzing nothing is a tricky endeavor.
Secondly, this whole argument rests on time (i.e., temporality) being identical to motionwhich I have my doubts. I dont see anything incoherent with positing that literally movement/motion is only a biproduct of how we represent the world and not something that is happening in the world as it is in-itself.
Thirdly, the crux of the argument is that in order for nothing to become something, nothing must change. I am fine with this, as long as you define nothing like P2.
Fourthly, and most importantly, none of this proves that it is logically impossible for nothing to become something.
This is what I just spoke of with respect to time being identical to motion (in the sense of actual movement). I personally would go for a metaphysic of time where the temporal ordering of things is real (i.e., exists in reality mind-independently) but that the motion we experience is just a biproduct of the modes by which we intuit and cognize objects. In other words, I literally envision reality in-itself as a motionless web of relations, of which one of those relations is temporal ordering, and our brains-in-themselves are interpreting them, from the standpoint motionlessness, into motion. As odd as that may seem prima facie, I think theres sufficient philosophical and scientific reasons to believe this. My point is just to give you a counter position to digest and chew on.
I think general relativitiy works fine without that metaphysical assumption. One can posit that temporal relations are real but that they exist as a giant block (a time block) (or even a space/time block) and, as such, the literal motion you experience is no where to be foundbut the relations governing that motion are real.
If one goes the #2 route, then either (1) everything is in motion and extension or (2) space and time, as substances, exist in a void. #1 is less parsimonious than positing what I said above, and #2 is absurd.
No, it doesn't. See here. It's doesn't say anything, because it is not well-formed. Literally, it says there does not exist an x such that x - which says nothing.
It cannot be constructed using the rules of syntax for a first order logic.
How would you know if something is an entity without knowing what it is?
Quoting Bob Ross
That is not propositional logic. It is an EL (Epistemic Logic) operator which means, Agent "knows". It could have been "K" for knows in general, but the box implies knowing via observation.
Quoting Bob Ross
If there was Motion1 to Motion2 with time1 to time2, then the Agent knows Time generated from the Motion via Observation. This is what it means.
To me, spacetime is a substance because it affects the motion of other objects and light. It also carries energy in the form of gravitational waves. There is extensive debate and literature about the nature of spacetime and whether it is a substance or not. Perhaps you enjoy this. I studied this article a long time ago and had a hard time grasping all its content. I hope you do better than me.
To me, nothing is a condition that there is no thing, no spacetime, no material,... There is no thing in nothing therefore nothing does not have any property. I don't know how I could elaborate further on nothing. I can answer other questions however if you have any.
You are correct. We could have changes in a thing in space such as temperature, pressure, and the like. By change here I mean temporal change rather than spatial change.
I already argue that spacetime is needed for any change and you agreed with it. What is left is whether we can agree that nothing to spacetime is a change or not.
Quoting Philosophim
Could we agree that there is no point before the beginning of time? Yes or no.
Yep. Cheers.
Now (1) in the OP is
Quoting MoK
can be adjusted by simply specifying that the topic of discourse is change over time. but then what of (2)?
Quoting MoK
Needn't someone simply say that the change from nothing to something is then not in the topic of discourse - that it does not occur over time?
Seems this needs addressing. Arguably, the beginning of time is not a change over time.
Thank you very much for your input and the discussion which was very informative for me.
Quoting Bob Ross
I see what you mean. I however have a problem with this premise. I don't see how "then it cannot be subjected to temporality" follows. Do you mind elaborating?
The way I conclude that was based on two assumptions, spacetime is a substance and there is no spacetime in nothing.
Quoting Bob Ross
Well, to me motion is a sort of change in which the position of an object changes so to me motion is not identical to time.
Quoting Bob Ross
I would say that there must be a change from nothing rather than nothing must change.
Quoting Bob Ross
I see what you mean.
Quoting Bob Ross
I think you are talking about the block universe (correct me if I am wrong). I however have a problem with the way you describe motion from a motionless thing. Mainly our brains are parts of the universe so how can we perceive any change considering that everything in the universe, including our brains, is changeless?
Quoting Bob Ross
Well, there is extensive literature on the nature of spacetime and whether it is a substance or not. You may like this article.
Yes, and I made two points you'll have to consider.
1. We have nothing, then spacetime. Change happened with spacetime.
2. There is nothing in your argument that proves nothing cannot come before spacetime.
Quoting MoK
Before the beginning of spacetime? Lets assume yes for the argument. In which case, nothing came before spacetime. Its either nothing, or something. There are no other options.
'Nothing', as a concept, nevertheless must be definable if it is to be utilized in discussion. It cannot simply be equivalent to no "specific value".
Personally, I think 'nothing' is pure negation of all possible existence.
That is true, it should be C -> T.
Sure. Then use the predicate logic formulation I made.
It is an entity iff it exists.
Oh I see. I was interpreting it under modal logic, not propositional logic.
Oh dear.
Quoting MoK
Yes, I can imagine.
Things exist in minds as well as in empirical world. When things exist in mind, they are called concepts and ideas.
Yes. I can adjust the premise to Time is needed for any temporal change. Thanks for the correction and the contribution.
Quoting Banno
This premise is the second premise of the old argument. I don't need that anymore unless I want to make a reductio ad absurdum argument. Here is my second argument which has one hidden premise (HP)
P1) Time is needed for any temporal change
P2) Nothing to something needs a temporal change in nothing (HP)
P3) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, temporal change in nothing is not possible (From P1 and P3)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P2 and C1)
Please note that Bob Ross also developing another argument.
Quoting Banno
I cannot follow you here. What do you mean by "the beginning of time is not a change over time."?
(source:Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems Using a Hegelian Method, Solution 1)
Yes, but you have to wait for it. I am trying to counter this simply by saying that nothing to spacetime is a change.
Quoting Philosophim
Sure, but there is no spacetime in nothing therefore change from nothing is not possible.
Quoting Philosophim
Sure there is. Nothing to spacetime is a change (you agree with this). Any change requires spacetime (you agree with this too). Therefore, we need spacetime to have nothing to spacetime.
Quoting Philosophim
That point is a point in spacetime for two reasons: It is a point (point in a variable) and it is before the beginning of time. Simply there is a temporal change from that point to the beginning of time. This means what we call the beginning of time is not really the beginning of time but the point that we agree on its existence is the beginning of time. This is however problematic. If that point refers to a condition that there is nothing then we agreed that there is no spacetime in nothing so we have a problem here since that point is the beginning of spacetime.
You can have,
Physical nothing
Or
Physical object
And mentally we have,
Brain; (the idea of nothing)
Or
Brain; (the idea of a physical object)
So just what you were saying. But it's different physically and mentally. The physical follows laws of physics and the mental is at will.
Edit: Note the reality of physical nothing may not exist....maybe an open question.
I would be happy to see an argument for nothing is illogical physically.
There is no waiting for it, as there is nothing doing the waiting.
Quoting MoK
No, but spacetime happened after there being nothing, so we have a change, and we have spacetime. In your case we have the start of spacetime.
Quoting MoK
But there is spacetime. Nothing, then spacetime. A change has occurred and it involves the start of spacetime. Unless you're saying spacetime cannot start? If spacetime cannot start, then it has always existed. But that contradicts your previous statement that an infinite amount of spacetime cannot have existed previously to our own time. How should we resolve this?
Quoting MoK
Isn't this another contradiction? First, I've noticed a pattern. You keep using time independently of space. But very early on you noted that time could not be independent of space, that it was a property of a combination called spacetime. One thing we shouldn't do in a discussion is ascertain that a property cannot exist independently, then use it as if it is independent. Are you sure you want to keep time and space together? If so, lets stop using time independently.
Currently what should be said is: "That point is a point in spacetime for two reasons: It is a point (point in a variable) and it is before the beginning of spacetime."
As you can see, the above contradicts itself. I cannot be both a point in spacetime, and before spacetime.
Quoting MoK
This is a contradiction. Something cannot both be a beginning and not a beginning.
Keep trying! Lets see if these contradictions can be resolved.
You agreed that nothing to spacetime is a change. Don't we need spacetime for this change? If yes, then we need spacetime for nothing to spacetime. This leads to infinite regress though.
Quoting Philosophim
Sure there is spacetime. Spacetime cannot begin to exist though. Spacetime simply exists, in this sense is fundamental, and has a beginning.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, it is a contradiction. See below.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, that is a contradiction and that is my point. I was trying hard to take you to the point that you see the contradiction. It is improper to talk about a point before the beginning of spacetime since that point is again a point in spacetime and therefore is the beginning of time.
Right. I never agreed that we need spacetime before a change can happen. I agreed that we need spacetime for a change to happen. The start of spacetime is a change because it involves spacetime.
Quoting MoK
Mok, go over the sentence again carefully. You're saying it cannot begin to exist, but it has a beginning. That doesn't make any sense. Can you get what you intend without making a contradiction like this?
Correct. But the only thing that I need to show that nothing to spacetime leads to an infinite regress is that we need spacetime for any change to happen.
Quoting Philosophim
Well, I have to elaborate on what I mean by begin to exist then. By this, I mean that spacetime didn't exist and then exists.
In 13.8 billion years of the universe there has never been a time when a physical nothing has ever existed. Is that right? Are there special cases?
Mentally we can conceive of nothing but that is the only place it ever comes up.
So in the logic of nothing to something you are dealing with two mental abstractions only. Isn't that the only scenario? Is logic expected to work the the same way on mental abstractions as it does on theories of physical matter?
Is there a way to resolve this?
Edit: I'm thinking as a mathematical object only
So this is trivial....nothing does not equal something.
Where is the infinite regress? If we don't need spacetime before spacetime (as this sentence doesn't make any sense), and go from nothing to spacetime, how is that infinitely regressive?
Quoting MoK
And if this is the case, then what was around if spacetime did not exist? Nothing. Since you stated that you have to have spacetime for change to happen, there must have been nothing before spacetime.
Correct.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
No.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
No, nothing could exist as a physical condition where there is no thing. It however follows that nothing comes from nothing as wisely stated by Parmenides.
P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible
Quoting Mark Nyquist
I think the physical theories must respect the logic.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
What do you mean?
Okay, but I think it's an open question if physical nothing is possible and your own conclusion argues against it.
Less than a week old but it works.
We need one thing in here, nothing to spacetime needs spacetime. We start from nothing and ask ourselves how we could have spacetime (let's call this spacetime ST1). This requires the existence of another spacetime (let's call this spacetime ST2) since we agreed that nothing to spacetime requires spacetime. So we cannot have ST1 without having ST2. In the same manner, we cannot have ST2 if we don't have ST3, etc.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, if we don't have spacetime we simply have nothing. Why? Because physical entities or things occupy space.
Quoting Philosophim
This we already discussed it. There cannot be nothing before spacetime since it leads to a contradiction.
Considering that something exists right now then it follows that nothing is not the initial condition if that is what you are trying to say.
Ah, ok. I think you missed this point I made before, so I'll point it out again.
You never said we need spacetime BEFORE a change can occur.
You said we need spacetime FOR a change to occur.
Nothing, then a change to space time, has spacetime.
Saying you need something before you have it is a contradiction. Cake must exist before cake can happen for example. :) I wish I could have my breakfast before I make it, but sadly, that is not life.
Quoting MoK
Then we've invalidated the conclusion that a change cannot happen from nothing. Let me break it down.
A. Spacetime has a beginning.
B. Spacetime is required for change
C. Since no change can happen if spacetime is not involved, there was nothing before spacetime.
Conclusion: A change in which there was nothing, then spacetime, had to have happened.
Yes, I never said before but for.
Quoting Philosophim
What do you mean? I believe something is missing in this statement.
Quoting Philosophim
Correct. :)
Quoting Philosophim
We have been through this. I disagree with C.
And what is change? When something loses, gains, or changes a property. Everything with a property is something. By your definition of nothing, it cannot undergo change. The argument then becomes analytic, which is uninformative.
If you grant that nothing somehow undergoes change, a property is attached onto a substance that was not there previously and thus we have creation ex nihilo, which is counter to your original argument that nothing can't become something.
So we either have an analytic statement or a refutation of your thesis.
Let me phrase it this way: Nothing to something involves spacetime. Spacetime is the result of nothing to something. Spacetime is there, so a change occurred. The only way I can see this not making sense if you want there to be spacetime before a change can happen. But that wasn't your premise. You can change it now if you would like, but then you have to prove that spacetime cannot come from nothing. And as I noted, I don't see either of us having any proof of this, and I think I put forward some decent logic why this doesn't fit with the rest of your premises either.
Quoting MoK
And that's fine. At this point you've made your points, I've made my counterpoints, and there is nothing left to add. Its been a nice discussion on this. :) But I think we've made up our own minds so all that's left is to agree to disagree. See you around elsewhere on the forums Mok!
Just for background on this topic:
Mathematical theories are supported by mathematical proofs.
Physical theories are support by the preponderance of the physical evidence and are subject to revision.
I'm just pointing out a tricky situation you need to think about. The known end point is that physical matter does exist (now). So does some start point of nothing existing have any basis in physical evidence?
As I said, as mathematical objects something does not equal nothing.
Well, that is correct that we normally use the term change when the properties of something change. The condition that there is nothing is however different from the condition that there is something. I don't know what other term I can use if not change.
Quoting Lionino
No. The creation ex nihilo is not possible. That is true since we are dealing with a change, nothing to something due to the creation, and we need spacetime for this change. Spacetime does not exist in nothing. So we need spacetime in the first place. But the creation of spacetime from nothing is not possible as well since in this case, we are dealing with an infinite regress. That is true since spacetime is needed for the creation of spacetime.
Quoting Lionino
Neither.
Not necessarily; but I don't see the relevance of this.
Well, to show that we are dealing with an infinite regress I just need my premise: Spacetime is needed for any change.
Quoting Philosophim
That is alright to me. I am not here to change peoples' minds but to argue what I think is correct and enhance my thinking. :wink: I hope to see you elsewhere in this forum.
P1 was just my best guess at what you were trying to convey in the OPbut it may not be. The reasoning behind P1 would be that something that is the pure negation of all possible existence would be, as per its nature, NOT something that exists and time only affects things that exist; therefore, if there is nothing, which is the negation of all possible things (hence the no + thing), then there isnt anything to be subjected to time.
Oh, well, then, your argument would need to clarify your metaphysical position on time and space; which sounds a bit like you believe (1) time and space are substances (which I deny), that (2) they are united (which I deny), and that (3) nothing be subject to space-time (which I agree with if I grant the previous two).
The problem, though, is that this doesnt negate the possibility of things that pop into existence with no reason behind it. This just implies that there isnt anything a part of nothing.
That is fair. I would say, more generally, that theres nothing incoherent with positing the actual temporal sequences of things as simply the form or mode by which one experiences and thusly they are not substances in reality.
Then I dont see how your argument holds: a change from nothing but not a change in nothing does not violate that there is no spacetime in nothing because the change is outside of, or beyond, the nothingit is in something that the change occurs: there exists something in which there is no X, and then X poofs into existence out of thin air.
Yeah, its a real pickle. Honestly, I lean back and forth between block universe and transcendental idealism style nihilism on time and space; and both are subjected to your worry here.
If we are representing reality to ourselves via our representative faculties, then doesnt that imply a temporal process? I would say no, and this leads me to a much stronger agnosticism on the ontology of reality than I would suspect you are willing to accept.
Take traditional transcendental idealism (i.e., Kantianism): if space and time are purely the modes by which we intuit and cognize objects, then it necessarily follows that however we are representing, truly as it is in-itself, objects to ourselves is completely unknown to us other than indirectly via our [human] understanding of that process (which is inevitably in the form of space and time).
As I discussed this before considering that something exists right now implements that the initial condition cannot be nothing. One however needs to prove change in nothing is not possible as I did. We also can conclude that nothing to something is not possible as well once we conclude that change in nothing is not possible.
I see what you mean and I agree with you. Time simply relates different states of affairs temporarily when there is something. I think the rest of your argument follows then.
Quoting Bob Ross
Well, that is the subject of debate to the best of my understanding. So let's put it aside for now as your argument follows so we don't need my old argument.
Quoting Bob Ross
I see.
Quoting Bob Ross
Correct. I agree with you.
Quoting Bob Ross
I see. Thanks for the elaboration.
Naturally. If your definition of nothing includes that it has no property, there are only two scenarios, it either stays as nothing (no change), or acquires a property (change), becoming something (creation ex nihilo). The first possibility is analytic because it purely follows from your definition.
Quoting MoK
Now your argument is morphing from "nothing to something is impossible" to "spacetime cannot begin to exist", which would be an argument for eternalism of spacetime.
A purely physical nothing would be a nothing that stays so without us even needing to think about it. It would be independent of thought. But that is totally unverifiable. Because, if you check that this nothing exists, well, too late, you're using thought again. That is the powerful argument by Berkeley. And it doesn't lead to a pure and insane subjectivism though, as Berkeley himself noted and as I tried to express in a recent message in the forum, in another discussion. I'm not fully Berkeleyan but this argument is very correct and important.
A lot depends on how close our best models of physics are to the actual real physics.
Nothing stays as nothing. But we need to show this. Bob Ross elegantly put this in an argument:
P1: If an entity is the pure negation of all possible existence, then it cannot be subjected to temporality.
P2: Nothing is the pure negation of all possible existence.
C1: Therefore, nothing cannot be subjected to temporality.
P3: Change requires temporality.
P4: Nothing cannot be subjected to temporality.
C2: Therefore, nothing cannot be subjected to change.
P5: Nothing becoming something requires change.
P6: Nothing cannot be subjected to change.
C3: Therefore, nothing cannot be subjected to becoming (something).
Quoting Lionino
Spacetime has a beginning for two reasons, the current state of the universe is not heat death and infinite regress in spacetime is not acceptable. Spacetime however as you said cannot begin to exist.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
If time doesn't inhabit the material-physicality of our phenomenal universe, then [math]e = mc^2[/math] is false?
(I just saw that this relatively old message of mine was never posted. My mistake. Sorry. Anyway, I post it now. It might be of interest to you. :smile:)
Quoting MoK
Well, this is debetable. Anyway, it refers to a specific theory: the energy wave theory, where it is considered a medium that allows the transfer of energy of its components. But I believe it is used for descriptive purposes, as I mentioned.
In reality, space and time cannot be perceived as physical things, as matter and enery can.
Neither can space or time produce change or movement. Rather the opposite: change and movement produce the notion of space and time.
"Specifically, spacetime might emerge from the materials we usually think of as living in the universematter and energy itself. It's not [that] we first have space and time and then we add in some matter, Wüthrich says. Rather something material may be a necessary condition for there to be space and time."
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-spacetime-really-made-of)
Quoting MoK
A state of affairs refers to the general situation and circumstances connected with something. So, it cannot be applied to nothing.
E = mc2 says nothing about time.
Besides, matter is something that has mass and occupies space. Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. So time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The full form of the equation: [math]E=p^2c^2+m^2c^4[/math] clarifies its inclusion of time dilation:
Einsteins equation may be combined with Plancks to give a relation between time (frequency) and energy:
[math]E^2=hf=mc^2[/math]
[math]f=E/h=mc^2/h[/math]
All instances of time dilation, whether due to motion or gravity, are directly derivable from the potential energy difference between two points of observation. Effectively, time dilation enforces energy conservation.
The example given by Einstein in an early paper (prior to General Relativity) in which he derived gravitational time dilation is matter being lowered into a gravitational field on a tether while extracting energy (like a water wheel), converted to photons, captured back at the top and reconverted to matter again.
If you get the same amount of matter, you can repeat indefinitely producing a perpetual motion machine (or, I suppose, you might be extracting mass from the gravitational object). Einstein reasoned that the frequency of the photons produced by the conversion to energy must be less, and this must reflect time dilation in the gravitational field.
Quoting Quora
Quoting Alkis Piskas
By what means do you sever space and time?
I don't know what you are trying to prove. You are changing your previous premises (direct or indirect). It And in doing so you avoid to reply to my premises:
Initially, you indicated (indirectly) that my statement "there is no time --contained or involved-- in something either" makes E=mc2 false.
Then, to my reply that "E = mc2 says nothing about time" you responded with "The full form of the equation: E = p2c2 + m2c4 clarifies its inclusion of time dilation.". And that "Einsteins equation may be combined with Plancks to give a relation between time (frequency) and energy: E2 = hf = mc2, f = E/h = mc2/h". First of all, what do you mean "may be combined"? Are they or are they are not? And is this something, a possibility that you thought of yourself? Because I couldn'f find anything about all that in the Web ...
Whatever is the case, nothing of all this constitutes any answer to my statement, i,.e. that time is not included in matter. They only say about how matter can affect (dilate) time and how time and energy are related. But who has talked about the relation of matter/energy and time?
I'm telling all this to show you that you are going around my statements/premises --well, and yours too! :smile:-- avoiding actually to answer them.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Quoting Alkis Piskas
As you say, I indirectly raised a question about the truth content of:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
and
[math]E=mc^2[/math]
considered in conjunction with each other.
Yes. I want us to consider whether the two propositions are mutually exclusive. No doubt your proposition, like Einstein's proposition, involves a complex narrative of related concepts and information that needs unpacking. Given this complexity, I intend to proceed by looking at some of the parts of the whole individually before zooming out to a broad overview of the truth-content question I have raised.
Since I have to move around and look at different aspects of various parts of this complex narrative, it might appear that I'm shifting my ground and evading probing questions.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Please click on the link below to find a supporting narrative for my argument.
How is E=mc^2 Related to Time?
(After reading Vincent Emery, scroll down to Robert Shuler.)
I use this supporting narrative to argue that: a) the equation entails time dilation phenomena interwoven with mass and energy phenomena, and thus it does have something to say about time; b) given the interweave of time dilation, mass and energy, we can raise questions about the truth content of your claim about our phenomenal universe: "There is no time --contained or involved-- in something either. Things are not composed of time."
Here's one of my counter-narratives: Time is essential to the thingliness of material objects. I can use the relativistic shrinkage of length and increase of mass of a material object due to acceleration to argue that time, space and matter are connected.
I have given a look to this Quora question and answers in my search that I talked about. They are based on personal thought experimentation, like yours. (In fact, I thought already that this is where you got your peoposition.) Yet, again, they talk about the relation of E = mc2 with time, which is different from my simple position that time is not contained in matter. Also, please note that such a reference or the argumentation included in it would not stand in any serious philosophical discussion.
Also, think this: if such a proposition were any good at all, it wouldn't stay in Quora''s shelves!
In short, this is not a valid reference.
I'm afraid that you are trying to prove the unprovable, ucarr.
"e=mc2
?
=
?
?
2"
is false. This fact is demonstrated by the need for what is called "relativistic mass".
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Wrong. Both Vincent Emery and Robert Shuler use calculations derived from [math]E=mc^2[/math] to support their conclusions. This is what scientists do. Either the math is right or it is wrong. You cannot evaluate their arguments as false without doing your own calculations derived from [math]E=mc^2[/math] such that they contradict Emery and Shuler.
As to my claim about your proposition and [math]E=mc^2[/math] being mutually exclusive, it likewise is not a thought experiment by virtue of the math of Emery and Shuler that I cite for support.
Emery, Shuler and I might be wrong, but our error is not proven until you provide your own contradictory math.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Regarding your above proposition, consider the cesium atomic clock: a) transitions between the spin states of the cesium nucleus produce a frequency used in the atomic clock's measurement of time; b) the frequency of the transition states of the cesium nucleus involves: energy, mass, motion (and therefore space) as integral parts of the measurement of time.
Cesium Standard
If time is an emergent property of the cesium atom's nucleic transitions between spin states, then, as such, time is part of a networked complex of energy, mass, motion and space.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Why do you not answer my question: By what means do you sever space and time?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I've learned that the concept of relativistic mass is deemed troublesome and dubious by some. Can you elaborate how it falsifies [math]E=mc^2[/math]?
The laws of physics break down at the singularity in the beginning... and we don't know what dark energy is and something is driving the current expansion of the universe.
There is a solution to this in the form of back propagation of energy. So at the singularity a physical is affecting another physical.
If a future source of energy supply exists and it has the ability to back propagate through physical matter then a number of problems can be solved together.
More of a philosophical approach forced on us because the known physics fails.
My version.
I'll give you something simple, but a highfalutin physics know it all type is likely to tell you how wrong I am.
I believe the formula applies to a body at rest, so it assumes a rest frame for the mass. But in relativity theory bodies are not at rest, they are moving relative to other bodies. So an adjustment needs to be made to account for the movement of the body with mass.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
What's back propagation?
Retro causality is another term.
If you think of the arrow of time, back propagation is energy, or possibly a signal, moving in the opposite direction.
I know it's speculative. But the logic points in that direction as a possibility.
We are looking at the idea of nothing causing something and that seems illogical.
A timeline with nothing becoming something seems illogical.
Back propagation of energy is physical so if it was present at the singularity it could have caused the big bang.
It's just a philosophy approach and I don't know of any physical evidence to support it, however physics as we know it is failing so it's worth a look. Also the question of dark energy could be one in the same problem.
I forgot an important part.
If you think of a time line with a duration of time (instead of an instant) moving with the arrow of time then the backward propagation only exists in the duration....moving backward.
And the backward energy flow gives present matter it's form.
Try this,
Take a sheet of lined paper and write t1 to t10 down the left side.
Draw a box next to t1. It represents a duration of physical matter during the duration.
Draw a box next to t2 shifted to the right by say a third the duration of t1. Same size.
And so on down the page.
Think of the boxes as matter progressing through time in 3D.
Place your pencil at the lower right box and without leaving the page draw a line of causality to the upper left box.
So that's a pipeline for back propagation .
Does it work? I don't know. Devils in the details.
Patterns? Signals? Computation? Standing wave?
The boxes represent what matter is, so mass and energy are present in the model but the mechanism of back propagation isn't identified.
But the potential is there and the logic of causality and the question of the big bang point to it.
A pipeline all the way back to the big bang.
So at the big bang you have a physical effect on another physical.
Ok, this makes more sense. That is known as two dimensional time, I call it the breadth of the present. There is no need to call it a backward flow though, only a requirement to understand that somethings move from future into past before other things. "Before" here is determined by the traditional timeline. Activity occurs at the present which divides future from past. Some aspects of reality would cross the divide, therefore be active, prior to others, and would have a special form of causal power because of this.
Quoting Mark Nyquist
Do you men to place the boxes as overlapping?
The time intervals are clock times. Very small.
The point is duration t3 can have an effect on t1.
How, unless the boxes overlap?
Ok. Overlap the boxes.
I answered it. You just missed it.
... Or maybe you weren't there. :grin:
This back propagation idea is speculative.
Another possibility is if some future branching exists then you also have a mechanism for spooky action at a distance. Quantum entanglement.
So I'm looking at it until someone gives me a reason not to.
It may have come up here before but I'm not finding it.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Although Minkowski writes about time without gravity in special relativity, in general relativity time is tied to mass through gravity.
In the everyday world, the movement of massive objects is tied to time.
Again, all this has to do with the dilation of time. How mass affects time. Nothing to do with what I maintained.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Is there anything time is connected to?
Actually the concept of "matter" was constructed by Aristotle to account for the reality of temporal continuity. What persists unchanged, as time passes, despite changes to a thing's form, is the thing's matter. So matter provides the basis for a thing's extension in time.
Don't quote a stetement cut off from its immediate context. It's a very bad and unacceptable habit, ucarr. You must quote the whole idea, thought or argument. I quote it for you:
"Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. So time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa."
The statement that you quoted cut off from the whole, on purpose, is relevant and in respect to the previous one. It does not mean that there is no connection between mass and time.
In doing so, you show that you ignore, also on purpose, the first statement, which is the main and most important idea here.
I have enough with all that, ucarr. You are a bad interlocutor. Please don't bother me again.
Spacetime can affect the motion of objects and light. Massive objects can change the curvature of spacetime as well.
Spacetime doesn't really exist. It isn't real, in the way matter and energy are. It is theory. It's a mathematical model.
"Spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur." (Wikipedia)
And sometimes those limits are determined by the way in which we choose to assemble the language.
For example, one could just as well say: time is the measure of change rather than a pre-requisite for it. There would be no time in the absence of change. Time is not in the nothing anymore than time is in the something.
And of course we would have a different set of logical implications.
Unfortunately, the wiki references in some cases are not good enough or may be misleading. You will enjoy this article if you want to get involved in the debate of whether spacetime is a substance or not. I am a physicist and cannot understand the article well since it is very technical.
Time and space are twisted and are parts of a single manifold called spacetime. This means that you have time if you have space.
Quoting Alkis Piskas_ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Quoting Alkis Piskas
You accuse me of intentionally quoting you out of context for the purpose of fatally distorting your intended meaning, all of this towards setting up a misrepresentation of you as a straw man easy to defeat in debate.
Of course I respect your demand I no longer attempt to dialogue with you. However, I have a right to rebut your accusation. My defense herein is for the public record; it's not an example of my ignorance of your demand.
Let's begin by noting the ellipsis: the three dots at the beginning of my abridged quotation of your words. An ellipsis is a public announcement to all readers the quotation is abridged. It's a notification to everyone words have been omitted from the quotation. When someone seeks to quote another person out of context for the purpose of distortion and misrepresentation of that person, including an ellipsis contradicts that purpose.
Moreover, here at TPF, what value is gained by misquoting someone when the public record makes it easy for everyone to examine the original statement? Since it's easy for the supposedly misquoted person to copy and repost their original statement and then juxtapose it to the abridged version for public inspection -- something you've done here without causing me a smidgen of difficulty in mounting my defense -- it's clear only a fool would bother with making the attempt.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I presume the above quote from Metaphysician Undercover is the cause of your contempt over my abridgment of your quote. Indeed, I think it a strong rebuttal to your statement.
The question here is whether Metaphysician Undercover's rebuttal loses strength when applied to the complete version of your statement:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
In this particular conversation, I haven't been disputing your claim time possesses neither mass nor material dimensions.
I've underlined your conjunction in the second sentence of your statement. I'm presuming you're arguing the conjunction puts restrictions upon how your claim should be interpreted. I'm further presuming you believe Metaphysician Undercover's rebuttal doesn't apply to your claim without these restrictions.
In my opinion, separating time from mass and material dimensions is central to your claim of its irrelevance to same.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
According to my interpretation, Metaphysician Undercover's quotation of Aristotle carries the message time, mass and matter are married, the exact opposite of your claim.
As I see it, the conclusion of your claim -- as based upon the premise time has no connection to matter -- that time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa, still gets authoritatively contradicted by Metaphysician Undercover.
Replacing the words I removed merely shows more explicitly what Metaphysician Undercover's quote contradicts. The added words do not give your claim defense against the rebuttal. On the contrary, they make the truth of the rebuttal more apparent.
Let me further say this: A thing's extension in time ? Time's extension in a thing.
All of this is to argue my abridgment of your statement -- regardless of my intentions -- does not weaken it.
My position on the subject is certainly not based in any way on what Wikipedia says. I just brought up this ref for the occasion. It was just handy ...
This is a subject I have discussed a lot and in lengths, in here and elsewhere, where I have described the non-physical nature --in fact, the non-reality-- of time. I could do it with you too, but it will take too long.
Now, I gave you and short example. You give me a huuuge article to study! (You are not the only one who does that.) So, thanks but no thanks. :smile:
t0 to t3
t1 to t4
t2 to t5
t3 to t6
t4 to t7
t5 to t8
t6 to t9
t7 to t10
t8 to t11
t9 to t12
These are ranges of clock time at quantum scale.
A range of time has physical events that coexist in the time range.
A physical event at t3 could effect t0 because they coexist.
A physical event at t12 can not directly effect t0.
However, if a signal can form a chain of physical matter that can transmit a signal, it may be possible to back propagate between t12 and t0.
In theory, a signal back propagating in matter could, as time progressed from the big bang, have been back propagating from a future state to the big bang era.
So retro causality could be involved in the big bang era.
A signal needs a physical carrier so the carrier would be things that exist at the quantum scale.
I suspect that is the case given the logic of the problem.
Thank you.
I already know that.
And nothing I said is inconsistent with it.
You mentioned that time does not exist if change does not exist.
That a thing, time in this case, does not occupy space, does not imply that it is not related to space. So if time does not occupy space, as stated, this does not mean that time is irrelevant to space. Nor can we say that time is irrelevant to things which occupy space, massive things, which the concept of "matter" applies to. So the premises required to conclude that time is irrelevant to matter, are not there.
:up: :100:
My thanks to you for this persuasive argument.
But time exists if space exists independent of whether change exists or not.
you are putting the cart before the horse. The greatest change in the history of the universe is the Big Bang. There would be no space/time without the Big Bang. Ergo, there would be no space/time without change.