Howdy…I’m new to this forum…hope I’m doing this correctly.
I was having a debate with my Dad. He says it is self evident that everything has a beginning, therefore time has a beginning.
This “indesputable fact”, he claims, is proof of the existance of God.
I tried to explain how “time” could just be relative, and it didn’t necessarily have a “beginning”, but I don’t think I had a convincing arguement to explain what I meant.
Any thoughts?
You’re smarter than your dad.
You’re right, it is in no way shape or form evident that time has a begining.
What we’re getting into here goes beyond time itself into the realm of causality. When you’re talking about causes, you’re talking about temporal possibilities.
Ok, so I’m not “pedantic” glares at Dark Meathead, I’ll put it simple…
If everything within reason has a begining, where did God begin?
Is God able not to have a begining?
Does this mean God does not obey the laws of reason?
Is God still perfect if he doesnt obey his own laws?
What if time has no begining, but goes on ad infinitum? It’s possible…
What if you, instead, think of time as a biiiig giant spiral shape that is moving along a z-axis of causality. (whoa…ok, let me draw a picture).
Now, I’m just illustrating an alternative view that is reasonable in order for the sake of showing that it is not evident that time and causality are one-in-the-same (as your father would like to imply), but instead, separate spaces that are interelated. Much like spacetime!
Ok, so, consider the spiral above (sorry for my art skills). The spiral represents our shared timeline (it should be in polar space, but I’ll use euclidian for the time). The space that the spiral is in (the x,y,z space you see above), that’s kinda like causality. That spiral is our particular timeline.
What are spirals? They are sorta like circles that curve back around each other, right? So, a spiral has a circular component AND a linear component. The challenge now is to look at time as being linear only in appearance. So it seems like time goes in a straight line from point in time A to point in time B, no arc, no curve, just straight. However, what we know from quantum mechanics says very…VERY differently. Time is relative in Quantum Mechanics (the most accurate portrayal of the universe known so far), which means that time is dependent on the observer.
Consider your father’s perspective. He’s going to work at, let’s say, a space station that takes 4 years to travel to at 3/5th the speed of light. Ok, so he speeds off, and gets to the space station. During this these 4 years, there’s an 80% time dialation for your father. What does this mean? When he leaves a year later (5 years have passed for him, remember), he’ll take another 4 years to get home, so 9 years have passed since you’ve seen your father, right? Wrong. Because of the time dialation, your father wont see you for 9 years, but you wont see your father for 11 years!!! Sound weird? That’s quantum mechanics. I got my data from this site ( mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm ) 'cause I’m lazy and didnt want to do any math.
Now, of course it would be an infinite regress for time to go on and on forever, but (and I dont have the art skills to make this picture, so use your imagination) what if you think of time like this… you start at Y= 1… you go up Z one unit, and you curve right back around to Y = 1 again. What if Y=1 is our initial time reference? In other words, y=1 would be the begining of OUR time… but what happens as you curve back around the spiral to y=1 again? You reach the end of our time and the begining of another time reference.
What does this mean? The casuality that we see through time may, in fact, not at all be interconnected to time.
Ok, so… in layman’s terms. Time does not need a “cause”. Time merely needs to curve and exist. Causality is where time exists, space and causality make time curve.
Ug, maybe it’s not as easy as I thought to explain.
Again, this is just one theory. But some, like the famous time traveler John Titor make the claim that we can travel into the past by moving into similar temporal realities that are, technically, in the future.
The question now is, what caused causation (if that makes sense). Well, M-Theory speculates that it would be caused by the collision of two other universes, resulting in energy being placed in this one. What causes that? Damned if I know… wouldn’t it be a kicker if that kinda stuff was caused by simple actions/reactions in everyday life? You know, like punch a wall and you cause a whole 'nother universe to spawn in a dimension that we cannot see. Oh the world of physics… crazy stuff.
It’s weird stuff. Just tell ask your father if he believes everything a salesman has ever told him. Then ask him why he believes himself when he tries to sell the world to himself at face value.
R.I.P. Douglas Adams
weird that i now get referenced in like 90% of your posts, Rafa… seems like you took what i said pretty seriously. don’t act annoyed or offended because you have to justify your claims or statements. those are just “the rules of the game”. i didn’t make 'em up, but i do play by them and expect others to do the same if they want to be taken seriously.
-DarkMeathead
A few weeks back a sattelite was launched to test Einstein’s theories in space. Any one have word on whether the scientists have results yet?
Also, does mostlyharmless’s dad mean that the existence of later times are dependent on previous times and there can be no infinite regression – hence, a Creator. Or does he mean that everything is contingent and at some point would not all be at once, hence an underlying Eternal Being underlying the contingent?
Further, if time is relative, how does this affect human generation?
Ask him where the beginning and end of a circle is. By his words there is no such thing as infinity. It’s impossible to see infinity because we are not infinite, however, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
<<Ask him where the beginning and end of a circle is. By his words there is no such thing as infinity. It’s impossible to see infinity because we are not infinite, however, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.>>
The beginning of a circle is a point, and the end of a circle is a line who’s locus of points is equidistant from that point in one plane. But i’m sure his dad will come up with a more insightful answer as he sounds like a smart fellow.
No that’s the beginning of the process of constructing a circle. A circle itself, leaving out process completely, has no beginning or end point.
mostlyharmless,
Forget about all this Einstein nonsense 
(sorry Rafajafar)
You must go back and listen to the ancient ones. (Those young guys like Einstein think they have invented and know everything 
) Go seek Parmenides (c. 475 BC).
He is one of the first cosmologists and is also considered by some to be the inventor of logic and metaphysics, perhaps even physics.
In his poem “On nature” he uses the conception that it (the cosmos) is and it is impossible for it not to be. Furthermore that what is not is unthinkable, it does not exist and should thus not be taken into consideration or as existent somehow.
From this he goes on to deduce that it must be uncreated and indestructible. It cannot have arisen out of nothing; for there is no such thing as nothing. Nor can it have arisen from something; for there is no room for anything but itself.What is cannot have beside it any empty space in which something else might arise; for empty space is nothing, nothing cannot be thought, and therefore cannot exist. What is never came into being, nor is anything going to come into being in the future. “Is it or is it not?” If it is, then it is now, all at once.
So he denies there was ever a beginning (he also denies somewhere that there ever will be an end). Even more it seems he denies the existence of time all together for he even denies the existence of change, (“…nor is anything going to come into being…If it is, then it is now”) Somewhere else he also denies that things stop existing. There are no ‘things’ there is only the one forever unchanging.
Here’s a translation of the text I found with Google:
http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Parmenides/
I agree with most of what was said here. Unfortunately, there is probably no easy way of convincing your father of this. Troy’s iteration of permenides is excellent, though “simple” is relative and the logic may escape a man of faith like your father. What is his idea of “God” and what is the “indisputable proof”?
I think your understanding of what is going on around you is excellent, but it is a process we all constantly engage in. Continue to verse yourself in your understanding of what you see and you will continue to improve your ability to outwardly express it.
Cheers!
Vulgar is not the word, it’s how you use it. Beauty is not the word, it’s why you choose it. See how it stands apart? At least make an effort to understand the art.
The simple one line response to your Dad’s argument is:
It is in no way simpler or more likely for a deity to exist without cause than it is for a universe to exist without cause.
Blaspheme!
Time is just a scale that we use to measure other things like age, velocity, distance travelled, etc. Time itself is nothing and because it is nothing or has no property of its own so I don’t think it has a beginning or an end. When we say time is up, it only means that you need to hand your paper in, here, we’re only using time to determine when that will be and when we say those good old times, it only means our life in those times so we’re not really talking about time but our situation or life.
What does this have to do with time? Raf, i read some of the thing about John Titor (i.e, WWIII in 2015.) and i think im going to read the whole website eventually. If its true id welcome the change in humanity with open arms. Yet John Titor was likely to have been some super computer geek with assess to good physic websites and a great mind for economic’s. Although it is errily persistent.
<<Quote:
R.I.P. Douglas Adams
What does this have to do with time? Raf, i read some of the thing about John Titor (i.e, WWIII in 2015.) and i think im going to read the whole website eventually. If its true id welcome the change in humanity with open arms. Yet John Titor was likely to have been some super computer geek with assess to good physic websites and a great mind for economic’s. Although it is errily persistent.>>
First, Douglas Adams wrote a series of humorous books about space and time-travel – Earth’s full description in the Hitchhiker’s Guide is “mostly harmless”. Adams is currently deceased. (viz. Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) I’m a fan too.
As for Titor, i think if it were true it would show how important is the project of bringing a more positive, religious humanist world into being before the lost masses recieve their rebuke. I’ve just read the section on the site about the Wars: did he not mention 9-11 to keep history from being changed? Or warning us against the radical fringe in Muslim countries? I doubt he’s true, but the world does need improvement (in the right direction).
Wow, you’re all making this way too complicated.
Time is a result of change. Change does not take place except with physical properties (ie, waves or particles). Physical properties cannot exist without change - it is inherent in their existence. If there were a moment in the space-that-has-become this Universe when there were no physical properties, then yes, time would not have existed.
However, something cannot come from nothing. Making substance from no substance would generally require a conscious creator, who is eternal. However, an eternal being is inherently, because of it being eternal, “outside of time”, and thus “outside of change.” This eternal being is then not a conscious creator but something of a very natural force, such as the Generation and Corruption that Heraclitus first conceived of.
And the force, being static (since a steady output is equal in terms of change to no output), could not have created physical substances but only acted upon them. Thus, matter has always existed, and it has always moved. Ahh …
But “time”, you little rascal you, was created somewhere after consciousness evolved …
True? 
I’m inspired that you guys are using the ancient philosophers as reference. I took Hellenistic (Hellenic) philosophy–the book I have is just a small one and my cousin borrowed it. I’ve also forgotten most of what I read in it. But this line:
“what is not is unthinkable, it does not exist and should thus not be taken into consideration or as existent somehow.”–Troy Mclure
Does Descartes say this too? That we can only imagine (think) of what’s conceivable. If it is not conceivable, then it doesn’t exist. Yes?
It seems the logic that the ancient philosophers use is more congenial with the way understand time and space. There is a word they use : “Ur” stuff (I’m not sure of the spelling)–which is that the only “real” thing that exist.
Hi Basta,
I agree, but I’d say it a bit differently. I’d say that time is the mental framework through which we perceive change.
I don’t agree. How is the physical property of mass, to use one example, dependent upon change?
How did consciousness creep in to your argument? Causation doesn’t necessarily imply consciousness.
A steady output is not equivalent to no output. Think, for example, of the steady light radiated from a 100 watt lightbulb.
Basta, if I’m reading you correctly, your cosmology appears to be based on unchanging forces and ever-changing matter. But in a Newtonian universe any change in the position of matter is going to be reflected in a change in the resultant forces in that system. For example, when a hawk dives to capture a rabbit, the hawk exchanges potential energy (position) for kinetic energy (velocity). Any change in the hawk’s postion is reflected in the changing forces of potential and kinetic energy.
I think that your theory is in even greater trouble in a relativistic universe. Einstein’s suggestion that matter is proportionally equivalent to energy, E=mc^2, can be restated as c^2 = E/m. In other words, it’s the combined energy divided by mass that remains constant; not the energy and the mass each taken separately. The atomic bomb is a case-in-point of how a change in mass results in tremendously altered forces. The overall mass times energy of the universe might well be a constant, and yet they are each forever in a state of flux.
Having said that, I agree with you that there never was, nor will there ever be nothingness. The simple fact of my existence was alone sufficent to have polluted pristine nothingness for all time. And if there ever was an unchanging universe, that situation was obviously unstable.
I enjoyed your post, Basta. We both seem to be wondering about some of the very same questions.
Michael
Thanks for your comments Polemarchus.
That’s the exact truth there, but I was trying to make my post as simple as possible. When I later stated time was created somewhere after our consciousness implies it being interelated to our perception, or our mental framework as you call it. The point is that time cannot exist in-and-of itself.
Perhaps physical properties was the wrong word. Perhaps it should be replaced with “it’s very existence depends on it’s constant change/movement.” The second great question of philosophy was always “why do things move?” If something is moving, it must have a mover, right? An objects natural tendency is to be at rest, right? But isn’t this a flat-Earth ideal?
After all, living organisms are constantly in movement with cell reproduction, growth, repair; arteries pumping blood; neurons firing in the brain; etc. When these things stop, the organism dies. But the physical substances themselves, the inorganic particles, are still carried through space by the rotation of the Earth. And if the Earth quit rotating around the sun, or it’s own axis, where would it go? It’s not as if it would have something to rest on. Unacted upon by forces you could probably envision the Earth swaying numbly through a void of rather nothingness. But the idea of absolute rest is incredible - at least in this reality.
So change is not only a natural property of all matter, but also a fundamental property, given the nature of our Universe.
The idea is that a no-substance world wouldn’t have any causation from something outside of our immediate reality. The general notion, which I later disputed in my post, is for this outside entity to be in the form of a conscious God.
So you’re right. Consciousness had nothing to do with the “outside element” and “first mover” but is a commonly drawn conception which I was arguing against. The common trend is to take reality to the deepest and most profound of your understandings, the very edge of your capacity to comprehend, and fill in the rest with a single concept, usually God. But since an eternal consciousness is out of the question, what’s left are unthinking, unfeeling, eternal outputs of forces which enact upon physical substances.
Now when I say Forces, it’s not necessarily the same forces you’d understand from physics. In fact, the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces have little if nothing to do with it. What I’d propose are eternal forces, not acted upon by change or motion (change because it’s steady and motion because it is “in” all things.)
Time, change or matter did not begin at the big bang. The big bang was a result of a dense concentration of substances and energies already there. But afterwards, since it will illustrate my point the best, that single floating neuron attached itself to a proton, because their combined energies would fight off dissolution that much longer. The concept of Corruption is the eternal force that draws things apart, and Generation is the eternal force that brings things together. Some of the greeks referred to them as hate and love. Fusion and dissolution. And these things exist as constants, not changing in degree according to changes in the matter they coordinate …
I don’t know how well I’ve made my point, but I can’t make it much clearer using the present direction/ setup of my argument. It’s probably riddled with holes and counter-logic, but logic won’t explain everything and sometimes you gotta jump over shady areas … 
Thanks for taking the time. I look forward to your comments.
Somebody mentioned ‘infinity’?. I do not personally believe finitie or infinity can exist. When one commonly speaks of ‘inifinite’, they are talking about something that has no boundries, no beginning and no end…very hard to imagine. I am not abut to contradict myself but i am about to say what form of ifinitie does exist. Earth is finitie as in size but it is infinitley long, you could start at one point, walk on for years and just end up straight where you started. Earth has no boundries, you can’t just walk straight off it but it still isn’t infinitie in size.
The Universe is also probably the same, start at one point - fly around and you’ll end up straight where you started, making it infinitly long but finitie in size. As somebody expressed earlier, if you draw a cricle that circle is finitie as in size but infinitly long, it has no end nor does it have a beginning.
Yeah, you’re pretty much right, Rami. Infinity is only a concept meaning something is ‘potentially’ ever-expanding, that from what we know, there’s no reason to think it’ll stop or withdraw. If we were able to stop time, thus stopping growth, for only a second, such as in a picture, we could then measure the current dimensions of the Universe and see that they are finite. Thus at any moment in space-time, the term ‘infinity’ does not exist, but at all moments in space-time, the potential for continued expansion beyond conscious projection does exist.
Thus, ‘infinity’, in the scope of this discussion, is worthless.
Remember - infinity and eternity are vastly different things. One is endless in space, the other through time.