I actually got the idea from Charles Sanders Peirce, who was advocating it more than a hundred years ago. Again, what is being considered as evidence for it today? What are the ramifications for Big Bang cosmology?

But the problem is that science assumes that there’s a lawful regularity in the cosmos. But it doesn’t, and probably can’t, explain why there’s such an order. It’s simply given. — Wayfarer

Not only that, but scientists generally assume that the laws of nature as we observe them operating today have always operated that way; or at least, that they have operated that way ever since very soon after the alleged Big Bang. What justifies this assumption? Why not consider the alternative that the laws of nature have evolved over time, and perhaps are still (very slowly) evolving? What would count as evidence either way?

As for the other question, i agree philosophy does atleast play some small role in physics. — christian2017

That is beside the point. Time has mathematical, phenomenological, logical, and metaphysical aspects. It does not belong exclusively (or even primarily) to the subject matter of physics, but rather falls squarely within the purview of philosophy.

Well now that you finally acknowledged this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum, thus implying that most of us are arm chair quarterback physicists ... — christian2017

Where have I ever implied otherwise?

... i agree, your guess (guess) is probably only slight better than my guess (guess). — christian2017

Are you suggesting that only physicists are qualified to provide definitions of time that are more than guesses?

I think Peirce is taking more of a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach such as what Einstein and later Physicists took. — christian2017

Of course he is, because time is a metaphysical concept. Defining it as "the iteration of events" is no less philosophical. Besides, this is "The Philosophy Forum," not "The Physics Forum."

something had to change before time was created. — 3017amen

How could there be change without time? What does it even mean to talk about anything happening "before" there was time?

That idea alone I think begs at least two questions — 3017amen

It does not beg those questions, it prompts them.

Our process of cognition (consciousness/subconsciousness) relies on past, present, and future input to process thought itself. — 3017amen

This still makes no sense to me. Cognition cannot receive past or future input, only present input, although it is sometimes about the past (memory) or future (anticipation).

All three are dependent upon each other for their existence. — 3017amen

As a proponent of the "growing block" theory of time, I deny the existence of the future; only the past and present exist. Specifically, the present is when future possibilities and conditional necessities become additional past actualities.

Where there is no heat, there is no movement, where there is no movement there is no time. — christian2017

Time is the iteration of events. — christian2017

Those are two possible definitions of time, but certainly not the only ones. For example ...

Time is that diversity of existence whereby that which is existentially a subject is enabled to receive contrary determinations in existence. — Peirce, c. 1896

Time is a certain general respect relative to different determinations of which states of things otherwise impossible may be realized. Namely, if P and Q are two logically possible states of things, (abstraction being made of time) but are logically incompossible, they may be realized in respect to different determinations of time. — Peirce, c. 1905

I will ask you again, in order to support your claim, explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect. — 3017amen

I already did, but apparently I am misunderstanding what you mean by "use Time" in this context. Also, you still have not answered one of my questions--why do you consistently capitalize "Time" as if it were a proper name?

Does that mean you are unable to engage in discourse? — 3017amen

Not at all, I am just realistic about the (un)likelihood of persuading others whose minds are already made up. As you might have noticed, most of the content on this website consists of debates between people who disagree.

Are you unable to answer my questions because you simply can't support your arguments? In other words, are you acquiescing by your silence? — 3017amen

Not at all, I am unable to answer your questions because the way that you pose them is such that I honestly do not know what you are asking. Above is the latest example.

I will challenge you to support your claim. Explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect. — 3017amen

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not claim that we never use past/present/future to express/convey/verbalize thought, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. We can (and do) think about the past and the future, but we are always and only thinking at the present.

Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe you were successful in making your case. ( From what I read, the majority did not agree with you--myself included.) — 3017amen

The success of a philosophical argument is not ultimately determined by majority vote of a small subset of participants in an online forum. Most of us are pretty confident in our preexisting opinions, and my observation over the years is that persuasion otherwise is extremely rare.

Be well! — 3017amen

You, too.

I did take the opportunity to do a cursory read of your previous OP and couldn't find where you were able to reach any consensus on your arguments. — 3017amen

You would need to read the entire thread, not just the OP.

Were you able to determine whether time was an illusion or a reality? — 3017amen

The thread title is "The Reality of Time," and the OP directly rebuts McTaggart's claim that time is unreal.

Can you elucidate a bit more on that aletheist? — 3017amen

All I can do is point out once more what should be quite obvious: We are never thinking in the past or in the future, only in the present. Put another way, the temporal present always directly corresponds to whatever is present to the mind.

Where have I ever said that time is only present? — aletheist

altheist said: "...all thinking takes place in the present..." — 3017amen

Please notice: I did not say that time is only present, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. Those are two completely different statements, and you are misinterpreting the latter if you believe that it entails the former.

I'm not sure what else I can say other than repeating myself. — 3017amen

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result. The best way to make a paradox or contradiction evident is to identify two (or more) propositions that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. Unless you can do that regarding time as I have outlined it, I have no reason to believe that there is anything paradoxical or contradictory about it.

Accordingly, this may or may not help you — 3017amen

That video again? Seriously? The entire thread on "The Reality of Time" is my rebuttal to it.

Let's take one at a time (no pun intended): — 3017amen

And yet what followed was the same incoherent mess that you keep repeating. If I could not make heads or tails of it the first three times, what makes you think that it will magically make sense to me the fourth time? I asked for two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then we have nothing further to discuss.

we agree that Time is continuous, but when you try to make it mutually exclusive to one or the other (past , present, future) is where you encounter the illogical phenomenon and/or paradox. And you tried to make it that by saying Time is only present — 3017amen

Where have I ever said that time is only present? Please use the quote function.

You seem unable to address my argument. — 3017amen

Only because I have been unable to discern your argument.

Time is paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence. — 3017amen

Bare assertion. How is time paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence? What two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other?

Yes, I agree some so-called phenomenal features of consciousness occur in a nanosecond. — 3017amen

I said nothing whatsoever about a nanosecond. I said that the present is an indefinite lapse of time.

I'm asking you to remove, in your case, either the past or future, from the concept of Time itself, in order to see what that would look like. Get it? — 3017amen

No, I still have no clue what you are talking about.

What are concrete things relative to the discussion of Time? — 3017amen

Concrete things endure and change over time, such that they can (and do) possess different abstract qualities and relations at different determinations of time.

But, as you say ( and I agree) if Time is continuous, then are we possessing and not possessing abstract relations/qualities at the same Time? — 3017amen

No, a thing that possesses a certain quality/relation at one determination of time can only not possess the same quality/relation at a different determination of time--never at the same determination of time, because that would violate the principle of contradiction.

Rather than repeating a blizzard of words, please summarize in one sentence what you find paradoxical or contradictory about time as I have outlined it.

Thinking requires Time (past, present, and future) in order to perform cognition/consciousness. — 3017amen

How so? Again, all thinking takes place in the present. It indeed requires time, but that is why the present must be an indefinite lapse rather than a durationless instant.

Otherwise, explain how you can remove one component of Time, and still cognize properly, about any thing? — 3017amen

I have no idea what you mean by "remove one component of Time." Also, why are you consistently capitalizing "Time"?

[Time] is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. — aletheist

Who is "they"? — 3017amen

Concrete things.

"Contrary determinations" are what phenomena? — 3017amen

Possessing vs. not possessing an abstract quality or relation.

You seem to saying that Time is then paradoxical or somehow contradictory, no? — 3017amen

No, why do you keep saying that? Please specify the alleged paradox or contradiction.

When we think of a thing (cognize), it requires the future. — 3017amen

Nonsense, all thinking (cognition) takes place in the present.

Thinking itself, does not require any volitional act of "anticipation". Thinking can also be involuntary. — 3017amen

Who said that anticipation is volitional? Most anticipation is involuntary, which is why surprises have such a forceful effect.

So in your view, if Time is neither concrete or abstract, what is it? — 3017amen

You already quoted my answer: "a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time."

If time is a potential infinity and it had no beginning and time as an actual infinity too has no beginning, there's no difference between actual and potential infinity re time is there? — TheMadFool

Time is not something actual at all, because it does not act on or react with anything. In other words, time does not exist, even though it is real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. That is why time itself could be infinite, even if there was a first event--i.e., a beginning of actuality.

But can we agree that it is either paradoxical or somehow contradictory (does it transcend logic)? — 3017amen

No, again, time is not a concrete thing and past/present/future are not abstract qualities or relations that we predicate of it. It is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future.

As discussed in the other thread, it is a mistake to treat time as a concrete thing composed of individual moments whose contents are individual events, and past/present/future as abstract qualities or relations that are predicated of time as a whole or of those moments and events. Instead, time is truly continuous, and past/present/future are its three general determinations at which different states of things are realized.

So I'll restate the question: can you remove the past, present, and future from the concept of Time itself? — 3017amen

No, but that has no bearing on whether time logically could have had a beginning. Instead, the issue is whether time is entirely continuous or had at least one discontinuity--a present that was not preceded by a past.

Is time material? — TheMadFool

I would say no--time is a real law that governs existing things, not itself an existing thing--but you have steadfastly refused to give your own definition of time. Instead, you keep talking about clocks, which obviously are material.

... the clock is not time and even in its absence time extends infinitely into the past of the big bang. — TheMadFool

That sounds like what I just described--time extends infinitely into the past, but events began with the Big Bang.

Actually, in my OP I proved that time has to have a beginning for the simple reason that the past can't be infinite. — TheMadFool

No, you assumed that an infinite past would entail an actual infinity, and that this is impossible. As I mentioned upstream, an alternative is that time itself had no beginning, but there was nevertheless a first event (e.g., Big Bang). Time would then be a potential infinity, rather than an actual infinity, which is not problematic.

If it is true that past, present, and future are required to cognize reality, how does that square with the law of non-contradiction? — 3017amen

We had this discussion already, in the thread that I just linked.

Have you ever considered that the concept of time is a fabrication? — Merkwurdichliebe

Nice handle, but you spelled it wrong--merkwuerdigliebe, German for "strange love." Anyway, please see this thread on "The Reality of Time."

Since this disjunction consists of contradictory statements, they're necessarily true (tautology wise). — TheMadFool

No, again, that is incorrect. This is Modal Logic 101.

If not, what are the contradictions of: a) time necessarily had a beginning and b) time necessarily did not have a beginning? — TheMadFool

The contradiction of (a) is "time did not necessarily have a beginning"--i.e., "time might not have had a beginning." The contradiction of (b) is "time did not necessarily not have a beginning"--i.e., "time might have had a beginning." Notice that these two propositions can both be true, such that we can combine them into one: "time might or might not have had a beginning"; i.e., whether or not time had a beginning is contingent, rather than necessary either way, as I have been saying all along.

Imagine there's a special clock that records time in the normal way but the universe is now traveling backwards in time ... There simply is no good reason that such a clock should come to halt at the point proffered as the beginning. — TheMadFool

Yes, there is. The clock measures some physical process, such as a moving shadow, an oscillating pendulum, or a vibrating quartz crystal or cesium atom. Going backwards to the Big Bang, all such motion would cease at that moment, so the clock would show that time had stopped.

#2 would be false only if both disjuncts are false i.e. time necessarily had a beginning is false AND time necessarily didn't have a beginning is false but notice these disjuncts are contradictions and being so they'll always have opposite truth values and so the the compound statement will always be true, not false. — TheMadFool

No, that is not how modal logic works--the negation of "X is necessary" is "X is not necessary" rather than "not-X is necessary." Denying that time necessarily had a beginning does not entail affirming that time necessarily did not have a beginning. Instead, both disjuncts are false: time did not necessarily have a beginning, and time did not necessarily not have a beginning. In other words, whether time had a beginning or not is contingent.

I've tried a couple of arguments with you but none have convinced you. — TheMadFool

That is because you vastly overestimate the strength of your arguments. They are all question-begging, assuming what they set out to prove. For example ...

There can't be a present if that present wasn't a future at a time preceding it. — TheMadFool

This is an assumption, not a conclusion.

Either time has a beginning or time doesn't have a beginning and to say neither of them are necessarily true is to say that both time has a beginning and time doesn't have a beginning. — TheMadFool

No, no, no. You are confusing two very different propositions:

1. Necessarily, time either had a beginning or did not have a beginning.
2. Time either necessarily had a beginning or necessarily did not have a beginning.

#1 is true, #2 is false. Whether time has a beginning or not is contingent, not necessary either way.

As I said, this clock is special enough to be immune to any changes the universe is undergoing. — TheMadFool

As I pointed out before, every clock operates entirely by virtue of changes that the universe is undergoing--a moving shadow, an oscillating pendulum, a vibrating quartz crystal or cesium atom. How does yours work?

The clock will continue to show time even before the Big Bang and it fits quite well with the fact that physics defines time as that which a clock measures. — TheMadFool

That is not how physics defines time. As I pointed out before, every clock measures physical phenomena within the universe. Again, how does yours work?

The same conceptual dilemma emerges: if there is a distance - a start-spot and an end-spot to a given length - which has to be traversed, then there will logically be a mid-spot to this distance, this whether or not it is marked by anyone. And, also logically, there will then be an endless quantity of mid-spots getting ever closer to the end-spot but never actualizing a perfectly identical location relative to it. — javra

Logically, yes; actually, no. Again, what dissolves the paradox is that the arrow need not move to each subsequent midpoint as a discrete step. Even the line itself does not exist until the arrow traverses it, since a gust of wind might alter its actual path.

Thanks for the exchange. — javra

Likewise!

Imagine a special clock that runs backwards and is unaffected by anything that this universe can throw at it. — TheMadFool

Where would this clock exist, if not within this universe that is subject to time? What would such a clock be measuring?

And yet you don't provide anything that can be considered a proof. — TheMadFool

As I said, it is not a matter of "proof." It is not logically necessary that time had a beginning, and it is not logically necessary that time had no beginning.

Time flows: the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past (undeniable) — TheMadFool

Yes, that is indeed what we observe now. However, it does not entail that time has always flowed in that fashion. Again, one can argue that it is reasonable to suppose that time has always flowed in that fashion, but it is impossible to prove this.

I'm making (trying to) the case that time has no beginning. — TheMadFool

I know, but the mistake is thinking that it is logically necessary that time has no beginning, such that it is irrational to believe otherwise.

Every time we have ever dealt with can be put into the framework of past, present and future. — TheMadFool

How do we know that? Maybe time began at the moment I was born, or just five minutes ago, and the "past" before that is all just an elaborate delusion or myth. In any case, none of us were around for the alleged Big Bang to "see" whether there was any time before that.

So, if for no other reason than statistical ones, the Big Bang too must fit into this model of past, present and future — TheMadFool

Statistical reasons have no bearing on this. No one claims that the Big Bang was just another moment in time; they call it a "singularity" for a reason.

An argument against this, a claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, doesn't exist at all. — TheMadFool

Sorry, this is just blatantly false.

The real question nowadays for physicists is whether time exists at all outside our minds. — Tim3003

No, that question falls under metaphysics, rather than physics.

Ergo, time could be unreal. — TheMadFool

I started a whole thread rebutting this notion not long ago.

Can you give me an example of a present (now) moment which doesn't have a past? You can't and if you say the Big Bang is one then that would be begging the question for what you'll be saying is the Big Bang is the beginning of time because the Big Bang is the beginning of time. — TheMadFool

Exactly--if time began with the Big Bang, then that moment had no past; and if every moment has a past, then time did not begin with the Big Bang. Neither position is logically necessary or logically impossible by itself, so one must make a case either way on other grounds.

For example, we could assert that we directly perceive time as strictly continuous, and on that basis rule out both a beginning of time (Big Bang or otherwise) and an end of time. Nevertheless, we could still maintain that there was a first event (Big Bang or otherwise), before which there was time but no events. Of course, someone who equates time with events would reject that solution and argue instead that if the Big Bang was the first event, then it was also the beginning of time.

The notion of the present is predicated on the notion of a future - all presents can be only if they existed as a possibility in the future. — TheMadFool

No, begging the question yet again. Insisting that every present must have both a past and a future obviously entails that time could not have begun with the Big Bang (or anything else), and also cannot ever end. Moreover, future possibilities do not exist unless and until they are actualized in the present, when they become past. See why I asked you to define all these terms?

Existence is a very ambiguous term in philosophy — javra

Yes, that it why I offered my definitions of reality and existence--which, by the way, come from Charles Sanders Peirce.

How does perceptual agreement between all sentient observers that causally interact in regard to the location of physical objects - very much including where they start and where they end - come about? — javra

I am having trouble understanding this question, and I wonder if there is a disconnect between what I mean by "position" and what you mean by "location." Again, what I primarily wish to maintain is that continuous three-dimensional space is not really composed of discrete dimensionless points. Put another way, there are no absolute positions in space, only those that we deliberately mark for some purpose. A physical thing does not occupy a discrete point or collection of discrete points, since it is always in continuous motion. We can only designate its position relative to an arbitrary reference frame, which is also always in continuous motion. We can agree that my computer monitor is consistently three feet in front of me, but we are nevertheless both hurtling through space along a very complex path as the earth rotates about its axis and revolves around the sun, which is revolving around the center of the Milky Way, which is moving toward and away from other galaxies, etc.

But, again, length and duration would be arbitrary relative to whom? — javra

To clarify, I said that the unit of length (e.g., one inch) and the unit of duration (e.g., one second) are arbitrary.

Take note of how time passes and that the past, present and future are tied together in the sense that the future turns into the present and the present into the past. — TheMadFool

I cannot continue this conversation unless and until we establish your definition of time--and now past, present, and future, as well.

If the Big Bang was in the future, there must be a past, a time before the Big Bang to which the Big Bang was in the future of. — TheMadFool

No, still begging the question. If time began with the Big Bang, then there was no past at that present, so it was never in the future.

Every present was in the future at one point. — TheMadFool

This premiss straightforwardly begs the question. If time began with the Big Bang, then the Big Bang was never in the future.

Time meaning that which is measured by a clock ... — TheMadFool

Different kinds of clocks measure different phenomena--the movement of a shadow on the ground, the oscillations of a pendulum, the vibrations of a quartz crystal or cesium atom. Which of these is time?

... and beginning in the sense of coming into existence. — TheMadFool

How are you defining "existence"?

Does it make sense to ask whether time had a beginning or not? — TheMadFool

How are you defining "time" and "beginning" when you pose this question?

The first statement affirms degrees or reality, such that some aspects of reality are more fundamental than others, with all aspects of reality (regardless of its metaphysical(?) degree) being existent by definition. The second statement implies a strict binary understanding: either something is real, and thereby existent, or it is not. — javra

No, this is conflating reality with existence; I hold that they are not synonymous or coextensive. Reality is that which is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. Existence is reaction with other things in the environment. Everything that exists is real (and discrete), but there are realities (like continuous space and time) that do not exist. Positions and instants are artificial creations, so they only exist after we have deliberately marked them for some purpose, such as description or measurement.

To address your second comment that discrete position - i.e., location - does not exist, is the computer screen that I am now seeing not located in front of me, beneath the sky and above the earth, having locations to the left and to the right at which it terminates? Are all these in fact nonexistent? — javra

A discrete position or location is established relative to a coordinate system whose origin, orientation, and unit length are all arbitrary--again, artificial creations.

Rearticulating the same, if location is to be deemed nonexistent, would the physical world (here encompassing all physical objects which are in part known via their discrete spatial positions) also be considered nonexistent? — javra

No, physical things exist regardless of whether humans ever designate their positions/locations relative to an arbitrary coordinate system.

Yet both change and quantity are nevertheless real and, thus, existent – here, in a non-binomial manner but one of degrees. — javra

Again, being real does not entail existing.

We all know where a given stick’s length starts and ends, just as we all know when a given song starts and ends – thereby making the stick’s length and the song’s duration impartially, hence objectively, real, and thereby making the stick and the song existent. — javra

Yes, but again, the unit by which we measure length or duration is arbitrary. Moreover, both the stick's length and the song's duration are subject to change--we can cut off a portion of the stick, or adjust the tempo of the song.

With the paradox addressed in mind, this stance in turn implies that our conceptual quantification of space and time, as a mapping of the terrain, does not accurately represent that which is being mapped. — javra

Quantification represents space and time accurately enough for most mathematical and practical purposes, but the mistake is thinking that this entails that space and time are really discrete, rather than continuous.

Of note, with its possible philosophical interpretations here placed aside, the theory of relativity clearly indicates that space and time are not discrete but a continuum. — javra

No, this is a mistake in the other direction; the theory of relativity assumes that space and time are continuous, rather than discrete.

All the same, the quoted mindset with which I agree will also stand in opposition to the block-universe model of the world, wherein there can be no real motion (due to there being no real change). — javra

I agree, and personally prefer the "growing block" theory of time in which the past and present exist, but not the future. For more on that, see my recent thread on "The Reality of Time."

If we don’t mark a location, or else don’t think of a location, does that then mean that the location does not exist – this in contrast to those locations we do mark or think about which would thereby exist? — javra

Yes, in my view a discrete position (or instant) is an abstraction that we impose when we mark it for some purpose, not a real constituent of space (or time). It certainly does not exist, since it does not react with anything.

By my reckoning, an actual row of 3 actual ducks is a material state of affairs (a thing). — Relativist

States of affairs (i.e. complex objects) exist that have the properties we associate with rows. — Relativist

A state of affairs is not a thing that exists, it is a relation that is real--either between different concrete things or between a concrete thing and an abstract quality. Predicate terms denote such qualities or relations (form/essence), subject terms denote things (matter/existence), and propositions signify states of affairs by attributing predicates to subjects (entelechy/reality).