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.

Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. — MoK

Which means there must always have been something and time never started.

P1) Time is needed for any change — MoK

Time could be a trillionth of a second or even less, lots can happen in that time and we would not see it happen.

P2) Nothing to something is a change — 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.

P3) There is no time in nothing — MoK

Time is attached to action, not objects.

C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3) — 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.

Time is needed for any change — MoK

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.

Sorry, Sloppy quoting on my part. Will adjust.

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) — MoK

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.

P1) Time is needed for any change
OK — Alkis Piskas

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.

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.) — 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.

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.) — Alkis Piskas

The premise is correct because time is a substance and because nothing is the absence of anything.

C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3)
OK, but it doesn't follow from P1-P3. — Alkis Piskas

It does follow from P1-P3.

I agree something from nothing is impossible to depict, to logically assert, to know about or conceive of.

There is no time in nothing — 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.

Which means there must always have been something and time never started. — Vera Mont

That is not possible as well since we are dealing with an infinite regress in time.

Time could be a trillionth of a second or even less, lots can happen in that time and we would not see it happen. — Sir2u

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.

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. — Sir2u

Cool, so you agree with the second premise.

Time is attached to action, not objects. — Sir2u

Time is a substance that allows change. Therefore, this premise is also correct given the definition of time and nothing.

Yes maybe so, but not using your syllogism. — Sir2u

It follows from my 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. — Sir2u

I cannot understand how your conclusion follows from the premises.

Therefore there can be no changes in space alone.
Therefore your screen is blank and you are me. — unenlightened

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.

That is not possible as well since we are dealing with an infinite regress in time. — MoK

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

Thank you very much for your positive contribution.

Let me point out a weakness that needs to be resolved here. — Philosophim

Ok, let's see if I can resolve the weakness.

P1. Time is needed for any change.
What is time? Without this definition nothing can be proven. — 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.

P2. Something appearing within nothing is a change.
Sounds good. — Philosophim

Cool.

P3. There is no time in nothing.
Since you have not defined time this cannot be declared as true or false. — 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.

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"). — Fire Ologist

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.

Basically I agree with your conclusion but don't see your argument. — Fire Ologist

How about now? I defined time as a substance so it cannot exist in nothing.

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 — Vera Mont

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.

Things can be created or come into existence once there is a time. — MoK

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.

Define "nothing" (including how that concept differs from 'nothing-ness'). As an undefined term, your argument seems invalid.

"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".

Well, the page changes from left to right. But also I have had nothing in my pocket for a few days now.

That's P1 and P3 out.

:meh:

:smirk:

Trouble is, folk don't want the problem to go away. They want to compound it.

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) — MoK

"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.

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. — 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.

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."

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.

Folk trying to do physics without the maths, again.

It never works out well.

Thank you very much for your positive contribution. — MoK

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.

P1. Time is needed for any change.
What is time? Without this definition nothing can be proven.
— 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. — 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.

...how can logic work if we don't know the physics to begin with — Mark Nyquist

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.

There has been a series of threads of this sort recently. — Banno

It's winter. Lots of people are suffering from cabin fever.

Folk trying to do physics without the maths, again.

It never works out well. — Banno

Metaphysics without logic too.

Same just-so story.

Here it's high summer. But heat instead of cold might drive folk inside. Or if not heat, smoke.

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.

Metaphysics without logic too. — 180 Proof

I think the OP logical, but it doesn't connect to anything. Spinning wheels.