guess that also rules out your creator of time then...? — Luke

With eternalism something other than 'only now' is allowed to exist so there is something 'there' to create time. A timeless first cause (which does not itself need to be created because it is beyond causation). It's either that or belief that infinite regresses are possible.

With eternalism something other than 'only now' is allowed to exist so there is something 'there' to create time. — Devans99

But you just said "creation without time itself...seems impossible". It's as though you have one rule for eternalists and another for presentists.

With presentism, if you take away 'only now' (IE the start of time), there is nothing left at all so creation of time seems impossible.

With eternalism, there is something else beyond time there to do the creating of time.

With eternalism, there is something else beyond time there to do the creating of time — Devans99

Even though creation without time seems impossible?

Even though creation without time seems impossible? — Luke

Stuff happens in spacetime without time: photons get around without experiencing time. So change without time seems possible; hence timeless creation maybe possible.

The way I see it, the basic history of the universe must be one of these two alternatives:

- An endless infinite regress in time of some sort
- A timeless first cause

I am pretty sure the first is impossible; not so with the second.

Stuff happens in spacetime without time: photons get around without experiencing time. So change without time seems possible; hence timeless creation maybe possible — Devans99

Then you must allow the same for presentism, and your previous argument fails.

- An endless infinite regress in time of some sort
- A timeless first cause

I am pretty sure the first is impossible; not so with the second. — Devans99

What makes the first impossible?

Then you must allow the same for presentism, and your previous argument fails. — Luke

But with presentism, when you take away 'only now' (IE the start of time), there is absolutely nothing else left in existence period. So its creation ex nihilo. With eternalism, its not creation ex nihilo - there is something other than 'only now' to do the creating.

What makes the first impossible? — Luke

One argument is that in an infinite regress of events, each event in the regress makes sense on its own, being preceded by its causal event. But when the system is viewed as a whole, it has no first event, so none of the events in the infinite regress can exist.

So its creation ex nihilo. — Devans99

Yes, you just made an argument for creation ex nihilo with your photons example. Otherwise, it remains the case that "creation without time itself...seems impossible".

With eternalism, its not creation ex nihilo - there is something other than 'only now' to do the creating. — Devans99

This remains susceptible to your former argument: "creation without time itself...seems impossible (note if there was a 2nd time we would just end up in a infinite regress of time so its fundamental / base reality time I'm talking about)."

But when the system is viewed as a whole, it has no first event, so none of the events in the infinite regress can exist. — Devans99

I don't follow why no events could exist without a first cause. This seems nothing more than an expression of your assumption that a first cause is necessary. It does not explain why it is necessary.

Yes, you just made an argument for creation ex nihilo with your photons example. Otherwise, it remains the case that "creation without time itself...seems impossible". — Luke

What I mean is:

- creation without time and anything else is impossible
- creation without time but with something else is possible

I don't follow why no events would exist without a first cause. This seems based only on your assumption that a first cause is necessary. It does not explain why it is necessary. — Luke

The first event defines the second, the second the third, and so on down the chain. If you have no first event, the whole of the rest of the chain must be undefined.

I can't argue with your assumptions.

What I mean is:

- creation without time and anything else is impossible
- creation without time but with something else is possible — Devans99

Why can't creation have been just sparked without a reason? It would be like an axiom. When you ask why, why, why, why, (assuming no infinite regress exists to this) eventually one would expect to arrive at an "is because it is" type answer. So maybe creation happened without time and anything else.

I think this is covered here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/272129

So my argument is things like quantum fluctuations creating the universe would lead to infinite density with infinite time so that combination is impossible (I conclude that time has a start).

If presentism is true then 'only now exists'. If there is a start of time that leaves absolutely nothing left at all - no time even for quantum fluctuations to fluctuate - a true something from nothing. You could still adopt it as an axiom that this is possible but it seems illogical. My gut feeling is you can't get something from nothing (0=0). Energy is conserved.

Then there is the question of whether something like time needs a deliberate act of creation. Time is a singleton whereas all natural things seem to come in pluralities. That suggests deliberate creation. I don't think it is likely that dimensions are created by natural processes.

There are also signs that the universe is fine tuned for life. That also requires a first cause (or a gigantic coincidence).

When I suggest nothing coming from something, I'm implying that time is not infinite also. In order to conclude that nothing exists if now doesn't exist, you would need to prove nothing exists besides space and time which you obviously don't believe yourself. There may be higher dimensions beyond time and space.

The universe does not seem very finely tuned for life to me. Otherwise you'd think SETI would have discovered life somewhere else by now. Most life cannot survive outside of Earth's atmosphere without protection for more than a few seconds. Most of the observable universe is a vacuum. That's a lot of billions of light years of space that's not finely tuned for life.

In order to conclude that nothing exists if now doesn't exist, you would need to prove nothing exists besides space and time which you obviously don't believe yourself. There may be higher dimensions beyond time and space. — coolguy8472

Presentism seem to preclude such higher dimensions - by saying 'only now exists' - it says to me that all things that exist, exist in the present.

I think the first cause / no infinite regress argument extends to higher dimensions. If there are more time dimensions out there then the start of time argument applies to the top level time dimension (the first time).

The universe does not seem very finely tuned for life to me. Otherwise you'd think SETI would have discovered life somewhere else by now. Most life cannot survive outside of Earth's atmosphere without protection for more than a few seconds. Most of the observable universe is a vacuum. That's a lot of billions of light years of space that's not finely tuned for life. — coolguy8472

I think the failure of SETI is just due to the vast distances involved; we can only just image (large) exoplanets as tiny dots in our best telescopes; how on earth are we meant to pick up their TV broadcasts?

There is lots of empty space I grant you, but the matter is used very well: stars for energy sources and planets for living surfaces. Each star has a habitable zone around it, not sure that can be improved bearing in mind the inverse square law (which I think is a fundamental constraint on how the universe could be designed). The universe looks like a giant laboratory for evolving life to me.

An interesting question is to ask yourself: if I were God, how would I have done things? The same or differently. I thought of maybe a giant computer and hosting all life on that for example. Maybe if there is a much better design possible, we can conclude that it is not fine tuned for life?

Presentism seem to preclude such higher dimensions - by saying 'only now exists' - it says to me that all things that exist, exist in the present. — Devans99

Maybe time is the same thing as motion. I'm not sure how you'd work that into presentism vs eternalism points. But the way it sounds like it would work that way is things that exist right now exist right now. Things that exist a few moments ago, still exist but they're slightly modified due to motion. So now exists, everything besides now exists to a certain extent but a lesser extent the further back in time you look.

I guess it could work the way you say but it's more conventional to associate 'time is just motion' with presentism.

'Time is just motion' is equivalent to 'infinite time' in terms of my arguments (if it does not exist, it is in a sense infinite, if you see what I mean).