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?Time meaning that which is measured by a clock ... — TheMadFool
How are you defining "existence"?... and beginning in the sense of coming into existence. — TheMadFool
This premiss straightforwardly begs the question. If time began with the Big Bang, then the Big Bang was never in the future.Every present was in the future at one point. — TheMadFool
This however isn't a satisfactory answer. — TheMadFool
This premiss straightforwardly begs the question. If time began with the Big Bang, then the Big Bang was never in the future. — aletheist
Your thinking has an inherent structure which is to you as water to a fish, or us the air we breathe. That is, we operate and think within it. And those thoughts, inchoate as they must be in the face of reality, are independent of that reality. We don't tell reality how to be; reality does not tell us how to think. To insist they be mutually conforming is delusion, and it is the work of generations of very smart people to arrive at bridgeheads between our thinking and the reality beyond the curtain. Which reality has seemingly been shown in the last 150 years to be beyond strange and actually, so far, unaccountable. No wonder you're not satisfied - but what made you think you would be? — tim wood
I cannot continue this conversation unless and until we establish your definition of time--and now past, present, and future, as well.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
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.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. — aletheist
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, 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?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
Can I ask about your knowledge of physics? You seem to cling to an pre-scientific concept of time which is strictly linear, unending, outside and beyond the other forces in the universe; and, if you believe the claims of relativity, wrong.
How does your understanding square with the observed fact that time slows down depending on your speed and the gravity acting upon you? If, like a light beam, you travel at the 186,000 miles per second time stands still - it effectively ceases to exist. For a light beam there is no past and no future. But for others observing it 'time' continues as 'normal'. Time is no longer seen as a set-in-stone governing property of the universe. As I understand the Big Bang theory it was born in the Big Bang, along with space, matter and energy. The real question nowadays for physicists is whether time exists at all outside our minds. — Tim3003
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? — aletheist
The real question nowadays for physicists is whether time exists at all outside our minds. — Tim3003
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.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
No, that question falls under metaphysics, rather than physics.The real question nowadays for physicists is whether time exists at all outside our minds. — Tim3003
I started a whole thread rebutting this notion not long ago.Ergo, time could be unreal. — 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. — aletheist
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.I'm making (trying to) the case that time has no beginning. — 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.Every time we have ever dealt with can be put into the framework 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.So, if for no other reason than statistical ones, the Big Bang too must fit into this model of past, present and future — TheMadFool
Sorry, this is just blatantly false.An argument against this, a claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, doesn't exist at all. — 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. — aletheist
Sorry, this is just blatantly false. — aletheist
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.And yet you don't provide anything that can be considered a proof. — 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.Time flows: the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past (undeniable) — TheMadFool
Where would this clock exist, if not within this universe that is subject to time? What would such a clock be measuring?Imagine a special clock that runs backwards and is unaffected by anything that this universe can throw at it. — 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. — aletheist
Where would this clock exist, if not within this universe that is subject to time? What would such a clock be measuring? — aletheist
No, no, no. You are confusing two very different propositions: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
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?As I said, this clock is special enough to be immune to any changes the universe is undergoing. — 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 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
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
Can I ask about your knowledge of physics? You seem to cling to an pre-scientific concept of time which is strictly linear, unending, outside and beyond the other forces in the universe; and, if you believe the claims of relativity, wrong.
How does your understanding square with the observed fact that time slows down depending on your speed and the gravity acting upon you? If, like a light beam, you travel at the 186,000 miles per second time stands still - it effectively ceases to exist. For a light beam there is no past and no future. But for others observing it 'time' continues as 'normal'. Time is no longer seen as a set-in-stone governing property of the universe. As I understand the Big Bang theory it was born in the Big Bang, along with space, matter and energy. The real question nowadays for physicists is whether time exists at all outside our minds. — Tim3003
You lost me. :roll:Imagine, for the moment, that we have a clock that's keeping time for the universe. — 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. — aletheist
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? — aletheist
We'd then expect an infinite age. — jorndoe
The "present" is only important based on context, like if a person likes living in the present. — christian2017
magine, for the moment, that we have a clock that's keeping time for the universe. — TheMadFool
From our vantage point, the universe began 13.8 billion years ago; this beginning can be thought of as 12 midnight (0000 hours military time) by that clock. It is not impossible to imagine winding back this universe clock to another time like 11 PM or 6 PM before 12 midnight (when the Big Bang is supposed to have occurred). — TheMadFool
The gist of the commments in this thread is that a time before the alleged beginning (the Big Bang) is incoherent. — TheMadFool
These 3 divisions of time are inseparable in that the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past and none of them make sense if considered to the exclusion of the other two. Since the Big Bang was, at some point in time, a present (now), there must be a time before it, the past, just as it had a future which we're currently experiencing. — TheMadFool
The "present" is only important based on context, like if a person likes living in the present.
— christian2017
I think you have this backward. The present is what gives context. Without the present there is no context to time. You might like to think that you could point to any random point in time, to give temporal context, but it would be you, living in the present doing that. Take away beings living in the present, and there would be absolutely no temporal context whatsoever. — Metaphysician Undercover
You lost me. :roll: — 180 Proof
You lost me. :roll:
— 180 Proof
Make that two of us.
The clock thought experiment makes sense. If we could reverse time i.e. make the universe travel backwards in time and have a special clock to record the passage if timd in reverse then in 13.8 billion years into the past we will reach the Big Bang singularity, the clock will read 13.8 billion years. Now, what stops the clock from continuing to give time beyond the Big Bang singularity? It matters not that the clock may disappear in the singularity for the purpose of a clock is just to keep track of time and even if there were no clocks time would still flow, backwards in my thought experiment. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.