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"?

I know continuing this discussion with you will be to my advantage but I'd like to bow out. Until next time kind stranger :smile:

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.

This however isn't a satisfactory answer. — TheMadFool

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?

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

I had to reply :smile:

Yes, that I'm beginning to notice. Anyway, how does the present come to be? There are 3 to consider: past, present and future. 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. So, here we have the Big Bang (imagine we're now 13.8 billion years ago at the precise moment it occurred) as the present. It couldn't have been in the past for the past never becomes the present; ergo it must've been 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.

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

Wonderful words to read, kind person. I appreciate your words. Thanks. :up:

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.

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

What does it mean to say time began with the Big Bang? It means that there was no such thing as a time before the Big Bang. In other words, here we have a situation in which there was a present but there was no past. How can that be? 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. If so, then even the Big Bang must've been in the future of some other point in time, no? In other words, there was a past to the Big Bang and even that past has to have a past and so on ad infinitum.

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.

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?

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 confusion is entirely my fault. Let me try again. 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.

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

That would be the million dollar question if you accept the contradiction in my OP for contradictions are impossible. Ergo, time could be unreal.

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 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.

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'm making (trying to) the case that time has no beginning. Every time we have ever dealt with can be put into the framework of past, present and future. You can't deny that. So, if for no other reason than statistical ones, the Big Bang too must fit into this model of past, present and future i.e. there was a time before the Big Bang. An argument against this, a claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, doesn't exist at all.

I started a whole thread rebutting this notion not long ago — aletheist

:up: great work

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.

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

Indeed, that is my aim here - to show the logical necessity that time can't have a beginning.

Sorry, this is just blatantly false. — aletheist

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

My proof (very simple I'm afraid):

1. Time flows: the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past (undeniable)

Ergo,

2. Every present must've been in the future (from 1)

3. The Big Bang was a present (at one point in time)

Ergo,

4. The Big Bang (or any point considered to be the beginning of time) must've been in the future of some other point in time, say x.

Ergo,

5. x must be a point in time before the Big Bang (or any point considered to be the beginning of time)

Ergo,

6. No time can be considered as the beginning of time for every such point can be shown to have a past, a time before it.

Sorry for glossing over some of the finer points you two have made but I want to run the following by you two:

Imagine a special clock that runs backwards and is unaffected by anything that this universe can throw at it. It begins at this very instant and ticks off time in reverse but not at a faster rate than time is flowing forwards. After 13.8 billion years in the future it the clock would read the time that corresponds to the Big Bang and the question is, what prevents this clock from continuing to show time before the Big Bang? It would continue, unaffected by anything as defined, to give time before the Big Bang; in other words time doesn't have a beginning.

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.

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?

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

This is a contradiction. 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. Sorry, noticed it only now. It's actually the contradiction I was looking for.

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

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

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?

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

i'm not sure you understand either. Most scientists don't claim to know what the universe was prior to the big bang explosion. And time does exist according to most physicists, but it is hard to measure accurately similar to the reason you described. Time ofcourse at the very least exists as an "iteration of events". Once again measuring time "accurately" can be problematic, but that is not to say it doesn't exist.

Imagine, for the moment, that we have a clock that's keeping time for the universe. — TheMadFool

You lost me. :roll:

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

I agree with #1. It's a premise in my OP. #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.

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

I've tried a couple of arguments with you but none have convinced you. So, at the risk of repeating myself...

At a very basic level of the concept of time, it can be divided into 3 parts: past, present, future. In these concepts lie the essence of time, that of becoming: the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past and this 3-phase cycle continues all throughout.

If one takes any particular point as a beginning of time then, it must've been the present at that beginning but the present can only become the present if it was in the future. The present exists only because it was there to become so in the future. Since, every present can't become so without being in the future, any point considered as the beginning of time, necessarily being a present can become the present only if it was in the future of some other point of time preceding it. In other words, every point in time, necessarily being or becoming the present has a past point in time at which time it lay in the future.

The point I'm trying to get across is what I alluded to in my previous post that time is in flux and the becoming of the future into the present and the present into the past is what we need to take note of. There can't be a present if that present wasn't a future at a time preceding it.

We'd then expect an infinite age. — jorndoe

This doesn't really follow logically from 'it could be any age'. If something could be any age, it is a definite, specific age, but that age is unknown. That's what's implied when you say that the universe is "an age". But this is inconsistent with "infinite age", which is not any particular age at all.

Consequently, your dismissal of "sufficient reason" is unsupported.

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.

magine, for the moment, that we have a clock that's keeping time for the universe. — TheMadFool

Isn't this redundant? Isn't the universe itself a clock keeping time for itself?

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

If you could wind that clock back, then it wouldn't actually be keeping time for the universe, would it? If you wind back your clock, then the time it gives is no longer true, if it had the true time before. But winding it back doesn't affect when it started keeping time.

The gist of the commments in this thread is that a time before the alleged beginning (the Big Bang) is incoherent. — TheMadFool

As I explained in the post which left you speechless, 'time before the beginning' is only as incoherent as 'the future' is incoherent, when it is claimed that the future is a part of time. At the so-called "beginning", there was no past, and only a future. But that future then, existed just as much as the future now exists. So, if the future is construed as a part of time, then it is fully coherent to say that there was time before the beginning, a wide open future.

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

When you consider that the present marks the division between past and future, you'll see that it marks the end of one, and the beginning of the other. It doesn't make sense to talk about future and past without a present, but it does makes sense to talk about a future without a past, and a past without a future. Before a person is born, they have a future with no past, and when a person dies they have a past but no future. So, we can talk about the future, or the past, in exclusion of the other, but we cannot talk about the present without implying both future and past.

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

i agree with this. You would have to see what i referring too. In short i agree with you. Perhaps i took the OP out of context. I don't feel like writing a 5 page essay about why i put that phrase in with what i said.

But yes in short i agree with you. I understand we base our reality on what is happening in the present and what we percieve as having happened in the past or past presents.

You lost me. :roll: — 180 Proof

Make that two of us.

The clock thought experiment makes sense though. If we could reverse time i.e. make the universe travel backwards in time and have a special clock to record the passage of time 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.

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

Even though time told on a clock is relative to how fast the clock is moving (velocity or speed) (a clock moving 5 mph is going to tell time faster than a clock moving 100,000mph), if you did have one clock in the whole universe that is treated as the universal clock regardless of whether it matches all the other clocks in the universe. There is a philosophical concept associated with a universal clock, i'll have to look it up because it dates back several 100 years.

From a secular perspective this hypothetical clock doesn't exist. But considering hypothetical means "for the sake of argument", people should be able to understand the basic premise.