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. — Metaphysician Undercover

Firstly, the clock gedanken experiment can't be dismissed so easily.

For your consideration I'll restate it here:

The clock runs normally but the universe is traveling back in time. When the universe reached the Big Bang singularity, the clock reads 13.8 billion years and vanishes into the singularity. That the clock is no longer there is of no concern for even if we destroy all the clocks in the world, time will still flow. Does time stop? No, it'll continue on to before the Big Bang and beyond and had the clock survived, it would've given us pre-Big Bang time.

#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.

:up:

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. — aletheist

I never said that the negation of "X is necessary" is "not-X is necessary". You said the following:

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. — aletheist

I don't have a problem with #1 but look at #2: Either time necessarily had a beginning or time necessarily did not have a beginning. Since this disjunction consists of contradictory statements, they're necessarily true (tautology wise).

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

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

To be frank, I'm struggling with this topic. I'm not overestimating myself here at all. I'm trying to build a good argument and now that I've gone through a couple of possibilities with you and others what about the special clock thought experiment I put forth with you and others?

For your kind consideration, the following:

Imagine there's a special clock that records time in the normal way but the universe is now traveling backwards in time. We will relive history as it was made until we reach the big bang singularity at which time the clock will read 13.8 billion years from the present but into the past. Does the clock stop at the moment the singularity is reached? Suppose the clock can't withstand the forces acting on it and simply disintegrates. Does the destruction of the clock mean time will stop flowing? The answer to both questions is "no" and if it survives the big bang singularity, it will continue to give time in terms of so many years in the past, going beyond even the big bang into time before it. The same argument applies to any point in time posited as the beginning of time. There simply is no good reason that such a clock should come to halt at the point proffered as the beginning.

I get your point that relativity may play a significant role but I'm basing my arguments on the same facts that show the Big Bang took place 13.8 billion years ago. Thanks

I get your point that relativity may play a significant role but I'm basing my arguments on the same facts that show the Big Bang took place 13.8 billion years ago. Thanks — TheMadFool

I was responding to what someone else said in terms of why a universal clock wouldn't work, thats why i mentioned special relativity in the comment.

I was responding to what someone else said in terms of why a universal clock wouldn't work, thats why i mentioned special relativity in the comment. — christian2017

:ok:

Have you ever considered that the concept of time is a fabrication? I think its about time we come up with a new concept that pertains to what is experienced as a succession of moments. If only TPF could behave more as a thinktank, and less as a shitbowl.

The past can't be infinite i.e. time has to have a beginning — TheMadFool

Let me start.

I agree, the past is finite, we call it history, I believe. Time has a beginning too, and it is not in history, it is "now".

:chin: :flower:

Coronaviris

My favorite flower

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. — TheMadFool

No. Relativistic physics denies that premise. NOT every time we have ever dealt with has a past and a future. You seem unable to comprehend the concept of time having a beginning. Time is not a philosophical term any more, but a scientific one. Your attempt to discuss this question purely in philosophical terms is therefore flawed. You seem to be denying what is perceived by physicists as scientific truth, either through ignorance or some counter belief. Unless you can expound your counter theory and it stands up to investigation, your argument has no merit to me.

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. — christian2017

Not only that, but there is an intuitional, instinctual, built in, or hardwired perspective of what the present is. Look at it like we have a window of observation onto the passing of time, and we call this observational perspective "the present". This, what we call "the present", must be a length of time, perhaps a couple hundredths of a second or something like that. Now imagine if that window was just a nanosecond, or if the window was a million years. The world we perceive would be completely different if this were the case. So, the world we perceive, what we sense, is very much shaped by that temporal perspective.

The clock runs normally but the universe is traveling back in time. When the universe reached the Big Bang singularity, the clock reads 13.8 billion years and vanishes into the singularity. That the clock is no longer there is of no concern for even if we destroy all the clocks in the world, time will still flow. Does time stop? No, it'll continue on to before the Big Bang and beyond and had the clock survived, it would've given us pre-Big Bang time. — TheMadFool

Is the clock outside the universe then? If it continues on, it must be. But how is that possible? You are assuming a thing (the clock) which is outside the "universe", which by definition includes all things.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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

In other words, all three comprise the idea of Time. It seems that taking any one out of the equation precludes cognition, no?

And so, could time be another illogical form of existence?

No. Relativistic physics denies that premise. NOT every time we have ever dealt with has a past and a future. You seem unable to comprehend the concept of time having a beginning. Time is not a philosophical term any more, but a scientific one. Your attempt to discuss this question purely in philosophical terms is therefore flawed. You seem to be denying what is perceived by physicists as scientific truth, either through ignorance or some counter belief. Unless you can expound your counter theory and it stands up to investigation, your argument has no merit to me. — Tim3003

Truth be told, I'm just exploring the topic. Nothing definitive that I can call mine.

As for your comments, all I have to say is that barring an actual logical contradiction, there really is no valid reason to say that contemplating a time before any given point in time is nonsensical when it comes to that point in time being a posited beginning of time itself.

aletheist was kind enough to point out no one has proved that either time has or doesn't have a beginning. Actually, in my OP I proved that time has to have a beginning for the simple reason that the past can't be infinite.

My attempts in this discussion with you is to discover if proving time couldn't have a beginning is possible or not. You'll find my views on the matter in my posts in this thread.

As for science, if some online encyclopedias are worth their salt, it doesn't have a theoretical definition of time and utilizes a very simple operational definition which, to me, clearly evinces they don't have a handle on what time actually is. So, if I were you, I wouldn't take scientific claims about time to be some kind of gospel truth.

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.
— christian2017

Not only that, but there is an intuitional, instinctual, built in, or hardwired perspective of what the present is. Look at it like we have a window of observation onto the passing of time, and we call this observational perspective "the present". This, what we call "the present", must be a length of time, perhaps a couple hundredths of a second or something like that. Now imagine if that window was just a nanosecond, or if the window was a million years. The world we perceive would be completely different if this were the case. So, the world we perceive, what we sense, is very much shaped by that temporal perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover

i agree.

The clock runs normally but the universe is traveling back in time. When the universe reached the Big Bang singularity, the clock reads 13.8 billion years and vanishes into the singularity. That the clock is no longer there is of no concern for even if we destroy all the clocks in the world, time will still flow. Does time stop? No, it'll continue on to before the Big Bang and beyond and had the clock survived, it would've given us pre-Big Bang time.
— TheMadFool

Is the clock outside the universe then? If it continues on, it must be. But how is that possible? You are assuming a thing (the clock) which is outside the "universe", which by definition includes all things. — Metaphysician Undercover

its hypothetical clock. its so far away from the condensed universe, and the clock is traveling at a slow velocity or not at all, it has almost no effect on the other part(s) of the universe. Its a hypothetical (for the sake of argument) clock.

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

In other words, all three comprise the idea of Time. It seems that taking any one out of the equation precludes cognition, no?

And so, could time be another illogical form of existence? — 3017amen

I was in search of a contradiction but nothing turned up.

On what grounds? — TheMadFool

Really? :)
There'd be more time than time?

I haven't mentioned anything about causality. — TheMadFool

My comment was really just about sufficient reason, much like the opening post but analogous, deriving a contradiction from sufficient reason instead.

Really? :)
There'd be more time than time? — jorndoe

My comment was really just about sufficient reason, much like the opening post but analogous, deriving a contradiction from sufficient reason instead — jorndoe

Thanks for replying. The principle of sufficient reason you touched upon is germane to my point in the form of the argument for god from first cause according to which everything has a cause and ergo, an infinite chain of causation extending backwards into infinity. God then became the first cause, the uncaused cause but such an argument is self-refuting, no? It begins with everything having a cause and then draws the conclusion that there's an uncaused cause.

That time has a beginning is a similar claim to that of the uncaused cause because just like in the latter we may always ask what the preceding cause was, for every moment in time, even those posited as beginnings, there isn't anything wrong in asking about time before it.

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.

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."

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.

Is time material? If it isn't material and last I checked it wasn't then, nothing will happen to time when the universe is reversed back in time to the big bang singularity and beyond. The clock is there only to serve as a familiar face and persists right until the big bang in this journey backwards in time at which point you should realize that the clock is not time and even in its absence time extends infinitely into the past of 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.

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

And in a succinct fashion, what was your answer, again? The reason I ask to re-visit that so-called phenomena (relative to time) is because both TMF and I are suggesting that there are contradictions associated with same.

But more specifically, your answer in the other thread you linked I believe, was in a different context, no?

So I'll restate the question: can you remove the past, present, and future from the concept of Time itself? (And if you could, what would that look like?)

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.

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.

No, but that has no bearing on whether time logically could have had a beginning.

Agreed. And I understand the other point you and TMF are arguing. But it is an intriguing answer nonetheless. And by maintaining the OP/paradox, if we are saying that the past, present and future all consist of Time itself, is that not somehow a contradiction?

For example:

1. Time is both present and not present.
2. Time is both past and not past.
3. Time is both future and not future.
4. For me to simply cognize or think (i.e., the act of thinking itself about items 1thru 3), it requires perception of all three at the same Time.

Are those propositions sound? If they are true, then the infamous apple can't be red and not red at the same time (bivalence/vagueness/law of non-contradiction). It has to be either true that its color is red, or false that it is red. The properties of Time then, can't be exclusively one or another. It is vague. It is a mottled color of red. It transcends the principle of bivalence, correct?

Maybe the question is more relative to consciousness and Time, and the paradox of same.