the idea on why time and space exists — Tombob

Time and space exists because we humans need to put an order inside our chaos. These are complex and abstract concepts. Living a life without both time and space would be very difficult because we are used to live like this since we are born. I don’t know if it is good or flawed how we see the time and space considering how vast the Cosmos is (amazing).

If everything originates from an infinite state: everything that has existed, exists and will exist has always existed. This leads to the universe being deterministic. — Tombob

True. It is completely determinism. But I would like to debate with you if “everything” as you say could be timeless. I guess this another character we just give to “everything”. It always been there and will be. Our time perception passes but inside everything don’t because it is like an omnipresence subterfuge. Universe will be still there during the centuries. We the humans will not. We are the deterministic ones.

I think that the origin and nature of the universe is a bad place for a philosophy to start. Valid knowledge begins at the fingertips, and builds from the bottom upwards and outwards. Adopting some absolute promontory - from which to look down on human beings, and expound on concepts like truth and justice, is just bad form.

Time and space exists because we humans need to put an order inside our chaos. These are complex and abstract concepts. Living a life without both time and space would be very difficult because we are used to live like this since we are born. I don’t know if it is good or flawed how we see the time and space considering how vast the Cosmos is (amazing). — javi2541997

Humans created the expression of 'time and space', but the motion of time and space itself exists regardless of human existence. I might have misunderstood you here, though.

True. It is completely determinism. But I would like to debate with you if “everything” as you say could be timeless. I guess this another character we just give to “everything”. It always been there and will be. Our time perception passes but inside everything don’t because it is like an omnipresence subterfuge. Universe will be still there during the centuries. We the humans will not. We are the deterministic ones. — javi2541997

If you would like to debate from the stand point that "everything" cannot be timeless, one of your starting points is necessarily the assumption that time and space came into existence by chance. And my only argument against that is that the assumption is counter-intuitive, considering the universe operates within cause and effect.

1) Time and space has been in motion without a starting point. — Tombob

I guess by this you just mean that the past is infinite.

a) I exclude 1 considering physical measurements would not be possible in such circumstances. Why? Because physical measurements need a starting point, which 1 lacks. — Tombob

The objection doesn't make a lot of sense. We choose the starting points for our measurements to be whatever we want, and the overall extent of time and space has no bearing on that - demonstrably so, because in no instance (other than traditional creation stories and such) do our measurements reference an absolute beginning of time and space.

And even if there was such a difficulty, that would not be a good metaphysical argument, unless you think that time and space have no mind-independent existence whatsoever. Reality doesn't care about our convenience.

2) Time and space came into existence by chance. — Tombob

b) I see 2 as a possibility, but unlikely, as it contradicts the fundamental observations of cause and effect in the universe. — Tombob

I don't know what either the thesis or the response even mean.

3) Time and space emerged through an infinite state. — Tombob

c) 3 is based on cause and effect. If everything is based on cause and effect, it ultimately leads to something that has its own cause of exstience; an infinite state. — Tombob

Ditto. I have no idea what you mean by "infinite state."

If everything originates from an infinite state: everything that has existed, exists and will exist has always existed. — Tombob

I don't know how that follows (since I don't know what "infinite state" is), but taken at face value, this is absurd.

This leads to the universe being deterministic. — Tombob

OK, now I don't even know what you mean by "deterministic." Since you constantly refer to "cause and effect" I took you to mean causal determinism, i.e. the idea that given the state of the world at some point (or slice) in time, everything that happens before and after is determined by causal laws. This notion of determinism is timeless, i.e. it does not depend on whether we are talking about something that has happened, is happening or will happen.

I think that the origin and nature of the universe is a bad place for a philosophy to start. Valid knowledge begins at the fingertips, and builds from the bottom upwards and outwards. — counterpunch

Why? I can see the starting point of time and space as something that is "beginning at the fingertips". However, I'm not sure what the expression fully means.

Adopting some absolute promontory - from which to look down on human beings, and expound on concepts like truth and justice, is just bad form. — counterpunch

What does "adopting some absolotue promontory" mean? How would you expound on concepts like truth and justice, or determinism even?

cannot be timeless, one of your starting points is necessarily the assumption that time and space came into existence by chance. — Tombob

Probably. It could be as you explained to me. But all of these terms are just human creations. Universe was and will be there despite human existence. We just established some criteria to understand what is around us. Something like time and space are so abstract if we compare it with universe. For example, when NASA says a random star could be 1,000 years of distance is just an order we put. That star was there in the vast universe and will be. It doesn’t matter at all the time/space but humans need it to understand all this complexity.
Here, the finite are the humans. The infinite the universe.

Why? I can see the starting point of time and space as something that is "beginning at the fingertips". However, I'm not sure what the expression fully means. What does "adopting some absolotue promontory" mean? How would you expound on concepts like truth and justice, or determinism even? — Tombob

I suppose it depends upon what form your philosophy takes; mine is a narrative describing the evolutionary development of the human organism, civilisation and science, that aspires toward a prosperous sustainable future. I don't concern myself with the origin of life on earth, less yet the origins, and existence of the universe. From my point of view, the beginning of time is extremely distant and not particularly relevant to a middle ground scientific understanding of reality; which is, I'd suggest, the right starting point for philosophy.

The beginning of time is a superlative; an absolute that may be easy to imagine in some vague way, it's impossible to do so with certainty as to the absolute nature of reality, or consciousness, or any other such superlative imponderable. So why start with those? The idea of truth "starting at the fingertips" is meant to suggest knowledge developed over time, built from the bottom up. In the mean time; it's imperative, I believe - to acknowledge what we are and are not able to know.

I guess by this you just mean that the past is infinite. — SophistiCat

Yes!

The objection doesn't make a lot of sense. We choose the starting points for our measurements to be whatever we want, and the overall extent of time and space has no bearing on that - demonstrably so, because in no instance (other than traditional creation stories and such) do our measurements reference an absolute beginning of time and space.

And even if there was such a difficulty, that would not be a good metaphysical argument, unless you think that time and space have no mind-independent existence whatsoever. Reality doesn't care about our convenience. — SophistiCat

An existential beginning is required to be able to measure time. If time and space would have an infinite past, motion would be impossible, and its state would be unchangeable. Change is happening, as time passes by.

I don't know what either the thesis or the response even mean. — SophistiCat

It means that time and space came into being without a cause.

Ditto. I have no idea what you mean by "infinite state." — SophistiCat

By infinite state I mean something that is existing with an infinite past. A framework that allows time and space, and everything in it to exist. It is immaterial, as physicality cannot have an infinite past.

I don't know how that follows (since I don't know what "infinite state" is), but taken at face value, this is absurd. — SophistiCat

If something "emerges from an existence with an infinite past", that something must have an infinite past as well. To tell when in the sequence of time it emerged is impossible. An existing inifite past is a numberless infinity, thus something "emerging" from it shares the same infinity.

OK, now I don't even know what you mean by "deterministic." Since you constantly refer to "cause and effect" I took you to mean causal determinism, i.e. the idea that given the state of the world at some point (or slice) in time, everything that happens before and after is determined by causal laws. This notion of determinism is timeless, i.e. it does not depend on whether we are talking about something that has happened, is happening or will happen. — SophistiCat

Hm, yes. I mean predeterminism.

It's not wrong these terms are made out of humans. But some of these terms are observations that leads to certains assumptions, or truths even.

I agree that this thread is useless to science or any other area where improvement would lead to sustainability. However, my mind is occupied by this type of thoughts, and I want to discuss it with others.

An existential beginning is required to be able to measure time. — Tombob

And yet here we are, measuring time all the time (as it were) with no regard to any such existential beginning. So this can't be true. All we need to measure anything is a measuring device (a clock in this case).

If time and space would have an infinite past, motion would be impossible, and its state would be unchangeable. — Tombob

I don't see how this follows.

It means that time and space came into being without a cause. — Tombob

Well, what would it mean for time and space to be the effect of a cause? We usually assume that causes precede effects, and that requires time to be already in place. No time - no causality. So if you are talking about the beginning of all time, rather than just the beginning of an age, then it must perforce be uncaused.

By infinite state I mean something that is existing with an infinite past. A framework that allows time and space, and everything in it to exist. It is immaterial, as physicality cannot have an infinite past. — Tombob

You lost me here. Something "immaterial" - that apparently exists within some sort of immaterial (?) time - somehow (?) gives rise to the physical time? This is "language on holiday," I am afraid. You just said some words, waved your hands, and made like you've solved the problem. But what have you solved? Where's the solution?

I think you’re right, a deterministic world implies an infinite universe. If the present state of the universe is the effect of its anterior state, a finite universe would never arrive at any present state at all.

If everything originates from an infinite state: everything that has existed, exists and will exist has always existed. This leads to the universe being deterministic.

What are your thoughts? — Tombob

Dumb it down for me some. A newly built wall, and it's future state of ruin (provided it's not repaired as needed) both exist, just not in the same place or time, essentially? Kind of a trippy concept to wrap your head around. Is this similar to the "moving spotlight theory" of time? "It's all relative", etc?

To me, in a strictly scientific understanding of "reality" absent of anything spiritual, it would make more sense to me that somewhere "in a galaxy far far away" (lol) people really evolved billions of years ahead of us who have since been able to master time, space, gravity, and every force on Earth and beyond long ago and..I dunno just kind of mess with us every now and then. Or help, if in the right mood. :grin:

That's not really on topic but basically something related to your question is "how did the Universe start"? The big bang as evidenced by some massive explosion from what is called "the singularity". What created the singularity? What predated it? Was there just a white space like in some abstract philosophical cartoon? Are we really all in a black hole and what we call "black holes" are just punctures in it? Where do they lead? Are there multiple universes? Are they side by side, stacked on top of each other or in completely different realms we cannot (or at least I cannot) even begin to grasp? What are your thoughts?

And yet here we are, measuring time all the time (as it were) with no regard to any such existential beginning. So this can't be true. All we need to measure anything is a measuring device (a clock in this case). — SophistiCat

That is why I exclude 1.

I don't see how this follows. — SophistiCat

Imagine a growing number with an infinite past, that has been increasing each second of its existence. In reality, the number can never increase, since it is infinity, hence its unchangeable state. However, the history of time can be approximated to a number, and that number is constantly changing.

Well, what would it mean for time and space to be the effect of a cause? We usually assume that causes precede effects, and that requires time to be already in place. No time - no causality. So if you are talking about the beginning of all time, rather than just the beginning of an age, then it must perforce be uncaused. — SophistiCat

Can you break down and furtherly explain the last sentence?

Could an explanation of the cause of time and space be that it exists as its own cause? Abstractly speaking, an existing infinite past is its own cause of existence.

You lost me here. Something "immaterial" - that apparently exists within some sort of immaterial (?) time - somehow (?) gives rise to the physical time? This is "language on holiday," I am afraid. You just said some words, waved your hands, and made like you've solved the problem. But what have you solved? Where's the solution? — SophistiCat

It would be immaterial, seeing as it exists with no regard to time and space. But I have no real explanation how or why it gives rise to time and space, other than its setting makes it possible.

Hopefully my comments have made my definitions more clear. If not, I will gladly continue discussing with you.

At last someone who agrees! Are those thoughts from before, or did I inspire your thinking?

Dumb it down for me some. A newly built wall, and it's future state of ruin (provided it's not repaired as needed) both exist, just not in the same place or time, essentially? Kind of a trippy concept to wrap your head around. Is this similar to the "moving spotlight theory" of time? "It's all relative", etc? — Outlander

Indeed! Through a timeless perspective: something that is existing because of an infinity, is in itself the same infinity.

To me, in a strictly scientific understanding of "reality" absent of anything spiritual, it would make more sense to me that somewhere "in a galaxy far far away" (lol) people really evolved billions of years ahead of us who have since been able to master time, space, gravity, and every force on Earth and beyond long ago and..I dunno just kind of mess with us every now and then. Or help, if in the right mood. :grin: — Outlander

Come and pick me up and take me to your civilisation, please!

That's not really on topic but basically something related to your question is "how did the Universe start"? The big bang as evidenced by some massive explosion from what is called "the singularity". What created the singularity? What predated it? Was there just a white space like in some abstract philosophical cartoon? Are we really all in a black hole and what we call "black holes" are just punctures in it? Where do they lead? Are there multiple universes? Are they side by side, stacked on top of each other or in completely different realms we cannot (or at least I cannot) even begin to grasp? What are your thoughts? — Outlander

I wish I had the answers to your curiosity. In 1000 years we might have the answers. Living in the year 3000 would probably be awesome...

To me it's a singularity that sparked the Big Bang, which created the cosmos. Ultimately the universe will collapse in itself and become a singularity again. To then create the cosmos again. An eternal heartbeat (from a human point of view, because not all lifeforms have hearts)

(this is just my theory)

That is why I exclude 1. — Tombob

If you agreed with what you quoted, you wouldn't have excluded (1) for the reason that you gave:

I exclude 1 considering physical measurements would not be possible in such circumstances. Why? Because physical measurements need a starting point, which 1 lacks. — Tombob

That's what I've been objecting to, because it's manifestly false, it contradicts our common experience.

Imagine a growing number with an infinite past — Tombob

I can't imagine such a thing: numbers don't have a past. And we aren't talking about numbers, we are talking about time. True, we use numbers and other mathematical concepts to model time, but it is up to us how we do that; physical time doesn't come with numbers already attached. If you run into difficulties while modeling time, that may just mean that you are doing it wrong.

Here is a model of an imaginary eternal process that doesn't seem to run into any such difficulties, one familiar to any elementary algebra student:



Let's say that the horizontal axis measures time in some units, and the vertical axis measures some physical property. Time in this model extends indefinitely into the past and into the future. There is a zero, but it is nothing other than our choice of a reference point for the coordinate system: it has no physical meaning. If you ask: "What time is it now?" the answer will depend on this conventional choice of the reference frame. Nevertheless, change is happening here and time passes. Indeed, if we could measure the physical property pictured, it could serve as a handy clock by which we could measure the passage of time.

Can you break down and furtherly explain the last sentence?

Could an explanation of the cause of time and space be that it exists as its own cause? — Tombob

Our usual idea of causation is tied up with space and time: causation occurs in space-time, with causes preceding their effects. Therefore, causation outside of space-time makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to ask what caused space-time itself: it is not something that can be caused.

You can instead ask about causes of events, states or entities in space and time. But if you ask what caused something right at the beginning of time (if time has a beginning), then the answer will have to be that it doesn't have a cause, because there is nothing preceding it.

If you want to appeal to some unusual concept of causation, one that does not apply to events, states or entities in space and time, then you will have to develop that concept first and convince us that it is real. We may take familiar causation for granted within the context of a discussion, but you cannot expect us to take for granted something unfamiliar, just because you decided to call it "causation."

It would be immaterial, seeing as it exists with no regard to time and space. But I have no real explanation how or why it gives rise to time and space, other than its setting makes it possible. — Tombob

Well then it's not an explanation, but something pretending to be an explanation. If we drop everything that doesn't have a commonly understood meaning, then all that is left is a placeholder where an explanation is supposed to be. Giving it a name, such as "infinite state," doesn't legitimize it as an explanation.

If everything originates from an infinite state: everything that has existed, exists and will exist has always existed. This leads to the universe being deterministic. — Томбоб

If something happened before, even with an infinite size, does not suggest that it will be in the future. Between 0 and -1 is the same infinity as between 0 and 1 - the only difference is in which direction we are considering it. :)

That's what I've been objecting to, because it's manifestly false, it contradicts our common experience. — SophistiCat

Why does it contradict our common experience? Besides, the idea of time and space relating to (1) contradicts scientific facts. I am simply expressing another viewpoint why the universe must have a beginning. This leads us to option (2) or (3).

I can't imagine such a thing: numbers don't have a past. And we aren't talking about numbers, we are talking about time. — SophistiCat

I was talking about time: "Imagine a growing number with an infinite past, that has been increasing each second of its existence." The concept implies physical impossibility, thus existing as an abstracticality, while our reality is existing as physical.

Our usual idea of causation is tied up with space and time: causation occurs in space-time, with causes preceding their effects. Therefore, causation outside of space-time makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to ask what caused space-time itself: it is not something that can be caused.

You can instead ask about causes of events, states or entities in space and time. But if you ask what caused something right at the beginning of time (if time has a beginning), then the answer will have to be that it doesn't have a cause, because there is nothing preceding it.

If you want to appeal to some unusual concept of causation, one that does not apply to events, states or entities in space and time, then you will have to develop that concept first and convince us that it is real. We may take familiar causation for granted within the context of a discussion, but you cannot expect us to take for granted something unfamiliar, just because you decided to call it "causation." — SophistiCat

The fact is, we don't know what caused Big Bang. To assume space-time cannot be caused, is to assume (1). While I am recognizing (2) as a possibility, I see it as highly unlikely. Where everything happens for a reason, it would be intuitively reasonable to assume space-time happened for a reason. I am not assuming cause and effect outside the space-time pattern. I am assuming that space-time was caused by something that is its own cause of existence [an infinite state]. This implies the effect being inside the space-time pattern, while the cause is outside the pattern of space-time. If space-time was its own cause of existence, (1) would apply, however, (1) is provably false.

Well then it's not an explanation, but something pretending to be an explanation. If we drop everything that doesn't have a commonly understood meaning, then all that is left is a placeholder where an explanation is supposed to be. Giving it a name, such as "infinite state," doesn't legitimize it as an explanation. — SophistiCat

It's a possible explanation, not a legitimate explanation. And you seem to be dropping something essential, that has a commonly understood meaning; Big Bang.

Unfortunately, I have no proof of of my explanation, other than the saying that "everything happens for a reason" (and rightly so).

To me it's a singularity that sparked the Big Bang, which created the cosmos. Ultimately the universe will collapse in itself and become a singularity again. To then create the cosmos again. An eternal heartbeat (from a human point of view, because not all lifeforms have hearts)

(this is just my theory) — TaySan

As beautiful as that theory is, it comes with two problems.

If we count this universe as one heartbeat, that could imply this is the latest heartbeat of its infinite cycle, but that contradicts the infinity. There cannot be a first heartbeat, hence there cannot be a latest heartbeat.

If this is not the latest heartbeat, and it just one number in its infinity of cycles, it would imply that we can put a number on the amount of cycles. This implies the cycle being finite.

If something happened before, even with an infinite size, does not suggest that it will be in the future. Between 0 and -1 is the same infinity as between 0 and 1 - the only difference is in which direction we are considering it. :) — SimpleUser

I am not following your reasoning here. Elaborate, please!

This implies the cycle being finite. — Tombob

Isn't a cycle or circle infinite by definition?

Just because something happened before, even with infinite size, doesn't mean it will happen in the future. Between 0 and -1 is the same infinity as between 0 and 1 - the only difference is in which direction we look at it. :)
- SimpleUser

I am not following your reasoning here. Please clarify! — Tombob

You are simply mixing mathematics (abstraction) and physics (observable reality). We can tell how much time has passed since the beginning of our observable universe (between the "big bang" point and "now"). And this time is finite, not infinite. The reasoning given for the time "before the big bang" is just speculation. And, even more so, the assumption that "infinity in the past" implies "infinity in the future."

You are simply mixing mathematics (abstraction) and physics (observable reality). We can tell how much time has passed since the beginning of our observable universe (between the "big bang" point and "now"). And this time is finite, not infinite. The reasoning given for the time "before the big bang" is just speculation. And, even more so, the assumption that "infinity in the past" implies "infinity in the future." — SimpleUser

I am not denying the reality we are experiencing is finite. What I am proposing is that the past (the beginning), now and future has existed with an infinite past, if it derives from an "infinite state" that causes space-time. Time would be an illusion, in other words. But experienced as real, through our senses.

An infinite past implies an infinite future, seeing as something existing with an infinite past cannot cease to exist. It would contradict the implication of an infinite past.

Sure. But the concept is abstract, while our reality is physical. The cycle could potentially have a beginning of its existence, and travel around in circles for infinity. The number of cycles would be finite, but, increasing towards infinity.

I think it's easier to see existence as an infinite cycle. Why would you make things so hard on yourself :)

An infinite past implies an infinite future, seeing as something existing with an infinite past cannot cease to exist. It would contradict the implication of an infinite past. — Tombob

Where did you get the idea that spacetime is infinite? What are you measuring? By the way, where will the "Planck constant" go?

Good point :sweat: If I go into "philosophy mode" things can get complicated.

Where did you get the idea that spacetime is infinite? What are you measuring? — SimpleUser

It is based on the assumption that spacetime exists because of an infinite setting. With an infinite setting, I mean something that is existing as its own cause, a setting that automatically allows space-time. Some would call it God, I call it an infinite setting. It is not necessarily the truth, but a way for me to cope with why there is something rather than nothing, and why spacetime exists. I find it as a more satisfying answer than "there is no reason why spacetime exists", and I also find the answer plausible, and in line with causation.

By the way, where will the "Planck constant" go? — SimpleUser

Can you elaborate?