I think the OP logical, but it doesn't connect to anything. Spinning wheels. — Banno

:up:

:up: — 180 Proof

I'll need more than that, if I'm to stay in the air conditioning!

I'm having a bit of difficulty in bringing out the validity of the OP. Three assumptions and a conclusion - something is usually missing, or superfluous.

I had a go at parsing the argument in to something that was valid, but I can't see it.

Anyone?

Your pseudo-syllogism doesn’t produce a logical contradiction and, thusly, doesn’t prove the logical impossibility of nothing becoming something. Your argument, in its form (as best as I could infer), is:

P1: T ↔ C
P2: E → C
P3: N → !T → !C
C: E → (C & C!)

The conclusion doesn’t following from the premises.

Secondly, I think you are thinking that nothing being unrestrained by time entails it cannot spontaneously be involved with temporal sequences, which doesn’t necessarily follow. I don’t see why one would believe that.

Thirdly, P1 seems false to me or, at least, requiring further elaboration: I don’t think there needs to be an actual ‘change’ in the sense of a sequential, temporal movement of one thing to another thing even if the temporal relations are real. Time, in the sense of actual movement (of ‘change’ in terms of what you seem to be talking about) is simply a form of one’s experience: it is a mode by which your representative faculty intuits and cognizes objects—it does not exist beyond that.

P1: T ↔ C — Bob Ross

Hmm. T is equivalent to C?

I suspect it's an implication - "if there is a change then there is a passage of time" or some such.

But the problem is that the "nothing" is embedded in a relation - "nothing to something" - except in (3). Somehow the parsing needs to quantify nothing...

There isn't a way to quantify over "nothing", without treating of an individual. So "nothing is red" can be quantified, it might be parsed as

~∃(x)(x is red)
(read: it's not the case that there is an x such that x is red)

But "there is nothing" can't be treated in this way.

Hence the general criticism, that these sorts of arguments reify "nothing" by treating it as an individual.

Wife wants me to put gherkins in the potato salad! — Banno

Pickles would be better, but gherkins will do in a pinch. Chop them very small. See if there are some capers handy, and chives.

'tis an odd thing, culinary appellation. "Gherkin" tends hereabouts to be used for all sizes of pickled cucumbers; that seems not to be the case in foreign parts. "Pickle" tends to be used mostly for what others call "relish", especially in the favourite, mustard pickle, which consists mostly of green tomatoes and cauliflower, and is done towards the end of the season. "Pickle" is also used as a generic term for anything preserved in salt or vinegar.

The potato salad of family tradition consists in white potatoes, cut into small cubes and boiled in well-salted water until precisely al dente, then combined with chopped boiled egg and chives, the very best olive oil and a mild vinegar, usually white wine; seasoned with pepper and salt. That's it.

A thing of subtle beauty, it will not be adulterated with gherkins, pickles, capers or any other abominations.

And certainly no mayonnaise.

All of which is somewhat off the task at hand here, so I'll add that your "time cannot have begun" might just mean that there was no point in time at which there was no time... which is I think a point of grammar rather than a bit of ontology?

I have to add that time is a substance that allows change. By substance I mean it is something that exists and it has a set of properties. The property of time is the rate at which it changes. — MoK

A substance is something material; it consistse of matter. Time is not physical. It doesn't actually exist. It is a dimension. We use it to measure change and motion, as well as for description purposes.

I can however argue that nothing is a state of affairs that could exist. By nothing I simply mean, no spacetime, no physical, no God,... Therefore, nothing to something is a change. — MoK

A state is a condition. It has attributes. How can "nothing" be a state, of affairs or anything else? Nothing is simply absence of existence. absence of anything. How can something that doesn't exist be anything at all?

Here is my simple argument in syllogism form:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3) — MoK

@Banno How about:

1) Assumption: If change, then time
2) Assumption: If nothing to something, then change
3) Assumption: Nothing to something [object of reductio]
4) Therefore, change [2,3 MPP]
5) Therefore, time [1,4 MPP]
6) Therefore, nothing [3, some kind of a fortiori inference, like &elimination, seems reasonable]
7) Assumption: If nothing, then not-time
8) Therefore, not-time [6, 7 MPP]
9) Therefore, time and not-time [5,8 & introduction]
10) Therefore, NOT nothing to something [RAA]

Or something like that. May have missed out some bits. What lines do you cite for a reductio?

P1) Time is needed for any change — MoK

At the planck scale P1 is arguably meaningless or false. For example, does it take time for particles to pop in to, or out of, existence?

No. The timelessness that existed before the beginning of time would put that "before" state in a time-frame. The beginning of time would have been a change from timelessness, and change cannot take place in the absence of time. Therefore, time cannot have begun. — Vera Mont

No, it is not proper to talk about the point before the beginning of time because time does not exist before its beginning and you need another time to investigate the state of affairs before the beginning of the former time.

You might be dealing with abstractions here. You just make a vague non-physical have a set relation to an unknown physical we don't have access to. Why would any framework of logic apply?

Brain; (abstraction 1)
Brain; (abstraction 2)

Do you see the problem with applying logic?

Define "nothing" (including how that concept differs from 'nothing-ness'). As an undefined term, your argument seems invalid. — 180 Proof

According to the dictionary, nothing is a pronoun that means not anything; no single thing. Nothingness is a noun that means the absence of existence. To me, here by nothing I mean a state of affairs that there is no spacetime, no physical,... By something, I mean a state of affairs that there is spacetime, physical,...

"Time" is only a metric; to conflate, or confuse, a metric with what it measures as you do, Mok, is a reification fallacy (e.g. a map =|= the territory). — 180 Proof

According to general relativity, time is a component of spacetime that allows change to happen. Spacetime is a substance that curves near a massive object.

For instance, AFAIK, quantum fluctuations are random (i.e. pattern-less), therefore, not time-directional (i.e. a-temporal), and yet vacuum energy exists; so it's reasonable to surmise that "time" (re: spacetime) is not a fundamental physical property –only an abstract approximation (i.e. mapping) – of "something". — 180 Proof

I cannot understand what you are trying to say here. Spacetime to me is fundamental, by fundamental I mean it cannot be created or pop into existence.

No, it is not proper to talk about the point before the beginning of time — MoK

Tsk, tsk, you just did.

you need another time to investigate the state of affairs before the beginning of the former time — MoK

Another time Before the beginning of Former time!?? Now you have three iterations of the impropriety of pre-time affairs. I think you should stop painting that floor.

(PS I don't need any of this nonsense)

Nice try, but ...

Folk trying to do physics without the maths, again. — Banno

"Time is needed for any change." Although "time" is treated as a substance here, and "change" is really the question here, I can grant this premise. — Fire Ologist

Great to see that you agree.

I also don't like "needed." I would replace this premise with "Change, measurable over time, is." — Fire Ologist

I cannot understand what you mean by "Change, measurable over time, is.". Do you mind to elaborate?

Nothing to something is a change. Parmenides broke this down as being and not-being, which I like better for such a concise argument. I can grant this premise too as "Not-being to being, or nothing to something, is change." — Fire Ologist

Glad to see that you agree.

So we've asserted the existence of change, asserted time measures it, and then asserted one example of change as nothing to something, or not-being to being. — Fire Ologist

What do you mean by time measures the change?

"There is no time in nothing" This needs more explanation to be a meaningful statement. I mean I get what you are driving at, but this premise is supposed to do all the work in the argument, and it ranges from meaningless, to meaning not enough to do the work. Let's pretend there is nothing. Then let's pick a point and pretend it is time 1. Now let's wonder about was before time 1 and after time 1. There still is nothing before time 1 and nothing after time 1, no seeming change, nothing to mark or measure, but by now we have still asserted there is time in nothing. The point is, to merely assert "there is no time in nothing" without explanation, as to what time, and a concept such as "in nothing" are, I am left wondering if we can conclude anything yet. But you then just leap to your conclusion. — Fire Ologist

If we agree that time is a substance (or better to say spacetime a substance) then the premise follows trivially since nothing is a state of affairs that there is no spacetime, no physical,...

I get it. I agree something from nothing is a logical impasse. And I agree that there is physical, changing, moving substance. But the above isn't an argument. — Fire Ologist

True, what I mentioned is not an argument but a physical fact.

Parmenides said:
"Being is; for To Be is possible, and Nothingness is not possible."
"What is, is. Being has no coming-into-being or destruction, for it is whole of limb, without motion, and without end. And in never Was, nor Will Be, because it Is now. How, whence could it have sprung? Nor shall I allow you to speak or think of it as springing from Not-Being; for it is neither expressible nor thinkable that What-Is-Not, is."
"Nor will the force of credibility ever admit that anything should come into Being... out of Not-Being."
[Just as Being cannot come from nothing], how could Being perish? How could it come into being? If it came into being, it Is Not; and so too [it Is Not] if it is about-to-be at some future time. Thus coming-into-Being is quenched, and Destruction also, into the unseen."

Parmenides would agree with you that something from nothing, or nothing to something, are impossible. But his reasoning is from the fact that motion itself is impossible because motion itself requires what is not, to change into what is, which is impossible.

Parmenides was saying you can't pull a rabbit from what is utterly not-rabbit, and therefore, there is no such thing as change, as in change from what was not into what will be, also as in change from nothing to something.

You seem to be arguing that, just because there is change, just because we see rabbits come from things that were not rabbits, it still can't be true that something can come from nothing. Time as something that sits with things, but something that cannot sit with nothing, doesn't really do the work to explain how change is possible, or rule out how change is impossible. In fact Parmenides used the same assertion (something can't come from nothing), to more logically demonstrate quite a different result - time and change are not. — Fire Ologist

I have to read his argument a few times to understand it well. I however disagree with him that change is impossible.

I've always had problems with this problem.

I can visualize a sphere reducing to a point and vanishing... or not existing then appearing but how does it happen physically? — Mark Nyquist

Does time exist in this picture? What I am trying to say is that time does not exist in nothing and it is required for change, nothing to something, therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

The big bang theory is usually presented with a time component of 13.8 billion years but is time really a physical component or just a derived measure of physical matter. Probably just derived so it's not fundamental. — Mark Nyquist

Time is fundamental, by fundamental I mean it simply exists, it cannot be created or pop into existence. Time is a substance as well.

Not a problem! We're here to think with each other. Also welcome to the forums. You will encounter some people who will talk down to you or passively insult you for just bringing an idea up. Please ignore them. — Philosophim

Thanks for letting me know! I am happy to see a person who is open to a new idea.

Good start. Can time exist apart from spacetime? If so, can you describe what it is? If not, then we have to change premise one from "Time" to "Spacetime". — Philosophim

Well, space and time are interconnected and inseparable in the classical theory of spacetime, such as special and general relativity. There are quantum theories of spacetime though in which physicists discuss time as an emergent thing without classical spacetime. There is debate about these theories between physicists though. I however think that spacetime is fundamental and cannot be created or emerge so I agree with you that it is better to replace time with spacetime in P1 and P3.

As far as the big bang theory goes, it's a method of working things backwards. The universe is expanding so if you go backwards the universe would reduce to a point. Something like that.

At that point things are left to our imaginations.
Is it really a point? Do the laws of physics still apply? Like I said, I don't know. Difficult to find a handle.

P1) Time is needed for any change — MoK

One view of time is that it is basically the same thing as change. Time starts when change happens. Not sure if this fits with science or not.

Hmm. T is equivalent to C?

No, C is biconditionally implicated to T; not equivalent.

There isn't a way to quantify over "nothing", without treating of an individual. So "nothing is red" can be quantified, it might be parsed as

This is fair that one needs to explicate what they mean by nothing. I happen to believe nothing is just the systematic negation of things: it is a potential infinite of negations; and, to be charitable to the OP, I am interpreting their use of 'nothing' as an actual infinite of negativity.

So they can absolutely quantify over an entity of 'nothing' without admitting that that entity exists; as weird and uncomfortable as that is: we are constrained within our language to speak of nothingness in this way.

Likewise, I agree that a relation of 'nothing to something' is wholly unknown to us, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim positively that it cannot exist because nothing cannot be treated in a manner required in order to posit the relationship (which is what you seem to be saying).

Anyways, probably the biggest problem with the OP is that it doesn't prove it is logically impossible; even if the premises are granted.

I however think that spacetime is fundamental and cannot be created or emerge so I agree with you that it is better to replace time with spacetime in P1 and P3. — MoK

Ok, with that, lets see if we can break down the underlying essence of what makes the argument compelling.

Spacetime is 'something". Its an existent measurement. And its required for us to have change. Which means that 'change' in your definition, is something that can only happen when things exist.

Now have we proven that spacetime is required for change? No, what we've done is declare it by definition. This isn't necessarily wrong or bad, but we have to be aware it is by definition, and not by empirical discovery.

So then what we've done can be simplified as follows:

1. Spacetime is needed for any change

Basically we say we need something for change to happen. Specifically that something is spacetime. (Though the actual detail of 'spacetime' will be irrelevant to our conclusion. We could call it "A" and it wouldn't matter)

2. Nothing to something is a change.
But we noted earlier that we need something for there to be a change. The only way this still works is if something appears. And this makes sense. Nothing to nothing isn't a change, but nothing to something is.

3. There is no spacetime in nothing
This still works. But does our original conclusion?

C: Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

With our clearer breakdown, we can no longer conclude this. Point two notes that a change can occur when we go from nothing to something. What is is impossible is that nothing to something cannot occur 'without spacetime'.

Revised C: Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible without spacetime also appearing.

This is the real logical conclusion we can make based on our definitions and premises so far.

But lets follow up a bit because one conclusion out of a set of revised terms doesn't mean that we still don't want to prove our original intent. Maybe with a change we can still do so. To preserve our original intent we can add one thing.

P: Spacetime cannot appear within nothing.

The problem is, this is only by definition and not empirical proof. Meaning at this point we haven't proven anything, we've simply declared it. So I still don't see a way to my mind of salvaging our original intent which was to prove that change nothing to something is logically impossible. But what do you think?

No, C is biconditionally implicated to T; not equivalent. — Bob Ross

That's what logical equivalence is. Ok, so you think it means something like that if time passes, then change happens, and if change happens then time passes. I guess so.

The quantification to which I gestured is "U" and "∃". So "Nothing is red" parses as ~∃(x) (x is red), or as U~(x)(x is red), but "U" and "∃" cannot be used to parse

it doesn't prove it is logically impossible; even if the premises are granted. — Bob Ross

Yep.

What do you mean by time measures the change? — MoK

We need a microscope to take measure of tiny things. We need time to take measure of change.

You said "Time is needed for any change." It sounded like time was in one bucket over there, and then something grabs some time, because it needed it, to make some change, sitting over here in this other bucket. So I meant to incorporate time and change into a similar premise as you and came up with really two premises: Change exists. Time measures change.

Change is the more substantial thing, but really time is the mental overlap with change in the physical. Time is just as real, but only recognized (or constructed) by a mind recognizing physical change.

P1) Time is needed for any change — MoK

Time doesn't exist in the actual world. Time is a priori condition for perception and experience in Kant, and I believe it is correct. Changes take place totally unrelated to time. Time has nothing to do with changes. Human mind perceives the duration or interval of something starting and ending, and that is all there is to it.

Time is simply a civil contract to say that it is 1 year for the earth to rotate around the sun, and 1 day for the earth to rotate itself to the same point on the geographical location. Without those planetary movements, the time as we know it wouldn't exist at all. It follows that changes don't need time. So we could say that changes generate the perception of time.

P2) Nothing to something is a change — MoK

A change is from something to something else. Why is it nothing to something?

P3) There is no time in nothing — MoK

An ambiguous statement.  This cannot be accepted as a premise for its ambiguity.  Time is a concept and a priori condition for perception and experience.  Nothing is a concept to denote a state of non-existence.  You must define what "nothing" means before making the statement for consideration.

C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3) — MoK

Can nothing be something? Then it can be possible for nothing to something. Hence the conclusion would be wrong. Because "Therefore, nothing which is something is logically possible." would be right.

But if nothing is not something, or if it is a state of non-existence, then the conclusion would be ambiguous, and invalid, because it doesn't clarify what "nothing" is, and it doesn't follow from the premises. There is no necessary logical connection from the premises to conclusion.

Your pseudo-syllogism doesn’t produce a logical contradiction and, thusly, doesn’t prove the logical impossibility of nothing becoming something. Your argument, in its form (as best as I could infer), is:

P1: T ↔ C
P2: E → C
P3: N → !T → !C
C: E → (C & C!) — Bob Ross

Time is not ontological entity. Time is epistemic entity.
□∀M -> □∃T
∃M1t1∃M2t2 →□Ag,T,M

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I also don't understand the implication of this to the first premise as well.

P1) Time is needed for any change
— MoK

Time is not defined in the OP. It could be referring to anything.

Cool, so you agree with the second premise.

P2) Nothing to something is a change
— MoK

More or less, if you are saying what I thought you were saying.

Time is a substance that allows change. Therefore, this premise is also correct given the definition of time and nothing.

P3) There is no time in nothing — MoK

As I said, you gave no definition for time. But to claim that time is a substance would mean that it has some sort of physical presence, which is a long stretch of the imagination. Could you maybe explain that a bit better.

P1. Inside the cubic volume A there is a complete vacuum.
P2. Objects need material to exists
P3. There is no material in a A
C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing. — Sir2u

I cannot understand how your conclusion follows from the premises. — MoK

My apologies,you are right there is a bit missing.

C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing in cubic volume A.

That's what logical equivalence is

No. It is material equivalence.

The quantification to which I gestured is "U" and "∃". So "Nothing is red" parses as ~∃(x) (x is red), or as U~(x)(x is red), but "U" and "∃" cannot be used to parse

By my lights, one could parse nothingness as ~∃x (x) or ~∃x (Exists<x>).

Time is not ontological entity. Time is epistemic entity.

That doesn’t make any sense, unless you are just conveying that time is just the form of experience.

□∀M -> □∃T
∃M1t1∃M2t2 →□Ag,T,M

I don’t know what this is supposed to be conveying.

:meh:

Odd.

Whatever.

:meh:

:kiss:

Which part is odd? And why?