I dunno.

Equivalence: Usually "≡", sometimes ↔︎, means "(p⊃q).(q⊃p)"

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

But ~∃x (x) is not well-formed - it doesn't say anything.

And ~∃x (Exists<x>)?

I guess you could go for a free logic and write something like ~∃x (∃!(x)) which (I think) just says that "It is not the case that there exists an x such that there exists exactly one x.", at the expense of throwing out classical logic. Why do that?

The thing about parsing is that one has to be specific about what one means, and that is absent in the OP.

Or we might follow Quines' "to be is to be the subject of a predicate" and only talk about non-empty domains...

So how does Quine defend his criterion of ontological commitment from the menace looming from the empty domain? By compromise. Normally one thinks of a logical theorem as a proposition that holds in all domains. Quine (1953b, 162) suggests that we weaken the requirement to that of holding in all non-empty domains. In the rare circumstances in which the empty universe must be considered, there is an easy way of testing which theorems will apply: count all the universal quantifications as true, and all the existential quantifications as false, and then compute for the remaining theorems.

Is Quine being ad hoc? Maybe. But exceptions are common for notions in the same family as the empty domain. For instance, instructors halt their students’ natural pattern of thinking about division to forestall the disaster that accrues from permitting division by zero. If numbers were words, zero would be an irregular verb. — SEP: Nothingness

...in which case there is never nothing.

Suits me.

(But I suspect this is going nowhere.)

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. — Bob Ross

It says what it means. It is a simple and clear statement which reflects the nature of time. I am not sure if it needs explanation.

□∀M -> □∃T
∃M1t1∃M2t2 →□Ag,T,M

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

M = Motion
t = time
Ag = agent

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. — Bob Ross

The argument follows from premises but it is not obvious because of the hidden premises (HPs). Please find the new version of the argument in pseudo-syllogism form in the following:

P1) Time is needed for change
P2) There is no change when there is no time (From P1) (HP)
P3) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing (HP)
P4) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P2 and P4)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P3 and C1)

I am not logician so I cannot write the argument in syllogism form. I would appreciate your help if you convert the argument to syllogism form.

I think I can write another argument in reductio ad absurdum form but I need time to think about it.

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. — Bob Ross

I cannot follow you here. Do you mind elaborating?

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. — Bob Ross

There are two things that I need to show: (1) Time is needed for any change and (2) Time is a substance.

1) Consider a change, A to B. A and B cannot lay at the same point otherwise A and B are simultaneous and there cannot be a change. Therefore, A and B must lay at two different points of a variable. Moreover, the second point, that B resides, must come after the first point, that A resides, if there is a change. This variable we call time.

2) According to general relativity, time is a component of spacetime. Spacetime is a substance though. By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. Spacetime's property is its curvature. Two phenomena confirm that spacetime is a substance or in other words confirm general relativity, namely gravitational wave and gravitational lens.

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? — jkop

I think P1 is valid no matter how fast is the process.

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. — Alkis Piskas

Time is a component of spacetime. Spacetime is shown to be a substance experimentally. Two phenomena confirm spacetime is a substance, namely gravitational lens and gravitational wave.

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? — Alkis Piskas

By the state of affairs, I mean a situation.

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. — Mark Nyquist

The laws of physics cannot apply to the singularity.

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. — Philosophim

Ok, I have an argument for that: Consider a change, A to B. A and B cannot lay at the same point otherwise A and B are simultaneous and there cannot be a change. Therefore, A and B must lay at two different points of a variable. Moreover, the second point, that B resides, must come after the first point, that A resides, if there is a change. This variable we call time.

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. — Philosophim

Cool.

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? — Philosophim

Well, if we accept that spacetime is a substance then nothing to spacetime is also a change that is logically impossible since we need another spacetime for this change.

One view of time is that it is basically the same thing as change. — bert1

Time changes but it is not the same thing as change in physical.

Time starts when change happens. Not sure if this fits with science or not. — bert1

No, spacetime is a substance on its own and can exist without physical.

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

There are two changes when there is a motion: Change in attributes of an object, such as its position, and change in time. So time does not measure the change. Time however is needed for change since otherwise all events lay at the same point and are simultaneous.

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. — Fire Ologist

By time is needed for any change I mean that change is not possible without time.

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. — Corvus

No, time is a component of spacetime. Spacetime was first claimed to be a substance by the general theory of relativity. It is also confirmed by observation of gravitational wave and lens.

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

Because nothing is a condition in which no thing exists. Something is a condition in which at least one thing exists. Therefore, nothing to something is a change as well.

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. — Corvus

No, time is a substance and nothing is a condition in which no thing exists. Therefore, the premise is correct.

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. — Corvus

No, nothing is not something. The conclusion also follows from the premises. No time, no change. Time does not exist in nothing. Therefore, nothing to something, that is a change, is not possible.

No, time is a component of spacetime. Spacetime was first claimed to be a substance by the general theory of relativity. It is also confirmed by observation of gravitational wave and lens. — MoK

You are confusing the observation of the wave with time as a substance. Observed motions are not time itself.

Because nothing is a condition in which no thing exists. Something is a condition in which at least one thing exists. Therefore, nothing to something is a change as well. — MoK

Nothing is a condition, and something is a condition too. So a condition to a condition means nothing has changed.

No, time is a substance and nothing is a condition in which no thing exists. Therefore, the premise is correct. — MoK

What do you mean by substance? Is it a physical object you can see and touch?

No, nothing is not something. The conclusion also follows from the premises. No time, no change. Time does not exist in nothing. Therefore, nothing to something, that is a change, is not possible. — MoK

Until you clearly define what nothing, something, change and time is, the conclusion is nonsense. The first thing wrong is the concept of time, which doesn't exist in the actual world.

Time is not defined in the OP. It could be referring to anything. — Sir2u

According to the general relativity, time is a component of spacetime in which it allows change to happen. Spacetime is shown by the theory of general relativity and observation to be a substance. Gravitational wave and lens are two main observations that confirm spacetime as a substance.

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. — Sir2u

I defined time to a good extent in the previous comment. Please let me know if you need elaboration.

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.

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

C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing in cubic volume A. — Sir2u

Ok, I see. But I think the correct conclusion (from P2 and P3) is: Therefore nothing exists in cubic volume A.

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.
— Philosophim
Ok, I have an argument for that: Consider a change, A to B. A and B cannot lay at the same point otherwise A and B are simultaneous and there cannot be a change. Therefore, A and B must lay at two different points of a variable. Moreover, the second point, that B resides, must come after the first point, that A resides, if there is a change. This variable we call time. — MoK

This is a nice attempt, but its just an empirical observation of change withing spacetime. What we haven't observed is if its impossible for spacetime to emerge from nothing. Now, to be clear, what we're talking about is a negative. Proving a negative is nigh impossible. For example if I said, "Empirically demonstrate that a unicorn does not exist", the best answer we can give is, "We have not discovered one yet." With a unicorn especially, there isn't even any logical evidence that it needs to exist. So we can probably dismiss that claim.

But can we do the same with 'nothing to something'. There is another age old question which is the idea that as we work up through causality we either reach a point in which there was nothing prior, or we have an infinite regress. Of course, in both cases we ask the question "What caused there to be anything at all?" It can't be something else, as we've reached the limit. In the case of the finite regression, its obvious. A little less obvious, but we also conclude the same with an infinite regress when examining the entire thing as a set. There is no prior cause for why anything should exist. Meaning, something existed despite there being nothing to cause it to exist.

Well, if we accept that spacetime is a substance then nothing to spacetime is also a change that is logically impossible since we need another spacetime for this change. — MoK

That's not quite what I was going for. My point is that we would need spacetime to form at or slightly before something else. In other words, what your notion is proves is that any change from nothing to something must be the emergence of spacetime. You definitely give a valid argument that something cannot form without there being spacetime, but you haven't demonstrated in any logical proof that spacetime cannot emerge within nothing.

Lets take it one more way so you can see it from another angle. Perhaps we cannot empirically demonstrate that something came from nothing, but we also cannot empirically demonstrate that something always existed either. We need a logical reason why this would be, and I believe there are other compelling logical arguments that infinite time passing to get to our existent point today doesn't make any sense. Its a difficult subject for sure. :) But what do you think about this?

Time changes but it is not the same thing as change in physical. — MoK

Is that right though? I'm not sure what it could mean for time to change. Things move from one place to another, that is a kind of change. They do so at a speed, which involves a concept of time. But can't we just replace the concept of time with counting movements? We know Earth rotates 365 times in a year. A year is a unit of time. But we don't need that do we? We can say the Earth rotates 365 times for every one rotation of the Earth around the Sun. That's just movement and counting, no? Is time reducible to that? Or is time something over and above measuring one set of movements against another? If everything stopped moving, would there be any time? What does it mean for time to 'pass' sans movement in space?

I should do a basic physics course.

You are confusing the observation of the wave with time as a substance. Observed motions are not time itself. — Corvus

No, the observed motion was a change in the fabric of spacetime.

Nothing is a condition, and something is a condition too. So a condition to a condition means nothing has changed. — Corvus

No, there is no thing in nothing and there is at least one physical entity in something. Therefore, nothing to something is a change.

What do you mean by substance? Is it a physical object you can see and touch? — Corvus

Spacetime curvature can affect the motion of physical objects. This effect however is very small so it goes unnoticed unless you are close to a very heavy object, such as a black hole. Physicists however observed gravitational lens and wave despite the effect being very small.

Until you clearly define what nothing, something, change and time is, the conclusion is nonsense. The first thing wrong is the concept of time, which doesn't exist in the actual world. — Corvus

I defined nothing, something, and time so what is left is the change. Change is a variation in the physical attributes of something.

No, the observed motion was a change in the fabric of spacetime. — MoK

It sounds like a voice from the deepest well of confusion. Will leave you to it. :yawn:

This is a nice attempt, but its just an empirical observation of change withing spacetime. — Philosophim

I cannot understand. Why the argument is an empirical observation?

What we haven't observed is if its impossible for spacetime to emerge from nothing. — Philosophim

I already argue against that.

Now, to be clear, what we're talking about is a negative. Proving a negative is nigh impossible. For example if I said, "Empirically demonstrate that a unicorn does not exist", the best answer we can give is, "We have not discovered one yet." With a unicorn especially, there isn't even any logical evidence that it needs to exist. So we can probably dismiss that claim. — Philosophim

OK.

But can we do the same with 'nothing to something'. There is another age old question which is the idea that as we work up through causality we either reach a point in which there was nothing prior, or we have an infinite regress. Of course, in both cases we ask the question "What caused there to be anything at all?" It can't be something else, as we've reached the limit. In the case of the finite regression, its obvious. A little less obvious, but we also conclude the same with an infinite regress when examining the entire thing as a set. There is no prior cause for why anything should exist. Meaning, something existed despite there being nothing to cause it to exist. — Philosophim

Yes, that is one explanation, something can simply exist without any cause. Spacetime is one candidate for such a scenario.

That's not quite what I was going for. My point is that we would need spacetime to form at or slightly before something else. In other words, what your notion is proves is that any change from nothing to something must be the emergence of spacetime. You definitely give a valid argument that something cannot form without there being spacetime, but you haven't demonstrated in any logical proof that spacetime cannot emerge within nothing. — Philosophim

That is impossible because spacetime is a substance.

Lets take it one more way so you can see it from another angle. Perhaps we cannot empirically demonstrate that something came from nothing, but we also cannot empirically demonstrate that something always existed either. We need a logical reason why this would be, and I believe there are other compelling logical arguments that infinite time passing to get to our existent point today doesn't make any sense. Its a difficult subject for sure. :) But what do you think about this? — Philosophim

There are two arguments against the infinite past. One is based on heat-death. According to the second law of thermodynamics entropy in a closed system increases. Maximum entropy is reached when the system is uniform. In this case, no energy exchange is possible so no work is possible as well. This means that we are in a state of heat-death. Of course, it takes some time before we reach to heat-death state but if the universe has existed eternally in the past then we should be in a heat-death state. We are not in such a state therefore the universe has a beginning. Another argument is dealing with infinite regress in time. Infinite regress is of course not acceptable. Therefore, the universe has a beginning.

Is that right though? — bert1

Yes.

I'm not sure what it could mean for time to change. — bert1

It means that we go from one point in time to another point.

Things move from one place to another, that is a kind of change. They do so at a speed, which involves a concept of time. — bert1

Yes, exactly right.

But can we just replace the concept of time with counting movements? We know Earth rotates 365 times in a year. A year is a unit of time. But we don't need that do we? We can say the Earth rotates 365 times for every one rotation of the Earth. That's just movement and counting, no? — bert1

Yes, we can say that. But we cannot get rid of time since it takes a specific amount of time for Earth to rotate around the Sun. Time is especially important when you want to know the speed of Earth in this rotation.

Is time reducible to that? Or is time something over and above measuring one set of movements against another? If everything stopped moving, would there be any time? What does it mean for time to 'pass' sans movement in space? — bert1

Time persists to exist even if there is no change.

I should do a basic physics course. — bert1

I am a physicist so I can tell you what you need. I mainly studied the philosophy of mind so I am bad in other areas of philosophy. You can tell me what I need and correct me. Deal? :)

This is a nice attempt, but its just an empirical observation of change withing spacetime.
— Philosophim
I cannot understand. Why the argument is an empirical observation?

What we haven't observed is if its impossible for spacetime to emerge from nothing.
— Philosophim
I already argue against that. — MoK

Because our logic comes from and involves things that already exist. No one has every empirically observed 'nothing' then seen something come from it. Meaning that so far we have not seen this happen. That's the best we can say. We can't say its impossible within our general meaning of the term, 'possibility'.

What i like to do for instances like these is introduce a new term, 'plausibility'. Basically we can logically imagine and conclude all sorts of things. But its not really 'possible' unless its been empirically observed at least once. Anything which could logically be but has not been empirically observed or denied would be 'plausible'. Thus it is plausible that spacetime came from nothing. Of course, it would be equally plausible, at this point, that spacetime has always existed. Since we have two competing plausibilities, and it is currently outside the realm of empirical verifiability, we must demonstrate that one of the arguments is implausible.

Yes, that is one explanation, something can simply exist without any cause. Spacetime is one candidate for such a scenario. — MoK

If something exists without cause, that means 'nothing caused it'. And I don't mean that nothing literally caused it, but that there was nothing, and then something.

That's not quite what I was going for. My point is that we would need spacetime to form at or slightly before something else. In other words, what your notion is proves is that any change from nothing to something must be the emergence of spacetime. You definitely give a valid argument that something cannot form without there being spacetime, but you haven't demonstrated in any logical proof that spacetime cannot emerge within nothing.
— Philosophim
That is impossible because spacetime is a substance. — MoK

All you've been able to logically note so far is that for change to occur, there must be spacetime. You did not prove that spacetime cannot come out of nothing.

There are two arguments against the infinite past — MoK

I don't disagree with you. I think ultimately the logic that there is an infinite past doesn't work out. Some people don't agree with me though, and I'm always open to being shown otherwise. :)

Therefore, the universe has a beginning. — MoK

If the universe had a beginning, what is there before a beginning? Nothing.

I think P1 is valid no matter how fast is the process. — MoK

Speed is irrelevant. At the level of fundamental physics the temporal order of cause and effect is, arguably, contingent.

If the temporal order is contingent at some level, then there is change without the need of time as we know it.

Because our logic comes from and involves things that already exist. No one has every empirically observed 'nothing' then seen something come from it. Meaning that so far we have not seen this happen. That's the best we can say. We can't say its impossible within our general meaning of the term, 'possibility'.

What i like to do for instances like these is introduce a new term, 'plausibility'. Basically we can logically imagine and conclude all sorts of things. But its not really 'possible' unless its been empirically observed at least once. Anything which could logically be but has not been empirically observed or denied would be 'plausible'. Thus it is plausible that spacetime came from nothing. Of course, it would be equally plausible, at this point, that spacetime has always existed. Since we have two competing plausibilities, and it is currently outside the realm of empirical verifiability, we must demonstrate that one of the arguments is implausible. — Philosophim

Would grant me that spacetime is a substance, nothing to spacetime is a change, and spacetime is needed for a change? If yes, then it is obvious that we are dealing with an infinite regress when we deal with nothing to spacetime.

If something exists without cause, that means 'nothing caused it'. — Philosophim

No, it simply means that it exists.

And I don't mean that nothing literally caused it, but that there was nothing, and then something. — Philosophim

So we have to see what is your opinion about my argument: Spacetime is needed for any change. Nothing to something is a change. There is no spacetime in nothing. Therefore, nothing to something is impossible.

All you've been able to logically note so far is that for change to occur, there must be spacetime. — Philosophim

Yes, I agree.

You did not prove that spacetime cannot come out of nothing. — Philosophim

If you grant me that nothing to something is logically impossible and spacetime is a substance then it follows that spacetime cannot come out of nothing.

If the universe had a beginning, what is there before a beginning? Nothing. — Philosophim

It is not proper to say what was before the beginning of spacetime because you need other spacetime to investigate that. If there is such a spacetime then we are dealing with spacetime as a substance before the beginning of former spacetime instead of nothing.

Speed is irrelevant. At the level of fundamental physics the temporal order of cause and effect is, arguably, contingent.

If the temporal order is contingent at some level, then there is change without the need of time as we know it.
/quote]
Could you please let me know what you mean by the contingent here? The article you cite is interesting but I think I need a day or so to understand it properly. — jkop

Would grant me that spacetime is a substance, nothing to spacetime is a change, and spacetime is needed for a change? If yes, then it is obvious that we are dealing with an infinite regress when we deal with nothing to spacetime. — MoK

So I think what you're going for here is saying we would need spacetime to be for spacetime to appear. But that doesn't really make sense right? If spacetime already exists, it doesn't need to create spacetime. The simplest and clearest statement is that "There was nothing, then spacetime". We don't violate that we need spacetime for change. Spacetime appeared from nothing, therefore change. So no, I don't see a reasonable infinite regress that makes sense here.

You did not prove that spacetime cannot come out of nothing.
— Philosophim
If you grant me that nothing to something is logically impossible and spacetime is a substance then it follows that spacetime cannot come out of nothing. — MoK

For the first part, if I were to grant you that nothing to something was impossible, that would preclude the conclusion. That's what we're trying to prove, so I can't grant you that before we've proven it. I can definitely grant you that spacetime is a substance, but I don't see anything here that grants that it cannot come out of nothing. Granted, it doesn't mean we can't still attempt the conclusion, but we need some other premise here for a logical proof.

If the universe had a beginning, what is there before a beginning? Nothing.
— Philosophim
It is not proper to say what was before the beginning of spacetime because you need other spacetime to investigate that. If there is such a spacetime then we are dealing with spacetime as a substance before the beginning of former spacetime instead of nothing. — MoK

I didn't quite get this. You don't need spacetime for spacetime. Spacetime either exists, or it does not. If we say there is a first or beginning, that means at one point it did not exist. Since we don't believe an infinite amount of time (which is a property of spacetime) has existed, then it means that spacetime has not always existed. Meaning that before spacetime, there must have been nothing.

Could you please let me know what you mean by the contingent here? — jkop

According to this article on Time and Physics there might not be a temporal structure at a fundamental level (referring to recent theories of quantum gravity).

If they're right, then time may be an emergent property, or contingent as in being relative to observers, time-symmetry, or detachable from causation (as described in that other article on Backwards-Causation).

I defined time to a good extent in the previous comment. Please let me know if you need elaboration. — MoK

No, you said time is a substance. you were asked you to explain how you reached that conclusion.

Time is defined as the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event.
Time if anything is a human construct used to understand the passage of events.

So I think what you're going for here is saying we would need spacetime to be for spacetime to appear. But that doesn't really make sense right? If spacetime already exists, it doesn't need to create spacetime. The simplest and clearest statement is that "There was nothing, then spacetime". We don't violate that we need spacetime for change. Spacetime appeared from nothing, therefore change. So no, I don't see a reasonable infinite regress that makes sense here.

You did not prove that spacetime cannot come out of nothing. — Philosophim

Well, that, nothing to spacetime, cannot happen. I think we agree that spacetime is a substance. Therefore spacetime is something. Let's plug spacetime as something into the argument and see what we get.

For the first part, if I were to grant you that nothing to something was impossible, that would preclude the conclusion. That's what we're trying to prove, so I can't grant you that before we've proven it. I can definitely grant you that spacetime is a substance, but I don't see anything here that grants that it cannot come out of nothing. Granted, it doesn't mean we can't still attempt the conclusion, but we need some other premise here for a logical proof. — Philosophim

Well, if you grant me that spacetime is a substance, in other words, it is something, then we can plug this into the argument and see what we get.

I didn't quite get this. You don't need spacetime for spacetime. Spacetime either exists, or it does not. If we say there is a first or beginning, that means at one point it did not exist. Since we don't believe an infinite amount of time (which is a property of spacetime) has existed, then it means that spacetime has not always existed. Meaning that before spacetime, there must have been nothing. — Philosophim

What is before the beginning of time and nothing to something are sides of the same coin. It is not proper to say what is before the beginning of time since there is no time before the beginning of time.

According to this article on Time and Physics there might not be a temporal structure at a fundamental level (referring to recent theories of quantum gravity).

If they're right, then time may be an emergent property, or contingent as in being relative to observers, time-symmetry, or detachable from causation (as described in that other article on Backwards-Causation). — jkop

Any theory in which time is an emergent property within must be a dynamical theory. Time however is the main variable in any dynamical theory. This means that time has to be emergent and at the same time the main variable of such a theory. This is however problematic since time is required for the emergence of time.

No, you said time is a substance. you were asked you to explain how you reached that conclusion.

Time is defined as the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event.
Time if anything is a human construct used to understand the passage of events. — Sir2u

Spacetime is a substance and has a curvature around massive objects. Spacetime can affect the motion of any other objects so in this sense it exists and has a property, its curvature.

The idea of 'nothing', especially in regard to 'something' is complicated because it combines the mathematical with the linguistic. At its basis, the mathematics of nothing is zero; but how it comes into play linguistically conceptually may be more complex. Maths may be part but not all of the basis for this.

It may not be mathematical but conceptual, such as suggested by Sartre in 'Being and Nothingness-. It spans the logistics of maths and ideas of meaning. So, I would say that the problem with this thread is to reduce it to a formula. 'Nothing' may not be a specific value, but an area of meaning and linguistics,which may go beyond logistics of mere binary divisions and thinking.