Ah, ok. I think you missed this point I made before, so I'll point it out again.

You never said we need spacetime BEFORE a change can occur.
You said we need spacetime FOR a change to occur. — Philosophim

Yes, I never said before but for.

Nothing, then a change to space time, has spacetime. — Philosophim

What do you mean? I believe something is missing in this statement.

Saying you need something before you have it is a contradiction. Cake must exist before cake can happen for example. :) I wish I could have my breakfast before I make it, but sadly, that is not life. — Philosophim

Correct. :)

Then we've invalidated the conclusion that a change cannot happen from nothing. Let me break it down.

A. Spacetime has a beginning.
B. Spacetime is required for change
C. Since no change can happen if spacetime is not involved, there was nothing before spacetime.
Conclusion: A change in which there was nothing, then spacetime, had to have happened. — Philosophim

We have been through this. I disagree with C.

To me, nothing is a condition that there is no thing, no spacetime, no material,... There is no thing in nothing therefore nothing does not have any property — MoK

And what is change? When something loses, gains, or changes a property. Everything with a property is something. By your definition of nothing, it cannot undergo change. The argument then becomes analytic, which is uninformative.

If you grant that nothing somehow undergoes change, a property is attached onto a substance that was not there previously and thus we have creation ex nihilo, which is counter to your original argument that nothing can't become something.

So we either have an analytic statement or a refutation of your thesis.

Nothing, then a change to space time, has spacetime.
— Philosophim
What do you mean? I believe something is missing in this statement. — MoK

Let me phrase it this way: Nothing to something involves spacetime. Spacetime is the result of nothing to something. Spacetime is there, so a change occurred. The only way I can see this not making sense if you want there to be spacetime before a change can happen. But that wasn't your premise. You can change it now if you would like, but then you have to prove that spacetime cannot come from nothing. And as I noted, I don't see either of us having any proof of this, and I think I put forward some decent logic why this doesn't fit with the rest of your premises either.

We have been through this. I disagree with C. — MoK

And that's fine. At this point you've made your points, I've made my counterpoints, and there is nothing left to add. Its been a nice discussion on this. :) But I think we've made up our own minds so all that's left is to agree to disagree. See you around elsewhere on the forums Mok!

Just for background on this topic:

Mathematical theories are supported by mathematical proofs.

Physical theories are support by the preponderance of the physical evidence and are subject to revision.

I'm just pointing out a tricky situation you need to think about. The known end point is that physical matter does exist (now). So does some start point of nothing existing have any basis in physical evidence?

As I said, as mathematical objects something does not equal nothing.

And what is change? When something loses, gains, or changes a property. Everything with a property is something. By your definition of nothing, it cannot undergo change. The argument then becomes analytic, which is uninformative. — Lionino

Well, that is correct that we normally use the term change when the properties of something change. The condition that there is nothing is however different from the condition that there is something. I don't know what other term I can use if not change.

If you grant that nothing somehow undergoes change, a property is attached onto a substance that was not there previously and thus we have creation ex nihilo, which is counter to your original argument that nothing can't become something. — Lionino

No. The creation ex nihilo is not possible. That is true since we are dealing with a change, nothing to something due to the creation, and we need spacetime for this change. Spacetime does not exist in nothing. So we need spacetime in the first place. But the creation of spacetime from nothing is not possible as well since in this case, we are dealing with an infinite regress. That is true since spacetime is needed for the creation of spacetime.

So we either have an analytic statement or a refutation of your thesis. — Lionino

Neither.

Things exist in minds as well as in empirical world. When things exist in mind, they are called concepts and ideas.

Not necessarily; but I don't see the relevance of this.

Let me phrase it this way: Nothing to something involves spacetime. Spacetime is the result of nothing to something. Spacetime is there, so a change occurred. The only way I can see this not making sense if you want there to be spacetime before a change can happen. But that wasn't your premise. You can change it now if you would like, but then you have to prove that spacetime cannot come from nothing. And as I noted, I don't see either of us having any proof of this, and I think I put forward some decent logic why this doesn't fit with the rest of your premises either. — Philosophim

Well, to show that we are dealing with an infinite regress I just need my premise: Spacetime is needed for any change.

And that's fine. At this point you've made your points, I've made my counterpoints, and there is nothing left to add. Its been a nice discussion on this. :) But I think we've made up our own minds so all that's left is to agree to disagree. See you around elsewhere on the forums Mok! — Philosophim

That is alright to me. I am not here to change peoples' minds but to argue what I think is correct and enhance my thinking. :wink: I hope to see you elsewhere in this forum.

I see what you mean. I however have a problem with this premise. I don't see how "then it cannot be subjected to temporality" follows. Do you mind elaborating?

P1 was just my best guess at what you were trying to convey in the OP—but it may not be. The reasoning behind P1 would be that something that is the pure negation of all possible existence would be, as per its nature, NOT something that exists and time only affects things that exist; therefore, if there is nothing, which is the negation of all possible things (hence the ‘no’ + ‘thing’), then there isn’t anything to be subjected to time.

The way I conclude that was based on two assumptions, spacetime is a substance and there is no spacetime in nothing.

Oh, well, then, your argument would need to clarify your metaphysical position on time and space; which sounds a bit like you believe (1) time and space are substances (which I deny), that (2) they are united (which I deny), and that (3) nothing be subject to space-time (which I agree with if I grant the previous two).

The problem, though, is that this doesn’t negate the possibility of things that ‘pop into’ existence with no reason behind it. This just implies that there isn’t anything a part of nothing.

Well, to me motion is a sort of change in which the position of an object changes so to me motion is not identical to time.

That is fair. I would say, more generally, that there’s nothing incoherent with positing the actual temporal sequences of things as simply the form or mode by which one experiences and thusly they are not substances in reality.

I would say that there must be a change from nothing rather than nothing must change.

Then I don’t see how your argument holds: a change from nothing but not a change in nothing does not violate that “there is no spacetime in nothing” because the change is ‘outside of’, or ‘beyond’, the nothing—it is in something that the change occurs: there exists something in which there is no X, and then X poofs into existence out of thin air.

I think you are talking about the block universe (correct me if I am wrong). I however have a problem with the way you describe motion from a motionless thing. Mainly our brains are parts of the universe so how can we perceive any change considering that everything in the universe, including our brains, is changeless?

Yeah, it’s a real pickle. Honestly, I lean back and forth between block universe and transcendental idealism style nihilism on time and space; and both are subjected to your worry here.

If we are representing reality to ourselves via our representative faculties, then doesn’t that imply a temporal process? I would say no, and this leads me to a much stronger agnosticism on the ontology of reality than I would suspect you are willing to accept.

Take traditional transcendental idealism (i.e., Kantianism): if space and time are purely the modes by which we intuit and cognize objects, then it necessarily follows that however we are representing, truly as it is in-itself, objects to ourselves is completely unknown to us other than indirectly via our [human] understanding of that process (which is inevitably in the form of space and time).

Just for background on this topic:

Mathematical theories are supported by mathematical proofs.

Physical theories are support by the preponderance of the physical evidence and are subject to revision.

I'm just pointing out a tricky situation you need to think about. The known end point is that physical matter does exist (now). So does some start point of nothing existing have any basis in physical evidence?

As I said, as mathematical objects something does not equal nothing. — Mark Nyquist

As I discussed this before considering that something exists right now implements that the initial condition cannot be nothing. One however needs to prove change in nothing is not possible as I did. We also can conclude that nothing to something is not possible as well once we conclude that change in nothing is not possible.

Time is the illusion which necessarily emerges out of the illusion of change. Reality is beyond both something and nothing. Both something and nothing, like time and change arise as constructions in human connsciousness.

P1 was just my best guess at what you were trying to convey in the OP—but it may not be. The reasoning behind P1 would be that something that is the pure negation of all possible existence would be, as per its nature, NOT something that exists and time only affects things that exist; therefore, if there is nothing, which is the negation of all possible things (hence the ‘no’ + ‘thing’), then there isn’t anything to be subjected to time. — Bob Ross

I see what you mean and I agree with you. Time simply relates different states of affairs temporarily when there is something. I think the rest of your argument follows then.

Oh, well, then, your argument would need to clarify your metaphysical position on time and space; which sounds a bit like you believe (1) time and space are substances (which I deny), that (2) they are united (which I deny), and that (3) nothing be subject to space-time (which I agree with if I grant the previous two).

The problem, though, is that this doesn’t negate the possibility of things that ‘pop into’ existence with no reason behind it. This just implies that there isn’t anything a part of nothing. — Bob Ross

Well, that is the subject of debate to the best of my understanding. So let's put it aside for now as your argument follows so we don't need my old argument.

That is fair. I would say, more generally, that there’s nothing incoherent with positing the actual temporal sequences of things as simply the form or mode by which one experiences and thusly they are not substances in reality. — Bob Ross

I see.

Then I don’t see how your argument holds: a change from nothing but not a change in nothing does not violate that “there is no spacetime in nothing” because the change is ‘outside of’, or ‘beyond’, the nothing—it is in something that the change occurs: there exists something in which there is no X, and then X poofs into existence out of thin air. — Bob Ross

Correct. I agree with you.

Yeah, it’s a real pickle. Honestly, I lean back and forth between block universe and transcendental idealism style nihilism on time and space; and both are subjected to your worry here.

If we are representing reality to ourselves via our representative faculties, then doesn’t that imply a temporal process? I would say no, and this leads me to a much stronger agnosticism on the ontology of reality than I would suspect you are willing to accept.

Take traditional transcendental idealism (i.e., Kantianism): if space and time are purely the modes by which we intuit and cognize objects, then it necessarily follows that however we are representing, truly as it is in-itself, objects to ourselves is completely unknown to us other than indirectly via our [human] understanding of that process (which is inevitably in the form of space and time). — Bob Ross

I see. Thanks for the elaboration.

The condition that there is nothing is however different from the condition that there is something. — MoK

Naturally. If your definition of nothing includes that it has no property, there are only two scenarios, it either stays as nothing (no change), or acquires a property (change), becoming something (creation ex nihilo). The first possibility is analytic because it purely follows from your definition.

That is true since spacetime is needed for the creation of spacetime. — MoK

Now your argument is morphing from "nothing to something is impossible" to "spacetime cannot begin to exist", which would be an argument for eternalism of spacetime.

A purely physical nothing would be a nothing that stays so without us even needing to think about it. It would be independent of thought. But that is totally unverifiable. Because, if you check that this nothing exists, well, too late, you're using thought again. That is the powerful argument by Berkeley. And it doesn't lead to a pure and insane subjectivism though, as Berkeley himself noted and as I tried to express in a recent message in the forum, in another discussion. I'm not fully Berkeleyan but this argument is very correct and important.

A lot depends on how close our best models of physics are to the actual real physics.

Naturally. If your definition of nothing includes that it has no property, there are only two scenarios, it either stays as nothing (no change), or acquires a property (change), becoming something (creation ex nihilo). The first possibility is analytic because it purely follows from your definition. — Lionino

Nothing stays as nothing. But we need to show this. Bob Ross elegantly put this in an argument:

P1: If an entity is the pure negation of all possible existence, then it cannot be subjected to temporality.
P2: ‘Nothing’ is the pure negation of all possible existence.
C1: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.

P3: Change requires temporality.
P4: ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.
C2: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.

P5: ‘Nothing’ becoming ‘something’ requires change.
P6: ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.
C3: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to becoming (something).

Now your argument is morphing from "nothing to something is impossible" to "spacetime cannot begin to exist", which would be an argument for eternalism of spacetime. — Lionino

Spacetime has a beginning for two reasons, the current state of the universe is not heat death and infinite regress in spacetime is not acceptable. Spacetime however as you said cannot begin to exist.

There is no time --contained or involved-- in something either. — Alkis Piskas

If time doesn't inhabit the material-physicality of our phenomenal universe, then $e = mc^2$ is false?

(I just saw that this relatively old message of mine was never posted. My mistake. Sorry. Anyway, I post it now. It might be of interest to you. :smile:)

Spacetime is shown to be a substance experimentally. Two phenomena confirm
spacetime is a substance, namely gravitational lens and gravitational wave. — MoK

Well, this is debetable. Anyway, it refers to a specific theory: the energy wave theory, where it is considered a medium that allows the transfer of energy of its components. But I believe it is used for descriptive purposes, as I mentioned.
In reality, space and time cannot be perceived as physical things, as matter and enery can.
Neither can space or time produce change or movement. Rather the opposite: change and movement produce the notion of space and time.

"Specifically, spacetime might emerge from the materials we usually think of as living in the universe—matter and energy itself. “It's not [that] we first have space and time and then we add in some matter,” Wüthrich says. “Rather something material may be a necessary condition for there to be space and time."
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-spacetime-really-made-of)

By the state of affairs, I mean a situation. — MoK

A state of affairs refers to the general situation and circumstances connected with something. So, it cannot be applied to nothing.

If time doesn't inhabit the material-physicality of our phenomenal universe, then e=mc2 is false? — ucarr

E = mc2 says nothing about time.

Besides, matter is something that has mass and occupies space. Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. So time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa.

If time doesn't inhabit the material-physicality of our phenomenal universe, then e=mc2 is false? — ucarr

E = mc2 says nothing about time. — Alkis Piskas

The full form of the equation: $E=p^2c^2+m^2c^4$ clarifies its inclusion of time dilation:

Einstein’s equation may be combined with Planck’s to give a relation between time (frequency) and energy:

$E^2=hf=mc^2$

$f=E/h=mc^2/h$

All instances of time dilation, whether due to motion or gravity, are directly derivable from the potential energy difference between two points of observation. Effectively, time dilation enforces energy conservation.

The example given by Einstein in an early paper (prior to General Relativity) in which he derived gravitational time dilation is matter being lowered into a gravitational field on a tether while extracting energy (like a water wheel), converted to photons, captured back at the top and reconverted to matter again.

If you get the same amount of matter, you can repeat indefinitely producing a perpetual motion machine (or, I suppose, you might be extracting mass from the gravitational object). Einstein reasoned that the frequency of the photons produced by the conversion to energy must be less, and this must reflect time dilation in the gravitational field.

Vincent Emory, Robert Shuler — Quora

Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. — Alkis Piskas

By what means do you sever space and time?

[/quote]
I don't know what you are trying to prove. You are changing your previous premises (direct or indirect). It And in doing so you avoid to reply to my premises:

Initially, you indicated (indirectly) that my statement "there is no time --contained or involved-- in something either" makes E=mc2 false.

Then, to my reply that "E = mc2 says nothing about time" you responded with "The full form of the equation: E = p2c2 + m2c4 clarifies its inclusion of time dilation.". And that "Einstein’s equation may be combined with Planck’s to give a relation between time (frequency) and energy: E2 = hf = mc2, f = E/h = mc2/h". First of all, what do you mean "may be combined"? Are they or are they are not? And is this something, a possibility that you thought of yourself? Because I couldn'f find anything about all that in the Web ...

Whatever is the case, nothing of all this constitutes any answer to my statement, i,.e. that time is not included in matter. They only say about how matter can affect (dilate) time and how time and energy are related. But who has talked about the relation of matter/energy and time?

I'm telling all this to show you that you are going around my statements/premises --well, and yours too! :smile:-- avoiding actually to answer them.

There is no time --contained or involved-- in something [matter] either. — Alkis Piskas

Initially, you indicated (indirectly) that my statement "there is no time --contained or involved-- in something either" makes E=mc2 false. — Alkis Piskas

As you say, I indirectly raised a question about the truth content of:

There is no time --contained or involved-- in something [matter] either. — Alkis Piskas

and

$E=mc^2$

considered in conjunction with each other.

Yes. I want us to consider whether the two propositions are mutually exclusive. No doubt your proposition, like Einstein's proposition, involves a complex narrative of related concepts and information that needs unpacking. Given this complexity, I intend to proceed by looking at some of the parts of the whole individually before zooming out to a broad overview of the truth-content question I have raised.

Since I have to move around and look at different aspects of various parts of this complex narrative, it might appear that I'm shifting my ground and evading probing questions.

And is this something, a possibility that you thought of yourself? Because I couldn'f find anything about all that in the Web ... — Alkis Piskas

Please click on the link below to find a supporting narrative for my argument.

How is E=mc^2 Related to Time?

(After reading Vincent Emery, scroll down to Robert Shuler.)

I use this supporting narrative to argue that: a) the equation entails time dilation phenomena interwoven with mass and energy phenomena, and thus it does have something to say about time; b) given the interweave of time dilation, mass and energy, we can raise questions about the truth content of your claim about our phenomenal universe: "There is no time --contained or involved-- in something either. Things are not composed of time."

Here's one of my counter-narratives: Time is essential to the thingliness of material objects. I can use the relativistic shrinkage of length and increase of mass of a material object due to acceleration to argue that time, space and matter are connected.

Please click on the link below to find a supporting narrative for my argument.
How is E=mc^2 Related to Time? — ucarr

I have given a look to this Quora question and answers in my search that I talked about. They are based on personal thought experimentation, like yours. (In fact, I thought already that this is where you got your peoposition.) Yet, again, they talk about the relation of E = mc2 with time, which is different from my simple position that time is not contained in matter. Also, please note that such a reference or the argumentation included in it would not stand in any serious philosophical discussion.
Also, think this: if such a proposition were any good at all, it wouldn't stay in Quora''s shelves!
In short, this is not a valid reference.

I'm afraid that you are trying to prove the unprovable, ucarr.

If time doesn't inhabit the material-physicality of our phenomenal universe, then e=mc2
�
=
�
�
2
is false? — ucarr

"e=mc2
�
=
�
�
2"
is false. This fact is demonstrated by the need for what is called "relativistic mass".

I have given a look to this Quora... search... [it's] based on personal thought experimentation, like yours. — Alkis Piskas

Wrong. Both Vincent Emery and Robert Shuler use calculations derived from $E=mc^2$ to support their conclusions. This is what scientists do. Either the math is right or it is wrong. You cannot evaluate their arguments as false without doing your own calculations derived from $E=mc^2$ such that they contradict Emery and Shuler.

As to my claim about your proposition and $E=mc^2$ being mutually exclusive, it likewise is not a thought experiment by virtue of the math of Emery and Shuler that I cite for support.

Emery, Shuler and I might be wrong, but our error is not proven until you provide your own contradictory math.

...my simple position that time is not contained in matter. — Alkis Piskas

Regarding your above proposition, consider the cesium atomic clock: a) transitions between the spin states of the cesium nucleus produce a frequency used in the atomic clock's measurement of time; b) the frequency of the transition states of the cesium nucleus involves: energy, mass, motion (and therefore space) as integral parts of the measurement of time.

Cesium Standard

If time is an emergent property of the cesium atom's nucleic transitions between spin states, then, as such, time is part of a networked complex of energy, mass, motion and space.

Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. — Alkis Piskas

Why do you not answer my question: By what means do you sever space and time?

If time doesn't inhabit the material-physicality of our phenomenal universe, then $E=mc^2$ is false? — ucarr

$E=mc^2$is false. This fact is demonstrated by the need for what is called "relativistic mass". — Metaphysician Undercover

I've learned that the concept of relativistic mass is deemed troublesome and dubious by some. Can you elaborate how it falsifies $E=mc^2$?

Actually I think for philosophy we should count the leading theories of physics a failure.

The laws of physics break down at the singularity in the beginning... and we don't know what dark energy is and something is driving the current expansion of the universe.

There is a solution to this in the form of back propagation of energy. So at the singularity a physical is affecting another physical.

If a future source of energy supply exists and it has the ability to back propagate through physical matter then a number of problems can be solved together.

More of a philosophical approach forced on us because the known physics fails.

My version.

I've learned that the concept of relativistic mass is deemed troublesome and dubious by some. Can you elaborate how it falsifies E=mc2
�
=
�
�
2
? — ucarr

I'll give you something simple, but a highfalutin physics know it all type is likely to tell you how wrong I am.

I believe the formula applies to a body at rest, so it assumes a rest frame for the mass. But in relativity theory bodies are not at rest, they are moving relative to other bodies. So an adjustment needs to be made to account for the movement of the body with mass.

There is a solution to this in the form of back propagation of energy. — Mark Nyquist

What's back propagation?

Retro causality is another term.
If you think of the arrow of time, back propagation is energy, or possibly a signal, moving in the opposite direction.

I know it's speculative. But the logic points in that direction as a possibility.

We are looking at the idea of nothing causing something and that seems illogical.
A timeline with nothing becoming something seems illogical.

Back propagation of energy is physical so if it was present at the singularity it could have caused the big bang.

It's just a philosophy approach and I don't know of any physical evidence to support it, however physics as we know it is failing so it's worth a look. Also the question of dark energy could be one in the same problem.

I forgot an important part.

If you think of a time line with a duration of time (instead of an instant) moving with the arrow of time then the backward propagation only exists in the duration....moving backward.

And the backward energy flow gives present matter it's form.

Try this,

Take a sheet of lined paper and write t1 to t10 down the left side.

Draw a box next to t1. It represents a duration of physical matter during the duration.

Draw a box next to t2 shifted to the right by say a third the duration of t1. Same size.

And so on down the page.

Think of the boxes as matter progressing through time in 3D.

Place your pencil at the lower right box and without leaving the page draw a line of causality to the upper left box.

So that's a pipeline for back propagation .

Does it work? I don't know. Devils in the details.
Patterns? Signals? Computation? Standing wave?

The boxes represent what matter is, so mass and energy are present in the model but the mechanism of back propagation isn't identified.
But the potential is there and the logic of causality and the question of the big bang point to it.

A pipeline all the way back to the big bang.
So at the big bang you have a physical effect on another physical.