Dilemma of beginning of time

[bahman]

We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).

1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.

2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.

So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.

[Guide]

Why not space? What is the reason to make time preeminent. Please do not stupidly say, because I can find a section in the dictionary that says so. One must point to the datum of being, bite (DO IT ASSHOLE!).

Datum of being = "experience" as, what is "there", and such like. We want to see the underwear of the lady with eyes now narrowing, now blurring, now vacant, or evidence for ourselves.

[bahman]

Why not space? What is the reason to make time preeminent. Please do not stupidly say, because I can find a section in the dictionary that says so. One must point to the datum of being, bite (DO IT ASSHOLE!).

Datum of being = "experience" as, what is "there", and such like. We want to see the underwear of the lady with eyes now narrowing, now blurring, now vacant, or evidence for ourselves.

Any dynamical theory with an emergent entity relates two states of affair one without the emergent entity and another with the emergent entity. Moreover this change in states of affair is measured respect to time since no change is possible without time (there is an argument for that). It is easy to see that time cannot be emergent entity since you need time in the first place to allow a change in this case allow emergence of time. This doesn't apply to any other entity including space.

I hope the things is more clear now!

[promethean75]

that OP just totally fried my brain, bahman.

see this is why i don't like philosophy. my whole day is fucked now because of reading that.

[Meno_]

The whole dynamism of time has to include the defining functional derivitive of spatial temporal relativity of change. The fact that there is no defining moment of rates of change within relative sets, entail the conclusion that only an absolute set exists in so far, as to create it as an emerging property.

Therefore , only relative definitions of space time can be functionally defined


That however does not invalidate an absolute set wherein emergence of nonfunctional spatial and temporal sets may occur.

In other words, there may be a set of embedded spatial arrangements which are totally motionless, as Parmenedies concluded, while another set of constant movement may also. exist. per Heraclitus Leibnitz.suggested as such.

These signs may have time and soaceless signidications in a matrix .

[Guide]

It's commendable that you didn't cite a piece of a dictionary definition, deliberately selected by yourself, from amidst many definitions and dictionaries, and claim it to be "the language", as you are oft wont to do. Ergo, Meno, my alter ego, will speak with you in the course of my imminent departure, already underway, which is as impossible to criticize as the opulent bald head of the youngish Patrick Stewart when he played the role of the treacherous henchman of Tiberius, Sejanus, in the mini-series I Claudius. "Meno" is almost as treacherous. Part of the treachery consists of him wearing a wig for the part. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sejanus ... vU1Z2ebhuM:

[promethean75]

will speak with you in the course of my imminent departure, already underway

i have spoken with the elders and have been instructed to inform you that after much deliberation, they have decided that they shall not accept your resignation, and that if you so choose a course of action which results in a dereliction of your philosophical duties to this community, you shall suffer complete excommunication from all internet philosophy fora. bots will be deployed to all operating philosophy forums, programmed to recognize your writing. if and when you are discovered posting at these forums, a virus shall be immediately delivered to your computer which will wipe the hard-drives and install the 1983 version of donkey kong. you will be forced to play this accursed game any time you turn your computer on, and will have no access to the internet. hour after hour you will spend jumping over barrels and climbing ladders for the sole purpose of rescuing a maiden hostage from an ill tempered gorilla. is this really what you want to do?

my advice to you, dear sir, is to carefully reconsider your options. we encourage you to make the proper decision for yourself, for us, for dugin, indeed, for all of mankind.

[bahman]

The whole dynamism of time has to include the defining functional derivitive of spatial temporal relativity of change. The fact that there is no defining moment of rates of change within relative sets, entail the conclusion that only an absolute set exists in so far, as to create it as an emerging property.

Therefore , only relative definitions of space time can be functionally defined


That however does not invalidate an absolute set wherein emergence of nonfunctional spatial and temporal sets may occur.

In other words, there may be a set of embedded spatial arrangements which are totally motionless, as Parmenedies concluded, while another set of constant movement may also. exist. per Heraclitus Leibnitz.suggested as such.

These signs may have time and soaceless signidications in a matrix .

Totally motionless arrangements only is possible if there are two parallel universes in which every motion in one universe is canceled out with opposite motion in another universe. I however don't see how such a strong correlation between motions in two universe is possible. I also don't see how two different times can cancel each other too.

[Meno_]

Intuotionism is sort of like art, or sourced from art which emerges perhaps from an intuitive reflection.

The two spheres is exactly pointed as a re-flection of Leibnitz toward a reverse apprehension between Parmenides and Heraclitus.

Its possible to infer a connection to the idea of not nullification, but an overlap of some processes and still processing of information on a level not yet accessible .

How else can binary ideas and their physical manifestations be attributable?

The binary brain of two spheres is one.

[bahman]

The two spheres is exactly pointed as a re-flection of Leibnitz toward a reverse apprehension between Parmenides and Heraclitus.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

Its possible to infer a connection to the idea of not nullification, but an overlap of some processes and still processing of information on a level not yet accessible .

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

[Exuberant Teleportation]

There could be a code, a game that we're under inspection within, a multi scale fractal leveled zoom from the end of time, to the attraction of gravity. There is a mind, a superior reasoning power, ancient, deep, profound, and wise. But to get that way, he had to crash through the glass ceiling, to see the devil banging on the upper vortex with his horns to escape from Chaos. But the perfect order choked life, and Chaos took over, springing the idea of let there be light. God implanted his soul into the chamber of fate, tied all of the threads, looked to restart the universe, and there you have it - the purpose of life is TO START THE UNIVERSE OVER AGAIN as it should've been. Time would make space perfect, and with our divine intellect, we could merge with another brain/brane, come to eclipse the flawed timeline, and scale the corners of every mountain to the ideal shape of seeing everything. God is greater than the universe, because He comprehends it but (and here's the key) HE ALSO CONTROLS IT! The Universe, Holy and Sacred, Blessed and inscribed with the most masterful equations as it is, can't control itself; it depends on us to do that.

And someday, when Heaven is free, We will get a glimpse into the creation, into how the Future necessitated the past when we can turn back the clock and make things perfect, as they should've been.

[surreptitious75]

So here is the dilemma : Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal

This is a hypothetical paradox rather than an actual paradox because actual ones cannot exist in reality
You are using logic to explain your position but your logic isnt actually based on any empirical evidence

There are plenty of things in the Universe that dont make sense to us but still exist anyway
And the finite / infinite nature of time [ whichever one it is ] is simply one of those things

[Mr Reasonable]

I enjoyed the old donkey kong games from back in the 80s when I was a kid.

[promethean75]

couldn't get into the donkey kong. the only 'obstacle' style games i could tolerate were the pitfall and the frogger. my favorite was that one space ship shooter game where the ship is able to make a complete circle around the screen.... and you shoot shit coming out at you from the center. yeah you know what i'm talking about. wtf was the name of that game. wasn't galaga, but it was from the same genre.

[promethean75]

oh and 'zaxxon'. man that game was a bitch to get used to. it was the angle of the ships motion; you moved diagonally, which fucked up the joy stick orientation. for days i kept crashing my ship man. you know what i mean? like left wasn't really left... it was up AND left or some crazy shit. but they were trying a new graphics approach i guess. popular game as far as i know. but dude i've been playing fallout 4 on the xbox one. ho.ly.shit what a badass game this is. so badass i even got video of some of my operations. i'm a beast at that game, bruh.

[bahman]

So here is the dilemma : Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal

This is a hypothetical paradox rather than an actual paradox because actual ones cannot exist in reality
You are using logic to explain your position but your logic isnt actually based on any empirical evidence

There are plenty of things in the Universe that dont make sense to us but still exist anyway
And the finite / infinite nature of time [ whichever one it is ] is simply one of those things

There is no such a thing as actual paradox. Paradox is the result of incomplete understanding of reality.

[Santiago]

What I find rather amusing is how physicists will speak of time as if it were a physical property. The same thing occurs with the concept of space; they refer to it as a "fabric".

Space is not a tangible substance - it is literally the emptiness between objects. Likewise with time, it is not some independent, physical property that you can touch - time is an abstraction congruent with movement and changing states of being. If nothing is moving or changing, then there is no time.

[bahman]

What I find rather amusing is how physicists will speak of time as if it were a physical property. The same thing occurs with the concept of space; they refer to it as a "fabric".

Space is not a tangible substance - it is literally the emptiness between objects. Likewise with time, it is not some independent, physical property that you can touch - time is an abstraction congruent with movement and changing states of being. If nothing is moving or changing, then there is no time.

Space is not simply the emptiness between objects. It curves in proximity of an object. Time is real, it curves and allows change.

[Faust]

OP is making an understandable but monumental category error. Time does not exist in time, so it cannot have a beginning. It is not eternal, it is non temporal.

It's a measurement. It's not something that is, it's something we do. Time does not exist in the empirical world. Any more than a circle or an inch does.

[Dan~]

OP is making an understandable but monumental category error. Time does not exist in time, so it cannot have a beginning. It is not eternal, it is non temporal.
It's a measurement. It's not something that is, it's something we do. Time does not exist in the empirical world. Any more than a circle or an inch does.

Existence/Movement > Measurement > Experience > Existence

These 4 ideas make up a loop where we basically see the world through our eyes instead of through the reality itself.
Truth can be related to light, due to its illuminating qualities.

Basically we're a lense made of lenses, when it comes to the matter of human minds.

[Faust]

OP is making an understandable but monumental category error. Time does not exist in time, so it cannot have a beginning. It is not eternal, it is non temporal.
It's a measurement. It's not something that is, it's something we do. Time does not exist in the empirical world. Any more than a circle or an inch does.

Existence/Movement > Measurement > Experience > Existence

These 4 ideas make up a loop where we basically see the world through our eyes instead of through the reality itself.
Truth can be related to light, due to its illuminating qualities.

Basically we're a lense made of lenses, when it comes to the matter of human minds.

Well said, as usual.

[Meno_]

OP is making an understandable but monumental category error. Time does not exist in time, so it cannot have a beginning. It is not eternal, it is non temporal.

It's a measurement. It's not something that is, it's something we do. Time does not exist in the empirical world. Any more than a circle or an inch does.

The example of aupermassive black holes which do not emit light, show the value of effects of spatial objective relationships without the necessary perceptive validation. As such, the temporal conjunction may only be a post facto inductive reasoning.
However, if so, the non temporal awareness of animals may not lead to such reasoning, without an evolutionary sense , without making such an inference.

If Darwin's pre-supposition to hold water, such very large objects may curve light, but not to the degree that it nihilizes it's effect. For such an effect to occur, is, to create a perfect circularity of light , with the object disappearing.

In such a scenario, both, the beginning and the end of time persist in Silmultaniety. Or, perpetual beginning and end.

And that can occur if there is an immediate relation of both the absolute micro and macro vibration of the minimal and maximal structure of spacetime, with no measurable gap .

It creates the illusion of separability creating variable intervals.

At absolute levels such projections become objective criteria by which such can even be imagined.

Cyclical ideas around the perfect circle demand it. At least in my mind.

[Meno_]

OP is making an understandable but monumental category error. Time does not exist in time, so it cannot have a beginning. It is not eternal, it is non temporal.

It's a measurement. It's not something that is, it's something we do. Time does not exist in the empirical world. Any more than a circle or an inch does.

The example of aupermassive black holes which do not emit light, show the value of effects of spatial objective relationships without the necessary perceptive validation. As such, the temporal conjunction may only be a post facto inductive reasoning.
However, if so, the non temporal awareness of animals may not lead to such reasoning, without an evolutionary sense , without making such an inference.

If Darwin's pre-supposition to hold water, such very large objects may curve light, but not to the degree that it nihilizes it's effect. For such an effect to occur, is, to create a perfect circularity of light , with the object disappearing.

In such a scenario, both, the beginning and the end of time persist in Silmultaniety. Or, perpetual beginning and end.

And that can occur if there is an immediate relation of both the absolute micro and macro vibration of the minimal and maximal structure of spacetime, with no measurable gap .

It creates the illusion of separability creating variable intervals.

At absolute levels such projections become objective criteria by which such can even be imagined.

Cyclical ideas around the perfect circle demand it. At least in my mind.

This is maybe another way. to express what Faust meant.

[Faust]

Ahh, Darwin's presupposition. I hadn't thought of that.

[Serendipper]

We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).

1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.

2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.

So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.

Time is only seemingly eternal from a point of view within the universe because time is not a fundamental thing, but a relationship of the movement of one "thing" to another "thing". For instance I can drive to a town in 1/24 revolution of the earth. But from a point of view outside the universe (whatever that means), the universe had a beginning, but the universe itself will see time as infinite because a thing cannot behold its own creation; it will be infinite regression. We know time is emergent because time depends on prior existence of "things" moving within a spacial construct and we also know light experiences no time. So there real question here is why we experience time and space.