Dilemma of beginning of time

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

I dunno, but a lot of this seems like objective speak.

[bahman]

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.

Time exists objectively otherwise all events together would happen at a timeless point. There is no directionality no order in flow of events in timeless framework. Therefore time objectively exists.

[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.

Time is only seemingly eternal from a point of view within the universe because time is not a fundamental thing,

Time is fundamental entity. Without time everything would be timeless, there would be no directionality no order in flow of the events.

but a relationship of the movement of one "thing" to another "thing".

That is not time. That is how we measure time, we basically measure a change respect to a standard change.

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.

Of course time cannot be cause of itself, that is infinite regress. That however doesn't allow us to think that time is infinite within universe.

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.

No, time is not a emergent thing since without it we cannot have any motion.

So there real question here is why we experience time and space.

We experience psychological time which this is different from time in reality.

[Faust]

Just what an event is, is a matter of convenience. A trip to there moon consists of countless (read: too many to count) events. How long does an event last? As long as we say it does. In fact, we could sensically say that there is only one big event, or as many teeny tiny events as we are able to discern. How many events occur in the changing of a tire? How many events comprise a hurricane? What is the difference between an object and an event?

You can't really make sense of your own claims about time, using the concept of "event" without answering at least a couple of these questions.

So where do we draw the line between events? Between separate events and one big event? We do draw lines, quite reasonably, but you have to get beyond convenience to pronounce time "objectively" existing.

[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.

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

Space does not curve. Space has no tangibility or substance, therefore it cannot curve. Things, such as bamboo rods, can curve; they have a physical substance that allows for this. Space, however, is the lack of physical or material substance. There is nothing to be curved in space.

I am pretty sure that Einstein, ironically, stated that evil is not a thing, that it is the absence of good, akin to how darkness is the absence of light. Space, likewise, is not a "thing" (positive properties); it is the absence of matter.

[bahman]

Just what an event is, is a matter of convenience. A trip to there moon consists of countless (read: too many to count) events. How long does an event last?

That depends if time is discrete or continuous. In the first case the time interval between two events is plank time. In the second case the time interval between two events is infinitesimal, dt=limit Dt/N when N tends to infinity where dt is infinitesimal time and Dt is any finite time interval.

As long as we say it does. In fact, we could sensically say that there is only one big event, or as many teeny tiny events as we are able to discern. How many events occur in the changing of a tire? How many events comprise a hurricane? What is the difference between an object and an event?

Any system is constitute of one or many objects each object has a set variables which define the position of the object in space. The system is identified by a set of variables which depend on how objects are distributed in space. Any instance of the system which is defined by the set of variables is an event.

You can't really make sense of your own claims about time, using the concept of "event" without answering at least a couple of these questions.

So where do we draw the line between events? Between separate events and one big event? We do draw lines, quite reasonably, but you have to get beyond convenience to pronounce time "objectively" existing.

I hope that things is clear now.

[Faust]

Planck time is useful in quantum physics, but no one talks in purely mathematical terms. We would never be able to talk about an observable event if we brought planck time in. Beyond this you didn't attempt to answer my questions.

[surreptitious75]

Space does not curve. Space has no tangibility or substance therefore it cannot curve. Things such as bamboo rods can curve they have
a physical substance that allows for this. Space however is the lack of physical or material substance. There is nothing to be curved in space

I am pretty sure that Einstein ironically stated that evil is not a thing that it is the absence of good akin to how
darkness is the absence of light. Space likewise is not a thing ( positive properties ) it is the absence of matter

Space is empty but it is not an absolute vacuum. Although it is not space that curves or bends but spacetime which is distorted by mass
The greater the object of mass is the greater the distortion of spacetime will be. Light travels in a straight line but where spacetime
is distorted it has to follow the curvature of that spacetime. Spacetime tells mass where to go and mass tells spacetime how to bend

[Artimas]

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.

The spectator and the spectated.

[Artimas]

Time is a tool, a measurement invented by man through language to express when two or more variables react along with the attempt of understanding when, how, who, where, what, why and the many changes that come from such. The reaction is called change, change leads to being measured by us and life.

Take the clock and calendar for example, we measure the earth's rotating on its axis 365 times in the length of 24 hours which is a "day" (earth's rotation around sun and moon), 365 days makes a year.

Now apply this same analogy to everything. We don't age from "time" we age from oxidation and inhalation of oxygen along with pollutants. We rust as biorganic machines until our organs stop functioning. Which means immortality through flesh is also possible if one figures out a halt to oxidation or some sort of preservative. Time is man made, like all languages are. Math, martial arts, etc.. It's all just language for man to try and understand and interact with an objective reality to evolve self for self(nature/subconscious/universe).

[surreptitious75]

I do not think immortality and the human condition are very compatible
For many cannot survive a single lifetime never mind an infinity of them

[Santiago]

Surreptitious75,

Whatever it is that causes light to follow a curvature, it isn't space nor time.

It must be some sort of material substance that causes light to behave in that way.

You contend that space is not an absolute vacuum, but this doesn't make sense given that space is the absence or lack of matter -- the emptiness between objects. The supposed non-empty parts of space would not, actually, be space but rather something else, such as matter or energy.

[bahman]

Planck time is useful in quantum physics, but no one talks in purely mathematical terms.

What do you mean?

We would never be able to talk about an observable event if we brought planck time in.

Yes, in that case the time interval between two observed events is much higher than Planck time. We know that we perceive only a few events in a fraction of second. I am amazed that how our experience is continuous. We use a fraction of events to build a continuous experience.

Beyond this you didn't attempt to answer my questions.

I think I did. I defined an event and also explain the time interval between two events.

[Artimas]

I do not think immortality and the human condition are very compatible
For many cannot survive a single lifetime never mind an infinity of them

Well through seeking to understand for the sake of understanding and accepting responsibility with that, one can tread the path of least resistance but still willingly learn what one deems necessary or worth it. I agree it would get old with no contrast(death) and counter-productive but I think it may be possible.