Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GrayArea]

Anyway, what part of "self-causation is possible for self-causation itself" do you not get? It is possible for existence to exist on its own without being caused by something else, because existence is defined as something that exists, meaning its own definition causes itself to exist on its own.

Er, "existence is defined as something that exists" would be a blatantly circular (and uninformative) definition.

It's not even that, existence just plain outright exists even without us "defining" it to be existent. But I will elaborate on what I think about "the act of defining" in my other reply.

Going back to the main topic, why does anything exist to begin with? It seems that existence can simply just happen without being caused by anything, because if it was otherwise, then whatever exists now wouldn't have existed.

Because even causality itself is a subset of existence and not the other way around.

Also, while "It is possible for existence [I assume you mean "something which exists"] to exist on its own without being caused by something else," that doesn't imply that it "causes itself to exist." If it was not caused by something else, then it was not caused at all. "Self-caused" is an incoherent expression that collapses the distinction between cause and effect, thus rendering the concept of causation meaningless. You can only claim an X is a cause if there is an effect Y distinct from X.

When I say "existence" I don't mean it as "something which exists", but I've always meant it as "exists".

Anyway, that seems to be an error in my semantics and not the argument itself. Then I will simply refer to existence as something that wasn't caused by anything else and what I meant would essentially still stand.

[GrayArea]

Egads. Definitions are words uttered by speakers of a structured language to explain the meanings of other words. Only humans (that we know of ) use structured languages, coin words and define them. Other "objects" don't have languages, coin words, or define them.

And may I ask, how do you think the way in which the speakers assign meanings to specific objects is determined? I believe that, while we are free to assign any kind of meaning we want to an object, we can only do so within the scope of what that object is in real life.

When we look at a tree, we can assign meanings to it such as "an object to climb", or "an object to chop it down", because those things are actually possible to do on a tree.

But when we assign random and unrelated "meanings" to a tree such as "a mammal that walks and reproduces" then that would be a false meaning / definition.



Adding on, languages do not create meaning. Meaning creates language.

Certainly not. What humans define are words for denoting things. How they define words depends upon how they perceive the things denoted, which may have little to do with "what they are."

I would say that how we perceive things has more to do with "what they are" than you may believe. While it is true that we sort of "translate" external objects into our own Qualia, the "way we assign" these translations of external objects are as much as determined by the external world as it is determined by our own brain.

Example: We don't perceive long wavelengths of lightwave as purple. We perceive them as red.

Sure, it is true that we can "call" purple as "red" and vice versa from now on, but the colors themselves will remain the same. One would only be re-naming the colors, not re-creating them.

We can never change what colors we perceive from what specific wavelength, no matter how much we want to. The only theoretical way to change this would be to meddle with our physical neurons, which has nothing to do with our mental acts of assigning meanings / definitions.

[Gertie]

BAHMAN

That is not true. Time can pass without any other change.

I'm inclined to disagree. Consider it this way - the reason time didn't exist before the universe existed is because there is no change occurring when nothing exists. This makes sense if time is a marker of change.

Similarly if the universe had popped into existence in such a way that it was static and unable to ever change, time within the universe wouldn't exist. Because there is no change to mark.

The alternative is to see Time as a thing in itself, which flows regardless of anything existing or changing. But that sort of thing in itself Time would have no properties or effects, including flow in a non-existent or static universe. Or there'd at least be no discernible difference in whether it existed or not, there'd be nothing to identify or describe as Time Itself.

Which I suppose boils the question down to whether it is in the nature of stuff to change in certain ways which time marks, or time is an existing medium of sorts through which stuff changes, a medium which simultaneously comes into existence with stuff. A linguistic parallel would be to classify time as an adverb, or Time as a noun.

If we compare time to spatial dimensions, I'd say spatial dimensions also reference and mark the spatial physical properties of physical stuff, like the way an adjective works. Once stuff exists, it can be described and marked in spatial dimensions because of the properties stuff has (hence no stuff = no spatial dimensions). Likewise when stuff changes according to its own properties (matter being acted on by forces according to physics) time marks those changes. If there are no changes to mark, time is meaningless, because there is nothing for time to reference.

My question to you then, is if Time is a thing in itself, what is it? And if it has no discernible independent properties or efects of its own, except as a marker of stuff changing, in what sense does it exist?

Well, we need to agree on whether time is necessary for change to happen. If we agree on this then it follows that time exists regardless of change. How? Consider a system S which is subject to change by which I mean there is a set of parameters, let's call it P, that defines the system and they are subject to change. Now assume a change in the system, P to P', where P is at time t and P' is at time t'. The difference between P and P' tells how big is the change. This difference could be large or small though the difference between t and t' is always constant. Now consider a very very small change. Again, the difference between P and P' is the only thing that changes while the difference between t and t' is constant. So as you can see, time and change are two different independent things. You can have arbitrary change during the time interval which is constant. Time in other words changes constantly regardless of how much the change is.

The form of your question ''is time necessary for change to happen>'' doesn't capture a concept of time I agree with. Because I think time is a marker of change, rather than time being something which independently exists in order for change to happen.

Time as an independent thing in itself, without change, is meaningless. Why? Because, I think, time results from acts of change, which result from the properties of forces which act on matter.

So I think what needs to exist for change to happen isn't pre-existing time, it's the properties of the stuff of the universe (according to physics - forces acting on matter). When those properties manifest, change occurs. Change necessarily happens over a period time, but it's the change itself which manifests the temporal difference.

I agree that changes in systems can happen at different rates/speeds, but these can theoretically be explained by forces acting on matter in different ways. Time marks those differences generated by various physical processes. As I said, it's analogous to spatial dimensions, it's the nature of forces and matter from which dimensions arise. If matter and forces don't exist, their dimensions don't exist. If matter and forces don't change, time doesn't exist.

If you believe time can exist in a completely static universe, I'm still unclear what you think it exists as?

Gertie wrote: ↑Today, 9:03 amGertie wrote: ↑Yesterday, 1:11 pm I know change exists because my conscious experience changes. I assume the change in my conscious experience represents the sequentially changing universe my experience represents. (Time being relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist as marking change, just that how we experience and measure it is relative, I think).

And I understand logic to be a human concept which is rooted in our observation and understanding of how our universe works.

Now within our already existing universe as we experience and understand it, to say time/change/anything is created out of nothing/no time/no change at a particular temporal moment seems illogical. Because we live in a pre-existing universe and only understand time as marking the change from one state of affairs to another, which we experience and have coherent and reliably predictive ways of explaining.

However, if we're talking about the creation of our universe, we're considering a different state of affairs we call 'nothing' (aka not our universe) and we have no access to how things work 'outside' or 'before' our universe. If or how time, stuff changing, or logic can make sense to us outside what we can access from within our universe. So for example if we're considering the existence of some creative force which is responsible for the existence of our universe (including time, stuff and logic as we experience/understand it), we have no way of knowing what the conditions in which such an act of creation might or might not occur. That's assuming the notion of 'outside our universe', or outside what is epistemologically accessible to us, is itself meaningful.One of the main premises is that any act requires times since any act deals with a change. Agree or disagree?As explained above, I agree in the sense that time marks the change. But not convinced that time is some sort of thing in itself medium necessary for stuff to change within.

So I assume that you agree that time is needed for any act.

See my previous answer in this post.

Gertie wrote: ↑Today, 9:03 am

The other premise is that there was no time before the point of creation. Agree or disagree?

Agree, because if nothing exists, then there is no change for time to mark.

Not in that sense. In the sense that if nothing exists, then time does not exist either.

Yes, and I was explaining why. The reason why matters, because it leads us to different conclusions.

Gertie wrote: ↑Today, 9:03 amGertie wrote: ↑Yesterday, 1:11 pm We can speculate, but using our 'in-universe' notions of logic based on how our universe seems to work to do so, could well be simply not understanding the implications of trying to say anything about what is outside what we can know or understand. Or if it even makes sense to try.

On the other hand if we consider our universe to be eternal/infinite having no temporal beginning, we run into apparent paradoxes, in which our logic seems incapable of reconciling our universe's infinite past with reaching this point now, and now, and now, like Xeno's arrow. Or how our spatially infinite universe which encompasses everything can expand

.Eternal universe is illogical since it takes infinite amout of time passage to reach from infinite past to now.

Agree, according to our human in-universe knowledge about how the universe we're in works. But we don't have access to/knowledge of the state of affairs, if any, not included in what we can recognise as our universe.


Inconclusive conclusion -

Our logic based on what we flawed and limited humans observe about how our universe works has problems with both creation ex-nihilo and an infinite past. Our human logic suggests it has to be one or the other, but can't unproblematically get us to either.

Answer - dunno.

Well, if we accept two premises then it is easy to show that the act of creation leads to an infinite regress. Agree?

The problem with saying yes/no is that your premises entail a concept of time as something we treat as a thing in itself which is different to mine. Here's your original post -

Act of creation from nothing is logically impossible

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

I don't think ''before'' could exist prior to a first act of creation, because change couldn't exist prior a first act, if I'm right about time being a marker of change. That avoids the infinite regress problem you raise, but runs into the something from nothing problem.

TLDR where I'm at -

I think time is a product of the nature of the stuff of the universe (per physics - forces acting on matter), in that it marks (refers to, measures) the changes inherent in natural processes.

The alternative you posit is that Time exists as something in itself (not yet described), flowing along independent of change at its own 'objective' self-referential rate, which matter and forces 'dip into' at certain points in its flow when change occurs.

Time could be either (or something else beyond our ken), the former makes more sense to me because -

- There is nothing discernible to identify as independently existing Time in the absence of change. What is time sans change, if there's nothing there to be identified as having independent properties?

- If we think time is a dimension of sorts, then I consider spatial dimensions to similarly be a product of the properties of the stuff of the universe. In that dimensions result from matter having 3D properties, they are not things in themselves which exist independently of the existence of stuff. This is why nothing has no dimensions, similarly nothing has no time because there is no change.

[GE Morton]

Er, "existence is defined as something that exists" would be a blatantly circular (and uninformative) definition.

It's not even that, existence just plain outright exists even without us "defining" it to be existent. But I will elaborate on what I think about "the act of defining" in my other reply.

Well, you just misunderstand the grammar of "existence" and "exists." Saying "existence exists" is nonsensical. There is no such thing as "existence." "Exists" is a verb applicable to particular things; it serves to distinguish things which can be observed, touched, manipulated, etc., from things only imagined or hypothesized. E.g., horses exist; unicorns do not. "Existence" as a noun just refers to the totality of existing things; it does not denote anything distinct from those. There is no "existence" distinct from things which exists, any more than there is "running" without something that is running.

Going back to the main topic, why does anything exist to begin with?

That question is unanswerable --- at least, with answers that are cognitive (there is of course, no shortage of non-cognitive, vacuous answers).

It seems that existence can simply just happen without being caused by anything, because if it was otherwise, then whatever exists now wouldn't have existed.

There is no "existence;" there are only particular things which exist. "Existence" doesn't "happen;" only the existence of particular things happen. Some may be uncaused (that can't be ruled out on logical grounds), but neither is there any logical problem with assuming an infinity of causes.

[GE Morton]

Egads. Definitions are words uttered by speakers of a structured language to explain the meanings of other words. Only humans (that we know of ) use structured languages, coin words and define them. Other "objects" don't have languages, coin words, or define them.

And may I ask, how do you think the way in which the speakers assign meanings to specific objects is determined? I believe that, while we are free to assign any kind of meaning we want to an object, we can only do so within the scope of what that object is in real life.

Oh, surely not. What is the meaning of "unicorn"? What has that to do with anything in "real life"? How about "God"?

Substantive words have denotative meanings and connotative meanings. The former denote classes of things sharing some common property or set of properties. Which properties are chosen to inform the meaning of a noun are arbitrary, but for "real" things they will be properties readily and publicly observable.

But when we assign random and unrelated "meanings" to a tree such as "a mammal that walks and reproduces" then that would be a false meaning / definition.

Not if that was the meaning attached to that word and understood in a certain speech community. They would then need a different word to denote large woody plants.

I would say that how we perceive things has more to do with "what they are" than you may believe. While it is true that we sort of "translate" external objects into our own Qualia, the "way we assign" these translations of external objects are as much as determined by the external world as it is determined by our own brain.

Example: We don't perceive long wavelengths of lightwave as purple. We perceive them as red.

We can distinguish among different wavelengths of light within a certain range. What we call the various wavelengths we can distinguish among is arbitrary.

[Consul]

Well, you just misunderstand the grammar of "existence" and "exists." Saying "existence exists" is nonsensical. There is no such thing as "existence." "Exists" is a verb applicable to particular things; it serves to distinguish things which can be observed, touched, manipulated, etc., from things only imagined or hypothesized. E.g., horses exist; unicorns do not. "Existence" as a noun just refers to the totality of existing things; it does not denote anything distinct from those. There is no "existence" distinct from things which exists, any more than there is "running" without something that is running.

The noun "existence" has more than one meaning: It can be used to refer to an existent, to the totality (sum total) of existents, or to the property of existing. Correspondingly, "Existence exists" means either "The totality (sum total) of existents exists" or "The property of existing exists". The (mereological) sum total of all existents is an existent itself, so it is true in this sense that existence exists. Whether existence is a (real) property is a contentious issue, so the truth-value of "Existence exists" in this sense depends on whether or not there is such a property as existing.

[Bahman]

BAHMAN

That is not true. Time can pass without any other change.

I'm inclined to disagree. Consider it this way - the reason time didn't exist before the universe existed is because there is no change occurring when nothing exists. This makes sense if time is a marker of change.

Similarly if the universe had popped into existence in such a way that it was static and unable to ever change, time within the universe wouldn't exist. Because there is no change to mark.

The alternative is to see Time as a thing in itself, which flows regardless of anything existing or changing. But that sort of thing in itself Time would have no properties or effects, including flow in a non-existent or static universe. Or there'd at least be no discernible difference in whether it existed or not, there'd be nothing to identify or describe as Time Itself.

Which I suppose boils the question down to whether it is in the nature of stuff to change in certain ways which time marks, or time is an existing medium of sorts through which stuff changes, a medium which simultaneously comes into existence with stuff. A linguistic parallel would be to classify time as an adverb, or Time as a noun.

If we compare time to spatial dimensions, I'd say spatial dimensions also reference and mark the spatial physical properties of physical stuff, like the way an adjective works. Once stuff exists, it can be described and marked in spatial dimensions because of the properties stuff has (hence no stuff = no spatial dimensions). Likewise when stuff changes according to its own properties (matter being acted on by forces according to physics) time marks those changes. If there are no changes to mark, time is meaningless, because there is nothing for time to reference.

My question to you then, is if Time is a thing in itself, what is it? And if it has no discernible independent properties or efects of its own, except as a marker of stuff changing, in what sense does it exist?

Well, we need to agree on whether time is necessary for change to happen. If we agree on this then it follows that time exists regardless of change. How? Consider a system S which is subject to change by which I mean there is a set of parameters, let's call it P, that defines the system and they are subject to change. Now assume a change in the system, P to P', where P is at time t and P' is at time t'. The difference between P and P' tells how big is the change. This difference could be large or small though the difference between t and t' is always constant. Now consider a very very small change. Again, the difference between P and P' is the only thing that changes while the difference between t and t' is constant. So as you can see, time and change are two different independent things. You can have arbitrary change during the time interval which is constant. Time in other words changes constantly regardless of how much the change is.

The form of your question ''is time necessary for change to happen>'' doesn't capture a concept of time I agree with. Because I think time is a marker of change, rather than time being something which independently exists in order for change to happen.

Time as an independent thing in itself, without change, is meaningless. Why? Because, I think, time results from acts of change, which result from the properties of forces which act on matter.

So I think what needs to exist for change to happen isn't pre-existing time, it's the properties of the stuff of the universe (according to physics - forces acting on matter). When those properties manifest, change occurs. Change necessarily happens over a period time, but it's the change itself which manifests the temporal difference.

I agree that changes in systems can happen at different rates/speeds, but these can theoretically be explained by forces acting on matter in different ways. Time marks those differences generated by various physical processes. As I said, it's analogous to spatial dimensions, it's the nature of forces and matter from which dimensions arise. If matter and forces don't exist, their dimensions don't exist. If matter and forces don't change, time doesn't exist.

If you believe time can exist in a completely static universe, I'm still unclear what you think it exists as?

First, what do you mean by time is a change-maker?

Here is my argument for time: Time is a substance (by substance I mean that it exists and has some property) that allows changes. To show this, consider a change, from X to Y, where X and Y are two events. X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise, they are simultaneous and there cannot be any change. This means that we at least need two points of a variable one comes after another in which X occurs at the earlier point and Y occurs at the later point. The distance between two points must be finite otherwise the change does not take place. This distance is nothing more than the duration between two events since one point comes after another one. This variable we call time.

Gertie wrote: ↑Today, 9:03 amGertie wrote: ↑Yesterday, 1:11 pm I know change exists because my conscious experience changes. I assume the change in my conscious experience represents the sequentially changing universe my experience represents. (Time being relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist as marking change, just that how we experience and measure it is relative, I think).

And I understand logic to be a human concept which is rooted in our observation and understanding of how our universe works.

Now within our already existing universe as we experience and understand it, to say time/change/anything is created out of nothing/no time/no change at a particular temporal moment seems illogical. Because we live in a pre-existing universe and only understand time as marking the change from one state of affairs to another, which we experience and have coherent and reliably predictive ways of explaining.

However, if we're talking about the creation of our universe, we're considering a different state of affairs we call 'nothing' (aka not our universe) and we have no access to how things work 'outside' or 'before' our universe. If or how time, stuff changing, or logic can make sense to us outside what we can access from within our universe. So for example if we're considering the existence of some creative force which is responsible for the existence of our universe (including time, stuff and logic as we experience/understand it), we have no way of knowing what the conditions in which such an act of creation might or might not occur. That's assuming the notion of 'outside our universe', or outside what is epistemologically accessible to us, is itself meaningful.One of the main premises is that any act requires times since any act deals with a change. Agree or disagree?As explained above, I agree in the sense that time marks the change. But not convinced that time is some sort of thing in itself medium necessary for stuff to change within.

So I assume that you agree that time is needed for any act.

See my previous answer in this post.

Ok, let's finish that discussion first.

Gertie wrote: ↑Today, 9:03 am

The other premise is that there was no time before the point of creation. Agree or disagree?

Agree, because if nothing exists, then there is no change for time to mark.

Not in that sense. In the sense that if nothing exists, then time does not exist either.

Yes, and I was explaining why. The reason why matters, because it leads us to different conclusions.

Ok, let's first agree on what time is.

.Eternal universe is illogical since it takes infinite amout of time passage to reach from infinite past to now.

Agree, according to our human in-universe knowledge about how the universe we're in works. But we don't have access to/knowledge of the state of affairs, if any, not included in what we can recognise as our universe.


Inconclusive conclusion -

Our logic based on what we flawed and limited humans observe about how our universe works has problems with both creation ex-nihilo and an infinite past. Our human logic suggests it has to be one or the other, but can't unproblematically get us to either.

Answer - dunno.

Well, if we accept two premises then it is easy to show that the act of creation leads to an infinite regress. Agree?

The problem with saying yes/no is that your premises entail a concept of time as something we treat as a thing in itself which is different to mine. Here's your original post -

Act of creation from nothing is logically impossible

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

I don't think ''before'' could exist prior to a first act of creation, because change couldn't exist prior a first act, if I'm right about time being a marker of change. That avoids the infinite regress problem you raise, but runs into the something from nothing problem.

But any act deals with a change so it deals with a before and after. Events occur simultaneously if there is no before and after and that is problematic when it comes to the act of creation since everything exists and exists not at the same point.

[Leontiskos]

Well, we need to agree on whether time is necessary for change to happen.

Creatio ex nihilo is not a change. See for example, <Thomas Aquinas' De Potentia Dei, Question 3, Article 2>. More generally, see <What is Creation? (Thomistic Institute)>.

Creation from nothing deals with change as well.

As to your OP:

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act.

Your premise is, "All acts have a before and an after." There is really no argumentation on offer, just this lonely and undefended premise. I'm not sure why we would take such a premise to be true, particularly on a metaphysical level, and you give us no reason to believe that it is true. You just assume your conclusion.

That premise is true since any act including the act of creation from nothing is dealing with a change. Thanks for the links also. I will read them shortly.

These are just more assertions. You're not offering an arguments.

[Gertie]

Bahman

The form of your question ''is time necessary for change to happen>'' doesn't capture a concept of time I agree with. Because I think time is a marker of change, rather than time being something which independently exists in order for change to happen.

Time as an independent thing in itself, without change, is meaningless. Why? Because, I think, time results from acts of change, which result from the properties of forces which act on matter.

So I think what needs to exist for change to happen isn't pre-existing time, it's the properties of the stuff of the universe (according to physics - forces acting on matter). When those properties manifest, change occurs. Change necessarily happens over a period time, but it's the change itself which manifests the temporal difference.

I agree that changes in systems can happen at different rates/speeds, but these can theoretically be explained by forces acting on matter in different ways. Time marks those differences generated by various physical processes. As I said, it's analogous to spatial dimensions, it's the nature of forces and matter from which dimensions arise. If matter and forces don't exist, their dimensions don't exist. If matter and forces don't change, time doesn't exist.

If you believe time can exist in a completely static universe, I'm still unclear what you think it exists as?

First, what do you mean by time is a change-maker?

You've misunderstood me. I said this -

''So I think what needs to exist for change to happen isn't pre-existing time, it's the properties of the stuff of the universe (according to physics - forces acting on matter). When those properties manifest, change occurs. Change necessarily happens over a period time, but it's the change itself which manifests the temporal difference.''

Ie it is in the nature of the stuff of the universe (aka forces acting on matter) for change to occur. That change manifests temporally, and what we call time references and measures that change.

Here is my argument for time: Time is a substance (by substance I mean that it exists and has some property) that allows changes. To show this, consider a change, from X to Y, where X and Y are two events. X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise, they are simultaneous and there cannot be any change. This means that we at least need two points of a variable one comes after another in which X occurs at the earlier point and Y occurs at the later point. The distance between two points must be finite otherwise the change does not take place. This distance is nothing more than the duration between two events since one point comes after another one. This variable we call time.

OK, I follow your thinking, but the problem with Time as a substance with properties which allow change is that the only property it seems to have is 'allowing change'. I can envision that working in a way analogous to how the Higgs Field works (in which case Time ought to, theoretically at least, be detectable as a substance), but not in the way I think of dimensions. The way I think time as a dimension works is it is the product of natural processes, not the field in which natural processes occur. Time exists because change is in the nature of stuff which exists.

The other premise is that there was no time before the point of creation. Agree or disagree?

Agree, because if nothing exists, then there is no change for time to mark.

Not in that sense. In the sense that if nothing exists, then time does not exist either.

Yes, and I was explaining why. The reason why matters, because it leads us to different conclusions.

Ok, let's first agree on what time is.

OK.

Gertie wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 6:12 pm The problem with saying yes/no is that your premises entail a concept of time as something we treat as a thing in itself which is different to mine. Here's your original post - I don't think ''before'' could exist prior to a first act of creation, because change couldn't exist prior a first act, if I'm right about time being a marker of change. That avoids the infinite regress problem you raise , but runs into the something from nothing problem.

But any act deals with a change so it deals with a before and after. Events occur simultaneously if there is no before and after and that is problematic when it comes to the act of creation since everything exists and exists not at the same point.

Lets take the act of creation of the universe as instantaneously pinging into existence the stuff of the universe in an incredibly hot, dense point which has the energy to become everything our current universe is. My contention is it's the dynamic nature of that first substance, which by its nature changes, which brings about time. Without the change, there would be no time. Hence there is no 'before' the first change (the universe coming to exist) if it's the properties of the stuff of the universe which by their nature manifest temporal change. And if that original created stuff was static by nature, no temporal change would arise, time wouldn't exist.

If, however, time is an independently existing substance, it's presumably either -

- created simultaneously with the other stuff of the universe, which means there is no 'before the universe and no infinite regress.

- or the substance Time pre-existed the creation of the universe.

If you say the latter, then you have a 'before' the universe which could potentially stretch back into infinity as a substance with properties. And then the paradox of the universe's creation at a point in infinity arises. Your position is based on this yes? The logical impossibility that the substance time existed infinitely into the past with the universe coming into existence at some point in an infinite regress. I agree that by the standards of our human in-universe logic, that doesn't look logical.

But my concept of Time coming into being within the universe, as a result of the created stuff of the universe having dynamic properties, doesn't have to deal with the 'infinite time before' the universe was created.

[Bahman]

Well, we need to agree on whether time is necessary for change to happen.

Creatio ex nihilo is not a change. See for example, <Thomas Aquinas' De Potentia Dei, Question 3, Article 2>. More generally, see <What is Creation? (Thomistic Institute)>.

Creation from nothing deals with change as well.

As to your OP:

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act.

Your premise is, "All acts have a before and an after." There is really no argumentation on offer, just this lonely and undefended premise. I'm not sure why we would take such a premise to be true, particularly on a metaphysical level, and you give us no reason to believe that it is true. You just assume your conclusion.

That premise is true since any act including the act of creation from nothing is dealing with a change. Thanks for the links also. I will read them shortly.

These are just more assertions. You're not offering an arguments.

So, the act of creation does not deal with change!?

[Bahman]

Bahman

The form of your question ''is time necessary for change to happen>'' doesn't capture a concept of time I agree with. Because I think time is a marker of change, rather than time being something which independently exists in order for change to happen.

Time as an independent thing in itself, without change, is meaningless. Why? Because, I think, time results from acts of change, which result from the properties of forces which act on matter.

So I think what needs to exist for change to happen isn't pre-existing time, it's the properties of the stuff of the universe (according to physics - forces acting on matter). When those properties manifest, change occurs. Change necessarily happens over a period time, but it's the change itself which manifests the temporal difference.

I agree that changes in systems can happen at different rates/speeds, but these can theoretically be explained by forces acting on matter in different ways. Time marks those differences generated by various physical processes. As I said, it's analogous to spatial dimensions, it's the nature of forces and matter from which dimensions arise. If matter and forces don't exist, their dimensions don't exist. If matter and forces don't change, time doesn't exist.

If you believe time can exist in a completely static universe, I'm still unclear what you think it exists as?

First, what do you mean by time is a change-maker?

You've misunderstood me. I said this -

''So I think what needs to exist for change to happen isn't pre-existing time, it's the properties of the stuff of the universe (according to physics - forces acting on matter). When those properties manifest, change occurs. Change necessarily happens over a period time, but it's the change itself which manifests the temporal difference.''

Ie it is in the nature of the stuff of the universe (aka forces acting on matter) for change to occur. That change manifests temporally, and what we call time references and measures that change.

But I already argued that you cannot have change if there is no time. Moreover, we are discussing the act of creation from nothing.

Here is my argument for time: Time is a substance (by substance I mean that it exists and has some property) that allows changes. To show this, consider a change, from X to Y, where X and Y are two events. X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise, they are simultaneous and there cannot be any change. This means that we at least need two points of a variable one comes after another in which X occurs at the earlier point and Y occurs at the later point. The distance between two points must be finite otherwise the change does not take place. This distance is nothing more than the duration between two events since one point comes after another one. This variable we call time.

OK, I follow your thinking, but the problem with Time as a substance with properties which allow change is that the only property it seems to have is 'allowing change'. I can envision that working in a way analogous to how the Higgs Field works (in which case Time ought to, theoretically at least, be detectable as a substance), but not in the way I think of dimensions. The way I think time as a dimension works is it is the product of natural processes, not the field in which natural processes occur. Time exists because change is in the nature of stuff which exists.

So do you disagree with my argument?

Gertie wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 6:12 pm The problem with saying yes/no is that your premises entail a concept of time as something we treat as a thing in itself which is different to mine. Here's your original post - I don't think ''before'' could exist prior to a first act of creation, because change couldn't exist prior a first act, if I'm right about time being a marker of change. That avoids the infinite regress problem you raise , but runs into the something from nothing problem.

But any act deals with a change so it deals with a before and after. Events occur simultaneously if there is no before and after and that is problematic when it comes to the act of creation since everything exists and exists not at the same point.

Lets take the act of creation of the universe as instantaneously pinging into existence the stuff of the universe in an incredibly hot, dense point which has the energy to become everything our current universe is. My contention is it's the dynamic nature of that first substance, which by its nature changes, which brings about time. Without the change, there would be no time. Hence there is no 'before' the first change (the universe coming to exist) if it's the properties of the stuff of the universe which by their nature manifest temporal change. And if that original created stuff was static by nature, no temporal change would arise, time wouldn't exist.

If, however, time is an independently existing substance, it's presumably either -

- created simultaneously with the other stuff of the universe, which means there is no 'before the universe and no infinite regress.

- or the substance Time pre-existed the creation of the universe.

If you say the latter, then you have a 'before' the universe which could potentially stretch back into infinity as a substance with properties. And then the paradox of the universe's creation at a point in infinity arises. Your position is based on this yes? The logical impossibility that the substance time existed infinitely into the past with the universe coming into existence at some point in an infinite regress. I agree that by the standards of our human in-universe logic, that doesn't look logical.

But my concept of Time coming into being within the universe, as a result of the created stuff of the universe having dynamic properties, doesn't have to deal with the 'infinite time before' the universe was created.

Here, I am discussing the act of creation from nothing. So there is a state of affairs that there is nothing (but God) and then there is a state of affairs that there is something. Could we please focus on this?

[Gertie]

Bahman

The form of your question ''is time necessary for change to happen>'' doesn't capture a concept of time I agree with. Because I think time is a marker of change, rather than time being something which independently exists in order for change to happen.

Time as an independent thing in itself, without change, is meaningless. Why? Because, I think, time results from acts of change, which result from the properties of forces which act on matter.

So I think what needs to exist for change to happen isn't pre-existing time, it's the properties of the stuff of the universe (according to physics - forces acting on matter). When those properties manifest, change occurs. Change necessarily happens over a period time, but it's the change itself which manifests the temporal difference.

I agree that changes in systems can happen at different rates/speeds, but these can theoretically be explained by forces acting on matter in different ways. Time marks those differences generated by various physical processes. As I said, it's analogous to spatial dimensions, it's the nature of forces and matter from which dimensions arise. If matter and forces don't exist, their dimensions don't exist. If matter and forces don't change, time doesn't exist.

If you believe time can exist in a completely static universe, I'm still unclear what you think it exists as?

First, what do you mean by time is a change-maker?

You've misunderstood me. I said this -

''So I think what needs to exist for change to happen isn't pre-existing time, it's the properties of the stuff of the universe (according to physics - forces acting on matter). When those properties manifest, change occurs. Change necessarily happens over a period time, but it's the change itself which manifests the temporal difference.''

Ie it is in the nature of the stuff of the universe (aka forces acting on matter) for change to occur. That change manifests temporally, and what we call time references and measures that change.

But I already argued that you cannot have change if there is no time. Moreover, we are discussing the act of creation from nothing.

Here is my argument for time: Time is a substance (by substance I mean that it exists and has some property) that allows changes. To show this, consider a change, from X to Y, where X and Y are two events. X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise, they are simultaneous and there cannot be any change. This means that we at least need two points of a variable one comes after another in which X occurs at the earlier point and Y occurs at the later point. The distance between two points must be finite otherwise the change does not take place. This distance is nothing more than the duration between two events since one point comes after another one. This variable we call time.

OK, I follow your thinking, but the problem with Time as a substance with properties which allow change is that the only property it seems to have is 'allowing change'. I can envision that working in a way analogous to how the Higgs Field works (in which case Time ought to, theoretically at least, be detectable as a substance), but not in the way I think of dimensions. The way I think time as a dimension works is it is the product of natural processes, not the field in which natural processes occur. Time exists because change is in the nature of stuff which exists.

So do you disagree with my argument?

Gertie wrote: ↑ Yesterday, 6:12 pm The problem with saying yes/no is that your premises entail a concept of time as something we treat as a thing in itself which is different to mine. Here's your original post - I don't think ''before'' could exist prior to a first act of creation, because change couldn't exist prior a first act, if I'm right about time being a marker of change. That avoids the infinite regress problem you raise , but runs into the something from nothing problem.

But any act deals with a change so it deals with a before and after. Events occur simultaneously if there is no before and after and that is problematic when it comes to the act of creation since everything exists and exists not at the same point.

Lets take the act of creation of the universe as instantaneously pinging into existence the stuff of the universe in an incredibly hot, dense point which has the energy to become everything our current universe is. My contention is it's the dynamic nature of that first substance, which by its nature changes, which brings about time. Without the change, there would be no time. Hence there is no 'before' the first change (the universe coming to exist) if it's the properties of the stuff of the universe which by their nature manifest temporal change. And if that original created stuff was static by nature, no temporal change would arise, time wouldn't exist.

If, however, time is an independently existing substance, it's presumably either -

- created simultaneously with the other stuff of the universe, which means there is no 'before the universe and no infinite regress.

- or the substance Time pre-existed the creation of the universe.

If you say the latter, then you have a 'before' the universe which could potentially stretch back into infinity as a substance with properties. And then the paradox of the universe's creation at a point in infinity arises. Your position is based on this yes? The logical impossibility that the substance time existed infinitely into the past with the universe coming into existence at some point in an infinite regress. I agree that by the standards of our human in-universe logic, that doesn't look logical.

But my concept of Time coming into being within the universe, as a result of the created stuff of the universe having dynamic properties, doesn't have to deal with the 'infinite time before' the universe was created.

Here, I am discussing the act of creation from nothing. So there is a state of affairs that there is nothing (but God) and then there is a state of affairs that there is something. Could we please focus on this?

I've explained the prob I have with your position, which remains, so I'll have to agree to disagree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huUp5wFfdcY

[GE Morton]

Here, I am discussing the act of creation from nothing. So there is a state of affairs that there is nothing (but God) and then there is a state of affairs that there is something. Could we please focus on this?

If there is "nothing but God" then there is not nothing; there is something. If you assume the universe was created, you're forced to some sort of creator. The question then is, whether this creator is a mystical, immaterial, insubstantial "presence" or just some earlier physical system.

Also, don't confuse a "created" universe with one that just spontaneously appears, from nothing. The latter offends our rational sensibilities, but can't be ruled out on logical grounds.

[GE Morton]

The noun "existence" has more than one meaning: It can be used to refer to an existent, to the totality (sum total) of existents, or to the property of existing. Correspondingly, "Existence exists" means either "The totality (sum total) of existents exists" or "The property of existing exists". The (mereological) sum total of all existents is an existent itself, so it is true in this sense that existence exists.

That's true. But "existence" is still dependent on the existence of particular things --- no particular existents, no "existence."

Whether existence is a (real) property is a contentious issue, so the truth-value of "Existence exists" in this sense depends on whether or not there is such a property as existing.

Yes. Most logicians since Frege and Russell (and even Aristotle) do not consider existence to be a "real" or "actual" property. It functions grammatically as one, however.

[Leontiskos]

These are just more assertions. You're not offering any arguments.

So, the act of creation does not deal with change!?

Here is the very first objection Aquinas addresses in the article I referred you to:

• Objection 1: And it seems that [creation is a change]. For change denotes the succession of one being after another, as stated in Physics 5, and this is true of creation, which is the production of being after non-being. Therefore, creation is a change.
• Reply to Objection 1: As stated above, the word "change" denotes the existence of one thing after another in connection with one same subject, but this is not the case in creation.
• (De Potentia Dei, Question 3, Article 2)

The "as stated above" refers to the body of Aquinas' response:

• "I answer that in every change there needs to be something common to both of its terms, because if the opposite terms of a change had nothing in common, it could not be defined as a transition from one thing to another. For change and transition signify that one same thing is otherwise now than before. Moreover, the very terms of a change are not incompatible except insofar as they are referred to one same thing, because two contraries if referred to different subjects can exist simultaneously.
  
  Accordingly, there is sometimes one actually existent common subject of both terms of a change, and then we have movement properly speaking, as occurs in alteration, increase and decrease, and local movement. In all such movements, the one subject, while actually remaining the same, is changed from one contrary to another.
  
  Sometimes again, we find that the one subject common to either terminus is not an actual but only a potential being, as is the case in simple generation and corruption. For the subject of the substantial form and of its privation is prime matter, which is not an actual being. Therefore, neither generation nor corruption are movements properly so called, but a kind of change.
  
  And sometimes, there is no common subject actually or potentially existent, but there is the one continuous time, in the first part of which we find the one contrary, and in the second part, the other; as when we say that this thing is made from that—that is, after that," as when we say, "from the morning comes noon." This, however, is a change not properly but metaphorically speaking, insofar as we imagine time as being the subject of those things that take place in time.
  
  Now in creation, there is nothing common in the ways above mentioned, for there is no common subject actually or potentially existent. Again, there is no continuous time, if we refer to the creation of the universe, since there was no time when there was no world. And yet, we may find a common but purely imaginary subject, insofar as we imagine one common time when there was no world and afterwards when the world had been brought into being. For even as outside the universe there is no real magnitude, we can nevertheless picture one to ourselves, so before the beginning of the world there was no time, and yet we can imagine one. Accordingly, creation is not in truth a change, but only in imagination, and not properly speaking, but metaphorically."