Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

[Exist]

What the heck does "starting point" even mean in the absence of time?

It has no meaning in your context, but as soon as the universe is created, t=0 is the starting point from then on out.

I'm not claiming that time is eternal.

Sorry, the universe. If it has a definite beginning, then I wouldn't call it eternal.

 

[b4uris]

If time had no beginnning then we would never have reached this time.

Why not? I've seen this asserted many times before, but I've never seen anyone successfully defend it.

Because one could go backwards in the timeline and every point would have an antecedent, so there would be no point that brought us here.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sorry, the universe. If it has a definite beginning, then I wouldn't call it eternal.

But there is no "before" that "beginning". That makes it very different than any other beginning in time. It is a beginning that doesn't involve "popping into existence" from a previous state of nonexistence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So time is a human construct as a form of organizational comprehension in grasping the world around us. Change exists, but that is not inclusive for proving the existence of time.

I'm not claiming that "time" pertains to anything other than change, any more than that "mass" pertains to something apart from a property of an entity. The problem you are posing is only for those who want time to be more than a measurement of change. I'm not any more interested in "proving the existence of time" than I am of proving the existence of meters.

 

[k]

I'm not claiming that "time" pertains to anything other than change, any more than that "mass" pertains to something apart from a property of an entity. The problem you are posing is only for those who want time to be more than a measurement of change. I'm not any more interested in "proving the existence of time" than I am of proving the existence of meters.

If time is so endemic to change, then why obfuscate the issue?

Time itself is not a measurement of change, but merely a counter to help organize the processes of those changes. I.e. When I put something into the microwave, if I know the exact temperature I want the food to be, I don't need a timer because I will stop cooking at the appropriate point in change, not time.

 

[quatona]

It has no meaning in your context, but as soon as the universe is created, t=0 is the starting point from then on out.

I´m not sure what you mean by "my context".
The problem, as I see it, that creation in the absence of time is nonsensical. It is a process, and a process is a change measured by time.
Secondly, I feel, that the (hypothetical) perspectives are constantly changing. I am assuming that we talk from an assumed pov outside universe and time, and from this perspective "beginning of time" makes no sense.
Whilst, if we want to talk from the pov of our existence in time, absence of time is an impossibility, and the "starting point of time" doesn´t make sense, because from the point of view within time, time has always existed.
It´s the problem of elements of a closed system making assumptions about the properties of this system, I am afraid.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If time is so endemic to change, then why obfuscate the issue?

I don't think the obfuscation is coming from my end.

Time itself is not a measurement of change, but merely a counter to help organize the processes of those changes. I.e. When I put something into the microwave, if I know the exact temperature I want the food to be, I don't need a timer because I will stop cooking at the appropriate point in change, not time.

I use my microwave's timer. It works just fine.

I also use kilometers when measuring distance to nearby towns, even though I could simply drive there.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, the universe. If it has a definite beginning, then I wouldn't call it eternal.

And that´s because we are using words that describe our reality and its properties within time as if they were in any way meaningful when describing a realm without time.
You are of course right: something that has a beginning is not eternal, by definition. But "beginning" is a term that is only meaningful in relation to time. In fact it´s the prototype of a term referring to the measuring of time. Thus, if the universe has a beginning, the realm "in" which this universe is assumed to exist, must have time as one of its properties.
"Before time" is plain nonsense, and therefore "before the universe" can only be meaningful if the view from which we are - hypothetically - looking at the universe from beyond is time-based.

 

[Exist]

Because one could go backwards in the timeline and every point would have an antecedent, so there would be no point that brought us here.

You, of course, assume that there is a first cause. You're argument assumes there is a first cause, while trying to prove a first cause. You know what brought us here? What was here before us. And what brought that there? What was there before it. And so on, for all eternity. So I ask, we would have never gotten here...from where?

But "beginning" is a term that is only meaningful in relation to time.

I don't really understand your post, maybe because I'm tired, but about the quote: I would agree. At t=0, time has started, and from then on out, you can point to the beginning. You know it's the beginning, because there was nothing before that.

I would also agree that this this claim is nonsensical. If there was no time before t=0, then no change could have occured to bring time into existence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would also agree that this this claim is nonsensical. If there was no time before t=0, then no change could have occured to bring time into existence.

Change is time coming into existence. Change does not need to precede time coming into existence, as if time was something separate from change.

 

[Exist]

Change is time coming into existence. Change does not need to precede time coming into existence, as if time was something separate from change.

Exactly. If there is change, time exists. Which means, according to the argument about change making something temporal, that whatever brought the material realm into existance is temporal. If it did something to bring matter into existance (like....speaking), then there was a change in the state of the Creator.

 

[k]

I don't think the obfuscation is coming from my end.



I use my microwave's timer. It works just fine.

I also use kilometers when measuring distance to nearby towns, even though I could simply drive there.

Okay, but I don't see a response to my post...

 

[k]

Change is time coming into existence. Change does not need to precede time coming into existence, as if time was something separate from change.

How can time be causative?

 

[k]

Exactly. If there is change, time exists. Which means, according to the argument about change making something temporal, that whatever brought the material realm into existance is temporal. If it did something to bring matter into existance (like....speaking), then there was a change in the state of the Creator.

Change shows causation, not time. Time does not impose itself upon us because we impose ourselves onto time. I.e. Ever heard the phrase "Time flies when you're having fun?"

 

[Eudaimonist]

How can time be causative?

Nowhere did I write that time is causative. That is not my position.

Okay, but I don't see a response to my post...

No? You quoted it. But I think our views are so different philosophically that we're probably not communicating effectively.

 

[k]

Nowhere did I write that time is causative. That is not my position.

By saying "Change is time coming into existence," a claim is being made that the manifestation of time causes change. That's why it is a causative claim.

No? You quoted it. But I think our views are so different philosophically that we're probably not communicating effectively.

I showed how heat causes change in the temperature of food, not time, and that point was basically brushed off w/ something like, "My timer works just fine."

 

[quatona]

By saying "Change is time coming into existence," a claim is being made that the manifestation of time causes change.

I have problems understanding how this follows.

 

[k]

I have problems understanding how this follows.

If "change is time coming into existence" then time is the causation. It's like this....written word is language coming into existence. Language is a causation of written word.

 

[Eudaimonist]

By saying "Change is time coming into existence," a claim is being made that the manifestation of time causes change. That's why it is a causative claim.

That is not my claim. I have difficulty understanding why you think it is.

I showed how heat causes change in the temperature of food, not time, and that point was basically brushed off w/ something like, "My timer works just fine."

Ah, I misunderstood your point. (I'm having great difficultly bridging the gap between our philosophies and communication styles.) But you still misunderstand mine. I do not claim that time causes change in the temperature of food. I agree that heat does. This doesn't contradict my points, though.

 

[quatona]

If "change is time coming into existence" then time is the causation. It's like this....written word is language coming into existence. Language is a causation of written word.

I am sorry, but I don´t see how this makes any sense.
Writing is the causation of written words. Language is the prerequisite for giving that which is written meaning.