Eternity is not a mathematical object, so you cannot divide eternity by infinity and get a finite period.
Even if I grant you that you can get a finite period in the cyclic universe, you are interested in by dividing eternity by an unbounded number, you still have the unbounded number of cycles. No matter how far you go into the past, there are still an unbounded number of cycles before any point in the past you choose. The problem in your thinking is that you can choose the first cycle and obtain it, but you don’t notice that there is no first cycle.
Considering that we are at the present in one of the cycles of the cyclic universe, and considering the fact that there is an unbounded number of cycles before the current cycle, we are still facing the problem of a cycle that we could start from and reach the current cycle from it. That is a problem since there is always an unbounded number of cycles in the past, no matter how far you go into the past.
I THINK you’re claiming that the universe (which experiences time) would have to be caused by something that exists timelessly. Is that correct?
If so, this tells us almost nothing about this cause - other than that it exists timelessly.
Here’s where you’re treating time as a thing, rather than a sequence of states. Time does not exist within a state. Time is the relation between states. Of course, there has to be some characteristic of a state that would result in change, but I would consider that characteristic to be a law of nature - that the passage of time is inherent in laws of nature.
Returning to my prior point, “God” seems nothing more than a law of nature (or the suite of laws of nature that exist).
I showed that neither type of theory of time can explain how the universe exists at the present. Therefore, there is no natural explanation for why the universe exists now. The universe exists now. Therefore, God created the universe.
Time is something that exists and accommodates different forms of existence at its different moments. This is discussed in footnote 2.
it is not the case that time exists only at the present - because that would make change impossible
a computation is needed to “create” change.
Issue 1:
You have not defined what you mean by “time”, but I assume you’ll agree that time and change are inextricably linked. Consider this hypothetical scenario:
-An initial state (S0) exists; with no temporally prior state. Its existence is not the product of change.
-A state change occurs: S0 ceases to exist and now S1 now exists. This entails a passage of time (irrespective of what time IS), because change necessarily entails a passage of time.
Suppose no further change. You speak of time “existing”. So in this scenario, does time exist at S1? Does time exist at S2?
------------
Issue 2:
You claim a “computation” is needed to annihilate the present and create a new present. My objections:
- computation is a temporal process: a sequence of steps. The answer doesn’t exist until the computation completes. So you require a 2nd order passage of time in order to perform the computation that “creates” the next point of time. Infinitely many layers of time computations are needed.
It’s vague,unconvincing,and appears to be self-contradicting: X and Y must lie at two different points of something; otherwise, they are simultaneous
They cannot “lie” at two different points, because they do not exist simultaneously. Rather, we are retroactively considering an earlier point of time (X) and abstractly relating it to the present (Y). This is reinforced by your description of one “present” being annihalated and the new “present” created.
This conflates time with the state of affairs that exists at a point of time.
Traditional presentism = only the present exists, but the present = the state of affairs that encompases the entirety of existence. You treat “time” as that entirety of existence. Presentists acknowledge that the present has been caused by the past (there is a perpetual “becoming”), so there is a clear relation between one “present” and the next.
The primary alterative is block time, which treats reality as a 4-dimensional block, with time as the 4th dimension. 3-dimensional reality exists at every point of the time dimension. Time is something very specific: it is a dimension of reality.
There are variations of both. It’s unclear what your view is.
I am saying that you cannot go from S0 to S1. That is true since accepting S0 as the initial state means that time exists at one point only, the so-called initial point, and has to change. This is a form of presentism. Time cannot change within presentism. Time, however, is needed for change. Therefore, change is not possible within presentism. So, you cannot go from S0 to S1. This means that theories within which time has a definite beginning should be discarded.
By computation, I don’t mean to calculate an unknown value. The simulator knows the input and knows what the output should be for any input. So, given any state of the universe at a given time, the simulator knows what the next state should be at the next time.
It is not self-contradictory. I am talking about two states of affairs; these either exist at one point or two points. In the first case, we are dealing with a simultaneous process, and in the second case, we are dealing with a temporal process. Change is not possible in a simultaneous process, so as a matter of necessity, we need two points of something that these states of affairs lie within when there is a change.
No, I am saying that time is something that changes as well. Within presentism, time only exists at one point. This, of course, means that we can accommodate one state of affairs at that one point in time. So we have two things: one point in time, and one state of affairs that is accommodated at that point in time.
Then there is no computation being performed at all. There is just an act of annihilation and creation. If what occurs happens to be consistent with a computation, it’s pure coincidence.
Two states affairs existing at “one point or two points” of… WHAT? Of points of TIME? This remains vague: what is time? What does it mean to say time exists in a state of affairs?
Your basic problem is that you have created a strawman version of presentism. I agree that YOUR version can’t be true. However, traditional presentism doesn’t have the same problem. Under traditional presentism, there are tensed facts: the current state of the universe exists in the present, but the universe also existed yesterday, in a different state. Time is a relation between states of affairs: yesterday has a temporal relation to today. Presentism acknowledges that time passes, and (yes) that only the present actually exists (present tense). But yesterday EXISTED (past tense), as did all prior days.
Under traditional presentation, there’s no problem with an initial state of affairs (S0). Time is not IN the state of affairs. Rather, time represents a relation between one state of affairs and a subsequent one. S1 has a temporal relation to both S0 and S1. S0 has a temporal relation to S1, but not to anything prior.
The potential to change is within each state of affairs. That potential is a consequence of laws of nature, which is the engine of causation and change. Causation necessarily entails a temporal sequence and it entails change. Laws of nature exhibit mathematical structure - and this is why what occurs is consistent with computation, so it’s not mere coincidence.
To “prove” God, you have to find a problem with THIS formulation of presentation, not something you contrive.
We say that a process is simultaneous if two states of affairs lie at the same timeless point. There is, however, no change in a simultaneous process. To have a change, two states of affairs must lie at two different points in something we call time.
I didn’t say so. I said the opposite. A state of affairs lies at a point in time.
I am talking about the traditional form of presentism in which time exists only in the present and changes.
I already explained that change is not possible within presentism, so any formulation of change that is based on presentism fails to explain motion.
What is a timeless point? What is it a point OF? It’s not a point of time, because surely points of time can’t be considered “timeless”.
OK. What is time? I gave you my view, which is a relational view: time is a relation between states of affairs. You’ve given no description.
Traditional presentism does not deny the reality of past and future: it accepts that true statements can be made about both. An initial state is consistent with presentism, but you claim it isn’t. It’s compatible because time is relational: the initial state of affairs changes to subsequent states of affairs – time passes FROM the initial state. You haven’t falsified my position.
You asserted it, you did not show it. Change is not possible in the present moment, because change entails a passage of time from moment TO moment. Presentism entails a temporal becoming: NOW is a consequence of the past, and a cause of the future. (It’s as if you are looking at a single frame of a film, and claiming movies are impossible – because the frame is a static image.
A timeless point is a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs.
Any point in time is something that can accommodate a single state of affairs.
In presentism, only the present objectively exists. The past is gone, and we have to wait for the future to come.
I explained in footnote 1 that time cannot exist at the present and change. In footnote 2, I explain that time is needed for any change. This means that we cannot have change within presentism since we need time to change to have a change in something (footnote 2), and since time cannot change within presentism (footnote 1).
You didn’t answer (nor did you quote) my second question: what is it a point OF?
That doesn’t explain what time IS. Recall that I defined time as a relation between states of affairs. Do you accept this view? If not, then give an alternative.
Sure, but you’re ignoring my issue: there are tensed facts; true statements can be made about the past and future. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Again, this depends on what time IS. In the relational view of time that I described, time does not exist IN a (point in time) state of affairs. Change ENTAILS a passage of time.
Your repeated claim that “we cannot have change within presentism” is false. It would be correct to say "we cannot have change within the present moment of time. So you seem to be conflating “presentism” with “the present”. This misunderstanding of yours seems to be the fatal flaw in your analysis.
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, presentism accepts that true statements can be made about both the past and future. This makes it possible to abstractly consider the evolution of a system across time. The laws of motion in elementary physics demonstrate how we can abstractly consider the motion of an object across time, including past, present, and future. The metaphysical nature of “now” is irrelevant to the analysis. The analysis is perfectly consistent with presentism.
Are you asking whether a timeless point is a point of something? A timeless point is all there is when it comes to simultaneous processes. It is a single point, so it is not a set of moments like time, where each moment belongs to time. So, it is wrong to ask whether it is the point of something.
Time is a sequence of moments; each moment accommodates a state of affairs.
In presentism, the past and future do not objectively exist.
In presentism, time exists only in the present.
So, you agree that change requires the passage of time?
That is not what I am saying in footnote 1. I am saying time cannot change within presentism.
Again, only one point in time objectively exists within presentism, the so-called now.
A process entails change over time. Two processes that are simultaneous are taking place over an identical span of time.
Suppose we take repeated measurements of a system undergoing a process over a period of time. Each measurement represents the state of the system at each point of time. In this context, “point” is well defined, as the point of time at which the system state was such-and-such. In this context, it makes no sense to claim points of time are “timeless”.
Suppose we create a 3-dimensional graph of a sphere. Each pointof the surface of the sphere can be identified by the 3 coordinates of the graph. We could consider these points “timeless” because the graph is of an abstraction, and abstractions are timeless.
To have meaning that is relevant to the real world, a point must relate to SOMETHING, such as a point of time, or a point of space. It could be a point on an axis of a graph. It’s meaningless to discuss a point without identifying what you’re referring to - unless you’re just discussing the mathematical properties of a point, such as the fact that points are dimensionless. So yes, you need to explain what you’re referring to as a point.
Thank you. That’s a good start, but it leads to a problem - as I show below.
Agreed: the past and future do not currently exist. But you’re sidestepping my issue: we can still consider the state of the universe at points of time in the past, and future. The past states of the universe do not currently exist, but they did exist at past points of time. Future states of the universe will exist at future points of time. We can make a true statement about the position of the earth relative to the moon at 8:00AM yesterday, or a statement about this position at 8:00AM tomorrow.
What’s impossible to do is to make a true statement about this position NOW. That’s because the state of a system NOW is not analyzable, because analysis is a process and takes time. Even the uttering of a statement requires a passage of time.
That’s problematic. What exists in the present is a state of affairs. You defined time as a “sequence of moments”, and the present is just one moment: not a sequence. That’s why you can’t say time “exists in the present”, per your definition.
Yes.
When we analyze change over time, we are doing so abstractly - which is a timeless perspective, like consideration of a 3-dimensional graph of a sphere. The fact that we can do this doesn’t have any bearing on the ontology of time. The present moment is not analyzable, except in retrospect, or in terms of predicting the state of a system in the future that will eventually become the NOW.
Just to be clear, I want to add this. The passage of time is relative to an observer. Are you familiar with Page & Wootters? This summarizes their view:
“Thanks to quantum entanglement, a static system may describe an evolving “universe” from the point of view of the internal observers. Energy-entanglement between a “clock” system and the rest of the universe can yield a stationary state for an (hypothetical) external observer that is able to test the entanglement vs. abstract coordinate time.” source
There is no change involved in the case of a simultaneous process since two states of affairs lie at the same timeless point in this case.
I understand your point about the tense sentences. I am, however, saying that time cannot change in presentism, so the future cannot become the present, and the present cannot become the past. This is presented in footnote 1.
Time is a sequence of events. In presentism, only the present objectively exists, whereas in the block universe, all points of time are objectively real.
That is a great agreement.
I believe I read about quantum entanglement and time in the past. Thanks for the reference. I will read it when I have time.
Impossible. A process entails change over time, and consequently an elapse of time. Also, you still referred to a “timeless point”. I keep asking: a point of what? Failing to answer that question renders claims about a “timeless point” meaningless.
My position is that time itself does not change. Rather, states of affairs change, and in doing so, a clock would record an elapse of time. Time is a relation between one state of affairs and another. The temporal relation between state A and state B is not something that actually changes, because it is specifically associated with those 2 states of affairs. When a subsequent state, state C, ensues,there is a new relation: between B and C. It is a very similar relation, but not identical because A, B, and C have differences.
Does the “future become the present”. It depends on what meaning is attached to “future” and “present”. In one sense, the future is always before us - so it is never reached. In that sense, “the future” never becomes the present.
But we can identify a future point of time, in reference to a clock. 07 July 2027 is a future date from the current date. When the clock reads “07 July 2027” we will correctly acknowledge that the (then) presesnt day is that date.
Footnote 1 says, “Within presentism, time exists now only and changes.” I have defined time as a relation between states of affairs, and that it is not correct to say “time changes”. Rather, we could say that the time shown on a clock changes, and that it is states of affairs that change. A system state at one reading of a clock will be different at a later reading of the clock. So strictly speaking: time elapses in terms of the reading on a clock.
Block-time doesn’t account for our perception of the passage of time or of causality. The past is fixed, and can’t be changed, but the future seems somewhat open - at least if there is true randomness to quantum indeterminacy, which seems likely. How do you account for quantum indeterminacy?
From my point of view, yes: only the present actually exists, but we can still make true statements about the past and future. That doesn’t require the past and future to exist. I embrace a form of truthmaker theory of truth: a statement is true iff there is some aspect of reality that the statement corresponds to. But it’s an correspondence applied to a block-time abstraction: the truthmaker can exist in the present, or it could have existed anytime in the past, or it could exist anytime in the future. Block-time is a useful abstraction, but its utility doesn’t make it actually part of the ontology of the world.
Regarding Page & Wooters: their theory is that the experience of time is real, but localized within a quantum system: a clock within the system will record an elapse of time associated with changes (associated with quantum entanglements) within the system. Observers outside the system will not observe an elapse of time. They are (in essence) observing block.
Extrapolating to the universe: if we consider the universe as a pure state quantum system, a hypothetical external observer would not observe an elapse of time within it, but observers within the universe would observe this elapse of time.
The paper I pointed you at is actually an experiment that is designed to confirm this Page-Wootters hypothesis.
I use the process for convenience when we have at least two states of affairs, whether at the same point or at different points, and, to me, the process does not necessarily imply change over time. I don’t know what other word is appropriate to use, but Google defines a simultaneous process.
And I keep explaining it. A timeless point is a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs; that is all.
Sorry, but you agree that time is required for change. If we agree that each point in time only accommodates one state of affairs, then a change in time is required.
We have two things: States of affairs that are a sequence and change. States of affairs are a sequence, so each element of it is related to another element, regardless that if there is any change or time. Time, in other words, is not needed to define this sequence. When you have a change, you need time since each point in time accommodates only one state of affairs, and only one state of affairs can objectively exist. So, for example, at time t1, there is only the state of affairs S1, which objectively exists. Now, we have to wait to get the second state of affairs, S2, at a later time t2. Etc.
Give me a real world example of a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs.
Give me a real world example of 2 states of affairs at the same point that you would regard as a “simultaneous process”.
My position is that change and time are the same thing, a relation between states: one going out of existence, and the other that becomes existent. You seem to be treating time as something existing independently from states of affairs, but in which states of affairs exist within.
Does your “proof” of God depend on this interpretation?
How do you account for the perception of time passing?
Block time implies that everything exists, but some exist at different temporal locations. Nothing actually begins to exist or ceases to exist, and this means that causes do not actually create a new state of affairs. Rather, the cause-effect relationship is just part of the static 4-dimensional matrix - one that includes God. But God couldn’t create that 4-dimensional matrix, because he’s part of it. He has to be, because the the nature of causality: it’s just a relation between 2 parts of the block (cause and effect).