The invention of time
Hello, Your Honor! Some say that time was invented and created with the invention of the universe, and before its invention there was no concept of time. I do not understand this argument. For example, reality was invented after the absence of the reality that preceded its invention. So without time, how is it possible for there to be a sequential order of things? Anything that comes after something that came before it is only possible in time. How is absence and presence after it possible without the platform of time? Thanks, Ron
Hello Ron.
Kant argued that space and time are transcendental categories, that is, our forms of observation and not things that exist in reality itself. This is a human form of observation. I’m not sure he’s right, but I’ll use his method to explain. You understand that if this is so, there is no fundamental obstacle to thinking about processes not based on the timeline. For example, based on a causal relationship rather than a chronological one.
Personally, I tend to think that even if time was created with the universe, there is no reason to use these “glasses” when looking back before the formation of the universe and talking about that situation in terms of time.
By the way, in your question you used the phrase “before its invention there was no concept of time.” So what is “before”? Before is a temporal expression. You see that already in the wording of the question you assume that it is possible to talk about such processes not in terms of time. Your “before” is a non-chronological expression.
And beyond that, I once wrote that there are two time axes, one is the one that joins space and creates the 4th dimensional space, and the other is something more objective. See more about this in the fourth book in the Talmudic Logic series. If this is so, it is likely that external time was created and internal time is eternal.
Good week
I didn't really understand how it is possible to think of a changing physical process that is not on a timeline, as you mentioned later in your answer, I asked how it is possible to talk about the invention of the universe without moving on a timeline in which there was no universe before the universe was created, and if the only axis on which the concept of creation from nothing revolves is time, how can we say that time was created after it was not created? The term *creation of time* already implies a chronological relationship.
Can you point to a place on the Internet where you can read about both timelines?
Thanks
Ron
It is difficult to think of a physical process that is not along a time axis, so when we talk about physical processes we use terms of time. But that does not necessarily mean that in reality itself there had to be time. We talk about creation in terms of absence followed by a universe. But if in reality itself there was no time then this talk is an anachronism that stems from our system of concepts.
I do not know of a treatment of this on the Internet. You could try searching for McTaggart's material or articles.
Isn't it a contradiction to say that before time was invented, there was no time, and yet there was absence before the renewed being? In other words, is it possible to talk about absence and renewal without having any conceptual platform on which to discuss things? Is this just an anarchist problem or is it a more serious problem?
Thanks
Ron
I already answered.
Not that the physics theories of the late Stephen Hawking are philosophically binding on anyone or anything, but they are nevertheless interesting and beg for explanation.
Can someone explain the things quoted here:
This subatomic point, which contains everything of everything, is known as a “gravitational singularity”. The Live Science website explains that inside this tiny and very dense point of heat and energy – the laws of physics and time essentially cease to exist. That is, the concept of time, as we understand it, did not exist at all before the universe began to expand. Instead, the arrow of time shrinks infinitely as the universe becomes smaller and smaller, but never converges to a specific and clear starting point.
Hawking's point is that there was no time before time began, but time has always been there in some form, even if completely different. In the interview, Hawking explains that before the Big Bang, time was a kind of alternate version of itself: "It was always approaching nothing but never becoming nothing." There was never a big bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from the perspective of humanity.
The late Hawking spoke quite a bit of nonsense and I would recommend not being impressed by anything his keyboard ever spewed.
The things here are short and incomplete, so I don't know what he was aiming for here. But what is written here is actually meaningless. He uses the terms "always", "before", "ever", "never", about passages in which there was no time. All of this can only have meaning if you assume two timelines (see the fourth book in the Talmudic Logic series), and then the philosophical meaning of these claims is emptied (because they deal with time as a physical parameter that is not necessarily philosophical time).
Thank you for the things
Can you upload here some post or article you wrote about physical time and philosophical time, it sounds interesting. Thanks
Zebulon
I don't remember writing anything beyond the book.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
