The Infiniteness of Time

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

Firstly, I define Time as the 4th dimension (a structural element) of this universe, which allows change/motion/interaction of 3D objects. From a geometric perspective, time enables change (of 3D objects):
  • A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
    A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
    A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
    A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.
The 4th dimension is called "Time".

**************
Time can be proven to be INFINITE by a couple of methods:

METHOD #1 - Simple Logic
The first and most obvious is the logical impossibility of "something existing before it exists". [X<X is logically impossible]. In this case, Time cannot exist before it exists. Which means there can't be a "beginning of Time", as "beginning" is itself a temporal word. In other words, since "beginnings" don't yet exist in the absence of Time, there can't be a beginning of Time. And if Time had no beginning, then Time must have always infinitely permanently existed.

METHOD #2 - Imagination Experiment

Imagine there is nothing outside this universe; it is the totality of everything. Imagine this universe has a big "Power Off" button/knob. If you push this knob, it shuts off Time, which in effect, stops all activity within the universe. It shuts off and stops all movement, motion, change, and interactions of matter within the universe. Pulling on the "Power Off" button/knob will turn Time, and all activity, back on again.

Okay, now imagine that someone or something within this universe pushed the "Power Off" button. Now what? What activity is there left to turn it back on? The point is that if Time has ever shut off, it would forever be permanently off. Which means our existence today is proof of infinite Time.
Last edited by RJG on April 15th, 2021, 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

”Steve3007” wrote:Since, in my view, time is change, obviously I agree that there can be no changes in the absence of time, but I also say that there can be no time in the absence of change.
As you know I view time as a dimension (a structural element of the universe; the means by which 3D objects move/change/interact), whereas you view time as “change” itself.

1. But since “change” is just an ‘action’ (or the name given to action), are you saying that Time is also just an action?

2. How then is it possible for this ‘action’ to occur? How is it possible for objects to change/move/interact as opposed to NOT changing/moving/interacting? What is the means by which this motion (change/movement/interaction) is possible?

From my viewpoint, change is not possible without a means to change. A train cannot move without means to move. The track is the means by which the action of train movement is possible. The means for change is called Time (a structural dimension of reality).
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

”Scott” wrote: In the 4D block universe of "spacetime" there is not 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. There are four equal dimensions of spacetime. Each dimension is dimension of spacetime.

You can imagine drawing a line through that 4D block universe of spacetime and call that drawn-on 1D line the axis of time. But there are infinite different 1D lines that you could draw on, each possible 1D line just as worthy of being called the axis of time, which is the sense in which not only is (1) time relative but also it is the case that (2) the difference between timeness and spaceness is relative, analogous to the difference between hereness and thereness. Fundamentally, according to Einstein's physics, space is time, and time is space, and in that way there is no space and not time but just a singular spacetime.

What is space from one reference frame is time from a different reference frame, with neither one being objective more correct, analogous to how what is 'here' from one reference frame can be 'there' to another reference from. In Einstein's physics, it's not just time and space that are relative, but also timeness and spaceness.

In Einstein's physics, from the self-referential perspective of something moving in spacetime, everything moves through spacetime at the same speed (C, the constant), and thus from the self-referential perspective it sees itself as moving only through one dimension at the speed of C (i.e. each thing sees itself as moving only and always through time at the speed of C and thus not through space at all) and sees everything else either moving through space at the speed of C but not time at all, or moving through a mixture of space at sub-C levels and time at sub-C levels such that movement through space and the movement through time equal C, which is really just a way of saying that shortest point through spacetime is a line. Time is just the dimension in space that happens to be parallel to a chosen reference line. One experiences one's own line through spacetime as a special line, the line of time, but the timeless of that 1-D line as opposed to any other 1-D line is arbitrary and relative. Your 1-D line of time is different than my 1-D line of time through spacetime. There is no objective 1D line of time in 4D spacetime. There is no objective way to say which three dimensions of the 4D block universe are the three dimension of space as opposed to time. In other words, there are infinite ways to slice it up into 3D frames.
So, you are not necessarily denying the existence of time itself, but instead denying any objective orientation of the axis/dimension of time. Correct? In other words, time is relative to the viewers position in this universe?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

Why would we posit time as something that "allows" change/motion rather than just saying that it IS change/motion?
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

”Terrapin Station” wrote:Why would we posit time as something that "allows" change/motion rather than just saying that it IS change/motion?
Change/motion is just an action; not a thing. Is Time also just an action?

If so, then how is this 'action' possible? ...what allows action (of objects) to happen? ...what is the means by which 'actions' (of objects) are possible? ...why 'action' instead of 'no-action' of objects?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

RJG wrote: April 15th, 2021, 8:29 am
”Terrapin Station” wrote:Why would we posit time as something that "allows" change/motion rather than just saying that it IS change/motion?
Change/motion is just an action; not a thing. Is Time also just an action?

If so, then how is this 'action' possible? ...what allows action (of objects) to happen? ...what is the means by which 'actions' (of objects) are possible? ...why 'action' instead of 'no-action' of objects?
I don't get why you're seeing actions as needing something else to "allow" them to happen?
(And then why wouldn't whatever is "allowing" need something to "allow" it?)

That just seems like an odd thing to think, "This needs something to allow it"--why would it be disallowed otherwise?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:Time can be proven to be INFINITE by a couple of methods:
OK, so you're seeking to demonstrate that the statement "time is not infinite" is self-contradictory and that the statement "time is infinite" is true by definition. Two methods:
METHOD #1 - Simple Logic
The first and most obvious is the logical impossibility of "something existing before it exists". [X<X is logically impossible]. In this case, Time cannot exist before it exists.
I agree that a thing cannot exist before it exists. I think time is an abstraction of change and I think another way to say that is that time is what is measured by clocks. So I agree that change cannot happen before change happens.
Which means there can't be a "beginning of Time", as "beginning" is itself a temporal word.
I agree that "beginning" is a temporal word. I take it to mean "the first event in a series of events" or "the first change in a series of changes". So I disagree that there cannot be a beginning of time because I think it's logically perfectly possible for there to be a first event or first change.
In other words, since "beginnings" don't yet exist in the absence of Time, there can't be a beginning of Time. And if Time had no beginning, then Time must have always infinitely permanently existed.
Time has always (at all times) existed. To say otherwise would be self-contradictory. That's not the same as saying that it is infinite. If time were a finite sequence of changes then saying "time has always existed" is the same as saying "if change is happening change is happening". That's clearly tautologically true but it doesn't follow that there is an infinite sequence of changes.

So method #1 hasn't proved that time is infinite.

METHOD #2 - Imagination Experiment
Imagine there is nothing outside this universe; it is the totality of everything. Imagine this universe has a big "Power Off" button/knob. If you push this knob, it shuts off Time, which in effect, stops all activity within the universe. It shuts off and stops all movement, motion, change, and interactions of matter within the universe. Pulling on the "Power Off" button/knob will turn Time, and all activity, back on again.
I don't see this as proving anything. The idea of being able to perform the action of pushing/pulling on the "power off" knob to stop/restart time is self-contradictory. So it just appears to be to be description of a self-contradictory thought experiment.

If you were to speculate that all changes in the universe might spontaneously stop and restart, I don't see any self-contradiction in that. But in that case, by definition, no time would pass between the stopping and the starting. So the speculation that it had happened would be entirely abstract, in the sense that it wouldn't correspond to anything real. The situations in which it happened and didn't happen would be identical. There would be no possible test that could distinguish between the two.
As you know I view time as a dimension (a structural element of the universe; the means by which 3D objects move/change/interact), whereas you view time as “change” itself.
Yes, unpacking that a bit: Ontologically, I see time as an abstraction of change, created by considering the set of all possible changes. Sets/classes/groups like this are abstractions. Individual changes are instances.

Epistemologically I see time as the thing which is measured by clocks, where the word "clock" is used in its most general possible sense to refer to any physical system which undergoes periodic changes. It would be meaningless to consider the passage of time in the absence of any clocks, when the word "clock" is used in this sense. It is only meaningful to consider measuring the rate at which a clock is ticking by comparing it to another clock.
1. But since “change” is just an ‘action’ (or the name given to action), are you saying that Time is also just an action?
If we're taking "change" and "action" to be synonyms then time is an abstraction of action, created by considering the set of all possible actions.
2. How then is it possible for this ‘action’ to occur? How is it possible for objects to change/move/interact as opposed to NOT changing/moving/interacting? What is the means by which this motion (change/movement/interaction) is possible?
Why would it not be possible? I presume you're talking about logical possibility here? If so, to be impossible for an action to occur it would need to be self-contradictory to say that the action has occurred. Where is the self-contradiction in saying that an action occurred?

I would tend to use the term "means" in the context of causality. So I'd usually use it as an approximate synonym for "cause". We know from observations of correlation that some events are causally related to other events. So if any given change has a cause then that cause is another change. To say that the cause is time is incoherent to me.
From my viewpoint, change is not possible without a means to change.
If you say this then you're left with a problem that is analogous to the problem some religious people are faced with when they say that there must be a universal prime mover. (I'm not saying you're religious. I'm just saying that the problems are analogous.) They say that there must be a first cause and therefore there must be a god. i.e. they say that the first action/event/change must have been caused by something, and they call that something God. Our answer is to ask if that is true then what caused God? They say that God didn't need a cause. We then reply that if there are some things (e.g. gods) that don't need causes, why not just say that the first cause didn't need a cause?

You seem to me to be proposing a similarly metaphysical construct as the means/cause of change. If you're going to think of time as a thing which causes other things to happen then you're faced with the problem of what caused time.
A train cannot move without means to move. The track is the means by which the action of train movement is possible. The means for change is called Time (a structural dimension of reality).
I'd say that the engine is the means by which the movement of the train is possible. i.e. the event/change called "train moving" is caused by various prior events/changes like "wheels turning" and "fuel burning". To extrapolate from this to saying that the means for change is time is, in my view, incoherent.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

Terrapin Station wrote:I don't get why you're seeing actions as needing something else to "allow" them to happen? (And then why wouldn't whatever is "allowing" need something to "allow" it?)

That just seems like an odd thing to think, "This needs something to allow it"--why would it be disallowed otherwise?
As I see it, objects are one thing, and the motion (movement/change) of these objects is quite another. Two different animals/concepts.

We can't get motion (movement/change of 3D objects) without a means (4th dimension) to do so. Similarly, we can't get 3D objects from 2D planes without a means (3rd dimension) to do so. If we don't need time (or something?) to enable motion (movement/change), then how do we get motion out of 3D objects?

Again, rightly or wrongly, I view Time as the 4th dimension (a structural element) of this universe, which allows change/motion/interaction of 3D objects.
  • A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
    A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
    A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
    A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension (called "time").

************
Steve3007 wrote:If you're going to think of time as a thing which causes other things to happen then you're faced with the problem of what caused time.
The dimension of time is 'infinite' (as are the other 3 dimensions) and therefore was not "caused"; or had a "beginning" point.

Steve3007 wrote:I see time as the thing which is measured by clocks.
Yes, noted. You see time as a "measurement", whereas I see time as a "dimension". Got it. So then what do you call the 4th dimension? ...or does it not exist? ...if not, do the other 3 dimensions likewise not exist?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:Yes, noted. You see time as a "measurement", whereas I see time as a "dimension". Got it.
Well, as I said, that's the epistemological way of putting it: time is what is measured by clocks. That used to be the way that I always put it, in those epistemological terms. But it was actually conversations with Terrapin Station that led me to view "time is change", or more fully "time is an abstraction created from considering the set of all changes" as an alternative way of putting it in purely ontological language. TS seems to me to be much more focussed on ontology than I am, and it was various arguments arising from that difference in worldview which led me to see the sense of putting it in those ontological terms.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:You see time as a "measurement", whereas I see time as a "dimension".
Steve3007 wrote:Well, as I said, that's the epistemological way of putting it: time is what is measured by clocks. That used to be the way that I always put it, in those epistemological terms. But it was actually conversations with Terrapin Station that led me to view "time is change", or more fully "time is an abstraction created from considering the set of all changes" as an alternative way of putting it in purely ontological language. TS seems to me to be much more focussed on ontology than I am, and it was various arguments arising from that difference in worldview which led me to see the sense of putting it in those ontological terms.
So then what do you call the 4th dimension? ...or does it not exist? ...if not, then do the other 3 dimensions likewise not exist?
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Nick_A »

RJG
So then what do you call the 4th dimension? ...or does it not exist? ...if not, then do the other 3 dimensions likewise not exist?
As I see it, the first three dimensions of space exist as length, width, and depth. The fourth dimension is the beginning of existence in time or the repetition of a moment.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by LuckyR »

Ha, ha, time doesn't even exist, it is a human construct to aid in varous practical human endeavors.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

RJG wrote: April 15th, 2021, 11:30 am We can't get motion (movement/change of 3D objects) without a means (4th dimension) to do so. Similarly, we can't get 3D objects from 2D planes without a means (3rd dimension) to do so. If we don't need time (or something?) to enable motion (movement/change), then how do we get motion out of 3D objects?
As far as we know, nothing is NOT in motion. So it's not as if there are objects that are stationary and then require something to no longer be stationary.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

Nick_A wrote:As I see it, the first three dimensions of space exist as length, width, and depth. The fourth dimension is the beginning of existence in time or the repetition of a moment.
Yes. Or we can just simply say length, width, depth, and time.

Length is the movement/change of a 0D Point into a 1D line.
Width is the movement/change of a 1D Line [Length] into a 2D plane.
Depth is the movement/change of a 2D Plane [Length x Width] into a 3D object.
Time is the movement/change of a 3D object [Length x Width x Depth] into 4D motion.


****************
LuckyR wrote:Ha, ha, time doesn't even exist, it is a human construct to aid in various practical human endeavors.
...so then do "before and after's" also not exist?
...can a "human endeavor" actually begin if beginnings don't exist?


****************
Terrapin Station wrote:As far as we know, nothing is NOT in motion. So it's not as if there are objects that are stationary and then require something to no longer be stationary.
That's possible, I think (...though not according to Scott!).

But, if we don't need the 4th dimension (time) for 3D objects to change into 4D motion, then do we need the 3rd dimension for 2D planes to change into 3D objects? ...and the 2nd dimension for 1D lines to change into 2D planes? ...and the 1st dimension for 0D points to change into 1D lines?

It seems that if we reject one, we reject them all.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

RJG wrote: April 15th, 2021, 4:21 pm But, if we don't need the 4th dimension (time) for 3D objects to change into 4D motion, then do we need the 3rd dimension for 2D planes to change into 3D objects? ...and the 2nd dimension for 1D lines to change into 2D planes? ...and the 1st dimension for 0D points to change into 1D lines?

It seems that if we reject one, we reject them all.
Talking about "2D planes 'changing into' 3D objects" and so on is talking about an abstraction--a mental construction that we've created.

That's different than talking about what the world is like independent of us, isn't it? I thought we were talking about real time, not an abstraction or our conception of it.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021