A test of logic - "before time began" and "after time ends"

Just wishing to hear of thoughts concerning the logical validity of these two commonly used statements and concepts and their variations.

"Before time began"
"when time began"
"when time ends"
"after all of time"
etc

Is it correct logically correct to say such things given that there can be no time before time begins and no time after time ends?

That is to say, that ultimately in absolute terms time can have no begining nor can it have an end.
or somethng to that effect...
Relating more specifically to the concept "creatio exnihilo"

~ wiki


care to discuss?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which time are you talking about?

People normally use these expressions in order to define specific period of a subject, for instance: "when (my) time ends"...

It doesn't matter even if your subject is the entire universe, once time was started for this universe and it is a finite phenomenon like everything else. Therefore there is no logical problem with these expressions.

Absolute or ultimate understanding of time is one thing: Human beings, who can fantasize on "eternity" or "infinity", can also dream about such a concept. However, "Is there any equivalent of such an ultimate time in observable universe?" is another thing...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe if I use your words to help clarify

For time to "Start" logically there must have been something pre-existing

as absolutely nothing can not "exist" then how can you logically say that time started?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QQ,

I think you're missing baftan's point.

There is a vast difference between the use of words in terms of their formal validity, and in terms of their common usage. The two different contexts need not be amenable to the same restrictions and usages. Essentially, what you're drawing attention to here in your examples, is the odd semantic constructions that the English language allows. For example, "I am alive now." is a completely reasonably structured sentence in English. However, from a logical point to view it is triply redundant, with any 3 of four words being totally superfluous.

Again, you're confusing contexts.

 

I suppose it depends on one's beliefs regarding time and causality.

Current Scientific orthodoxy embraces the Big Bang, which was the Great Beginning of the cosmos. If this idea is true then there was no time before It. Therefore on this view "before time began" would be meaningless.

This also harmonizes nicely with some religious beliefs which declare that there was a Beginning of Time - a Creation.

Then there is a competing scientific theory - M Theory - which permits time to extend farther into the past than the Big Bang.

Personally, I find the idea that time is bounded, that there is a definite beginning and/or a definite end, to be unsatisfying.

 

your right hmmmmm...how would you write the OP?

I am mixing science and language, another ontological/category mistake prehaps.:bawl:

In science when contemplating "ex-nihilo" or "out of nothing" regarding the universes existance often there is a significant problem with language use, due to the paradoxical nature of the subject matter.
The root of this is that we conceive of something before the beginning which is I believe an illogicallity especially when dealin gwith a fundamental such as time which in itself IS the issue.

 

i wouldn't venture to assume what seems logical to me - even on such seemingly deductive issues - will end up fitting reality. Too much counterintuitive stuff has already turned out to be true. But I understand your objections, while also acknowledging the correctness of Baftan's and Glaucon's objections/clarifications to said objections.

 

None of the OP statements make sense anyway as there is no such thing as time per-se. Time as we perceive it (the distant past, the far future, etc.) is pure illusion. There are only events that drive entropy. There really is no past or future, just evolving configurations of matter. Think about it.

What differentiates "past" from "future"? Purely configurations of matter, all the way down to quantum states. This is why time "travel" is a completely misplaced and naive idea. If you had a way to rewind the states of matter in the entire universe, you could rewind to June 3, 1904. But quantum mechanics alone (ignoring the larger practicalities) disallows this entirely by the HUP.

 

When you say "something", you mean things that exist. Therefore, logically, we can also assume that there was "nothing" before existence. However, reality doesn't always work according to human logic. Because in reality, we simply don't know what is beyond, before, after, outside of this universe. "Everything" we know including time, matter, energy, etc. is relevant to this universe; if you like you can call this as post-Big Bang era.

I simply understand this out of all time and things issue: Both depend each other. One can not exist without the other one. That is to say, there is no time without things, and there is nothing without time. This is why everything is temporal in the universe.

Take this example: Imagine the life cycle of a galaxy and call this as galaxy as Milky Way if you like. For a beginning, you can say that a black hole (where time loses its meaning anyway) and collapsing gasses were already there in the universe. But forget about these elements for the sake of the example for a moment. Before travelling gases starts to collapse into a black hole there is no concept of Milky Way. Once both starts to get together, the concept of time for Milky Way starts: I repeat, previous existence of a black hole and free gasses are irrelevant, we think locally. Then Milky way lasts for, let's say 20 billions of year and smashes into another galaxy or turns into a red dwarf. This is the end of Milky Way. The time span of everything within the Milky Way (Stars, their planets, satellites of these planets, asteroids, etc.) ultimately depends upon the life span of the Milky Way. Some of them emerge 3 billion years after Milky Way first formed and disappear 4 billion year before Milky Way comes to an end. In every case, all these children of the Milky Way will not exist after the end of Milky Way. They will turn into free flowing materials in the space.

So, what is time for Milky Way? What was time for its stars and planets? Does it make any sense how old the universe was? Does it make any sense if other galaxies still continue to exist? No; "everything" that once existed do not exist any more. Milky Way has existed within its local environment and gone for good. Everything happened within X time span with X amount of energy.

Now think about "time" for an individual star within Milky Way; think about time of an individual planet depending upon the life time its star; think about "time" for living creatures on this planet depending upon their planet. This is how time exist for things. I am not saying that the life span of Milky Way ultimately depends on a Universal Clock; but the life span of Milky Way (or any other galaxy for that matter) depends upon its conditions.

What was there before universe, what is beyond universe? We simply don't know. Because the beginning of the universe was something totally different happening than all these things that we perceive. All I know is time and things produce each other.

 

nice post with many ideas to absorb..

I agree, as you have stated, time and "things" of substance go hand in hand and can not be differentiated as such. So if "things" do not exist neither does time.
To have something before time means that a thing existed before time exists which then contradicts the first premise. So to state "before time began" would imply that something existed prior to the existance of time and therefore a contradiction IMO.

Time in this instance is not associated with a clock but more associated with change which we can use a clock to measure with.

I wrote this else where and it may be relevant:

and

Just to demonstrate where I am coming from.

Essentially if one can imagine a big bang moment, that moment would be a NOW at the time as has every moment since. Not a past or a future but always a NOW.

So in essence as far as the universe is concerned and as Superluminal has offered there can be no before NOW as there is always only NOW.

However this doesn't resolve the issue of the big bang concept of creation logically as this Big bang concept implies that there WAS a before time [now] thus a beginning.

May be Superluminal could offer a way forward on this issue of prior big bang logic.
The logic of ex nihilo creation suggests "from nothing CAME something" suggesting that nothing predates something and this is essense of the paradox of exnihilo creation IMO.
However if exnihilo is considered as a NOW statement, one could read "from nothing COMES something" meaning that the universe is always in a state of creating [ present tense ] and never was created [past tense]


btw Hi super-L long time hey?

 

thanks.... things are only counter intuitive until the logic is understood to be founded correctly IMO.
Exnihilo logic is in itself counter intuitive until the issue of "linea" time lines is resolved then it IS possible to see the intuitive nature of "exnihilo" as being founded IMO.

The key I feel, is to remove the concept of past tense to the word creation and move it in to the eternal present moment [ as it is this moment that is all that exists ]

I have amended the OP to be more specific in its terms of reference.

 

my husband and i both received messages from spirits in regards to time during separate spiritual experiences. my message was "there is no time here". his was an understanding that everything is happening at once.

there was an article recently in scientific american that details the theory that time doesn't exist; that it's simply a consequence of the way we experience things. here's a link to the synopsis...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion

 

I once read one of the more philosophical writings of Einstein in which he argued similarly (I don't remember what book or paper it was unfortunately...). Actually it may have been his original paper on general relativity. Hmm.

Anyway he considers a universe in which there is nothing, and argues that such a universe has no existence after all since it affects nothing. Essentially the same thing as your concept, that space and time have no meaning independent of matter and energy. If I remember correctly he then argues that the addition of a single particle to the universe doesn't change this, after all there is still no motion, no dynamics, nothing can ever happen or change. It is essentially as meaningless as the first scenario. But once you have a second particle, everything changes. Suddenly you can describe the motion of one particle in terms of the other. The concepts of distance and change give meaning to space and time.
I believe this was part of his line of thinking in extending the concepts of Mach to full relativity.

 

Well, it might also be semantics. Sometimes categories we think work and in fact do work, mislead us in other contexts. So we think we are being logical, when in fact we are misleading ourselves. The logic may be fine, but the entities or qualities - whatever the heck time is, for example - may not follow rules we think are obvious.

I think it is a good issue to raise in comparison. Something from nothing seemed necessarily illogical, and then it didn't.

I have been wondering about this myself recently. I have read about some experiments that seem to indicate retrocausation. If they continue to stand then from NOW we can affect the future and the past. This puts now in the driver's seat. (though this makes me still want to withhold agreement about determinism.)

 

Hey Q[sup]2[/sup]! Hows it going?

I'm absolutely certain that the BB theory does not posit "exnihilo creation". All it really says is that, if you project the expanding universe backward, you reach an incredibly hot, dense state. BB explores the physics of this process and attempts to expand it forward also.

No scientist thinks that the universe (or anything else) came "exnihilo", from nothing. That's simply a logical and physical impossibility. But what the state of affairs was at t- (being the instant prior to any knowledge we can gain from BB theory) is an interesting and on-going question. Just because we don't currently know the answer does not mean we have to resort to mysticism, or the "god did it" syndrome.

As far as your OP, I'm convinced that questions regarding the philosophy of time "beginning" or "ending" miss the true state of affairs completely. Since 'time' is just the human perception of changing states of matter and energy, then 'time' can have no beginning or end. There always was and will be some form of matter/energy mix, since nothing can come from nothing.

 

The original definitions which I must admit suprised me on closer inspection just now state;

"from nothing COMES something" which tends to suggest a present tense application. Although a past tense coudl just as easilly be applied.

To say something came from nothing is definitely a predating of nothing prior to something where as to say that from nothing comes something suggest that the issue or emmergence could have been considered at the time of creating the latin "ex-nihilo" as ongoing and current.

So instead of a linea time line we can draw a cross. With the possibility of the universe being always an emmergent property in the present moment.

With the nothing-ness as being an ongoing part of the something ness [Now]and not separate and prior to in time.

It is interesting I feel that our immediate inclination is to think of nothing predating "time" when in fact nothing by virtue of it's non existance can not predate "time".

So to say "before time began" is illogical IMO.

 

agrees...

agreement is not the ambition where as understanding maybe is...IMO

Yes a form of retrocausation is worth considering when working through tthe logical ramifications of creato exnihilo
Although the use of the prefix retro may be misleading in itself.

 

Well, however you arrive at your conclusion, I agree.

 

No, no. IMO the only thing you can consider as a past or future are nonexistent configurations of matter and energy. Humans only perceive the past as something that has a persistent existence (in some odd way) that can be "affected" or "visited".

 

well If we hold to that conclusion as an absolute in that absolutely nothing can predate the beginning of time, how does that effect the approach to isues such as the Big Bang and other similar "linea" time line type theories of universal creation?

To me it means that the universe must have always existed, with out any doubt.
Which I would think alters many ways of looking at the universe in general.
For example we often refer to evolution in billions of years yet the time available for evolution to occur is eternal or infinite [ the universe has always existed]
This poses even more conflicts of logic I would tend to thiink...hmmmmm unless we assume catastrophic cycling of the universes existance humanity would have probably evolved countelss times and suffered exitinction likewise. This seems to be incredibly unlikely though...