Solving the Infinite Time Paradox: Zeno's Argument Explained

[Assist]

This has most likely been mentioned before and if so I apologise, I have seen a few similar discussions though didn't really see any answers that I was able to understand/accept.

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

I got told this is similar to Zeno's paradox so just wondering if anyone can show me the similarities and logical arguments against it (in layman terms lol)

Appreciate any answers.

 

[Darken-Sol]

the present is the changeover from one configuration of the universe to the next. it is the only moment which truly exists. past and future are just potentials.sure we have memories and ideas of what is going to occur but they are not happening. say these words: "this is not real it is only a memory." by the time you finish it will be true. the moment you expierience or remember from that is important. that exists. make a decision, look up. you can ponder all day but, until you expierience looking up, its just a potential, not real. i don't know about xeno or whatever but this is how time seems to function.

 

[John Jones]

This has most likely been mentioned before and if so I apologise, I have seen a few similar discussions though didn't really see any answers that I was able to understand/accept.

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

I got told this is similar to Zeno's paradox so just wondering if anyone can show me the similarities and logical arguments against it (in layman terms lol)

Appreciate any answers.

The future is always in front, yet it is always the last to arrive. This resolves the mooted existence of an infinite past with a problematic present.

 

[disregardthat]

This has most likely been mentioned before and if so I apologise, I have seen a few similar discussions though didn't really see any answers that I was able to understand/accept.

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

I got told this is similar to Zeno's paradox so just wondering if anyone can show me the similarities and logical arguments against it (in layman terms lol)

Appreciate any answers.

I personally don't see the similarities to Zeno's paradoxes. I find the argument faulty, a bit like asking why 0 on the number lines exists even though the number line is infinitely long.

 

[apeiron]

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

Sounds like you want to discuss this cosmological proof of god's creation of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument_(book )

 

[alt]

Sounds like you want to discuss this cosmological proof of god's creation of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument_(book )

Interesting book, though from the summary points, and without having read it, it doesn't seem to take us past any existing impasse on these matters. To quote part of the Wiki article;

The basic argument
1.Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).
2.The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Following Al-Ghāzāli, Craig argues that this cause must be a personal will.

My underlined .. it seems most cosmological arguments reduce to this. The first cause; God, or Big bang .. personally, I'm not to sure about either.

 

[apeiron]

Interesting book, though from the summary points, and without having read it, it doesn't seem to take us past any existing impasse on these matters.

I've said often enough how some philosophers get round this impasse - vague beginnings and final causes.

But the thread seems to be about the validity of a Zeno paradox here, and the argument that the paradox means the past cannot be infinite, therefore it must be finite, therefore...etc.

There are good arguments against the validity of the Zeno paradox itself, so whether time is finite or infinite is moot on that score.

See for instance...
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=96

 

[Assist]

Sounds like you want to discuss this cosmological proof of god's creation of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument_(book )

No, I don't really care for any god arguments it was just something I didn't really understand.

 

[dm4b]

The basic argument
1.Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).
2.The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I don't see how this would prove God.

The Universe must have some sort of "cause". But, it could simply be part of a larger Multiverse, that gave "birth" to it. Then you might ask, where did the Multiverse come from? So, the God question simply gets pushed back a step.

I think more clear here is the ridiculous infinite regression one can get stuck in when analyzing in a "cause and effect" sort of way. What created the Universe? Well, branes "created" the Universe (says the M-Theory cosmologist). But, where did the branes come from? Then, what created the something that created the branes, ad nauseum.

I think this is a hint that thinking linear in time is, at some point, self defeating.

 

[John Jones]

I don't see how this would prove God.

You forgot to say man.
What?
I said you forgot to say man.
You should have said-
I don't see how this would prove God, man.

Style's the thing, man.

 

[NightShift]

I think I know what you mean with Zeno's paradoxes. You can divide a interval of time to an infinite amount, it is similar to the analogy that there will be an infinite amount of steps you have to take to walk across a room if the amount of distance your walking is half of what is left.
So, to demostrate this notion from what I read in a calculus book(which is also where I read Zeno's paradox). Let x be the amount of time one perceives a constant amount of time.
So, we take the Limit as x --> infinity of (x/(constant interval of time)) = infinity
We can examine that anything less of infinity would give us a figure that tells us the multiples of time the being feels regarding the (constant interval of time).

And to finally answer your question...I'm not sure...time still passes for us regardless. It could be infinite for the being that has his perception of time that continuously increases so that he will fall deeper and deeper into an eternity of time...

 

[brushman]

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

I don't really see a problem. I would think that if there was an infinite amount of time in the past, then that just means the universe had no beginning and we are currently living in the "present".

I haven't read the zeno paradox though.

 

[pawprint]

Hi Assist. You will find Peter Lynds has written on Zeno's paradoxes, singularities and 'infinite time' (among other things). Take a look at http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/papers.html . Interesting reading. Accusations have been made that he is not a real person, but whoever wrote those papers is certainly a deep thinker.
F-MA=0.

 

[Gabe21]

time is just an illusion created by our brains. it doesn't really exist

 

[petm1]

time is just an illusion created by our brains. it doesn't really exist

Time is duration an outward motion of matter called dilation, it is not an illusion. Time is relative motion as counted or measured by each observers clock and space is the illusion for it is nothing more than relative time between events as seen by each observer. Matter is what we see in each of our futures but mass is the connective tissue centered moment to moment within our past. Our consciousnesses keeping up with the speed of light is that which gives each of us the illusion of a static state called the present but only with math can you make time stand still, even then you are only representing a moment of time. How long was the duration before the motion that started our universe and how long will the duration go on after, how could you know other than as a infinite time?

 

[aegrisomnia]

if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present

Who said that there is an infinite amount of time in the past?

Assuming that there were... than perhaps time is an artificial construction of the human mind which seeks to measure change. In other words, there was no point in "time" when the past existed. Maybe only the present "exists" in a physically-meaningful sense.

We get the same paradox if we ask how we can be sitting on zero non-physical unicorns, if there are infinitely many non-physical unicorns.

 

[Willowz]

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

Maybe if you lived in the fourth dimention. But, you can at least specify what you are saying with some philosophical theory, such as eternalism. And then counter it with presentism. Back each theory up with some relevant findings and we can have a great debate!

 

[petm1]

We get the same paradox if we ask how we can be sitting on zero non-physical unicorns, if there are infinitely many non-physical unicorns.

Try this thought experiment, think back to big bang, but instead of an outside view of a small space, think of an inside view of a large space about the same as we see today as if Planck's scale were truly relative.

 

[henryB]

It began with motion. No motion = no time. When a “Single Something” separated creating motion that was the beginning of time.

Let that “ Single Something” = S

S = No motion = No Speed = No Mc^2. = No Energy.

S is outside the bun.

It is not imaginary.

The original motion, like all other motion cannot be duplicated, so S is not Divine, yet S can be moved.

Wierd, huh?

 

[Willowz]

Can we please have a discussion about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29" (otherwise known as eternalism).

"people pass each other on the street; and according to one of the two people, an Andromedean space fleet has already set off on its journey, while to the other, the decision as to whether or not the journey will actually take place has not yet been made. How can there still be some uncertainty as to the outcome of that decision? If to either person the decision has already been made, then surely there cannot be any uncertainty. The launching of the space fleet is an inevitability. In fact neither of the people can yet know of the launching of the space fleet. They can know only later, when telescopic observations from Earth reveal that the fleet is indeed on its way. Then they can hark back to that chance encounter, and come to the conclusion that at that time, according to one of them, the decision lay in the uncertain future, while to the other, it lay in the certain past. Was there then any uncertainty about that future? Or was the future of both people already 'fixed'?"

 

[SixNein]

I think I know what you mean with Zeno's paradoxes. You can divide a interval of time to an infinite amount, it is similar to the analogy that there will be an infinite amount of steps you have to take to walk across a room if the amount of distance your walking is half of what is left.
So, to demostrate this notion from what I read in a calculus book(which is also where I read Zeno's paradox). Let x be the amount of time one perceives a constant amount of time.
So, we take the Limit as x --> infinity of (x/(constant interval of time)) = infinity
We can examine that anything less of infinity would give us a figure that tells us the multiples of time the being feels regarding the (constant interval of time).

And to finally answer your question...I'm not sure...time still passes for us regardless. It could be infinite for the being that has his perception of time that continuously increases so that he will fall deeper and deeper into an eternity of time...

In zeno's Achilles vs the turtle paradox, the solution is to realize that the steps make up a series. When the limit of the series is taken, it will converge into a finite distance; therefore, if Achilles is running at a constant speed, he will catch the turtle in a finite time.

 

[Galteeth]

Well, to start with, let's think about definitions. How are you defining "amount" of time?

 

[disregardthat]

In zeno's Achilles vs the turtle paradox, the solution is to realize that the steps make up a series. When the limit of the series is taken, it will converge into a finite distance; therefore, if Achilles is running at a constant speed, he will catch the turtle in a finite time.

The core of the problem is whether and how it makes sense to do an infinite amount of tasks. The series of lengths does converge, but why would one say that the limit is the "total length"? (It seems obvious of course, but why?)

The main point here is that there has been a decision; we have decided that the "total length" of an infinite number or converging lengths is excactly the limit. We have given meaning to the notion of the total length of an infinite number of lengths.

This could of course have been different. We might as well say that the "total length" of an infinite number of lengths is 0. This would have been a different decision, but doesn't contradict anything prior to it. We just didn't know beforehand what to make of the total length. My point is that Zeno's paradox is not solved by referring to convergence, as this is - in a naive way - an arbitrary solution.

The notion of total length is however decided upon and incorporated into our logical machinery (to the point of which we take no notice...), but it is important to be aware of that there has been decisions all along.

In my opinion, the paradox is just that we arrive upon a physical situation for which we have no answer. There are ways to an answer that would seem more "appropriate" than others, but there is no logical reason for deciding upon one or another.

I must stress that this paradox is purely a logical one. It has nothing to do with the physics to it, nor the physical counterpart we would associate the situation with (though it is relevant when it comes to the point of deciding one way or another).

 

[SixNein]

The core of the problem is whether and how it makes sense to do an infinite amount of tasks. The series of lengths does converge, but why would one say that the limit is the "total length"? (It seems obvious of course, but why?)

Since the limit of the sum represents the total area under the curve, the total length is the limit.

Although a task can be broken up into an infinite number of steps, it may also be possible to accomplished in a finite number of steps.

The main point here is that there has been a decision; we have decided that the "total length" of an infinite number or converging lengths is excactly the limit. We have given meaning to the notion of the total length of an infinite number of lengths.

We have determined that a infinite sequence of measurements, when summed, can be equal to a finite number.

This could of course have been different. We might as well say that the "total length" of an infinite number of lengths is 0. This would have been a different decision, but doesn't contradict anything prior to it. We just didn't know beforehand what to make of the total length. My point is that Zeno's paradox is not solved by referring to convergence, as this is - in a naive way - an arbitrary solution.

The assumption I have made is Achilles' decent upon the turtle is such that it causes the series to converge.

The notion of total length is however decided upon and incorporated into our logical machinery, but it is important to be aware of that there has been decisions all along.

In my opinion, the paradox is just that we arrive upon a physical situation for which we have no answer. There are ways to an answer that would seem more "appropriate" than others, but there is no logical reason for deciding upon one or another.

I must stress that this paradox is purely a logical one. It has nothing to do with the physics to it, nor the physical counterpart we would associate the situation with.

Here is a rough introduction to the mathematical concept being used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sum

 

[disregardthat]

Since the limit of the sum represents the total area under the curve, the total length is the limit.

You are completely missing my point, and arguing on the exact basis I am refuting. We are back at a similar notion. That the total area under a curve is the riemann integral is also a decision.

I fail to see any relevance at all in your other responses.

 

[SixNein]

You are completely missing my point, and arguing on the exact basis I am refuting. We are back at a similar notion. That the total area under a curve is the riemann integral is also a decision.

I fail to see any relevance at all in your other responses.

Then 1+1 is also a decision... what is your point exactly? Tis not like there isn't rigorous proofs on integration.

 

[disregardthat]

Then 1+1 is also a decision... what is your point exactly? Tis not like there isn't rigorous proofs on integration.

The notion of convergence as an answer to the "sum" of an infinite amount of numbers was not at the time used. The whole issue was that one didn't have an answer for it, and thus could not conclude from the data that achilles actually caught up with the turtle. My point exactly is that using converging series is not an answer for the intended point of the riddle, which was that one could not logically conclude that achilles caught up from what rules of calculation that was currently utilized. Now we do, but this is as I said - in a naive manner arbitrary.

(EDIT: The solution by using convergence is giving sense to the notion of completing an infinite number of tasks in this particular sense, a notion which was not present at the time the paradox was stated.)

This has nothing to do with rigour nor integration.

 

[ThomasT]

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present?

Because our perception of the present is independent of whether the universe is 15 billion years old or infinitely old.

 

[Containment]

Isn't this one of those questions the greeks spent hundreds of years debating and never really making any grounds on?

Anyhow the way I figure it's the result of what happens when two paradox clash and only the stronger one wins. ----> Time has to have a starting point and yet time cannot have a starting point. Perhaps what you end up with is a mix of both that nobody can really make any sense of?

 

[cragar]

Even if there has been an infinite mount of time, there is no reason why we can't add more time to it.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present?

The solution is: your premise is faulty.

What on Earth makes you think there is an infinite amount of time in the past?

As far as modern science can tell, the amount of time in the past is 13.7 billion years.

[EDIT] Sorry. 13.7 billion years and ten seconds

[EDIT] Sorry. 13.7 billion years and twenty seconds

[EDIT] Sorry. 13.7 billion years and thirty seconds

 

[mathal]

Can we please have a discussion about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29" (otherwise known as eternalism).

I read a bit of your first link- eternalism. They use the term block universe which is the term I'm familiar with. What Penrose is speaking of is the two people passing each other on the street and what is happening 'instantaneously' from each 'perspective'. The catch is that no one actually see's any present event. There is always a time-lag for the event information to reach the eye/ear or whatever and then the mind. The 'instantaneous' perspective is each observer's 'frame' and the scientific model is Special Relativity. In quantum mechanics John Wheeler extends the idea of a block universe with the delayed choice experiments he proposed. The experiments have been performed. Changing a photon's possible paths 'in flight' causes the results to conform to what would have happened if the set up was fixed 'before' the photons begin their flight. If the set up was 'left alone' different results for the photons occur.
The block universe AKA eternalism doesn't address beginnings or ends, it is more a model of the shape of the universe. In my interpretation it leans towards determinalism philosophically.
Unless a cyclic model of the universe 'eats its own tail' I can't see any way to have a 'beginning' or 'end'.
Such a model would necessarily be deterministic.

mathal

 

[Hells]

This has most likely been mentioned before and if so I apologise, I have seen a few similar discussions though didn't really see any answers that I was able to understand/accept.

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

I got told this is similar to Zeno's paradox so just wondering if anyone can show me the similarities and logical arguments against it (in layman terms lol)

Appreciate any answers.

The devil is in the framing. Let's say time is infinite. Let's divide it into the past and future which are also infinite. They can both be infinite because infinite + infinite = infinite

 

[cragar]

yes infinity + infinity = infinity
and an infinite amount of time can be equal to part of that time interval.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

yes infinity + infinity = infinity
and an infinite amount of time can be equal to part of that time interval.

I think that there is no 'time'. Motion { of quarks, electrons, atoms (including those in our brain), planets, galaxies etc.} is the only thing that creates a simulation of time.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that there is no 'time'. Motion { of quarks, electrons, atoms (including those in our brain), planets, galaxies etc.} is the only thing that creates a simulation of time.

And how is this 'simulation of time' different from actual time?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, what makes you think it's not a duck?

 

[Deepak Kapur]

And how is this 'simulation of time' different from actual time?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, what makes you think it's not a duck?

Some examples:

1. Do clocks measure time?

a) Yes.

b) No, clocks do not measure time. Time is 'defined' to be what clocks measure. Hands of a clock 'move' and are only physical variables. So we see physical variables (hands of a clock) as a function of some other physical changeables. It is only 'represented' that everything is moving in time.


2. A scene. Motion of every particle in this universe stops. The universe will be in the same state even after billions and billions of yeras. What has happened?

a) Time has stopped.

b) Motion has stopped.



I go by (b) in both the cases.



Illusions look very much real but they are illusions after all.

 

[DaveC426913]

Some examples:

1. Do clocks measure time?

a) Yes.

b) No, clocks do not measure time. Time is 'defined' to be what clocks measure. Hands of a clock 'move' and are only physical variables. So we see physical variables (hands of a clock) as a function of some other physical changeables. It is only 'represented' that everything is moving in time.

And how exactly does this make it illusory?

Before clocks were invented, before life formed on Earth, the universe ticked by happily. Were atom,s suffering from delusions too?

2. A scene. Motion of every particle in this universe stops. The universe will be in the same state even after billions and billions of yeras. What has happened?

a) Time has stopped.

b) Motion has stopped.

Despite this being an utterly speculative and fabricated hypothesis, I'll let it slide for the sake of argument.

How does this make it illusory?

When my engine stops my car stops too. Is my car therefore illusory?

Illusions look very much real but they are illusions after all.

This says nothing.

You have avoided the question. What makes something that is experienced by every fibre of our universe get relegated to the lowly status of illusion? What is your definition of illusion as distinct from reality?

 

[Deepak Kapur]

And how exactly does this make it illusory?

Before clocks were invented, before life formed on Earth, the universe ticked by happily. Were atom,s suffering from delusions too?



Despite this being an utterly speculative and fabricated hypothesis, I'll let it slide for the sake of argument.

How does this make it illusory?

When my engine stops my car stops too. Is my car therefore illusory?




This says nothing.

You have avoided the question. What makes something that is experienced by every fibre of our universe get relegated to the lowly status of illusion? What is your definition of illusion as distinct from reality?

You deliberately or due to some delusion ( or doggedness) have not understood the clock example. An electon moving around the nucleus can also be taken to be the hand of a clock.

It doesn't reqire 'time' to stop your car's engine but the 'movement' of car's key and all the other 'movements' associated with this process.

FYE the equations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity are devoid of the time factor. Moreover, even thermodynamic equations are blind to the direction of time (a strange thing).

{Much of the facts that are taken for granted these days were utterly perturbing in the past. Same is true for future. But doggedness (or overconfidence or arrogance or some strategy to maintain the staus quo) bypass such observations.}

 

[Hurkyl]

Some examples:

1. Do clocks measure time?

a) Yes.

b) No, clocks do not measure time. Time is 'defined' to be what clocks measure.

...

I go by (b)

(b) is obviously false, and that fact has nothing to do with physics. If time is defined to be what clocks measure, then by definition, clocks measure time. (no matter what "clock" or "measure" might mean)

 

[cragar]

FYE the equations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity are devoid of the time factor.

{Much of the facts that are taken for granted these days were utterly perturbing in the past. Same is true for future. But doggedness (or overconfidence or arrogance or some strategy to maintain the staus quo) bypass such observations.}

What about Quantum field theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

You deliberately or due to some delusion ( or doggedness) have not understood the clock example. An electon moving around the nucleus can also be taken to be the hand of a clock.

Please don't accuse me of delusions. You brought up the clock as an example for your case. It's trivial to refute it.

An electron in an orbital of a nucleus is fine. You have not explained how it is illusory though.

It doesn't reqire 'time' to stop your car's engine but the 'movement' of car's key and all the other 'movements' associated with this process.

Your claim is: if all molecules stop, time stops. This is proof that time is illusory.
So, things that can be stopped are illusory? You see how it does not follow.

FYE the equations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity are devoid of the time factor. Moreover, even thermodynamic equations are blind to the direction of time (a strange thing).

{Much of the facts that are taken for granted these days were utterly perturbing in the past. Same is true for future But doggedness (or overconfidence or arrogance or some strategy to maintain the staus quo) bypass such observations.}

Please don't fall back on insults. Invocation of "arrogance" and "status quo" complaints is the first resort of a crackpot. You're not a crackpot, right?

You presented an argument. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

I haven't said you are wrong, I have simply shown that you haven't made your case.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Motion can be how we measure time but if objects in a system cease in motion that does not mean that cease in time. If everything stopped then there would be no way of telling.

If time does not exist then nothing would be able to move, movement occurs through dimensions. One of these is time, it's foolish to say that motion is time because how do you get from one motion to the next? What media does motion occur through if not spacetime?

 

[Deepak Kapur]

Please don't accuse me of delusions. You brought up the clock as an example for your case. It's trivial to refute it.

An electron in an orbital of a nucleus is fine. You have not explained how it is illusory though.


Your claim is: if all molecules stop, time stops. This is proof that time is illusory.
So, things that can be stopped are illusory? You see how it does not follow.



Please don't fall back on insults. Invocation of "arrogance" and "status quo" complaints is the first resort of a crackpot. You're not a crackpot, right?

You presented an argument. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

I haven't said you are wrong, I have simply shown that you haven't made your case.

I haven't 'claimed' anything. I also don't like insulting anyone. The word 'delusion' was not used by me first.

[/QUOTE]So, things that can be stopped are illusory?[/QUOTE]

I don't get you. As per you molecules should be illusory. I haven't said that.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

I haven't 'claimed' anything. I also don't like insulting anyone. The word 'delusion' was not used by me first.

So, things that can be stopped are illusory?[/QUOTE]

I don't get you. As per you molecules should be illusory. I haven't said that.[/QUOTE]





Hi all,

The 'ban' imposed on me has expired.

One thing is for certain. This forum stifles mercilessly any opinion that it does not like.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

Motion can be how we measure time but if objects in a system cease in motion that does not mean that cease in time. If everything stopped then there would be no way of telling.

If time does not exist then nothing would be able to move, movement occurs through dimensions. One of these is time, it's foolish to say that motion is time because how do you get from one motion to the next? What media does motion occur through if not spacetime?

Motion occurs through space only and an unbalanced force is responsible for it. Time doesn't have any role in this, I suppose.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Hi all,

The 'ban' imposed on me has expired.

One thing is for certain. This forum stifles mercilessly any opinion that it does not like.

Absolutely untrue. What this forum does do is provide a platform for discussion of subjects so long as those discussions come with A) logical arguments and B) references to peer-reviewed literature.

Your problem was that you attempted to prove that time was illusionary without either of these. It would have been better if you looked up current physical understanding of what time is and worked from there rather than claiming time = motion and providing no evidence for this (other than faulty scenarios) and not accounting for how this conflicts with current understanding.

Motion occurs through space only and an unbalanced force is responsible for it. Time doesn't have any role in this, I suppose.

Motion occurs through space and time. Draw a spacetime diagram with space on the X axis and time on the Y axis. Put A somewhere a long the X axis and B somewhere else on the X axis. How do you move from A to B without also traveling along the Y axis i.e. how do you move through space without moving through time?

 

[JordanL]

Interesting book, though from the summary points, and without having read it, it doesn't seem to take us past any existing impasse on these matters. To quote part of the Wiki article;

The basic argument
1.Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).
2.The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Following Al-Ghāzāli, Craig argues that this cause must be a personal will.

My underlined .. it seems most cosmological arguments reduce to this. The first cause; God, or Big bang .. personally, I'm not to sure about either.

It's my understanding that the Big Bang, or rather the point where the Universe began, does not represent an absolute beginning in the sense that most people think of it as. It represents a point in the timeline we share where all information about what was before it was normalized into a single point.

 

[Hells]

Motion can be how we measure time but if objects in a system cease in motion that does not mean that cease in time. If everything stopped then there would be no way of telling.

If there's no way in telling, what actual need is there to differentiate it from motion?

If time does not exist then nothing would be able to move, movement occurs through dimensions. One of these is time, it's foolish to say that motion is time because how do you get from one motion to the next? What media does motion occur through if not spacetime?

Isn't that just the chicken and the egg? EG a meaningless debate. Whether movement creates time, or time creates movement, I don't see any difference.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If there's no way in telling, what actual need is there to differentiate it from motion?

Who says there's no difference? I was referring to the OPs hypothetical question, not suggesting that there is no difference.

Isn't that just the chicken and the egg? EG a meaningless debate. Whether movement creates time, or time creates movement, I don't see any difference.

Saying movement creates time is like saying movement creates space. If I walk across my room am I creating the space I'm walking into? No, so why would I be creating the time?