Time has a beginning?

[sol invictus]

And, as I have already mentioned, an example is not a definition.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I'm starting to think you're simply a troll, not interested in actually discussing this.

But you have not defined "beginning" here. You are simply restating what you believe it means in this context.

What the hell do you think the difference is? A definition is an explanation of the meaning one ascribes to a word.

I already know how people interpret the statement "time has a beginning". My claim was that "there is no meaningful, non-circular definition of "beginning" that does not lead to a logical contradiction in that assertion."

Since you can't seem to understand things when they're expressed clearly and at greater length, I'll give you one of my examples in the form of a dictionary definition. Being concise it will be slightly imprecise, but it's certainly doesn't contain any "contradictions":

beginning (n) (as in 'beginning of time'): a point in time before which no events took place; the first event.

 

[photon]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Not to my knowledge.

What the hell do you think the difference is? A definition is an explanation of the meaning one ascribes to a word.

Not generally true. You should know, since you've been trying all this time to explain what "time has a beginning" means without actually defining "beginning".

Being concise it will be slightly imprecise, but it's certainly doesn't contain any "contradictions":

Let's see.

beginning (n) (as in 'beginning of time'): a point in time before which no events took place; the first event.

Alright, so you have chosen to define "beginning" as "a point in time before which no events took place". This definition is contradictory for several reasons; I'll address two:

First, if "beginning" is described as such, then the statement:

time has a beginning

becomes (by definition)

time has a point in time before which no events took place

The obvious contradiction here is that you're defining time to exist inside itself. You are saying that time has a point in time. This leads to a duality of time, since you are referring to TWO different "times" here. The first time is the subject of the statement. The second is the one which contains the point.

Even if we are to assume that the concept of dual time is non-problematic, this definition still doesn't address the issue, since it only asserts a "beginning" on one of the "times" (the one that is the subject of the sentence). But it does not assert any "beginning" for the second "time" (the one which contains the point). Using this same approach to fix a "beginning" for this second "time", you would end up introducing a third "time". And so on, ad infinitum.


The second contradiction is that if you claim that:

time has a point in time before which no events took place

Then you are claiming that there is a "before" to this "point". Even though no events took place "before" this "point", you are nevertheless accepting that the term "before" is meaningful in this context. This means that time does exist before this point at which "time" ostensibly began. A blatant contradiction, since time cannot exist "before" it begins.

 

[sol invictus]

Not to my knowledge.

Well if it wasn't sufficiently clear before, this post of yours proves it.

Not generally true.

Now you're arguing about the definition of "definition"? Do you have anything worthwhile to say?

First, if "beginning" is described as such, then the statement:

time has a beginning

becomes (by definition)

time has a point in time before which no events took place

The obvious contradiction here is that you're defining time to exist inside itself. You are saying that time has a point in time. This leads to a duality of time, since you are referring to TWO different "times" here. The first time is the subject of the statement. The second is the one which contains the point.

What utter nonsense. That's so completely absurd it's really not worth wasting time responding to. You could simply remove "in time" from "point in time" and your so-called "contradiction" disappears. I wasn't defining time - I assumed you already knew what that is. I was defining "beginning", as you insisted I do.

Even if we are to assume that the concept of dual time is non-problematic, this definition still doesn't address the issue, since it only asserts a "beginning" on one of the "times" (the one that is the subject of the sentence). But it does not assert any "beginning" for the second "time" (the one which contains the point). Using this same approach to fix a "beginning" for this second "time", you would end up introducing a third "time". And so on, ad infinitum.

You're building semantic paradoxes of the most idiotic kind. Let me parrot your reasoning:

Me: it's consistent to consider a semi-infinite interval of the real numbers. That interval has a boundary. The boundary is a number which has the property that all elements of the set are greater than it (equivalently, no elements are less than it - notice that makes perfect sense and certainly doesn't require the existence of another set of real numbers).

You: you used "number" in that definition! That's a paradox! It's impossible!!

It's too stupid to bother to argue with.

time has a point in time before which no events took place

Then you are claiming that there is a "before" to this "point". Even though no events took place "before" this "point", you are nevertheless accepting that the term "before" is meaningful in this context. This means that time does exist before this point at which "time" ostensibly began. A blatant contradiction, since time cannot exist "before" it begins.

Again, a silly semantic "paradox", trivial to deflate. One could either alter my definition semantically (without changing the meaning) to say all events took place after the beginning, or simply recognize that there is no problem any more than there is with the real numbers greater than zero.

You've utterly failed to demonstrated a problem, and you'll continue to do so so long as English is your only tool. The only way to do it is mathematically - but mathematically there's no problem.

It's very easy to construct seeming paradoxes in English. For example, "what's north of the north pole?" is a question very similar to "what came before the beginning fo time?" The lack of an answer to the first question obviously doesn't mean the concept of a north pole is paradoxical, and the same goes for the second.

 

[photon]

Well if it wasn't sufficiently clear before, this post of yours proves it.

Think as you please.

Now you're arguing about the definition of "definition"?

Not really.

Do you have anything worthwhile to say?

Do you?

That's so completely absurd it's really not worth wasting time responding to. You could simply remove "in time" from "point in time" and your so-called "contradiction" disappears.

Then you should have defined "beginning" in that manner in the first place. I'm simply working with your definition. If you find that absurd, then try coming up with a non-absurd definition next time.


Okay, coming to the substance, you are now redefining "beginning" using the same definition as earlier, minus the "in time". That is:

beginning : a point before which no events took place;

Now a "point" can be one of two types:

1 - a spatial point; for example, a point in Euclidean 2-space

or

2 - a temporal point; for example, a moment in history

So which of these two "points" are you referring to in your definition?

You appeared to be referring to the second "point" in your earlier definition, but you have now erased this distinction in your new definition.

Let me parrot your reasoning:

I appreciate your offer, but I'm better aware of my own reasoning than you are.

One could either alter my definition semantically (without changing the meaning) to say all events took place after the beginning,

Alright, then could you please state this new definition of "beginning"? I was going to assume what it is, but I wasn't sure whether or not you were going to include "in time" in it again.

 

[sol invictus]

Then you should have defined "beginning" in that manner in the first place. I'm simply working with your definition.

Which you found no problems with that exist outside your own head.

Alright, then could you please state this new definition of "beginning"?

My first one is fine, so no, I won't.

All the "paradoxes" you mentioned apply in exactly the same way to a bounded or semi-infinite interval of the real line. If you want to have a real discussion of this, either tell us why you think intervals with boundary are paradoxical or find a logical distinction between the two.

 

[sol invictus]

I don’t think time is an actual thing that has actual or independent existence.

Can you give an example of something you think has "actual or independent existence"?

IMO It is a generic term (verb) used to describe that rate of relative change/movement of actual things that have independent existence.

In conventional physics time is simply one direction in a spacetime manifold. It's different from a spatial direction, but only in a a specific (and for some purposes unimportant) way. Like space, it is dynamic in the sense that it can be warped and changed by the presence of matter and energy (that's an experimental fact, not a speculation).

In some more speculative theories time and space are derived, average concepts which cease to be useful concepts at extremely high energies. As an analogy, we might speak of the surface of a pillow. But looking very closely we find the pillow is made of woven threads with holes in between, each thread having its own surface. But on close inspection the threads themselves are made of filaments with space between, which are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which themselves are mostly empty. At that level the concept of a "surface" for the pillow is meaningless; similarly, sufficiently short time intervals may not exist in any useful sense.

 

[photon]

All the "paradoxes" you mentioned apply in exactly the same way to a bounded or semi-infinite interval of the real line.

First, I never used the term "paradox". I used "logical contradiction". "Paradox" has several meanings - not all mean "logical contradiction".

Second, no, none of my arguments apply to a bounded or semi-infinite interval. That is just an empty claim that you have made. I am better aware of what my arguments apply to - they apply specifically to time, not to bounded or semi-infinite intervals.

If you want to have a real discussion of this, either tell us why you think intervals with boundary are paradoxical

I don't.

or find a logical distinction between the two.

You have provided no proof that they are logically equivalent. Do so, and then I'll show you why you are wrong.

 

[sol invictus]

You have provided no proof that they are logically equivalent. Do so, and then I'll show you why you are wrong.

You claimed there is a logical contradiction in the notion that time can begin. The burden of proof is on you, not me, to provide evidence that that is the case.

As for proving they are logically equivalent, it's trivial. Time is an ordered set of real numbers representing locations on a Lorentzian manifold. A beginning to time, in the specific simple sense we've been discussing, is a lower boundary for a set of real numbers.

 

[photon]

You claimed there is a logical contradiction in the notion that time can begin. The burden of proof is on you, not me, to provide evidence that that is the case.

Right. But I asked you to define "beginning" in order to prove it. If it were completely up to me, I could easily concoct an absurd definition of "beginning" that would necessarily contradict the claim that "time has a beginning", so to be fair, I'm asking you to provide the definition. And I'm claiming that, no matter which (non-circular) definition of "beginning" you provide, I will prove to you that there is a logical contradiction.

So how would you define "beginning"?

As for proving they are logically equivalent, it's trivial. Time is an ordered set of real numbers representing locations on a Lorentzian manifold.

Absolutely wrong. Time can be represented in general relativity using an ordered set of real numbers representing locations on a Lorentzian manifold. That is not what time is.

 

[sol invictus]

So how would you define "beginning"?

I'm having deja vu...

Absolutely wrong. Time can be represented in general relativity using an ordered set of real numbers representing locations on a Lorentzian manifold. That is not what time is.

Oh, I see. So you know what time is, but Einstein and all the physicists before and after him were idiots. And you know - you just know - that time cannot have had a beginning, even though there are plenty of mathematically consistent models in which it does.

This conversation isn't constructive. I had hoped you had something substantive or at least vaguely interesting to say, but I guess not.

 

[photon]

I'm having deja vu...

I glad you are. That was the intention.

Oh, I see. So you know what time is, but Einstein and all the physicists before and after him were idiots.

Straw man.

Two straw men, in fact. First, I never claimed to "know what time is". Second, I never called "Einstein and all the physicists before and after him" idiots.

This conversation isn't constructive. I had hoped you had something substantive or at least vaguely interesting to say, but I guess not.

All I asked from you was to define "beginning" in a meaningful, non-circular way. It's sad to see you found this task to be too onerous.

 

[sol invictus]

Two straw men, in fact. First, I never claimed to "know what time is".

You certainly claimed to know what it isn't. Let me refresh your memory of what you said: "Absolutely wrong. Time can be represented in general relativity using an ordered set of real numbers representing locations on a Lorentzian manifold. That is not what time is."

Where do you get this absolute certainty that this precise, mathematical, self-consistent, experimentally verified and tested over the last century theory is not really what time is?

And if you accept general relativity as at least a valid representation of time (whatever that means), why do you not accept that time can begin, since its representation can?

All I asked from you was to define "beginning" in a meaningful, non-circular way. It's sad to see you found this task to be too onerous.

It's sad you persist in arguing when you have nothing to say. I gave you a perfectly good, non-circular definition, and the best you could do was construct some silly "contradictions" which fell apart immediately at the slightest analysis. So you fall back on just repeating yourself, like a troll.

 

[photon]

You certainly claimed to know what it isn't.

Right, I am well aware of that.

Where do you get this absolute certainty that this precise, mathematical, self-consistent, experimentally verified and tested over the last century theory is not really what time is?

Did you even read what you wrote? You're asking me how I know a "theory" is not "time"??? What makes you think this theory is time?

And if you accept general relativity as at least a valid representation of time (whatever that means), why do you not accept that time can begin, since its representation can?

GR is an incomplete physical theory. I hope you know that. It breaks down at the moment of the big bang, so there is no way to obtain information from it regarding what the "beginning" of time would be like.

I gave you a perfectly good, non-circular definition,

Really? Which one is it? The one including the "in time" or the one without it? And if it's the one without it, which of the two possible "points" are you referring to?

 

[sol invictus]

Did you even read what you wrote? You're asking me how I know a "theory" is not "time"???

Yes, that's more or less what I'm asking. I see you ignored my other question.

GR is an incomplete physical theory. I hope you know that. It breaks down at the moment of the big bang, so there is no way to obtain information from it regarding what the "beginning" of time would be like.

It's true that, in a certain sense, GR breaks down at a cosmological singularity like the big bang. It is not true that this means one cannot obtain information from it regarding the possibility of a beginning of time, because cosmological singularities of that type are only one of many possibilities even with GR - and not the one I've been discussing.

Really? Which one is it?

I only gave one definition.

Anyway, this exchange is neither useful nor interesting, so I will end it here if your responses continue in the same vein.

 

[photon]

I see you ignored my other question.

You must have vision impairment since you asked two questions and I responded to both of them.

It's true that, in a certain sense, GR breaks down at a cosmological singularity like the big bang. It is not true that this means one cannot obtain information from it regarding the possibility of a beginning of time

The fact that GR breaks down at the moment of the big bang does indeed prevent us from understanding the origin of the universe. In fact, GR cannot even make accurate predictions about the state of the universe at very early times in the universe's history, let alone describe the nature of time at that point (And, by "point" here, I'm referring to the temporal "point", that is "point in time").

I only gave one definition.

But you modified it. Twice. Which definition are you going with, the original, or the modified versions?

 

[sol invictus]

You must have vision impairment since you asked two questions and I responded to both of them.

No, you went off on an irrelevant tangent about the big bang. It's called shifting the goal posts.

The fact that GR breaks down at the moment of the big bang does indeed prevent us from understanding the origin of the universe.

Even if that were true (it's not), so what? We're discussing your assertion that a beginning for time poses a logical contradiction. As I keep having to repeat, we don't know what happened, but we do know of several different possibilities, some of which involve a beginning for time, and none of which contain any logical contradictions. Any one of them falsifies your assertion, regardless of whether it's what actually lies in our past.

In fact, GR cannot even make accurate predictions about the state of the universe at very early times in the universe's history, let alone describe the nature of time at that point (And, by "point" here, I'm referring to the temporal "point", that is "point in time").

That's probably true, but it's again irrelevant to your assertion.

But you modified it. Twice.

That's what I'd call a stupid lie. A smart lie would be one you might get away with. But in this case my posts are right there for anyone to read.

I suggested ways you, or anyone else, could modify my definition in ways that would deflate your silly objections without changing its meaning in the slightest... which serves to illustrate (if it wasn't already obvious) that your objections are stupid. But I didn't, and won't, modify it myself, because there's no need.

Anyway, this has degenerated far past the point where it held any interest for anyone, and I already warned you once. You're on ignore. Bye!

 

[photon]

No, you went off on an irrelevant tangent about the big bang.

The big bang is not something I would call an "irrelevant tangent" when talking about the beginning of time within the context of general relativity.

Even if that were true (it's not),

Oh, it's not? I already knew that you would be going into denial mode, so I had essentially paraphrased in my post this statement from Scientific American:

My statement: The fact that GR breaks down at the moment of the big bang does indeed prevent us from understanding the origin of the universe.

Scientific American: Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, describes the evolution of the cosmos but breaks down at the moment of the big bang, preventing researchers from understanding its origins.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=echoes-from-before-the-bi

but we do know of several different possibilities, some of which involve a beginning for time, and none of which contain any logical contradictions.

Then why is it so difficult for you to unambiguously define "beginning"?

But in this case my posts are right there for anyone to read.

And so are mine.

I suggested ways you, or anyone else, could modify my definition
.
.
But I didn't, and won't, modify it myself,

Oh, so the problem is laziness. Why didn't you say so earlier?

You're on ignore. Bye!

Oh my! Whatever shall I do?

 

[Marcus]

sol invictus 1, photon 0

 

[Cuddles]

sol invictus 1, photon 0

Indeed. What is it with arrogant idiots thinking they can fool anyone into believing they know so much more than actual professionals? There seems to be something about both quantum physics and relativity that draws them out the woodwork.

 

[Perpetual Student]

All attempts at creating definitions inevitably lead to tautological statements. The word begin is no exception. Just like time, point and and other terms used in this discussion, begin must be understood as a fundamental concept in order to permit further discussion. The demand for a definition is an unnecessary sidetrack.