Infinite regress is logically impossible

[Dontaskme]

Now that you've set the stage, are you going to introduce God, or is it important that someone else needs to be guided towards having to do it?

God needs no "stage setting" from me, or from anybody else, of course. When He wants it, center stage is inevitably His.

Yes, but he usually waits until you have killed off all the other performers before he makes his entrance.

Yes that's right.

God cannot show up to his own show, not until he kills off his own impersonation of himself that he created as and through the form of that IC person. There's just no room for two God's in IC's one God.

[bahman]

That's like saying, "I've existed since I was conceived." It might be true, but it tells us absolutely nothing, because it simply repeats as single fact: "Time began, since time had a beginning."

But that's exactly what the problem of infinite causal regress proves is the case. Time began. So what's the big reveal, there?

Time didn't begin to exist

Wait a minute: look above. Did you not say, "the beginning of time"? Are those not your exact words?

Are you now saying that there was no "beginning of time"? Which one do you actually believe?

Time has existed since the beginning of time does not mean that time began to exist.

...no time to time is a change and time is needed for change...

That rule would only apply once the universe already exits, and there are multiple objects and states.

No, time is needed for any sort of change.

There is no possibility of us speaking of anything we understand as "time" before that, because time is an interval between at least two different things or states.

No, that is not correct.

If those two things or states haven't come to exist, then there's no time in moving between them. They don't exist.

No, time does not move between things.

In fact, if only one thing exists, then there's no "time" either, since there is also no interval. There's no "between" when there's only one thing.

There could be time (to be more accurate spacetime) and nothing else.

[Immanuel Can]

Time has existed since the beginning of time does not mean that time began to exist.

Yeah, it has to. The phrase "beginning of time" means that time "began."

...no time to time is a change and time is needed for change...

That rule would only apply once the universe already exits, and there are multiple objects and states.

No, time is needed for any sort of change.

There's no "change" when there's no "two states" between which a "change" can happen.

There is no possibility of us speaking of anything we understand as "time" before that, because time is an interval between at least two different things or states.

No, that is not correct.

Actually, it has to be. If there are not two things, then there's no "between."

If those two things or states haven't come to exist, then there's no time in moving between them. They don't exist.

No, time does not move between things.

It certainly does. Time is the interval it takes for one thing to become another, or one state to arrive at another, or to traverse the distance from one point to another. That's what time is.

In fact, if only one thing exists, then there's no "time" either, since there is also no interval. There's no "between" when there's only one thing.

There could be time (to be more accurate spacetime) and nothing else.

There's no "space" either. So there's no "spacetime."

You can't presuppose the already-existence of the universe as a way of explaining how a feature of the universe came to be.

[attofishpi]

Time has existed since the beginning of time does not mean that time began to exist.

I thought I'd chime in.

RE the thread title: "Infinite regress is logically impossible"

I agree, and again will explain why and also answer the question in the quote above.

First, time is only the occurrence of an event. If there is no event occurring, then there is no time. So our reality, at its most finite perceivable scale, that even our technology cannot delve (yet - see the BTW below) - getting towards the Planck scale, gets down to the itsy-bitsy of either there IS an event or NOT an event, binary.
BTW:- "Physicists have measured the shortest span of time ever. It's 0.000000000000000000247 second, also known as 247 zeptoseconds. And this period is how it takes a single particle of light to pass through a molecule of hydrogen."

That isn't the shortest span of time however, as you would know.

I believe that aeons prior to us getting a reality that we can exist within and perceive the universe, that everything came from chaos. Chaos, in the context I am talking, is a place where there is no logic no causality, no causal chains. Thus NO time.
Eventually, by random chance the chaos started to form into order and causal chains began, the very start of causality. NOW we have what we can comprehend as time.

[bahman]

Time has existed since the beginning of time does not mean that time began to exist.

Yeah, it has to. The phrase "beginning of time" means that time "began."

No, time began to exist means that "there was a point before in which time didn't exist". That is incoherent since we are talking about "before" unless we introduce another time that phrase is incoherent. That however leads to regress.

There is no possibility of us speaking of anything we understand as "time" before that, because time is an interval between at least two different things or states.

No, that is not correct.

Actually, it has to be. If there are not two things, then there's no "between."

Time is not an interval. Time is a substance that allows changes. Of course, you need to have different states if you want to have change.

If those two things or states haven't come to exist, then there's no time in moving between them. They don't exist.

No, time does not move between things.

It certainly does. Time is the interval it takes for one thing to become another, or one state to arrive at another, or to traverse the distance from one point to another. That's what time is.

I already defined the time in the previous comment.

[bahman]

Time has existed since the beginning of time does not mean that time began to exist.

I thought I'd chime in.

RE the thread title: "Infinite regress is logically impossible"

I agree, and again will explain why and also answer the question in the quote above.

First, time is only the occurrence of an event. If there is no event occurring, then there is no time. So our reality, at its most finite perceivable scale, that even our technology cannot delve (yet - see the BTW below) - getting towards the Planck scale, gets down to the itsy-bitsy of either there IS an event or NOT an event, binary.

No, time is not the occurrence of an event. Time is a substance that allows change.

BTW:- "Physicists have measured the shortest span of time ever. It's 0.000000000000000000247 second, also known as 247 zeptoseconds. And this period is how it takes a single particle of light to pass through a molecule of hydrogen."

That isn't the shortest span of time however, as you would know.

I believe that aeons prior to us getting a reality that we can exist within and perceive the universe, that everything came from chaos. Chaos, in the context I am talking, is a place where there is no logic no causality, no causal chains. Thus NO time.
Eventually, by random chance the chaos started to form into order and causal chains began, the very start of causality. NOW we have what we can comprehend as time.

Was there a change in chaos? If yes, then time existed in the state of chaos as well.

[Immanuel Can]

Time is a substance that allows changes.

One thing you can be absolutely certain of is that time is not a "substance." A "substance" has weight, size, density and other physical characteristics. There's no such thing as a "cup of time" or "ten pounds of time," or a "slice of time." Time is an interval between at least two points. That's all.

[bahman]

Time is a substance that allows changes.

One thing you can be absolutely certain of is that time is not a "substance." A "substance" has weight, size, density and other physical characteristics. There's no such thing as a "cup of time" or "ten pounds of time," or a "slice of time." Time is an interval between at least two points. That's all.

Time according to general relativity curves by which I mean its passage is subject to change. The gravitational wave is experimentally observed.

[Immanuel Can]

Time according to general relativity curves by which I mean its passage is subject to change. The gravitational wave is experimentally observed.

I'm sorry...I'm not trying to insult you, but you've really mixed up your language here. You might want to rethink that claim. Time does not consist of objects, so time does not literally "change." It's the interval within which things can change from one state to another, but it's the things, not time itself, that undergoes the changes.

[bahman]

Time according to general relativity curves by which I mean its passage is subject to change. The gravitational wave is experimentally observed.

I'm sorry...I'm not trying to insult you, but you've really mixed up your language here. You might want to rethink that claim. Time does not consist of objects, so time does not literally "change." It's the interval within which things can change from one state to another, but it's the things, not time itself, that undergoes the changes.

Of course time changes. How could you have change if time does not change?

[attofishpi]

Time according to general relativity curves by which I mean its passage is subject to change. The gravitational wave is experimentally observed.

I'm sorry...I'm not trying to insult you, but you've really mixed up your language here. You might want to rethink that claim. Time does not consist of objects, so time does not literally "change." It's the interval within which things can change from one state to another, but it's the things, not time itself, that undergoes the changes.

Of course time changes. How could you have change if time does not change?

FFS..................and in some agreement with IC.


TIME only exists as a manmade construct of measurable events.

PS.--> U R Full of shit that U have any qualification RE physics.

[bahman]

I'm sorry...I'm not trying to insult you, but you've really mixed up your language here. You might want to rethink that claim. Time does not consist of objects, so time does not literally "change." It's the interval within which things can change from one state to another, but it's the things, not time itself, that undergoes the changes.

Of course time changes. How could you have change if time does not change?

FFS..................and in TOTAL agreement with IC.


TIME only exists as a manmade construct of measurable events.

PS.--> U R Full of shit that U have any qualification RE physics.

If time does not change then there is only one stance of it. Change is the difference between two states of affairs one comes after another. Could you please tell me what "after" stands for if it is not another point in time?

[attofishpi]

Of course time changes. How could you have change if time does not change?

FFS..................and in TOTAL agreement with IC.


TIME only exists as a manmade construct of measurable events.

PS.--> U R Full of shit that U have any qualification RE physics.

If time does not change then there is only one stance of it. Change is the difference between two states of affairs one comes after another. Could you please tell me what "after" stands for if it is not another point in time?

Unless U comprehend the stuff above in red, then not much point in talking .

[bahman]

FFS..................and in TOTAL agreement with IC.


TIME only exists as a manmade construct of measurable events.

PS.--> U R Full of shit that U have any qualification RE physics.

If time does not change then there is only one stance of it. Change is the difference between two states of affairs one comes after another. Could you please tell me what "after" stands for if it is not another point in time?

Unless U comprehend the stuff above in red, then not much point in talking .

Time is not manmade. It is real. Time is a substance as the gravitational wave experiments suggest.

[Immanuel Can]

Time according to general relativity curves by which I mean its passage is subject to change. The gravitational wave is experimentally observed.

I'm sorry...I'm not trying to insult you, but you've really mixed up your language here. You might want to rethink that claim. Time does not consist of objects, so time does not literally "change." It's the interval within which things can change from one state to another, but it's the things, not time itself, that undergoes the changes.

Of course time changes. How could you have change if time does not change?

Time does not "change." It "passes," while remaining exactly what it is. That's very, very different.

Time is the span, the interval, during which a change (in some state, object or substance) takes place. But it's the object that undergoes the changes, not time itself. Time is an interval, not an object.