Dilemma of beginning of time

[AlexW]

AlexW wrote:
No, you can experience thought, but not the thing it points to.

This is a useless distinction.

I can experience photons (light), but not the thing that reflected them.
I can experience the chemical reaction of 'sweetness' but not the thing that triggered it.

It is a very important distinction to make - it is the root for the belief in separation.
As a child you learn that this "experience" is made of things and after a few years you actually believe and live in this objectified world. There is no question that it could be otherwise, that all these patterns that make up apparent things are actually acquired/conditioned knowledge - that the underlying direct experience knows nothing about these things that people believe they experience 24/7.

You seem to believe that a "you" (a thing?) can experience other things (photons etc) and that there are even more things that created these things (the photons) - and yes, sure, conventionally speaking this is how we operate, this what science tells us and this is what we have been brought up to believe.
But: The direct "experience" / consciousness knows nothing about these apparent things. If people would take the time to actually look at what is real and what is made up they would easily find their true essence, they would see what is just a story and what is real - not that the story is a bad thing, it is fun for sure, but like any story it is not ultimately true.

Do you like living in a story-world that has been put into your head over years of conditioning? If not, then look in a truly honest way, if yes, go on and believe what thought tells you is true...

The question is: how many different sensations can you distinguish from one another?

Why would that be important? Its much more important to find who/what it is that knows of these senses (as well as thought).

Are experiences and thoughts the same or different? I assume they are the same. Until a useful distinction is drawn.

Thoughts are being experienced - consciousness is the "experiencer", but the experiencer is not separate from what is being experienced.
Consciousness experiences by BEING the experience. There is only it.
Follow this thought to the end and you will find that this actually means that separate things existing in their own right is an utter impossibility.

They do have meaning!
1 means Yes.
0 means No.

Thats a meaning thought has awarded a meaningless experience. The experience/consciousness itself has no meaning (before thought attaches one to it).
Can thought create meaning? Yes - but only as long as you remain in thought-world - outside of thought, reality, is devoid of all meaning.

[Logik]

It is a very important distinction to make - it is the root for the belief in separation.
As a child you learn that this "experience" is made of things and after a few years you actually believe and live in this objectified world. There is no question that it could be otherwise, that all these patterns that make up apparent things are actually acquired/conditioned knowledge - that the underlying direct experience knows nothing about these things that people believe they experience 24/7.

Sure, but you need to calibrate yourself.

Because the grave mistake of philosophy is to draw distinctions without a difference.

You seem to believe that a "you" (a thing?) can experience other things (photons etc) and that there are even more things that created these things (the photons) - and yes, sure, conventionally speaking this is how we operate, this what science tells us and this is what we have been brought up to believe.

Science doesn't tell us that. Scientists tell us that. People who experienced it.

Scientists further go on to explain their experiment in great detail. So that others too can experience what the scientist experienced. So that others too can recognise the distinction that the scientist has recognised/observed.

To say that science tells us what to believe is to ignore the scientist who acquired the knowledge first hand. Through empiricism.

But: The direct "experience" / consciousness knows nothing about these apparent things.

Then how did the scientists figure it out?

[AlexW]

Then how did the scientists figure it out?

Of course they experience something and then try to explain the percept by applying the knowledge they have accumulated over the years.
But what if this knowledge is built on wrong assumptions in the first place? What if a scientist tries to explain the workings of the universe based on his/her conviction that the universe is made up of separate, independent objects? And what if this basic assumption is wrong?

Look at the "new" ideas that for example quantum mechanics has brought about (observer effect, quantum entanglement etc etc). The observations and resulting scientific interpretations stand in stark contrast to how people currently believe the universe works, how we work.

So what changes once we adopt a new belief system, what is the difference between people believing the earth is flat compared to the modern human who believes the earth is a sphere revolving around the sun?
Our direct experience hasn't changed one bit. Colour is still colour, sound is still sound, a broken arm still hurts... what has changed is ONLY the interpretation, the belief system that informs us what these sensations mean.
Do the interpretations matter? Are they true? Can they ever be absolutely True?

[surreptitious57]

So what changes once we adopt a new belief system what is the difference between people believing the earth is flat compared to the modern
human who believes the earth is a sphere revolving around the sun ?

Our direct experience hasnt changed one bit . Colour is still colour sound is still sound a broken arm still hurts ... what has changed is ONLY the interpretation the belief system that informs us what these sensations mean

Do the interpretations matter ? Are they true ? Can they ever be absolutely True ?

Science is a methodology not a belief system

What changes is that new knowledge is acquired through observation / experimentation that may falsify pre existing knowledge
In science there is no such thing as absolute truth in any positive sense only the negative sense [ null hypothesis or falsification ]

This is because it is easier to disprove than to prove [ all it takes to disprove the statement all swans are white is
one black swan but to prove it would require knowledge of every swan that had ever existed and would ever exist ]

[Age]

We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).

1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.

2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.

So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.

The reason why you see there being some sort of dilemma here, when I do not see one, might be because of how you define the word 'time'.

If, and when, you provide your definition of 'time' here for us, then i could show you how there really is NO dilemma at all.

[surreptitious57]

I am not absolutely sure what time is even though I do have a model of it in my mind

It can be defined in a number of ways but whether any of them are true I cannot say


Distance multiplied by speed

The measurement of motion

The measurement of entropy

The distance between events

The passing of an event or events

The ageing of an object or organism

A mind dependent / subjective phenomenon

A mind independent / objective phenomenon

[bahman]

We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).

1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.

2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.

So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.

The reason why you see there being some sort of dilemma here, when I do not see one, might be because of how you define the word 'time'.

If, and when, you provide your definition of 'time' here for us, then i could show you how there really is NO dilemma at all.

Time can be defined as an entity which allows change.

[bahman]

I am not absolutely sure what time is even though I do have a model of it in my mind

It can be defined in a number of ways but whether any of them are true I cannot say


Distance multiplied by speed

You mean distance divided by speed?

The measurement of motion

I don't understand what does this one mean?

The measurement of entropy

I am not sure about this one.

The distance between events

Temporal distance between events.

The passing of an event or events

Hmmm.

The ageing of an object or organism

That is a process.

A mind dependent / subjective phenomenon

A mind independent / objective phenomenon

Both true.

[Age]

We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).

1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.

2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.

So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.

The reason why you see there being some sort of dilemma here, when I do not see one, might be because of how you define the word 'time'.

If, and when, you provide your definition of 'time' here for us, then i could show you how there really is NO dilemma at all.

Time can be defined as an entity which allows change.

'An entity which allows change' obviously can not come into being from nothing. But, 'an entity which allows change' can very obviously be eternal. Honestly I can not see how that entity could not be any thing but eternal. How it IS eternal is obvious to me.

[bahman]

The reason why you see there being some sort of dilemma here, when I do not see one, might be because of how you define the word 'time'.

If, and when, you provide your definition of 'time' here for us, then i could show you how there really is NO dilemma at all.

Time can be defined as an entity which allows change.

'An entity which allows change' obviously can not come into being from nothing. But, 'an entity which allows change' can very obviously be eternal. Honestly I can not see how that entity could not be any thing but eternal. How it IS eternal is obvious to me.

Let's see what happen if time is eternal. Eternal time means that no matter how far you go in past you can never reach a point that time didn't existed. It is in fact an impossibility to reach to eternal past. Now reverse the time. You will see that it would be impossible to reach from eternal past to now assuming that you are there.

[Age]

Time can be defined as an entity which allows change.

'An entity which allows change' obviously can not come into being from nothing. But, 'an entity which allows change' can very obviously be eternal. Honestly I can not see how that entity could not be any thing but eternal. How it IS eternal is obvious to me.

Let's see what happen if time is eternal. Eternal time means that no matter how far you go in past you can never reach a point that time didn't existed.

Remember it is YOU who states that 'time' is a real actual physical thing. I, however, disagree with this. So, I do NOT see what you see here.

It is in fact an impossibility to reach to eternal past. Now reverse the time. You will see that it would be impossible to reach from eternal past to now assuming that you are there.

Are you talking about an actual physical body doing this?

If you are, then I would even suggest to you that that physical body, at the moment when this is written, could not even go back one second, let alone any further. So, some might say that is an impossibility to reach to one second in the past let alone to eternal past. But I do NOT see how this even remotely implies/infers that 'an entity (with the ability) which allows change' can NOT be eternal.

In fact, if 'an entity' 'which allows change' (which implies that change could NOT happen without it) would HAVE TO be eternal. Because for change to occur there would HAVE TO be this 'entity' which, you say, 'allows change' and because of the natural causal effect of the Universe there could only exist eternity, of which the 'Entity' would also HAVE TO eternally exist.

[bahman]

'An entity which allows change' obviously can not come into being from nothing. But, 'an entity which allows change' can very obviously be eternal. Honestly I can not see how that entity could not be any thing but eternal. How it IS eternal is obvious to me.

Let's see what happen if time is eternal. Eternal time means that no matter how far you go in past you can never reach a point that time didn't existed.

Remember it is YOU who states that 'time' is a real actual physical thing. I, however, disagree with this. So, I do NOT see what you see here.

Time is real. One of the latest discovery, gravitational wave, confirms that.

It is in fact an impossibility to reach to eternal past. Now reverse the time. You will see that it would be impossible to reach from eternal past to now assuming that you are there.

Are you talking about an actual physical body doing this?

An abstract observer. Not a human being with physical body.

If you are, then I would even suggest to you that that physical body, at the moment when this is written, could not even go back one second, let alone any further. So, some might say that is an impossibility to reach to one second in the past let alone to eternal past. But I do NOT see how this even remotely implies/infers that 'an entity (with the ability) which allows change' can NOT be eternal.

In fact, if 'an entity' 'which allows change' (which implies that change could NOT happen without it) would HAVE TO be eternal. Because for change to occur there would HAVE TO be this 'entity' which, you say, 'allows change' and because of the natural causal effect of the Universe there could only exist eternity, of which the 'Entity' would also HAVE TO eternally exist.

It is an abstract thought when I say go back in time. I just mean imagine everything that happened in the past.

[surreptitious57]

Lets see what happen if time is eternal. Eternal time means that no matter how far you go in past you can never reach a point that time
didnt exist. It is in fact an impossibility to reach to eternal past. Now reverse the time. You will see that it would be impossible to reach
from eternal past to now assuming that you are there

If time was eternal either in the past or the future it would be impossible for anything to reach those points unless it had zero rest mass
A photon could travel the entire length of an eternal Universe in precisely no time at all because they only move through space not time

[Age]

Let's see what happen if time is eternal. Eternal time means that no matter how far you go in past you can never reach a point that time didn't existed.

Remember it is YOU who states that 'time' is a real actual physical thing. I, however, disagree with this. So, I do NOT see what you see here.

Time is real. One of the latest discovery, gravitational wave, confirms that.

Okay, then it must be True then.

It is in fact an impossibility to reach to eternal past. Now reverse the time. You will see that it would be impossible to reach from eternal past to now assuming that you are there.

Are you talking about an actual physical body doing this?

An abstract observer. Not a human being with physical body.

Well I can SEE how extremely easy it is to REACH an eternal past.

Why do you wonder why YOU can NOT do it when I have very easily and very simply already done it?

If you are, then I would even suggest to you that that physical body, at the moment when this is written, could not even go back one second, let alone any further. So, some might say that is an impossibility to reach to one second in the past let alone to eternal past. But I do NOT see how this even remotely implies/infers that 'an entity (with the ability) which allows change' can NOT be eternal.

In fact, if 'an entity' 'which allows change' (which implies that change could NOT happen without it) would HAVE TO be eternal. Because for change to occur there would HAVE TO be this 'entity' which, you say, 'allows change' and because of the natural causal effect of the Universe there could only exist eternity, of which the 'Entity' would also HAVE TO eternally exist.

It is an abstract thought when I say go back in time. I just mean imagine everything that happened in the past.

Already have.

In fact did it well before I started discussing in this thread.

[bahman]

Lets see what happen if time is eternal. Eternal time means that no matter how far you go in past you can never reach a point that time
didnt exist. It is in fact an impossibility to reach to eternal past. Now reverse the time. You will see that it would be impossible to reach
from eternal past to now assuming that you are there

If time was eternal either in the past or the future it would be impossible for anything to reach those points unless it had zero rest mass
A photon could travel the entire length of an eternal Universe in precisely no time at all because they only move through space not time

So you are saying that there was only photons in eternal past?