We know that the act of creation is defined as a change in state of existence, S -> S’ where S is state of existence when there is nothing and S’ is the state of existence when the universe exists. S however follow by S’ meaning that we need a variable to take care of this change. This variable is nothing but time. This means that we can write dS/dt=A(S) where A is act of creation. The problem with this equation is that S’ contains time since act of creation creates time too. This is a contradiction since you need time to explain the act of creation while time is an emergent variable of act of creation.
I really don’t understand this equation but isn’t time just the way we judge how things change? If nothing changed, we wouldn’t have time. At least that’s how I think of time.
Let me see if I can simplify things. Could you have change without time? No (we can discuss this if you are interested). Do we have a change when the universe is created? Yes (we have nothing and then something). This means that we need time for act of creation therefore time cannot be a part of creation otherwise we end up into a contradiction.
I’m not sure I understand what S represents. The existence of anything in the universe? Or the existence of something in particular in the universe? Or am I missing your point entirely?
I’d like to hear the justification for this statement.
No clocks that’s great, wouldn’t have to change the non-existing things back an hour.
S is a shorthand for state of the system (system is the whole things which could exist or not). The system could be different depending on situation. In our example we have two states for the system: (1) When there is nothing (I use S to label this state) and (2) When the act of creation is complete and we have the universe (I use S’ for this state). Let me know if things are clear.
So are S and S’ constants?
No, time is not needed for the act of creation. To create something from nothing takes no time. Space and time are created along with the universe, because matter and energy have an extension in space and in time. God has no extension in space or time. He creates those along with all other material creation.
We have a change in a system therefore we have two states related to change which are different. These two states cannot be at the same point since the state of system becomes ill-defined. Therefore these two states should be placed on different points. There is also a directionality in change because one state (first state) comes before another state (second state), this is another property of change. Up to here we realize that we need to a variable with at least two points which the first point comes before the second point. There should however be a duration between these two points otherwise the second state will never take place. This variable is therefore time.
No, we don’t know that’s how the act of creation is defined.
They could be anything which define states of a system. They for example could be two constants, positions.
A system composed of what?
Have you read my argument? Do you have any problem with it?
You are using time in your phrase without knowing it. There are two states which cannot stay at the same point. One state comes after another. You need time to do these things.
I have a argument against that.
Let’s put God aside for the sake of argument. God could be subject of time or not. Here we are arguing another thing.
I don’t pretend to know how God created the universe.
But I question your way of describing things mathematically. It seems to me that dS/dt cannot be defined since t seems not to be defined if S is defined and S is not defined if t is defined.
Do you believe in creation ex nihilo?
Any system. The argument is very general.
Yes, in that the universe was not formed out of any pre-existing substance.
This contrasts with the idea that God found pre-existing chaos that He did not create and gave order to it.
dS/dt cannot be defined since time does not exist when there is nothing including time.