# Does time exist?

What you are saying is that because my car is 10 years old, and it started life in 2010, that time started 10 years ago. Don't you see your error in saying that?
What I am saying is that there was a beginning. You propose there never was a beginning.

Which concept is the more "logical"?

The Beginning Of Time
by Stephen Hawking
The conclusion of this lecture, is that the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down
https://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/hawking-time.html

The common understanding is: "A beginning with a simple singularity"
Your understanding seems to be: An ever-existent irreducible complexity"

Last edited:
What I am saying is that there was a beginning. You propose there never was a beginning.

Which concept is the more "logical"?

Again, the DEFAULT is that we KNOW there is time (duration). To claim time had a beginning, and there was no time before that, requires PROOF of that claim. There is NO PROOF (nor can there be) that time started at the start of the universe.

The universe simply came into existence at a POINT IN TIME.

It came into existence at 12:30, and there was a 12:29 before it came into existence!

There is NO CONCEPT of time starting. That is NOT POSSIBLE! That is like claiming negative numbers have a limit, which you call the "start."

Is -13.7 the limit to the negative numbers? You mean there is no -15? No -200? No -1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?

Again, the DEFAULT is that we KNOW there is time (duration). To claim time had a beginning, and there was no time before that, requires PROOF of that claim. There is NO PROOF (nor can there be) that time started at the start of the universe.
First, there is no proof (nor can there be) that anything existed before the BB!
Second, how do you measure time? Can you measure duration of time with duration of time?
The universe simply came into existence at a POINT IN TIME.
One could equally make a claim that the universe simply came into existence.
It came into existence at 12:30, and there was a 12:29 before it came into existence!
No, it came into existence @ 0 <--> t=1. There is no concept of time before the BB.
There is NO CONCEPT of time starting. That is NOT POSSIBLE! That is like claiming negative numbers have a limit, which you call the "start."
No, that is incorrect. Time did not start. Something physical started and time emerged along with the duration of the existence of that physicalness.
Is -13.7 the limit to the negative numbers? Do you mean there is no -15? No -200? No -1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?
Nonsense. All that time measuring the duration of what? Measuring "nothing"?

Keeping it simple; Time is an emergent measurement of quantum mechanics (chronology). No quanta, no time!

Last edited:
Except Hawking no longer believed in the singularity theorem before his death. Penrose too abandoned them.
Can you link that to a published paper?

There is no proof (nor can there be) that anything existed before the BB!

I didn't say any THING existed, although I believe the universe came from the core of the multiverse like the Earth came from the Sun, so in that case there was some THING before the universe was born. Time is not a "thing." The universe is a "thing." Time is duration, duration is not a "thing." What you are saying is that there is no proof of another OBJECT existing before the universe came into existence.

The question of if there was time before my car was born has NOTHING to do with whether there were other cars in existence before my car. The car came into existence at a POINT IN TIME, and there was TIME (other points in time) BEFORE the point in time that my car came into existence!

One could equally make a claim that the universe simply came into existence.

Good point. The universe simply came into existence. That in NO WAY says "time started" when the universe came into existence!

No, it came into existence @ 0 <--> t=1. There is no concept of time before the BB.

It came into existence at a point in time. It was "born" at a point in time, like you were born at a point in time.

No, that is incorrect. Time did not start. Something physical started and time emerged along with the duration of the existence of that physicalness.

So you are claiming the AGE of the universe started when it was born. So you're saying time started when you were born, because your age started at a point in time.

Nonsense. All that time measuring the duration of what? Measuring "nothing"?

Duration needs no measurement to have duration. Objects are born in relation to a point in time. Objects exist in relation to time. They exist for a duration of time between two points in time. In NO WAY does the start point of an object's age suggest that there was no time before that point. That is like saying there was no time before you were born. We both know that is false!

Keeping it simple; Time is an emergent measurement of quantum mechanics (chronology). No quanta, no time!

Nope! The MEASUREMENT of duration is known as time. The MEASURE starts at a point in time and ends at a point in time. That measure is a duration of time. There was duration before that measure and after that measure.

Time is duration, duration is not a "thing."
You have just entered a disclaimer.
And you are right, "duration measures the existence or change of a thing". Time cannot measure the duration of itself.
Therefore, what was the thing time was measuring the duration of? Duration of unchangeable
"nothingness?

Last edited:
All this speculation can be avoided by simple stating that "time is an emergent property of duration of change or existence.

You have just entered a disclaimer.
And you are right, "duration measures the existence or change of a thing". Time cannot measure the duration of itself.
Therefore, what was the thing time was measuring the duration of? Duration of "nothingness?

As I said, things exist in relation to time. Time does not need a thing to elapse. Duration elapses and we compare the existence of objects in relation to duration. In order to measure duration we invented clocks, that have units of seconds of time.

Now we can MEASURE an object's duration of time, and we call that AGE.

Duration does not need AGE to exist! Measurements of duration need CLOCKS, but without a clock duration elapses. Duration needs no clock, or object, or universe, it is simply duration.

All this speculation can be avoided by simple stating that "time is an emergent property of duration of change or existence.

That is AGE, which is the duration of time between two points in time that an object exists.

That is AGE, which is the duration of time between two points in time that an object exists.
And pray tell what is the object that is registering two points in time? Time itself? Nothingness?

When there is nothing to measure there is no emergent duration of any kind.
No registering of Age.
Nothing equals nothing until there is something. Then time begins as measurement of the existence of that something (singularity?)

Last edited:
Nothing equals nothing until there is something.

Until???? That sounds like a duration of time from before.... UNTIL.... there is something.

So a duration of time elapses UNTIL there is something??

You need to understand the difference between measuring a time, and time elapsing.

Duration does not require a clock. According to your logic a clock had to exist before time started. That is NONSENSE! How would a clock exist if there was no time prior to a clock existing??

You are suggesting that a clock needs to be present in order for time to elapse. Where would the clock come from if time didn't start without a clock???? It's total NONSENSE!

Last edited by a moderator:
You need to understand the difference between measuring a time, and time elapsing.
So do you.
You can't substitute a clock with "time elapsing" and then claim they're not the same, because time is always time; it doesn't go away.
You can invent an artificial distinction, but there will always be intervals of time to explain, or label with different words.

So do you.
You can't substitute a clock with "time elapsing" and then claim they're not the same, because time is always time; it doesn't go away.
You can invent an artificial distinction, but there will always be intervals of time to explain, or label with different words.

I think James R rubbed off on you. You don't understand the difference between duration and the measurement of duration.

Now you are claiming the same thing James is claiming, that the measurement of some phenomena IS the thing being measured. You are claiming the measured number is the mass! You are claiming the number of seconds measured is the duration being measured. You are claiming time is just a number!

Duration is being MEASURED, and a clock is the measuring device that measures duration.

To be clear, a duration is not a clock! Mass is not a number!

Last edited by a moderator:
You don't understand the difference between duration and the measurement of duration
Correction; I'm saying you don't understand the difference. There is no fundamental difference if both "duration" and "measurement of time" represent "intervals of time".
You are claiming the measured number is the mass! You are claiming the number of seconds measured is the thing being measured.
No I'm not. I said you can't substitute a clock with some other mechanism--a duration--and say they're different. As you are doing.

Until???? That sounds like a duration of time from before.... UNTIL.... there is something.
That's playing another semantic game.
So a duration of time elapses UNTIL there is something??
No. time can start when there was no time before.
Universal time did not exist until the BB, regardless if there was time before.

In timeless infinity, any defining moment is a beginning of time, not another point in time.
You need to understand the difference between measuring a time, and time elapsing.
I know the difference between unmeasurable non-existent time and measurable emergent time from beginning to end of an object or event.
Duration does not require a clock. According to your logic a clock had to exist before time started. That is NONSENSE! How would a clock exist if there was no time prior to a clock existing??
Because a clock is an object inside universal time that emerges with the continued existence of the universe itself. All obkects and changes are measurable against universal time that began with the BB.
You are suggesting that a clock needs to be present in order for time to elapse. Where would the clock come from if time didn't start without a clock???? It's total NONSENSE!
I am suggesting no such thing.
It is you who is anthropomorphizing time with clocks and timing devices and your citation of event all occurring inside this universe which does have its own emerging "timeline". Everything inside this universe is measurable against the event of the BB at which time of this universe began.

Ever heard of "circadian rhythm" and "chronobiology?" It looks like organic cells have their own clocks based on the circadian rhythm. Cells don't need tic-toc clocks. Humans do, to measure the past in order to predict the future.
Circadian rhythms are physical, mental, and behavioral changes that follow a 24-hour cycle. These natural processes respond primarily to light and dark and affect most living things, including animals, plants, and microbes. Chronobiology is the study of circadian rhythms.

Time is a human-invented codification of emergent duration of chronological events.

Last edited:
Correction; I'm saying you don't understand the difference. There is no fundamental difference if both "duration" and "measurement of time" represent "intervals of time".

So you're saying there is no difference between the phenomena being measured and the device that's doing the measuring? Again, you are saying time is just a number, because 10 seconds is a number. You are saying mass is just a number. You are saying time is just a number because "10 seconds" is a number.

So I ask you the same thing I asked James; what is it that you are measuring, A NUMBER??

No I'm not. I said you can't substitute a clock with some other mechanism--a duration--and say they're different. As you are doing.

A clock is the measuring device and the thing being measured is duration. They are different. A clock is a physical measuring device. A duration is the phenomena being measured.

So you're saying there is no difference between the phenomena being measured and the device that's doing the measuring?
No I'm not, and I haven't said that. I'm saying you can't claim a duration exists which is different from an interval of time. Both ideas about time amount to the idea that time can be measured.

Does time exist if it isn't measured? How would you know? You say a clock is a measuring device and a duration is the thing being measured. I can say, yes a clock is a device, and time is the thing it measures. That's a consequence of how clocks work, what they do, their physical nature, or whatever you call it.

So you substitute the word duration, for the word time, and then everyone concludes there is no difference. Because there just isn't. You can't show there is, can you?

Last edited:
Time is a human-invented codification of emergent duration of chronological events.

Time is human-invented??

So there was no time before humans??

A clock is the measuring device and the thing being measured is duration. They are different. A clock is a physical measuring device. A duration is the phenomena being measured.
Duration is not a thing it is a "differential equation", a mathematical abstraction .