Thoughts on non-metric time?

[elphidium55]

I have recently come across the cosmological notion of "non-metric" time. As I understand this notion, any space which lacks enough "structure" lacks the structural regularity required to ground a time metric for that space. It would still be the case that causes precede their effects in such a space, but neither the duration between cause and effect or the temporal "location" of the causal event itself would be specifiable.

It seems to me that this notion, if viable, is a potential game changer for Kalaam style arguments. If the big bang were a boundary between the metric space-time we now inhabit and some previous state, could it be that the previous state had minimal structure and thus extension and causality but no time metric?

I'd love to know what forum members think of this, so do help me out.

[Difflugia]

It seems to me that this notion, if viable, is a potential game changer for Kalaam style arguments.

That's already the fatal flaw in Kalam arguments, at least as applying them to reality. One of the premises of Kalam is always that anything that begins has a cause. The problem is that the particular premise might not be true. If it's not true, then Kalam has no value.

If the big bang were a boundary between the metric space-time we now inhabit and some previous state, could it be that the previous state had minimal structure and thus extension and causality but no time metric?

It's already such a boundary, at least as you've described things. The Big Bang is considered the beginning of space-time. Refining or changing our understanding of the nature of space-time doesn't change that. Kalam says that despite the Big Bang being such a boundary, the premise is still true.

What could happen is that if parts of the Universe are "timeless" in some sense, then it might be harder to argue that vacuum fluctuations aren't without cause.

[elphidium55]

Difflugia wrote:

One of the premises of Kalam is always that anything that begins has a cause. The problem is that the particular premise might not be true. If it's not true, then Kalam has no value.

Difflugia, I'm sympathetic to what you have said. It seems to me, however, that the sticking point for the dialectic will be that metric time "began" at the big bang boundary but time itself (simpliciter) did not.

As for how Kalaam proponents will respond to this consideration, I don't know (hence this post). This might cause them to re-imagine the Kalaam. It may be that they tighten the argument sufficiently to handle non-metric time objections. It seems the ball is now in their court.