What happens when time stop?

By "the stopping of time" are you referring solely to a completely abstract hypothetical thought experiment or are you speculating on what might actually happen in the event of a reversal of the Big Bang (when time is said to have begun)?

Hey 5D where are you, as I've wondered as JL here from the outset

You might just as well have asked, once time is just the measure of movement and change, if all things, all chemical and physical reactions came into a full stop, if there is any way so they can start again...but what you are assuming is the absence of active energy anywhere, 100% thermal equilibrium...but again as far as I can tell in the Big Bang there wasn't any 100% thermal equilibrium as the deep space radiation background picture of the event clearly has shown. The maximal degree of order needs not imply a perfect balance. The flow of time, of energy, is more of a prove for precarious balance. The Universe is and works like and engine, but is not a perpetual motion machine, either it came from a Multiverse and will evaporate, in which case, we will need explain the machine Multiverse itself is, and probably without notions of motion, if we truly intend a final outcome without infinite regressions to ever greater degrees of order and Meta-systems, or alternatively the Universe itself and spacetime need be explained resolving the problem of motion so an "engine" can be de-constructed to something else.

More succinctly the million dollar question is, what starts the starter ?...and does it make sense starting a starter ? hmm...it seams evident we need to reframe the problem...

My point is a Set that moves in a loop is a finite collection which itself does not move. The collection is always the same. That says something upon the nature of motion itself and something fundamental about spacetime.

Sure it is, Fil, if it's self-contained, why not

Why would it need to be started if it was always here (in one form or another)

But if these props had been addressed somewhere above, then my apologies for my laziness

My point was the Universe is not the classical perpetual motion machine in the sense things in it do lose energy and evaporate as the entropy goes up...ideally the best possible imaginable perpetual motion machine would be one which did not really move but rather that "created", manifested is better, the illusion of motion...a finite cycling Universe although in perpetual motion is dead in the sense it doesn't gain or lose information. It does not move out of itself, it just juggles around. A perpetual motion machine does not really move, it does not lose energy, and it doesn't holistically transform reality into something else. Cycling is a trick on which information is de localized from A to B but not truly gain or lost in the system at large.

Has for the second question given the starter here is motion itself what set motion at work without moving anything ?...
...the finite collection which does not grow informationally speaking and yet moves around itself was my sort of answer. Motion itself moves stuff but it does not move its nature. At a fundamental level something must always be an eternal given which itself does not move.

Hope I made enough sense, its late here...

I presume you're describing the Universe as I see it. Of course it can't lose anything it contains 'cause there's no "outside" to lose it into

I presume because there's no observer to witness it. However we can suppose the gyrations within Her must change Her shape. It's just that we can't picture such in minds' eye

Sorry Fil but this one leaves an old man out in the cold, it's too abstract

I stumble on this guy recently because he is saying the exact very same thing I was saying in the Spacetime thread. I decide to pay more attention after watching Lee Smolin referring to his work. Nonetheless I can't see why you don't get the point a Universal self enclosed system is always a given once infinite regression work inside a finite collection of things which itself cannot be justified within the regression which is circular...the argument is simple to grasp and quite frankly I wasn't its inventor, it is as old as philosophy itself.