Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[shunyadragon]

Ok, this is the sticking point, at least for me. If time is static then how is it differentiated? I can understand how locations can be different, because physically they are. But not time, time does not change - ever. As Boxing has been making clear, there really is no past, preset or future.

Time does not change - ever?!?!!?

Than you reject Einstein's Theory of Relativity for a rigid Newtonian A-theory time.

[seer]

Time does not change - ever?!?!!?

Than you reject Einstein's Theory of Relativity for a rigid Newtonian A-theory time.

What are you talking about? It is B-Theory of time that says that time is static. No past present or future. It is tenseless. Try and keep up Shuny....

[JimL]

Yes, there are moments of time in which you are alive, and moments of time subsequent to your being alive-- which we colloquially refer to as "being dead." All of these moments are co-extant.

And so why, since each moment of time is co-extent, do we only experience the present moment. If time is static, then obviously something is moving through it which causes what you would call the illusion. Perhaps it would be helpfull if you could explain how from a static, or from a series of static brain states within an equally static universe, the illusion of motion and time can emerge

Because "now" is an indicator of temporal position, in exactly the same way that "North Pole" is an indicator of spatial position. The whole of Earth exists even for someone who is only occupying the North Pole, but the whole of Earth is not compressed into the location of the North Pole. In exactly the same way, the whole of time exists even for someone occupying the temporal position labelled "now," but the whole of time is not compressed into that single moment.

Yes I understand that concept of "now" but that is only from the perspective of an internal frame of reference, from the hypothetical perspective of someone looking at the universe from outside of it, in other words, how it is in itself, regardless of perspective, it is all there, and so with regards to the whole of the universe, one instant of time is not differetiated from any other instant of time. From an external frame of reference all moments are the same moment. But I am only experiencing the present moment. You can argue that in conjunction with my experience of the present I also exist, and am also experiencing, the past as well as the future, that all of those brain states eternally exist, but in reality I am only experiencing one of those states, the present state. If i am experiencing the past and the future as well as the present from the perspective of someone looking in from the outside, then why am i only aware of my present experience? If time isn't flowing, and if I am not flowing through time, then what is causing me to experience only the present, what is the cause of only one of my brain states to be experienced if they all exist?

"Brain" is referring explicitly to the organ which is responsible for neurology in the body. I am not a Mind-Body dualist, so I am referring precisely to that very physical bundle of electrochemical activity in our heads which is responsible for our actions. Similarly, "brain state" means exactly what the words "brain state" would imply. The physical state of a single brain at a given moment.
But there is no electical activity going on in our heads if our brains are static.

We are explicitly discussing different moments in space-time. Quantum Mechanics is not applicable, here.

But again, from an external frame of reference, in other words, the universe seen as it actually is in itself, there can be no such thing as different moments in spacetime, since as you say, they are all eternally co-extent.

Time being static does not imply that Time is unreal, in the least. You are conflating the physical dimension of measure with the phenomenological experience. These are two wholly separate concepts.

And my problem is in seeing how you get the one without the other, how you get the phenomenological experience of times passage in the abscence of any actual passage.

[robrecht]

Ok, this is the sticking point, at least for me. If time is static then how is it differentiated? I can understand how locations can be different, because physically they are. But not time, time does not change - ever. As Boxing has been making clear, there really is no past, preset or future.

Geometrically. But not the 3-dimensional spatial geometry that you learned in high school. Time is usually discussed as a fourth dimension in the geometry of space-time. In theoretical physics, there can be even more dimensions, and it gets too complicated for me after that.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Ok, this is the sticking point, at least for me. If time is static then how is it differentiated? I can understand how locations can be different, because physically they are.

Moments of static time are physically different in exactly the same way that locations are physically different.

But not time, time does not change - ever. As Boxing has been making clear, there really is no past, preset or future.

This is literally the exact opposite of what I have said. On the B-Theory, the past, present, and future are all completely real. Ironically, it is on the A-Theory that the past and future are not real.

And so why, since each moment of time is co-extent, do we only experience the present moment. If time is static, then obviously something is moving through it which causes what you would call the illusion. Perhaps it would be helpfull if you could explain how from a static, or from a series of static brain states within an equally static universe, the illusion of motion and time can emerge

Once again, we do not "only experience the present moment." You are still under the impression that only one of your brain states is real, that this particular brain state is "you," and that this brain state needs to move from one moment of time to the next. This is not the case.

I'll try once more to explain. At any single moment, your brain has direct access to data from stimuli of that moment, alone. It does not have direct access to data from prior moments, nor from subsequent moments. Agreed?

Similarly, at any single moment, your brain has memories of data to which it had access in previous moments, but does not have memories of data from future moments. Agreed?

At any single moment, these memories form a fairly contiguous bridge to that moment from those recently prior to it. This bridge is what gives the illusion of having "arrived" at that moment from the previous. Whether you subscribe to the A-Theory or the B-Theory, it seems fairly indisputable that memory is the key factor in the phenomenological experience of time.

Therefore, at any single moment, your brain has the impression that it arrived at that moment from the previous, creating the illusion of time. It also is under the impression that the moment which it occupies is the only real moment, because that moment is the only one to which it has direct access, creating the illusion of "now."

When we refer to "you," we are not talking about any individual one of these moments in which your brain exists-- just as we are not talking about any individual point in space in which you exist. In exactly the same way that "you" refers to a point on the bottom of your foot, at the back of your left knee, just behind your aorta, at the top of your head, and a plethora of other locations, all collectively; temporally "you" refers to a collection of points in time, and not any single one.

Yes I understand that concept of "now" but that is only from the perspective of an internal frame of reference, from the hypothetical perspective of someone looking at the universe from outside of it, in other words, how it is in itself, regardless of perspective, it is all there, and so with regards to the whole of the universe, one instant of time is not differetiated from any other instant of time.

That's simply not true. Would you say that a person looking at the whole of a number line cannot differentiate -3 from 5? Or 0.6 from π? Each instant of time is certainly differentiated from one another on the B-Theory.

From an external frame of reference all moments are the same moment.

That is incoherent. There are no moments from an external frame of reference.

But again, from an external frame of reference, in other words, the universe seen as it actually is in itself, there can be no such thing as different moments in spacetime, since as you say, they are all eternally co-extent.

That does not follow. The fact that they are eternally coextant does not preclude them from being different moments.

[JimL]

Moments of static time are physically different in exactly the same way that locations are physically different.

In what sense are moments in time physical?

This is literally the exact opposite of what I have said. On the B-Theory, the past, present, and future are all completely real. Ironically, it is on the A-Theory that the past and future are not real.

I don't think he meant to say that the past and future are not real, I think what he meant was that they are eternal and unchanging and that therefore not really the past or future. The illusion factor.

Once again, we do not "only experience the present moment." You are still under the impression that only one of your brain states is real, that this particular brain state is "you," and that this brain state needs to move from one moment of time to the next. This is not the case.

I'll try once more to explain. At any single moment, your brain has direct access to data from stimuli of that moment, alone. It does not have direct access to data from prior moments, nor from subsequent moments. Agreed?

Yes, according to B-theory.

Similarly, at any single moment, your brain has memories of data to which it had access in previous moments, but does not have memories of data from future moments. Agreed?

Agreed, according to the theory.

At any single moment, these memories form a fairly contiguous bridge to that moment from those recently prior to it. This bridge is what gives the illusion of having "arrived" at that moment from the previous. Whether you subscribe to the A-Theory or the B-Theory, it seems fairly indisputable that memory is the key factor in the phenomenological experience of time.

Therefore, at any single moment, your brain has the impression that it arrived at that moment from the previous, creating the illusion of time. It also is under the impression that the moment which it occupies is the only real moment, because that moment is the only one to which it has direct access, creating the illusion of "now."

So at the point in time at which I am no longer alive, I am actually still alive and kicking in past points of time, and have been eternally so? I have been both alive and dead for eternity. As I sit here today, George Washington is escaping across the Potomac, even though for him, my today is not his today. This is why I refer to both events as taking place now, because according to B-theory, as I am understanding it, there is no never when it comes to past, present or future events taking place.

When we refer to "you," we are not talking about any individual one of these moments in which your brain exists-- just as we are not talking about any individual point in space in which you exist. In exactly the same way that "you" refers to a point on the bottom of your foot, at the back of your left knee, just behind your aorta, at the top of your head, and a plethora of other locations, all collectively; temporally "you" refers to a collection of points in time, and not any single one.

Yes, I get that. When you are talking about an individual existence you are talking about each and every brain state that eternally exists together along the time line.

That's simply not true. Would you say that a person looking at the whole of a number line cannot differentiate -3 from 5? Or 0.6 from π? Each instant of time is certainly differentiated from one another on the B-Theory.

I don't believe that to be a fair analogy. A number line is not a whole in the sense that the block universe is a whole. From the perspective of an external observer, the end of time within the block would be no different than the beginning of time, since all of its moments would exist in his now.

That is incoherent. There are no moments from an external frame of reference.

How is it incoherent, that was exactly my point.

That does not follow. The fact that they are eternally coextant does not preclude them from being different moments.

Sure it does, because in B-theory, there is no change in time, all so called moments are eternal. That time is actually made up of different moments is an illusion. No?

[37818]

In what sense are moments in time physical?

Without matter there would be no space-time, no space or time.

Space is defined by what is in it. Even electro magnetic fields have no frequency or wave length without matter, so no time exists without matter. [In this material universe.]

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about? It is B-Theory of time that says that time is static. No past present or future. It is tenseless. Try and keep up Shuny....

So far seer, you never have understood B-Theory of time. All your questions equate to A-Theory of time

[Boxing Pythagoras]

In what sense are moments in time physical?

In exactly the same sense that positions in space are physical.

I don't think he meant to say that the past and future are not real, I think what he meant was that they are eternal and unchanging and that therefore not really the past or future. The illusion factor.

"Past" and "future" are relational, relative terms with real meaning. The fact that they are co-extant with the point of reference being viewed as the "present" does not mean that they are not really the past or the future relative to that moment.

Yes, according to B-theory.

Agreed, according to the theory.

These are both true regardless of whether one adheres to the A-Theory or the B-Theory.

So at the point in time at which I am no longer alive, I am actually still alive and kicking in past points of time, and have been eternally so?

As I explained several times to Seer, earlier in the thread, the word "still" implies a temporal location. It is improper to use it as a description of the whole of space-time. Again, it's like saying, "Tokyo actually exists at the North Pole." Tokyo is co-extant with the North Pole, but Tokyo is not located at the North Pole. In exactly the same way, a moment in time in which you are not alive is co-extant with a moment in time in which you are alive, but these two situations do not occupy the same moment in time.

I don't believe that to be a fair analogy. A number line is not a whole in the sense that the block universe is a whole.

A number line is a whole in exactly the same sense that the block universe is a whole. These are exactly the same mathematical concept. The only difference is that a number-line is 1-dimensional, while the block universe model is (at least) 4-dimensional.

How is it incoherent, that was exactly my point.

Because there are no moments, in the absence of time. An observer outside of space-time (if such a thing is possible) is by definition not located anywhere in space or time. Such an observer would have no phenomenological experience of time. It is not that all moments of time appear at the same time, to such a being. That being doesn't exist at any moment of time.

Sure it does, because in B-theory, there is no change in time, all so called moments are eternal. That time is actually made up of different moments is an illusion. No?

No. That time is made up of different moments is actual. That those moments progress from one to the next is illusory.

Without matter there would be no space-time, no space or time.

Space is defined by what is in it. Even electro magnetic fields have no frequency or wave length without matter, so no time exists without matter. [In this material universe.]

This is actually not true, at all, from the view of modern physics. Electromagnetic fields certainly maintain their properties in the absence of matter-- it was this revelation which led to the abandonment of the concept of a Luminiferous Aether, and which paved the way for modern Relativity Theory. Nor is space-time at all dependent upon the existence of matter. Quite the reverse, really.

[seer]

So far seer, you never have understood B-Theory of time. All your questions equate to A-Theory of time

Shuny, Boxing has shown you to be clueless in this thread. And when I speak B-Theory of time I speak of static time. And Jim L has the same questions.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, Boxing has shown you to be clueless in this thread. And when I speak B-Theory of time I speak of static time. And Jim L has the same questions.

Boxing has made assertion with no basis.

Static time as described is a quality of B-Theory time, but you cannot debate the concept of 'static time' in terms of our Newtonian personal view of Newtonian linear A-Theory of time.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Boxing has made assertion with no basis.

Which assertion was that?

Static time as described is a quality of B-Theory time, but you cannot debate the concept of 'static time' in terms of our Newtonian personal view of Newtonian linear A-Theory of time.

To be fair, as Adrift has pointed out, intuition regarding the phenomenological experience of time is one of the major sticking points for those philosophers who still attempt to defend the A-Theory.

[seer]

Which assertion was that?

You said this about Shuny: You have absolutely zero understanding of cosmology, including the very basics of General Relativity.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post231175

[tabibito]

Who was it said that if you can't explain the science in simple terms, you don't understand it?

[shunyadragon]

Which assertion was that?

. . . concerning my knowledge of physics and cosmology. It is apparent you lack the background to make this judgment.

To be fair, as Adrift has pointed out, intuition regarding the phenomenological experience of time is one of the major sticking points for those philosophers who still attempt to defend the A-Theory.

. . . and attack B-Theory of time, based on the personal perspective of Newtonian A-Theory of time.