Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[seer]

It is all the matter which existed at the time of the singularity. Once again, the singularity describes a very particular region of space-time. It does not describe the whole of space-time.

But we are speaking of all matter correct, there is no other or different matter that what was found with the dense singularity?

[JimL]

Once again, you are quite mistaken about this. The singularity describes a very particular region of space-time. All matter at that particular region is infinitely dense, on certain models. Not all matter, throughout the whole of space-time.

This is exactly the opposite of what I said, which is that your brain state at any particular moment does not have access to data from subsequent moments. The fact that all moments of time exist does not mean your brain at any given moment has access to all other moments, any more than your brain has access to all areas of space simply because they all exist.

I added emphasis to the most important phrase of your reply. To say, "I experience only one of those moments at a time," is tautological. That's true regardless of whether one holds to the A-Theory or the B-Theory.

I think your hang-up, and the most difficult one to understand for most people, is that your brain state at any given moment intuitively believes itself to be in a preferred place-- as if that particular brain state is the "real" one, while all the others are simply potential or faded away or otherwise "unreal." You have this intuition that the word "now" represents some actual and absolute physical truth about the universe. It is often quite vexing for people to wrap their heads around the fact that "now" is not an absolute truth about the universe. Quite the opposite, in fact, "now" is an entirely relative concept and is meaningless in the absence of some referent.

Once a person can get beyond the conceptual difficulties in understanding that there is no universal "now," it becomes far easier to grasp the rest of the B-Theory. Unfortunately, this isn't the easiest of tasks.

There may be no universal "now" as far as minds are concerned, but there is a universal now as far as the universe as a whole is concerned because the universe, according to B-Theory doesn't exist in increments of time, the universe is all there,"now." All of the moments of the universe exist in conjunction with each other, so, for the universe as a whole, all of the moments of my life exist in its "now," in the "universes now." So whence the experience of passage. Your answer, I think, is that the passage of time is an illusion of the mind, but that can not be, because all of my brain states exist in the "universal now." Therefore something else would need be passing from one instant to the next, from one brain state to the next. What am I missing?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But we are speaking of all matter correct, there is no other or different matter that what was found with the dense singularity?

No, we are not. We are speaking of the matter which existed at the time of the singularity, not all matter which exists throughout the whole of space-time.

There may be no universal "now" as far as minds are concerned, but there is a universal now as far as the universe as a whole is concerned because the universe, according to B-Theory doesn't exist in increments of time, the universe is all there,"now." All of the moments of the universe exist in conjunction with each other, so, for the universe as a whole, all of the moments of my life exist in its "now," in the "universes now."

Attempting to apply the concept of "now" to space-time, as a whole, is entirely nonsensical. It's exactly the same as trying to apply the concept of "here" to the whole universe. "Now" and "here" are referents which differentiate one moment or place in space-time from other moments or places. The words are devoid of all meaning when attempting to discuss the universe, as a whole.

So whence the experience of passage. Your answer, I think, is that the passage of time is an illusion of the mind, but that can not be, because all of my brain states exist in the "universal now."

Why would the fact that brain states are eternally co-extant prevent the illusion of time's passage? Each brain state is still limited to the data which it has at its own particular moment in time. The fact that they are co-extant does not imply that they would have access to the same information, any more than the fact that my brain states are co-extant with yours implies that I have access to your experiences.

[seer]

No, we are not. We are speaking of the matter which existed at the time of the singularity, not all matter which exists throughout the whole of space-time.

I'm not understanding, more matter came into being that was not included in the dense singularity?

Again Hawking says: At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.

How exactly is the matter we see today different from the matter Hawking is speaking about? Was more or different matter created since?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm not understanding, more matter came into being that was not included in the dense singularity?

Again Hawking says: At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.

You continue to ignore the "at this time" clause in that Hawking quote. He is not talking about all matter throughout the whole of space-time. He's talking about matter at a very specific time.

How exactly is the matter we see today different from the matter Hawking is speaking about? Was more or different matter created since?

Matter is incredibly different in 2015 than it was at the time of the proposed singularity. There's been 13.7 billion years in which matter has been converted to and from energy, rearranged, displaced, and otherwise affected by physical processes.

[seer]

You continue to ignore the "at this time" clause in that Hawking quote. He is not talking about all matter throughout the whole of space-time. He's talking about matter at a very specific time.

Matter is incredibly different in 2015 than it was at the time of the proposed singularity. There's been 13.7 billion years in which matter has been converted to and from energy, rearranged, displaced, and otherwise affected by physical processes.

Yes, but it all still started from the matter in the singularity, no matter (forgive the pun) how it changed, no new matter has been created, it is just the old matter rearranged. Correct?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, but it all still started from the matter in the singularity, no matter (forgive the pun) how it changed, no new matter has been created, it is just the old matter rearranged. Correct?

Not quite. There is matter which exists and has existed at points throughout space-time which did not exist in the singularity. Energy can be converted into matter, and matter into energy.

But all of this is just a red herring, anyway. Even if it was the exact same matter, the point you are trying to make is wrong. There is no violation of the law of non-contradiction because you are discussing the properties of completely different regions of space-time. You are still committing a categorical fallacy by thinking that the properties which might apply to a cosmological singuarity would apply to the whole of space-time.

[JimL]

No, we are not. We are speaking of the matter which existed at the time of the singularity, not all matter which exists throughout the whole of space-time.

Attempting to apply the concept of "now" to space-time, as a whole, is entirely nonsensical. It's exactly the same as trying to apply the concept of "here" to the whole universe. "Now" and "here" are referents which differentiate one moment or place in space-time from other moments or places. The words are devoid of all meaning when attempting to discuss the universe, as a whole.

Why? If we are discussing the universe as a whole, then it is all there, all of spacetime exists. Is that correct or not? If that doesn't mean that it all exists "now", then what does it mean?

Why would the fact that brain states are eternally co-extant prevent the illusion of time's passage? Each brain state is still limited to the data which it has at its own particular moment in time. The fact that they are co-extant does not imply that they would have access to the same information, any more than the fact that my brain states are co-extant with yours implies that I have access to your experiences.

Because as I said, according to B-Theory, each individual moment exists along with each other moment, its all there, so why should I experience one brain state over any other when they all exist in conjunction with each other. If time is not passing, and I am not passing through time, then something is passing from one instant to the next. According to B-Theory, I am still experiencing the past, as well as the future, but I am not, I am only experiencing the present.

[seer]

Not quite. There is matter which exists and has existed at points throughout space-time which did not exist in the singularity. Energy can be converted into matter, and matter into energy.

But all of this is just a red herring, anyway. Even if it was the exact same matter, the point you are trying to make is wrong. There is no violation of the law of non-contradiction because you are discussing the properties of completely different regions of space-time. You are still committing a categorical fallacy by thinking that the properties which might apply to a cosmological singuarity would apply to the whole of space-time.

No but we are speaking of the same matter/energy. Existing in two different forms with each other in the universe. As as a dense singularity and as we see it around us today. So matter/energy exists as a singularity somewhere in space-time and doesn't exist as a singularity somewhere in space-time. The same matter/energy taking different forms while existing side by side in the same space. Because you are not saying that the singularity was a past phenomenon that is no longer with us - but a phenomenon that is still very much with us.

[robrecht]

Not quite. There is matter which exists and has existed at points throughout space-time which did not exist in the singularity. Energy can be converted into matter, and matter into energy.

But all of this is just a red herring, anyway. Even if it was the exact same matter, the point you are trying to make is wrong. There is no violation of the law of non-contradiction because you are discussing the properties of completely different regions of space-time. You are still committing a categorical fallacy by thinking that the properties which might apply to a cosmological singu[l]arity would apply to the whole of space-time.

Hence the word 'singularity'. I would go even further (and I suspect you would too) and say that the singularity is itself incapable of being understood, despite dramatic attempts to do so that seem to be making headway.

[shunyadragon]

Hence the word 'singularity'. I would go even further (and I suspect you would too) and say that the singularity is itself incapable of being understood, despite dramatic attempts to do so that seem to be making headway.

I do not agree with this skeptical view of the future of science.

[robrecht]

I do not agree with this skeptical view of the future of science.

I did not express a skeptical view of the future of science, quite the contrary! Perhaps you did not understand my appreciation of dramatic attempts to progressively understand singularities.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Why? If we are discussing the universe as a whole, then it is all there, all of spacetime exists. Is that correct or not? If that doesn't mean that it all exists "now", then what does it mean?

Just as I said to Seer earlier in the thread, saying that the whole of space-time exists "now" is exactly akin to saying the whole of Earth exists "at the North Pole." At best, it's just sloppy language. At worst, it is blatantly false.

Because as I said, according to B-Theory, each individual moment exists along with each other moment, its all there, so why should I experience one brain state over any other when they all exist in conjunction with each other.

I highlighted the problematic portion. You're still under the impression that only one of your brain states is "real." You don't "experience one brain state over any other." You don't experience your brain states, at all. Your brain states are that which do the experiencing. There is no experiential "you" which is separate from those brain states.

No but we are speaking of the same matter/energy. Existing in two different forms with each other in the universe. As as a dense singularity and as we see it around us today. So matter/energy exists as a singularity somewhere in space-time and doesn't exist as a singularity somewhere in space-time. The same matter/energy taking different forms while existing side by side in the same space.

I've added all the highlighting which I can to emphasize the point on which you are mistaken. The matter/energy which may have been existent in a cosmological singularity does not occupy the same geometric space as matter today.

Because you are not saying that the singularity was a past phenomenon that is no longer with us - but a phenomenon that is still very much with us.

I most certainly am not saying any such thing. Once again, you are having exceptional difficulty in divorcing your thought from temporal language. The word "still" implies a temporal position. I have said that the singularity exists. I have not said that the singularity exists at a temporal position concurrent with our own.

Hence the word 'singularity'. I would go even further (and I suspect you would too) and say that the singularity is itself incapable of being understood, despite dramatic attempts to do so that seem to be making headway.

I actually would say that, though I'm not sure it's for the same reasons that you would. The word "singularity" describes a mathematical space whose behavior defies our understanding. If we ever came to actually understand the behavior of that space, we could no longer refer to it as a singularity.

[seer]

I've added all the highlighting which I can to emphasize the point on which you are mistaken. The matter/energy which may have been existent in a cosmological singularity does not occupy the same geometric space as matter today.

I most certainly am not saying any such thing. Once again, you are having exceptional difficulty in divorcing your thought from temporal language. The word "still" implies a temporal position. I have said that the singularity exists. I have not said that the singularity exists at a temporal position concurrent with our own.

So again matter/energy exists as a singularity and not as a singularity in the same universe - correct?

[robrecht]

I actually would say that, though I'm not sure it's for the same reasons that you would. The word "singularity" describes a mathematical space whose behavior defies our understanding. If we ever came to actually understand the behavior of that space, we could no longer refer to it as a singularity.

Yep, same reason. I am not investing the term with any additional theological implications or agenda.