Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm not getting this, so our experience of individual moments is not an illusion? I'm confused.

The existence of individual moments is not an illusion. The impression that these moments are in motion from one to the next is what is an illusion.

The static water is time.

Water is not a dimension-- it is, in fact, three dimensional. So, in what way is the water supposed to be analogous to time?

[seer]

The existence of individual moments is not an illusion. The impression that these moments are in motion from one to the next is what is an illusion.

OK, so there is no actual motion with moments, so we are back to static time, filled with static moments.

Water is not a dimension-- it is, in fact, three dimensional. So, in what way is the water supposed to be analogous to time?

No analogy is perfect that is why they are analogies. But both would be static. So in one of these static moments the fish is dead in another static moment the fish is alive. In the same fish bowl.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, so there is no actual motion with moments, so we are back to static time, filled with static moments.

I've been attempting to discuss that the entire time.

No analogy is perfect that is why they are analogies. But both would be static. So in one of these static moments the fish is dead in another static moment the fish is alive. In the same fish bowl.

Well, this is the first time I've ever heard water described as "static," but if being static is the only thing your proposed fish-water has in common with Time, it makes for a very poor analogy. I agree that no analogy is perfect, but an analogy which has almost nothing in common with the concept you're attempting to depict is worse than no analogy at all.

[seer]

I've been attempting to discuss that the entire time.

Well, this is the first time I've ever heard water described as "static," but if being static is the only thing your proposed fish-water has in common with Time, it makes for a very poor analogy. I agree that no analogy is perfect, but an analogy which has almost nothing in common with the concept you're attempting to depict is worse than no analogy at all.

But you do agree that at one static moment of time I am dead, and at another static moment of time alive? In the same space -time.

[JimL]

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.

No, it is akin to saying that the whole of the earth exists now, which it does. If the whole of spacetime exists in the same sense as the whole of the earth exist, then why can the latter but not the former be said to all exist "now."

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.

What is a brain state BP? I mean if the flow of time is an illusion, and motion through space is an illusion, then exactly what is a brain, and a brain state, each of which are frozen in time mind you, that is under this illusion?

[JimL]

But you do agree that at one static moment of time I am dead, and at another static moment of time alive? In the same space -time.

Hmmm, you're Schroedingers cat. Accepting that Schoedingers cat is both dead and alive at the same moment in spacetime. Seriously though, I think this is the part that BP is glossing over. If the passage of time is an illusion, then time is static which means that in reality there really is no such thing as time. If time is static, then that would mean that all brain states are frozen in time as well, and I don't see how each incremental frozen brain state can be said to experience anything.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But you do agree that at one static moment of time I am dead, and at another static moment of time alive? In the same space -time.

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.

No, it is akin to saying that the whole of the earth exists now, which it does. If the whole of spacetime exists in the same sense as the whole of the earth exist, then why can the latter but not the former be said to all exist "now."

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.

What is a brain state BP? I mean if the flow of time is an illusion, and motion through space is an illusion, then exactly what is a brain, and a brain state, each of which are frozen in time mind you, that is under this illusion?

"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.

Hmmm, you're Schroedingers cat. Accepting that Schoedingers cat is both dead and alive at the same moment in spacetime.

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

Seriously though, I think this is the part that BP is glossing over. If the passage of time is an illusion, then time is static which means that in reality there really is no such thing as time.

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.

[seer]

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.

So in the same universe I am both dead and alive, and you don't see that as a contradiction?

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.

But there is no actual flow of time so why would we experience something that doesn't really happen?

[robrecht]

But you do agree that at one static moment of time I am dead, and at another static moment of time alive? In the same space -time.

In the same space-time ocean that you are trying to illustrate with the water in your fish bowl, but not at the same point in space-time geometry. Actually, seer, I would think you would like this B-theory of time. It seems like it is sort of like trying to adopt or at least appreciate God's eternal and timeless perspective on creation.

[robrecht]

So in the same universe I am both dead and alive, and you don't see that as a contradiction?

No, because these seemingly contradictory states of your being occur at different points in the 4-dimensional space-time geometry. Does God 'experience' all of creation through your eyes only? Do you need to be alive for God to be 'aware' of the universe?

But there is no actual flow of time so why would we experience something that doesn't really happen?

Because we occupy a limited portion of the space-time geometry, and our experience of the space-time geometry is even more limited.

[seer]

No, because these seemingly contradictory states of your being occur at different points in the 4-dimensional space-time geometry. Does God 'experience' all of creation through your eyes only? Do you need to be alive for God to be 'aware' of the universe?

But that is one of the problems there really aren't different points of time since time is static. There could be different areas of space, but I still would be both dead and alive at the same time because time is static.

Because we occupy a limited portion of the space-time geometry, and our experience of the space-time geometry is even more limited.

But our experience of the flow of time is still false since there really is no flow of time. Saying that we only occupy a limited portion of space does not tell us why we experience something that isn't actually happening.

In the same space-time ocean that you are trying to illustrate with the water in your fish bowl, but not at the same point in space-time geometry. Actually, seer, I would think you would like this B-theory of time. It seems like it is sort of like trying to adopt or at least appreciate God's eternal and timeless perspective on creation.

Yes, I mentioned that earlier, that the B-Theory of time sounds like the mind of God.

[robrecht]

But that is one of the problems there really aren't different points of time since time is static. There could be different areas of space, but I still would be both dead and alive at the same time because time is static.

No, there are different geometrical points of time precisely because time is being conceived of as static in this model. When you say "at the same time" you are reverting back to the A-model of time and not appreciating the geometrical B-model. According to the geometrical B-model, you are not both dead and alive at the same geometrical point within the geometry of time.

But our experience of the flow of time is still false since there really is no flow of time. Saying that we only occupy a limited portion of space does not tell us why we experience something that isn't actually happening.

It is not merely that we occupy a limited portion of space, but a limited portion of space-time.

Yes, I mentioned that earlier, that the B-Theory of time sounds like the mind of God.

Then why don't you try and understand it from that analogy?

[seer]

No, there are different geometrical points of time precisely because time is being conceived of as static in this model. When you say "at the same time" you are reverting back to the A-model of time and not appreciating the geometrical B-model. According to the geometrical B-model, you are not both dead and alive at the same geometrical point within the geometry of time.

Again that does not make sense. If time is static then it is the same where ever I go, I may be in different location, but time is always exactly the same. As a matter of fact I don't see how a static "thing" could have any influence or relevance what so ever. It doesn't do anything.

It is not merely that we occupy a limited portion of space, but a limited portion of space-time.

That still does not tell us why we have these false illusions. Why would occupying a limited portion of space-time cause such powerful delusions?

Then why don't you try and understand it from that analogy?

Well I don't think we can fully understand the mind of God, of for that fact time.

[robrecht]

Again that does not make sense. If time is static then it is the same where ever I go, I may be in different location, but time is always exactly the same. As a matter of fact I don't see how a static "thing" could have any influence or relevance what so ever. It doesn't do anything.

I am not as patient as Boxing, so I may not continue to do this. Time is not the same wherever you go if we are talking about the geometry of space-time. You are here speaking merely of a geometry of space but not a geometry of space-time.

That still does not tell us why we have these false illusions. Why would occupying a limited portion of space-time cause such powerful delusions?

Again, because we only occupy a limited portion of space-time. We do not exist at every point in the space-time geometry, but only in a limited number. I would not refer to this as a delusion, but rather merely as a limited perspective, limited in at least three ways, first, by the amount of space-time that we occupy; second, by our familiar experience and general dislike for theoretical models; and, third, by our limited intelligence, some of us being much more limited than others.

Well I don't think we can fully understand the mind of God, of for that fact time.

I am certain that we cannot; but I merely suggested that you try and understand it from that analogy.

[seer]

I am not as patient as Boxing, so I may not continue to do this. Time is not the same wherever you go if we are talking about the geometry of space-time. You are here speaking merely of a geometry of space but not a geometry of space-time.

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.