Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Then give me an example of something that is temporal. Am I temporal?

Yes, you are temporal. You exist along the dimension of Time.

Yes, but you still have the singularity existing with expanding matter. Matter is both infinitely dense and not infinitely dense. Saying that we don't reside in that region of space does not change the fact that somewhere in space time the same matter is acting in two different ways.

At no single place in space-time is the same matter acting in two different ways.

How about this - in space time matter IS both a singularity and not a singularity?

No, because I've also explicitly corrected you on this particular misconception. Matter is not a singularity, at all. A particular region of space-time is a singularity, on certain models. Other regions of space-time are not singularities.

[seer]

Yes, you are temporal. You exist along the dimension of Time.

Really? You mean someday I will no longer exist?

At no single place in space-time is the same matter acting in two different ways.

But in space time as a whole they both do exist equally, side by side - as it were...

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Really? You mean someday I will no longer exist?

No, I mean that you exist on the temporal dimension. There are positions in time which you do not occupy in exactly the same way as there are positions in space which you do not occupy.

But in space time as a whole they both do exist equally, side by side - as it were...

Yes, both do exist equally. No, they don't exist "side by side." This is, in no way, a violation of Non-Contradiction.

[tabibito]

At no single place in space-time is the same matter acting in two different ways.

So - would this be dark matter and ordinary matter, or something else?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So - would this be dark matter and ordinary matter, or something else?

The matter in the proposed singularity? Or are you talking about some other matter? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking about.

[tabibito]

It would seem from your comments that there are two different kinds of matter in view, having different properties. Assuming that to be correct, would that be dark matter and what we know as matter in our corner of the universe, or is some other alternative in view?

The singularity of the big bang - does it continue to exist as a singularity, or did it "morph" to become the universe?

[seer]

No, I mean that you exist on the temporal dimension. There are positions in time which you do not occupy in exactly the same way as there are positions in space which you do not occupy.

Boxing if something is temporary it is not permanent. So will I ever cease to exist?

Yes, both do exist equally. No, they don't exist "side by side." This is, in no way, a violation of Non-Contradiction.

OK, but I see that as a contradiction. Say you have a fish bowl, and that fish bowl represents all of space time - that fish could be both dead and alive in the same bowl. Time in the bowl is static, tenseless. so the condition of dead and alive are equally true.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It would seem from your comments that there are two different kinds of matter in view, having different properties. Assuming that to be correct, would that be dark matter and what we know as matter in our corner of the universe, or is some other alternative in view?

I wasn't discussing two different kinds of matter. I was simply discussing one bit of matter which occupies multiple regions of space-time.

The singularity of the big bang - does it continue to exist as a singularity, or did it "morph" to become the universe?

The singularity is not a physical entity which exists within the universe. It is a description of the geometry of the universe. What you are asking is like asking if the North Pole "morphs" to become the surface of the Earth. The North Pole is the label we give to a specific region of the surface of the Earth. Similarly, the "singularity" is the label which we give to a specific region of space-time.

[seer]

It would seem from your comments that there are two different kinds of matter in view, having different properties. Assuming that to be correct, would that be dark matter and what we know as matter in our corner of the universe, or is some other alternative in view?

The singularity of the big bang - does it singularity to exist as a singularity, or did it "morph" to become the universe?

No tabibito, Boxing does believe that the singularity does continue as it is somewhere in space time.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Boxing if something is temporary it is not permanent. So will I ever cease to exist?

Yet another equivocation. You asked me if you are temporal, not if you are temporary. Those are two wholly different concepts. The question, "Will I cease to exist?" already presumes the A-Theory. There exist temporal positions which you do not occupy, on the B-Theory.

OK, but I see that as a contradiction. Say you have a fish bowl, and that fish bowl represents all of space time - that fish could be both dead and alive in the same bowl. Time in the bowl is static, tenseless. so the condition of dead and alive are equally true.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. In what way would the fish bowl represent all of space-time? Which dimension of the bowl represents time? How does the fish's position relate to the position of objects in space-time?

[seer]

Yet another equivocation. You asked me if you are temporal, not if you are temporary. Those are two wholly different concepts. The question, "Will I cease to exist?" already presumes the A-Theory. There exist temporal positions which you do not occupy, on the B-Theory.

But I will never cease to exist, somewhere in space-time - correct?

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. In what way would the fish bowl represent all of space-time? Which dimension of the bowl represents time? How does the fish's position relate to the position of objects in space-time?

But in fact am I not both dead and alive - somewhere in space time I'm dead, somewhere in space time I'm alive?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But I will never cease to exist, somewhere in space-time - correct?

"Never" is more sloppy, temporal language. It is sufficient to simply say that you do exist in space-time.

But in fact am I not both dead and alive - somewhere in space time I'm dead, somewhere in space time I'm alive?

Yes, somewhere in space-time you are dead, somewhere in space-time you are alive.

[seer]

Yes, somewhere in space-time you are dead, somewhere in space-time you are alive.

OK, back to the fish bowl. Are we not simply reduced to position? In one corner of the fish bowl I'm dead in another corner I'm alive. If the fish bowl represents all of space time then time is not really a consideration because time is actually tenseless - static if you will. You have told us that our experience of the flow of time is an illusion - which means the flow of time is not real. Or relevant.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, back to the fish bowl. Are we not simply reduced to position? In one corner of the fish bowl I'm dead in another corner I'm alive. If the fish bowl represents all of space time then time is not really a consideration because time is actually tenseless - static if you will. You have told us that our experience of the flow of time is an illusion - which means the flow of time is not real. Or relevant.

If the fish bowl represents all of space-time, then time most certainly is a consideration. The fact that it is tenseless does not imply that it is irrelevant. Nor does a lack of time's flow imply that all individual moments of time are indistinguishable from one another.

So, again, I'd have to ask how your fish bowl is supposed to be analogous to space-time. Which dimension of the fish bowl is meant to represent time?

[seer]

If the fish bowl represents all of space-time, then time most certainly is a consideration. The fact that it is tenseless does not imply that it is irrelevant. Nor does a lack of time's flow imply that all individual moments of time are indistinguishable from one another.

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

So, again, I'd have to ask how your fish bowl is supposed to be analogous to space-time. Which dimension of the fish bowl is meant to represent time?

The static water is time.