Miracles

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes. Often when I'm talking to a person who demonstrates ignorance about Christ Mythicism, but is relying on Carrier's work

The analogy breaks down, here. Seer was not relying on Dr. Craig's work. He was working through the concepts on his own.

I find asking questions I can anticipate the answers to a bit of a time waster for both parties.

This seems to simply be a philosophical difference in our styles of conversation. Personally, I find answering objections which have not been raised to be a time waster and a slippery slope towards building Straw Men to be struck down. I much prefer to allow the people with whom I converse to answer my questions for themselves, rather than to presume they're likely to regurgitate an objection with which I am already familiar.

[Adrift]

The analogy breaks down, here. Seer was not relying on Dr. Craig's work. He was working through the concepts on his own.

This seems to simply be a philosophical difference in our styles of conversation. Personally, I find answering objections which have not been raised to be a time waster and a slippery slope towards building Straw Men to be struck down. I much prefer to allow the people with whom I converse to answer my questions for themselves, rather than to presume they're likely to regurgitate an objection with which I am already familiar.

Fair enough. I guess when I see questions like "How can a thing be causally prior without being chronologically prior?", the implication is that the concept is absolute and total nonsense, and that no ones ever offered an answer to it, or that you are completely unaware of any answer to it. But you knew there was an answer to it, it was just not one that you agree with. This could lead someone to believe that you didn't want to mention Craig's answer to this question because you were afraid to tip your hand or to offer seer any ammunition. Do you see what I'm saying?

But I'll accept that it may just be a stylistic difference in how we approach conversations.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Fair enough. I guess when I see questions like "How can a thing be causally prior without being chronologically prior?", the implication is that the concept is absolute and total nonsense,

I do understand why you might think that, as I've seen people use these questions in a rhetorical manner, as if merely questioning a proposition is enough to refute it. I assure you that I have no such intention. I really do ask my questions honestly, and I truly am interested in the responses.

and that no ones ever offered an answer to it, or that you are completely unaware of any answer to it.

Another option, and the one with which I identify, is that I may have heard some answers to a question, but I do not pretend to have heard every answer to that question. Rather than assume that my conversation partner will reply with an answer which I have heard, I like to allow him to provide his own response. In cases where someone has simply been regurgitating another person's work, as in your analogy with the Carrier Quoters, I agree that I can be reasonably certain that he'll continue to do so; in such cases, sometimes I will address further points before he makes them.

Another reason that I ask questions without offering any possible responses is Socratic. Questions make everyone in the conversation think. Sometimes, even those people who simply toss out trite, well-rehearsed responses gleaned from others will stop and rethink their position when a question strikes them in a certain way.

[JimL]

Space is a subset of spacetime. It's completely accurate to say that distance is a measure of a certain extent through spacetime. Elapsed time is a measure of displacement between points in the temporal dimension, just as distance is a measure of displacement between points in spatial dimensions.

And how is the displacement between points in the temporal dimension measured? Are you suggesting that consciousness is like a spirit apart from the body and that it passes through a reality that already exists?

No, it makes the passage of time illusory. Think of a film clip, for a moment. The passage of time in a film clip is completely illusory. Each frame of the film is coextant-- the first frame does not cease to exist when it is no longer on the screen and the second frame is viewed; similarly the final frame exists even when it is not yet on the screen. It is a trick of our perception which makes it seem like there is motion on the screen, when in fact we are simply looking at a succession of still frames. However, there does remain a sequential ordering of those still frames.

So B-time would be equated with the Block universe hypotheses. So I'm curious as to how you, as a B-time proponent, would explain the experience that you have of the passage of time?

Actual time is exactly the same. Past moments do not cease to exist, nor are future moments non-existent. It is a trick of our perception which makes it seem like time is passing. While individual moments do seem to fall along a particular sequence of order (aligned to increasing entropy), all moments in time are equally co-extant. It is only the fact that we are restricted to perceiving time moment-by-moment which gives us the impression that time is passing, just as it is only the fact that we are restricted to seeing a film frame-by-frame which gives us the impression that there is motion in the movie.

Well, that may be true, but only if your B-theory of time is true. But if all of time, past, present and future exist, like your analogy of the film clip, then what are you proposing it is that is passing through, or perceiving each moment of time. What I mean is that either time is passing or something is passing through time, so if time is not passing, then what do you propose it is that is passing through time.

[seer]

Yes, you do still have a cosmos without a cause. I see no reason why we should need to invoke a cause for the cosmos.

I think that would be acceptable if the universe was past eternal, not finite, because if it is finite it needs a beginning. And if it began to exist then I assume that it would need a cause.

Sure. I've seen some models with 23 different dimensions. However, they are all physical dimensions which are still a part of the cosmos. I assumed that you meant some unknown dimension which is not a part of the cosmos.

OK, so other dimensions are possible. Is there any logical reason to suggest that all possible dimensions must be restricted to this present cosmos?

The singularity is not an entity that exists unto itself. It is a description of a particular region of spacetime

.


Here is a definition I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.

If this is the case then I don't see how space or time could have any reality until the expansion began.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

And how is the displacement between points in the temporal dimension measured?

With clocks.

Are you suggesting that consciousness is like a spirit apart from the body and that it passes through a reality that already exists?

I am seriously at a loss as to how you came to that proposition. I haven't mentioned anything about consciousness or spirits or even mind-body dualism.

So B-time would be equated with the Block universe hypotheses. So I'm curious as to how you, as a B-time proponent, would explain the experience that you have of the passage of time?

It seems to me that the passage of time is an illusion caused by the accumulation of memory. Each moment seems like a succession from the previous because we have memory of the previous moments but not the next.

Well, that may be true, but only if your B-theory of time is true.

Yep, it would not be accurate on the A-Theory.

What I mean is that either time is passing or something is passing through time

Actually, I don't believe either to be the case. Rather, things within the universe exist as functions of spacetime, and the appearance of time's passage is only illusory.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I think that would be acceptable if the universe was past eternal, not finite, because if it is finite it needs a beginning. And if it began to exist then I assume that it would need a cause.

If it's finite, it has a past-boundary; it does not have a beginning in the sense that there was a time when it did not exist. As such, I see no reason to assume that it would need a cause.

OK, so other dimensions are possible. Is there any logical reason to suggest that all possible dimensions must be restricted to this present cosmos?

I have no idea what it would mean for a dimension to be separate from the cosmos. It doesn't seem like a meaningful concept. If you can present such a situation, though, I'd be happy to discuss it.

Here is a definition I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

If this is the case then I don't see how space or time could have any reality until the expansion began.

According to that definition, the initial singularity includes spacetime. It doesn't make sense to claim that spacetime had no reality until expansion began.

[seer]

If it's finite, it has a past-boundary; it does not have a beginning in the sense that there was a time when it did not exist. As such, I see no reason to assume that it would need a cause.

So we have a cosmos without a cause. And that is coherent to you?

I have no idea what it would mean for a dimension to be separate from the cosmos. It doesn't seem like a meaningful concept. If you can present such a situation, though, I'd be happy to discuss it.

Well of course as an atheist you would not entertain such a thing.

According to that definition, the initial singularity includes spacetime. It doesn't make sense to claim that spacetime had no reality until expansion began.

But time or space would not be actual in the singularity, only latent. From what I have read time needs events, time depends on events. There are no events until the singularity begins to expand.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So we have a cosmos without a cause. And that is coherent to you?

Yes, it it. Again, I see no reason why the cosmos needs to have a cause, nor does it make any sense to claim that it could have a cause.

Well of course as an atheist you would not entertain such a thing.

I actually just said that I would entertain such a notion, if you could present one.

But time or space would not be actual in the singularity, only latent. From what I have read time needs events, time depends on events. There are no events until the singularity begins to expand.

The singularity is an event. It's a single event in time. Again, the phrase "time doesn't exist until X" is nonsensical. "Until" is a description of temporal duration. It has absolutely no meaning in the absence of time.

[JimL]

With clocks.

But clocks unlike measuring devices that measure distance are in motion, without motion time can't be measured.

I am seriously at a loss as to how you came to that proposition. I haven't mentioned anything about consciousness or spirits or even mind-body dualism.

Well if time doesn't move, and we are not physically moving through time, then what is the source of change if not something separate from physical reality.

It seems to me that the passage of time is an illusion caused by the accumulation of memory. Each moment seems like a succession from the previous because we have memory of the previous moments but not the next.

But for B-time proponents all of reality, past present and future, exist in the now, so what is it that is passing from the past to the present and on into the future to accumulate more memory of this already existing reality? If time doesn't move, and if nothing moves through time, then what is going on?

Yep, it would not be accurate on the A-Theory.

Right, though both could be determined, A-time is dynamic, B-time is static.

Actually, I don't believe either to be the case. Rather, things within the universe exist as functions of spacetime, and the appearance of time's passage is only illusory.

But that doesn't explain your position. Things within the universe are relational true, but that doesn't explain the passage of time, or the illusion thereof within those realations.

[seer]

Yes, it it. Again, I see no reason why the cosmos needs to have a cause, nor does it make any sense to claim that it could have a cause.

Yes everything we see in the world follows a cause and effect model.

I actually just said that I would entertain such a notion, if you could present one.

Yet you can believe in a finite cosmos that was causeless, when nothing else in nature follows that model. A bit of double standard don't you think? Beside you know as a Christian I am not obligated to prove realms that may be far beyond our understanding or our science. We could probably could only reasonably know about such worlds through Revelation.

The singularity is an event. It's a single event in time. Again, the phrase "time doesn't exist until X" is nonsensical. "Until" is a description of temporal duration. It has absolutely no meaning in the absence of time.

No, the singularity, according to the definition I linked, was a thing: The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density.

And no, while the singularity was a singularity, no matter how short that period was, there was no time, nor could there be, since time is dependent on events. No events, no time. Agreed?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But clocks unlike measuring devices that measure distance are in motion, without motion time can't be measured.

And without length distance can't be measured. I'm not sure what your point is, here. It seems tautological to state that measuring devices for some specific dimension must be able to demarcate regular intervals of that dimension.

Well if time doesn't move, and we are not physically moving through time, then what is the source of change if not something separate from physical reality.

Change is a function over a particular dimension. It's simply the contrast of properties between two or more points.

But for B-time proponents all of reality, past present and future, exist in the now, so what is it that is passing from the past to the present and on into the future to accumulate more memory of this already existing reality? If time doesn't move, and if nothing moves through time, then what is going on?

Nothing is actually passing. The function simply has a pattern which allows for the discernment of previous moments of time, which leads to the illusion of time's passage.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes everything we see in the world follows a cause and effect model.

Even if I were to grant this point for the sake of argument, it is a composition fallacy. The properties of subsets are not necessarily applicable to the properties of parent sets. Hydrogen atoms contain one proton, one neutron, and one electron. That does not imply that Hydrogen gas therefore contains only one proton, one neutron, and one electron. Similarly, even if there is a causal relationship between subsets of spacetime, that does not imply that spacetime itself must also bear some causal relationship to something else.

Yet you can believe in a finite cosmos that was causeless, when nothing else in nature follows that model. A bit of double standard don't you think?

Not at all. I don't subscribe to the notion that everything in nature necessarily follows a cause-effect model.

Beside you know as a Christian I am not obligated to prove realms that may be far beyond our understanding or our science.

I don't think you are obligated to have any conversation, at all. I was rather sure you had entered into this discussion voluntarily. If you would like me to entertain the notion that such things might exist, then you should define and present them in the discussion. I can't possibly entertain and discuss an undefined notion in any meaningful way.

No, the singularity, according to the definition I linked, was a thing: The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density.

That's only a small fraction of the description which you had quoted, earlier:

The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe

Regardless, events are things, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

And no, while the singularity was a singularity, no matter how short that period was, there was no time

Again, this is entirely nonsensical. If there was even an infinitesimally small period of time, there was time. If there was no time, what are you describing as being a "short period?" How was it at all periodic?

...nor could there be, since time is dependent on events. No events, no time. Agreed?

Again, I don't agree that there were no events, there.

[JimL]

And without length distance can't be measured. I'm not sure what your point is, here. It seems tautological to state that measuring devices for some specific dimension must be able to demarcate regular intervals of that dimension.

Yes, but thats my point, there is length, but your contension is, according to the B-time hypotheses, that there is no motion, so if there is something that measures time, which is not a clock since clocks according to the B-time hypotheses don't move, what is it that is doing the measuring?

Change is a function over a particular dimension. It's simply the contrast of properties between two or more points.

But what is the source that measures the function over a particular dimension. Its one thing to assert that all of time exists, it is another to assert that it can be experienced or measured without naming a source which does the experiencing or measuring.

Nothing is actually passing. The function simply has a pattern which allows for the discernment of previous moments of time, which leads to the illusion of time's passage.

How and what is doing the discerning of the static pattern of time?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, but thats my point, there is length, but your contension is, according to the B-time hypotheses, that there is no motion

No, according to the B-Theory, time itself is not in motion. Motion is a function of spatial position over time. It certainly exists on the B-Theory.

But what is the source that measures the function over a particular dimension. Its one thing to assert that all of time exists, it is another to assert that it can be experienced or measured without naming a source which does the experiencing or measuring.

I really don't understand what you are asking, here. I figured it was obvious that the "source which does the experiencing or measuring" is whoever is having the experience or performing the measurement, regardless of whether one is measuring distance or elapsed time or anything else.