Miracles

[seer]

None of this answers the question. What is an event? What is an occurrence? What do you mean by "between" events? In what manner is something "between" events?

An event would be a physical occurrence like when the the universe began to expand, or when stars started to form, or when I went to church yesterday morning. Or like when the earth rotates around the sun.

Why should it "look like" anything? A dimension can be measured, but the measurement is not the dimension. Time is the dimension which we measure by use of clocks.

How does time or clocks exist without physical events?

So, you don't believe it is possible to judge that things are possible? How did you come to that judgement?

No, I'm just humble enough to know that my, our, knowledge, is severely limited and finite - do you agree?

"Eternal into the past" is exactly equivalent to saying "temporally past-infinite."

I have no idea what that means - but it would not change the fact that time was not present when the egg was static.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

An event would be a physical occurrence like when the the universe began to expand, or when stars started to form, or when I went to church yesterday morning. Or like when the earth rotates around the sun.

I didn't ask for examples of events. I asked for a definition of an event.

How does time or clocks exist without physical events?

How does a physical event exist without time?

No, I'm just humble enough to know that my, our, knowledge, is severely limited and finite - do you agree?

I agree. I just don't see how that is relevant. Do you think that the limitations and finitude of human knowledge prevent us from determining whether anything is possible or impossible?

I have no idea what that means - but it would not change the fact that time was not present when the egg was static.

Yes, actually, it would. The cosmic egg is an effort to describe a universe which might be infinitely old, but which underwent a significant alteration around 13.7 billion years ago. The cosmic egg was not an event-less state.

[seer]

I didn't ask for examples of events. I asked for a definition of an event.

Boxing you are just being silly now. An event by definition is something that happens.

How does a physical event exist without time?

OK, so you have no idea how time can exist without physical events.

I agree. I just don't see how that is relevant. Do you think that the limitations and finitude of human knowledge prevent us from determining whether anything is possible or impossible?

No, I think we can rule out somethings. But questions surrounding time and creation I believe are beyond our present understanding.

Yes, actually, it would. The cosmic egg is an effort to describe a universe which might be infinitely old, but which underwent a significant alteration around 13.7 billion years ago. The cosmic egg was not an event-less state.

What events were happening in the cosmic egg?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Boxing you are just being silly now. An event by definition is something that happens.

...which requires time, does it not? How can something "happen" if time does not exist?

OK, so you have no idea how time can exist without physical events.

Of course not. I've been saying this for a number of pages now. Because, on the definition with which I am familiar, events are descriptions of particular points in time. Time cannot exist without points in time. That is why I have repeatedly stated that you are harping on a meaningless tautology.

On the other hand, you have stated that events can exist in the absence of time. On what definition of "event" can you reasonably state that an event exists in the absence of time?

No, I think we can rule out somethings. But questions surrounding time and creation I believe are beyond our present understanding.

And why do you believe this?

What events were happening in the cosmic egg?

It depends on the particular Cosmic Egg model under discussion. However, on a number of recent Cosmic Egg models, there would have been quantum fluctuations occurring in the "egg."

[seer]

...which requires time, does it not? How can something "happen" if time does not exist?

Of course not. I've been saying this for a number of pages now. Because, on the definition with which I am familiar, events are descriptions of particular points in time. Time cannot exist without points in time. That is why I have repeatedly stated that you are harping on a meaningless tautology.

On the other hand, you have stated that events can exist in the absence of time. On what definition of "event" can you reasonably state that an event exists in the absence of time?

Well what came first, time or the first event? And how can one mark time with only one event?

And why do you believe this?

Well first of all, during out little discussion I have been reading a lot about time from different sources - and there are a lot of ideas and theories. In other words, no one really knows what time is or what theory of time is correct. There is no consensus. Which in turn tells me that we really, at this point, do not understand time. Do you disagree?

It depends on the particular Cosmic Egg model under discussion. However, on a number of recent Cosmic Egg models, there would have been quantum fluctuations occurring in the "egg."

Yes, but the quantum fluctuation happens at the point of creation (who knows why), the egg was static or in a steady state for eternity past. There was no inner movement. So if this is correct, there was no time during that past steady state - right?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well what came first, time or the first event? And how can one mark time with only one event?

Again, these are nonsensical questions. They're entirely meaningless. "What came first" is a question which only makes sense when applied to things within time. Nor can there be any events in the absence of time and other events. You might as well ask, "Which is further to the left: Mars or the entirety of space?" Or perhaps, "Is the set of all integers an even number or an odd number?" Or how about, "What color is your weight?" None of these questions make any sense.

Well first of all, during out little discussion I have been reading a lot about time from different sources - and there are a lot of ideas and theories. In other words, no one really knows what time is or what theory of time is correct. There is no consensus. Which in turn tells me that we really, at this point, do not understand time. Do you disagree?

No, I do not agree. There is an overwhelming consensus view on time amongst the physicists and philosophers who specialize in its study, and that view is the B-Theory. There are things about time which we still do not understand, to be sure. However, that does not mean time is wholly mysterious and all guesses as to its nature are just as good as one another.

Yes, but the quantum fluctuation happens at the point of creation (who knows why), the egg was static or in a steady state for eternity past. There was no inner movement. So if this is correct, there was no time during that past steady state - right?

No, the quantum fluctuations in the Cosmic Egg models occur throughout an infinite past-history. The particular fluctuations which resulted in the Big Bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, but there were quantum fluctuations prior to that event which did not result in such a dramatic occurrence.

[seer]

Again, these are nonsensical questions. They're entirely meaningless. "What came first" is a question which only makes sense when applied to things within time. Nor can there be any events in the absence of time and other events. You might as well ask, "Which is further to the left: Mars or the entirety of space?" Or perhaps, "Is the set of all integers an even number or an odd number?" Or how about, "What color is your weight?" None of these questions make any sense.

So time was here before the first event? And it is not a nonsensical question it is just one you can not answer. And how does time even exist until a second event?

No, I do not agree. There is an overwhelming consensus view on time amongst the physicists and philosophers who specialize in its study, and that view is the B-Theory. There are things about time which we still do not understand, to be sure. However, that does not mean time is wholly mysterious and all guesses as to its nature are just as good as one another.

Really? The B-Theory of time is simply silly. My mother is not presently alive, she is dead in the grave. Well actually she may be in Heaven, but that is a different story

No, the quantum fluctuations in the Cosmic Egg models occur throughout an infinite past-history. The particular fluctuations which resulted in the Big Bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, but there were quantum fluctuations prior to that event which did not result in such a dramatic occurrence.

And there are static, steady state models. At least that is what I remember Vilenkin saying.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So time was here before the first event? And it is not a nonsensical question it is just one you can not answer,

It is a nonsensical question. For a question to make sense, it must address properties that a thing actually has. The word "before" describes a relationship within time. It does not make any sense to try to apply it to time itself.

Really? The B-Theory of time is simply silly.

The fact that you do not understand it does not make it silly. It has, in fact, been the consensus view of scholars who specialize in the study of time for more than half a century, and it has been studied as a legitimate model of time by scientists and philosophers for centuries.

And there are static, steady state models. At least that is what I remember Vilenkin saying.

If you could provide the context of Vilenkin's discussion, that would certainly be helpful.

[seer]

The fact that you do not understand it does not make it silly. It has, in fact, been the consensus view of scholars who specialize in the study of time for more than half a century, and it has been studied as a legitimate model of time by scientists and philosophers for centuries.

Is my mother still alive?

If you could provide the context of Vilenkin's discussion, that would certainly be helpful.

I believe one source was in the link, where he speaks of the "static seed" theory:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Is my mother still alive?

Considering you've just told us that she is not, I'd have to say, "No." Neither does the B-Theory imply that she is, so I don't see how that's relevant.

I believe one source was in the link, where he speaks of the "static seed" theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

If you actually watch the video, Vilenkin discusses the events which occur during the "egg" part of the history on that model. There is a rolling scalar field which differentiates events. It is not static in the manner which you are inferring.

[seer]

Considering you've just told us that she is not, I'd have to say, "No." Neither does the B-Theory imply that she is, so I don't see how that's relevant.

Is this definition correct?

The B-theory of time is the name given to one of two positions regarding philosophy of time. B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality

So are the past present and future equally real? If so where is my mom?

If you actually watch the video, Vilenkin discusses the events which occur during the "egg" part of the history on that model. There is a rolling scalar field which differentiates events. It is not static in the manner which you are inferring.

I will watch it again, but I think you are incorrect.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Is this definition correct?

Yep, that's generally accurate.

So are the past present and future equally real? If so where is my mom?

In order to locate an object within spacetime, one needs not only its spatial coordinates but also its temporal position. Human language is tensed, and the present tense of a verb is a shorthand method for noting that one is referring to the temporal period which coincides with the instantiation of that verb's usage. That is to say, by asking "Where is my mom?" you are already clarifying that you want to know her spatial position for a given temporal position. Had you said, "Where was my mom on April 23, 1972?" or "Where will my mom be on December 8, 2054?" you would similarly be delineating particular positions in time and inquiring after a spatial position. If, on the other hand, you were to ask, "Where is my mom in the whole of spacetime?" then the answer would need to be a function describing all of the spatiotempoal positions which your mom has ever held, currently holds, or will ever hold.

So, given that, the answer to your question, "Where is my mom?" is simply, "Wherever her gravesite is located."

I will watch it again, but I think you are incorrect.

His discussion of the topic begins at about the 15:57 timestamp.

[seer]

Yep, that's generally accurate.

In order to locate an object within spacetime, one needs not only its spatial coordinates but also its temporal position. Human language is tensed, and the present tense of a verb is a shorthand method for noting that one is referring to the temporal period which coincides with the instantiation of that verb's usage. That is to say, by asking "Where is my mom?" you are already clarifying that you want to know her spatial position for a given temporal position. Had you said, "Where was my mom on April 23, 1972?" or "Where will my mom be on December 8, 2054?" you would similarly be delineating particular positions in time and inquiring after a spatial position. If, on the other hand, you were to ask, "Where is my mom in the whole of spacetime?" then the answer would need to be a function describing all of the spatiotempoal positions which your mom has ever held, currently holds, or will ever hold.

So, given that, the answer to your question, "Where is my mom?" is simply, "Wherever her gravesite is located."

But if the past is EQUALLY as real as the PRESENT then why is she not still alive?

His discussion of the topic begins at about the 15:57 timestamp.

Yes I know, I watched it again. He is not endorsing a rolling scalar field but presenting is as one solution for why the static seed would finally hatch if you will. It doesn't work though. So there is no reason to think that all static seed models necessarily had some kind of inner movement. I mean he asks the million dollar question - why would the static seed do anything.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But if the past is EQUALLY as real as the PRESENT then why is she not still alive?

Because "still" indicates that you are talking about a particular temporal position. New York is equally as real as Tokyo. That doesn't mean Yoichi Masuzoe is in New York.

Yes I know, I watched it again. He is not endorsing a rolling scalar field but presenting is as one solution for why the static seed would finally hatch if you will. It doesn't work though. So there is no reason to think that all static seed models necessarily had some kind of inner movement.

No one claimed he was "endorsing" that model. His entire presentation was focused on critiquing past-infinite temporal models of the universe. He discusses the rolling scalar field as a prime example of Cosmic Egg models. He does not imply that this is the only such model.

Can you name a Cosmic Egg model which does not include a notion of a past-infinite history to spacetime? It seems rather integral to the concept.

[seer]

Because "still" indicates that you are talking about a particular temporal position. New York is equally as real as Tokyo. That doesn't mean Yoichi Masuzoe is in New York.

Nonsensical semantics Boxing. The past is not equally as real as the present or my mom would be alive.

Can you name a Cosmic Egg model which does not include a notion of a past-infinite history to spacetime? It seems rather integral to the concept.

Not now, but in the past I was lead to believe that they were static.