Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[Jichard]

But that only shows that seer understands the source differently than you do, or that he doesn't understand it properly. It doesn't show that he is intentionally misrepresenting it. To be fair, I think it's very difficult to show that at all, which is why the charge should not be lightly made.

No, he's intentionally misrepresenting. When a source clearly says "X" in what one has quoted, and one instead claims the source said "not-X", then one is intentionally misrepresenting the source. It's not a matter of misunderstanding, unless you're suggesting that seer is no confused as to not be able to understand basic English. For example, if I say "cats exist" and someone quotes what I said and then claims I did not say that cats exist, that person in intentionally misrepresenting what I said. And they wouldn't be able to get out of that charge by pretending not to know what "cats exist" means. Of course, seer often blatantly misrepresents what other people have said (including about what I've said), so it's not surprise to see him doing it to Carroll here.

[JimL]

But the B-theory leads to contradictions like I suggested. The universe is both a singularity and not a singularity. A universe that has both suffered heat death and not suffered heat death. A universe where you are, and always will be, both dead and alive. You know Jim, perhaps the real problem is that we really don't understand time at all.

Yes, according to B-Theory, and according to physics as they are so far understood, the whole of time, like the whole of space, exists. From the singularity to heat death it is all there, even though, supposedly through a trick of the mind, we only experience it in increments. But you are correct, other than the physics, time really isn't understood.

Does anybody really know what time it is?

[Jichard]

But the B-theory leads to contradictions like I suggested. The universe is both a singularity and not a singularity. A universe that has both suffered heat death and not suffered heat death. A universe where you are, and always will be, both dead and alive.

That is not what the B-theory implies. For there to be a contradiction on what you said, the B-theory would need to imply that:

• The universe is both a singularity and not a singularity, at the same time
• A universe that has both suffered heat death and not suffered heat death at the same time
• I am both dead and alive, at the same time

and so on.

But the B theory does not imply any of that. Instead, B-thoery is compatible with:

• A universe that has both suffered heat death and not suffered heat death at different times
  [That is: "the universe has suffered heat death at one time, and not suffered heat death at a different time"]
• I am both dead and alive, at different times
  [That is: "I am alive at one time, and dead at a different time"]

and so on. There's no more a contradiction there, then there is in my saying that I was five-year-sold at one time and not five-years old at a different time.

So there's no contradiction implies there. Boxing Pythagoras already explained this to you. Yet you still persist in willfully misrepresenting the B-theory as saying otherwise. No surprise there, given your pattern of intentionally misrepresenting sources, positions, etc.

This is almost right, but bears an ambiguity worth addressing-- though I completely understand that attempting to formulate things atemporally is exceedingly difficult and confusing. I would generally avoid saying things like, "what you did last week exists now" or "the future exists now." The word "now" indicates a specific temporal position. That'd be like saying, "Tokyo exists at the North Pole." Yes, technically, Tokyo still exists for a person occupying the North Pole, but the statement can easily be confused for meaning Tokyo is located at the North Pole.

Better to simply say, "what you did last week exists" or "the future exists."

So my mom is still alive? Sounds like heaven...

No. "Still" indicates a particular temporal location. It would be proper to say that there exist points in time in which your mother is alive.

So I am both dead and alive?

Not in the same moment of time, you aren't.

What does this B-Theory of time do to the law of non-contradiction?

This no more violates the law of non-contradiction than does the fact that I can straddle my property line and be on both my property and my neighbor's property.

[JimL]

That is not what the B-theory implies. For there to be a contradiction on what you said, the B-theory would need to imply that:

• The universe is both a singularity and not a singularity, at the same time
• A universe that has both suffered heat death and not suffered heat death at the same time
• I am both dead and alive, at the same time

and so on.

But the B theory does not imply any of that. Instead, B-thoery is compatible with:

• A universe that has both suffered heat death and not suffered heat death at different times
  [That is: "the universe has suffered heat death at one time, and not suffered heat death at a different time"]
• I am both dead and alive, at different times
  [That is: "I am alive at one time, and dead at a different time"]

and so on. There's no more a contradiction there, then there is in my saying that I was five-year-sold at one time and not five-years old at a different time.

So there's no contradiction implies there. Boxing Pythagoras already explained this to you. Yet you still persist in willfully misrepresenting the B-theory as saying otherwise. No surprise there, given your pattern of intentionally misrepresenting sources, positions, etc.

I think seers confusion is ligitimate on this one. I'm confused as well, even with the above explanation. If the whole of time exists, if each temporal location exists in the same sense that all of space exists, then to imply that they don't all exist now doesn't seem to make much sense. Its like saying that all of spacetime exists, but it doesn't all exist now. That seems to be a contradiction to me. What doesn't exist, it seems to me, is our minds experience of all that exists now, even though it does all exists now.

[Jichard]

I think seers confusion is ligitimate on this one. I'm confused as well, even with the above explanation. If the whole of time exists, if each temporal location exists in the same sense that all of space exists, then to imply that they don't all exist now doesn't seem to make much sense. Its like saying that all of spacetime exists, but it doesn't all exist now. That seems to be a contradiction to me. What doesn't exist, it seems to me, is our minds experience of all that exists now, even though it does all exists now.

It all exists, but it doesn't all exist now, since "now" is a temporal notion referring to a particular time, just as "here" can be a spatial notion referring to a particular space. On the B-theory of time, all of spacetime exists, but not all of spacetime occurs at a particular time.

To put the point another way, what you're saying would be akin to saying:

If the whole of space exists, if each space location exists in the same sense that all of space exists, then to imply that they don't all exist at the same place doesn't seem to make much sense.

The problem here is apparent: even if all of space exists, that doesn't imply that every spatial point occurs in the same spatial coordinate. So even if all of space exists, that does not mean that all of space occurs here. Similarly, even if all of time exists, that does not mean that all of time occurs at the same temporal coordinate. So even if all of time exists, that does not mean that all of time occurs nowm since ass noted before, "now" referring to a particular time, just as "here" can refers to a particular place in space. And just as everything need not occur here, everything need not occur now.

[seer]

It all exists, but it doesn't all exist now, since "now" is a temporal notion referring to a particular time, just as "here" can be a spatial notion referring to a particular space. On the B-theory of time, all of spacetime exists, but not all of spacetime occurs at a particular time.

Still does not make sense. If all of spacetime exists then the future heat death of the universe exists. There would be no spatial notion referring to a particular space since it would include the entire universe. Just as the universe would be existing as a singularity and not as a singularity. And again, since I already exist in the future why don't I have knowledge of that state like I do with the past and present? Are all these tenses equally real?

[JimL]

It all exists, but it doesn't all exist now, since "now" is a temporal notion referring to a particular time, just as "here" can be a spatial notion referring to a particular space. On the B-theory of time, all of spacetime exists, but not all of spacetime occurs at a particular time.

If time doesn't all exist now, then how can it be said that it all exists? I understand that now is a temporal notion refering to a particular time coordinate, but if all of time exists, then all of the nows along the time coordinate exist as well, one instant no less so than the other. "Now" seems to be a term denoting the minds experience of time, not of denoting the nature of time itself. It seems to me that for time itself, if it all exists, then it either all exists now, or it doesn't all exist. How are you distinguishing between existing and occuring? How does time exist, but not occur?

To put the point another way, what you're saying would be akin to saying:

If the whole of space exists, if each space location exists in the same sense that all of space exists, then to imply that they don't all exist at the same place doesn't seem to make much sense.

The problem here is apparent: even if all of space exists, that doesn't imply that every spatial point occurs in the same spatial coordinate. So even if all of space exists, that does not mean that all of space occurs here. Similarly, even if all of time exists, that does not mean that all of time occurs at the same temporal coordinate. So even if all of time exists, that does not mean that all of time occurs nowm since ass noted before, "now" referring to a particular time, just as "here" can refers to a particular place in space. And just as everything need not occur here, everything need not occur now.

I get the analogy, but i'm not sure that locations in space are analogous to events in time, locations in space don't occur, they just are, events in time occur. So i am not sure if that is an apt analogy. Would it be an abuse of language to say that all of space exists "now," or not? If not, then why is it wrong to say that all of time exists "now?"

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Still does not make sense. If all of spacetime exists then the future heat death of the universe exists. There would be no spatial notion referring to a particular space since it would include the entire universe. Just as the universe would be existing as a singularity and not as a singularity. And again, since I already exist in the future why don't I have knowledge of that state like I do with the past and present? Are all these tenses equally real?

You're looking at specific regions of a geometry, and then pretending that they represent the whole geometry. Saying, "the universe would be existing as a singularity and not as a singularity," makes precisely the same error as saying, "the Earth exists as a North Pole and not a North Pole."

I get the analogy, but i'm not sure that locations in space are analogous to events in time, locations in space don't occur, they just are, events in time occur. So i am not sure if that is an apt analogy. Would it be an abuse of language to say that all of space exists "now," or not? If not, then why is it wrong to say that all of time exists "now?"

As I explained to Seer, earlier in the thread, to say, "All of Time exists now," is ambiguous. It is exactly akin to saying, "The whole of Earth exists at the North Pole."

It is true that the whole Earth exists for a person occupying the North Pole, but the whole of Earth is not crammed into that single point of space. Similarly, it is true that the whole of Time exists for a person occupying the present moment, but the whole of Time is not crammed into that single moment.

[seer]

You're looking at specific regions of a geometry, and then pretending that they represent the whole geometry. Saying, "the universe would be existing as a singularity and not as a singularity," makes precisely the same error as saying, "the Earth exists as a North Pole and not a North Pole."

Boxing I have no idea what this means. When speaking of a singularity we are not speaking of a specific region, it is the whole ball of wax. I mean if you are correct the universe (as a whole) exists both as a singularity and not as a singularity. If the universe is heading towards a heat death then it has already reached that point since the future is already with us. So the universe (not regions) is in thermodynamic equilibrium and not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Boxing I have no idea what this means. When speaking of a singularity we are not speaking of a specific region, it is the whole ball of wax.

You don't seem to understand what a "singularity" is. It most certainly is the description of a particular region of a geometry, and not "the whole ball of wax."

Once again, what you are saying is precisely akin to saying that the Earth is both a North Pole and not a North Pole. The North Pole describes a particular region of the Earth, and in exactly the same way, a cosmological singularity describes a particular region of space-time.

[seer]

You don't seem to understand what a "singularity" is. It most certainly is the description of a particular region of a geometry, and not "the whole ball of wax."

Once again, what you are saying is precisely akin to saying that the Earth is both a North Pole and not a North Pole. The North Pole describes a particular region of the Earth, and in exactly the same way, a cosmological singularity describes a particular region of space-time.

What do you mean a particular region of space-time? I thought it contained all of space time?

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.

You would have to say that the whole of space time is contained in the singularity and not contained in the singularity.

BTW - Matt has finally responded to you on Philosophy. That is an interesting discussion.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What do you mean a particular region of space-time? I thought it contained all of space time?

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.

You would have to say that the whole of space time is contained in the singularity and not contained in the singularity.

That's sloppy language on the part of Wikipedia. A singularity doesn't "contain" anything, let alone the whole of space-time. A singularity is a point in a mathematical space at which the geometry degenerates. This could mean that the space is undefined at that point, or that it ceases to be differentiable, or that the function describing that space is divergent, or a host of other things which might fall under the mathematical catch-all of "not well behaved."

In layman's terms, a "singularity" is simply a region of geometry where we don't really understand the behavior of that geometric object.

[seer]

That's sloppy language on the part of Wikipedia. A singularity doesn't "contain" anything, let alone the whole of space-time. A singularity is a point in a mathematical space at which the geometry degenerates. This could mean that the space is undefined at that point, or that it ceases to be differentiable, or that the function describing that space is divergent, or a host of other things which might fall under the mathematical catch-all of "not well behaved."

In layman's terms, a "singularity" is simply a region of geometry where we don't really understand the behavior of that geometric object.

According to Hawking:

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. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

So all matter was on top of itself. So is all matter top of itself and not on top of itself?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So all matter was on top of itself. So is all matter top of itself and not on top of itself?

Is the Earth the North Pole and not the North Pole?

[seer]

Is the Earth the North Pole and not the North Pole?

No Boxing, I asked a pretty straight forward question. Is all matter on top of itself, in an infinitely dense singularity and not on top of itself in an infinitely dense singularity? No one would ever say that the Earth is the North Pole, but that the North Pole was part of the Earth. If you are correct then you would have to say that all matter is still on top of itself and also spread out and inflated as we see in the universe today. This is not speaking of regions of the universe but the whole.