Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[seer]

That's quite the opposite of the B-Theory. On the B-Theory, all of time is real and extant. Temporality is real. It's simply nonsensical to apply temporal terminology to time, as a whole.

OK, so Temporality is real but not real? Tell me Boxing what in the universe is actually temporary?

Yes. Both conditions equally exist in the same universe. Just as, on the Earth, the conditions of North Pole and not-North-Pole equally exist on the same planetary surface. There is no violation of non-contradiction, here.

Except these are not really opposites. It would be more like saying that the conditions of North Pole both exist and not exist at the north pole. So all matter is both on top of itself and spread out as we see around us. It actually exists in two different conditions - and that is not a contradiction?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Though he struggles to articulate it, seer's primary issues with B-theory are based on both phenomenological experience, and the significance of language in relation to reality, both of which are issues that philosophers also struggle with. seer's (probably misconstrued) theorizing on the the law of noncontradiction as it applies to the B-theory is simply an extension of his struggle with the phenomenological and linguistic experience of time. I'm certain you recognize that though.

I have no objection to a person putting forward legitimate arguments based on the phenomenological experience of time, so long as they give an accurate and irenic treatment of the B-Theory in those arguments. Seer is doing no such thing. He is asserting that the B-Theory is illogical based solely on his misconceptions of space-time.

Even this is not all that problematic, to me. The problem is that whenever those misconceptions are corrected, Seer simply doubles-down on them. After this many pages of my explaining to him that he completely misunderstands what a "singularity" is, one would think that Seer would take some time to correct his misunderstanding and re-formulate his argument. Quite the contrary, he continues to insist upon setting up that particular Straw Man. At this point, it just seems like willful ignorance.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, so Temporality is real but not real? Tell me Boxing what in the universe is actually temporary?

Once again, I have nowhere stated that Temporality is not real. Time is real. The fact that it is nonsensical to attempt to apply a certain description to a particular object does not imply that the description is therefore unreal. It would similarly be nonsensical to say that Time is Blue or that Time is Salty. That does not imply that "blue" and "salty" are not real properties of things.

Except these are not really opposites.

That's precisely my point. Neither is the situation which you are describing.

It would be more like saying that the conditions of North Pole both exist and not exist at the north pole. So all matter is both on top of itself and spread out as we see around us. It actually exists in two different conditions - and that is not a contradiction?

Once again, you are talking about two completely different regions of space-time and pretending that they are the same. This is why it is precisely akin to my North Pole analogy. The region of space-time in which matter is on top of itself and infinitely dense is not at all the same region of space-time in which that matter is spread out.

[Adrift]

I have no objection to a person putting forward legitimate arguments based on the phenomenological experience of time, so long as they give an accurate and irenic treatment of the B-Theory in those arguments. Seer is doing no such thing. He is asserting that the B-Theory is illogical based solely on his misconceptions of space-time.

Even this is not all that problematic, to me. The problem is that whenever those misconceptions are corrected, Seer simply doubles-down on them. After this many pages of my explaining to him that he completely misunderstands what a "singularity" is, one would think that Seer would take some time to correct his misunderstanding and re-formulate his argument. Quite the contrary, he continues to insist upon setting up that particular Straw Man. At this point, it just seems like willful ignorance.

I don't think it's accurate or fair to say that whatever misunderstandings seer may have are intentional straw men. I think he's very truly confused about this subject (and for good reason, it's a very confusing subject), and is honestly struggling to make sense of it all. The purpose for restating his case is to find a way to articulate what he sees in his head in a way that you'll understand his meaning. It makes sense to him, he wants it to make sense to you. It seems apparent to me that part of the frustration of this process is that he often speaks in general terms with a lay person's understanding of the subject (or an A-person's understanding of the subject). I think you sometimes know what he's trying to say in this lay manner, but you choose to ignore his general meaning in order to deal with specifics. In other words, it seems to me that you're more interested in being technically correct, than attempting to help educate seer on the subject, and that's because (to some degree) you see seer as an opponent in a debate rather than someone willing to learn. Some headway could probably be made if the issues that some have with B-theory was acknowledged. Instead of saying "no we can't say a, b, c, about x, y, z", it might be helpful to seer to acknowledge that "some philosophers do say a, b, c, about x, y, z. Many do not though, and here is why". I think you have done that in the past, but I don't think you've been consistent about it. Obviously its not incumbent on you to teach someone on this level, or to offer a person you're debating his argument, but if frustration on both sides is really an issue, this would help qualm that issue in my opinion. Or you could just ignore him entirely.

[seer]

Once again, I have nowhere stated that Temporality is not real. Time is real. The fact that it is nonsensical to attempt to apply a certain description to a particular object does not imply that the description is therefore unreal. It would similarly be nonsensical to say that Time is Blue or that Time is Salty. That does not imply that "blue" and "salty" are not real properties of things.

Boxing for the temporal to be real it would actually have to apply to something. Can you offer an example of something in the universe that is actually temporal? If not how is the word meaningful?

Once again, you are talking about two completely different regions of space-time and pretending that they are the same. This is why it is precisely akin to my North Pole analogy. The region of space-time in which matter is on top of itself and infinitely dense is not at all the same space-time region in which that matter is spread out.

No I'm speaking of the same universe and the same matter existing in two different states.. And I' m not sure what space-time region you are speaking of - are you suggesting that we could visit some area of the universe and find all matter on top of itself?

[tabibito]

So again matter/energy exists as a singularity and not as a singularity in the same universe - correct?

Cosmology isn't exactly something I have a clear understanding of.

But, if I have understood this part correctly, the singularity occupied all of the universe. With the Big Bang, the universe expanded at a phenomenal rate: by orders of magnitude beyond that of the speed of light - this is not a problem, because speed of light is only a limiting factor inside the universe. At some point, the rate of expansion decelerated, and now the rate of expansion is accelerating again. As for solid matter, it doesn't expand - but gets carried along with the expansion of the universe. As a rough explanation of the process, imagine beads stuck to a deflated balloon, and then inflate the balloon. The balloon (universe) expands, carrying the beads (solid matter) further apart from each other.

[seer]

Cosmology isn't exactly something I have a clear understanding of.

But, if I have understood this part correctly, the singularity occupied all of the universe. With the Big Bang, the universe expanded at a phenomenal rate: by orders of magnitude beyond that of the speed of light - this is not a problem, because speed of light is only a limiting factor inside the universe. At some point, the rate of expansion decelerated, and now the rate of expansion is accelerating again. As for solid matter, it doesn't expand - but gets carried along with the expansion of the universe. As a rough explanation of the process, imagine beads stuck to a deflated balloon, and then inflate the balloon. The balloon (universe) expands, carrying the beads (solid matter) further apart from each other.

Yes, I agree but I think Boxing's point is that in the universe the expansion and the singularity exist together - that the singularity is still the singularity in some region of space.

[tabibito]

Yes, I agree but I think Boxing's point is that in the universe the expansion and the singularity exist together - that the singularity is still the singularity in some region of space.

Again assuming that I have understood things correctly:

that would be essentially correct - the universe that we know is essentially the singularity - only it is a lot bigger now than when it first existed, and all the solid matter is still inside it.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I don't think it's accurate or fair to say that whatever misunderstandings seer may have are intentional straw men. I think he's very truly confused about this subject (and for good reason, it's a very confusing subject), and is honestly struggling to make sense of it all... I think you sometimes know what he's trying to say in this lay manner, but you choose to ignore his general meaning in order to deal with specifics. In other words, it seems to me that you're more interested in being technically correct, than attempting to help educate seer on the subject, and that's because (to some degree) you see seer as an opponent in a debate rather than someone willing to learn.

This is exactly the opposite of what I have been doing. Every time that Seer has based an argument upon a conceptual misconception, I have attempted to correct his misconception. I'm not engaged in a debate, here. I'm engaged in a dialogue. I'm honestly not trying to "win" anything. I'm simply trying to elucidate upon these confusing topics.

Yes, these things are quite difficult to understand. But Seer is not doing himself or anyone else any favors by sticking to his guns on misconceptions after being repeatedly told that they are misconceptions.

Some headway could probably be made if the issues that some have with B-theory was acknowledged. Instead of saying "no we can't say a, b, c, about x, y, z", it might be helpful to seer to acknowledge that "some philosophers do say a, b, c, about x, y, z. Many do not though, and here is why".

This isn't a case of Seer presenting arguments which are also made by philosophers on the subject. This is a case of Seer not understanding a 4-dimensional view of the universe and then formulating bad arguments based on these misconceptions.

Boxing for the temporal to be real it would actually have to apply to something. Can you offer an example of something in the universe that is actually temporal? If not how is the word meaningful?

Yes, plenty of things. Anything which exists along the dimension of Time is temporal. This does not imply that words like "now," "before," "until," "still," and their like are at all useful in describing the whole of Time.

No I'm speaking of the same universe and the same matter existing in two different states.. And I' m not sure what space-time region you are speaking of - are you suggesting that we could visit some area of the universe and find all matter on top of itself?

The cosmological singularity is a region of space-time. It is not the region in which we reside.

There's an equivocation problem occurring, here. We've been talking about the universe using a definition like William Lane Craig's-- that is to say, the whole of material reality. However, in formulating this question you seem to be shifting to a different, more colloquial usage of the word "universe," which is more akin to "all of space at a given time." The two cannot be conflated and yet yield rational conclusions.

Here's a little 2-dimensional, naive mockup of what I mean. The following image represents a universe with 1 dimension of space and 1 dimension of time, rather than our 3+1 universe.
SingularityIllustration.gif
The red dot at the center represents the point of singularity. For those familiar with polar graphs, r is our time dimension in this Figure, while θ is our space dimension. The red circle represents all of space at a later time.

In the singularity, if any matter existed at all, it would have infinite density. That matter is not infinitely dense in the region of the red circle. There is no violation of Non-Contradiction in these statements.

[tabibito]

This is exactly the opposite of what I have been doing. Every time that Seer has based an argument upon a conceptual misconception, I have attempted to correct his misconception. I'm not engaged in a debate, here. I'm engaged in a dialogue. I'm honestly not trying to "win" anything. I'm simply trying to elucidate upon these confusing topics.

Yes, these things are quite difficult to understand. But Seer is not doing himself or anyone else any favors by sticking to his guns on misconceptions after being repeatedly told that they are misconceptions.


This isn't a case of Seer presenting arguments which are also made by philosophers on the subject. This is a case of Seer not understanding a 4-dimensional view of the universe and then formulating bad arguments based on these misconceptions.

Yes, plenty of things. Anything which exists along the dimension of Time is temporal. This does not imply that words like "now," "before," "until," "still," and their like are at all useful in describing the whole of Time.

The cosmological singularity is a region of space-time. It is not the region in which we reside.

There's an equivocation problem occurring, here. We've been talking about the universe using a definition like William Lane Craig's-- that is to say, the whole of material reality. However, in formulating this question you seem to be shifting to a different, more colloquial usage of the word "universe," which is more akin to "all of space at a given time." The two cannot be conflated and yet yield rational conclusions.

Here's a little 2-dimensional, naive mockup of what I mean. The following image represents a universe with 1 dimension of space and 1 dimension of time, rather than our 3+1 universe.

The red dot at the center represents the point of singularity. For those familiar with polar graphs, r is our time dimension in this Figure, while θ is our space dimension. The red circle represents all of space at a later time.

In the singularity, if any matter existed at all, it would have infinite density. That matter is not infinitely dense in the region of the red circle. There is no violation of Non-Contradiction in these statements.

Near as I can tell (which may not be very near, admittedly) - that explanation seems to match what I have understood to within reasonable limits.

[seer]

Again assuming that I have understood things correctly:

that would be essentially correct - the universe that we know is essentially the singularity - only it is a lot bigger now than when it first existed, and all the solid matter is still inside it.

No, according to Boxing the singularity as the small dense thing still exists as well as the expanding thing.

[tabibito]

As far as I knew, that had been ruled out of contention ... I'd like to see some link to the information.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, according to Boxing the singularity as the small dense thing still exists as well as the expanding thing.

I have explicitly stated, several times, that the word "still" cannot reasonably be applied to this description. So, no, you are not representing my viewpoint with this statement.

[seer]

Yes, plenty of things. Anything which exists along the dimension of Time is temporal. This does not imply that words like "now," "before," "until," "still," and their like are at all useful in describing the whole of Time.

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

There's an equivocation problem occurring, here. We've been talking about the universe using a definition like William Lane Craig's-- that is to say, the whole of material reality. However, in formulating this question you seem to be shifting to a different, more colloquial usage of the word "universe," which is more akin to "all of space at a given time." The two cannot be conflated and yet yield rational conclusions.

In the singularity, if any matter existed at all, it would have infinite density. That matter is not infinitely dense in the region of the red circle. There is no violation of Non-Contradiction in these statements.

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.

[seer]

I have explicitly stated, several times, that the word "still" cannot reasonably be applied to this description. So, no, you are not representing my viewpoint with this statement.

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