Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Forgive me but I thought that in the B-Theory of time, past, present, and future all existed simultaneously.

No. Simultaneously means "in the same moment." Obviously, all moments of time do not exist in the same moment. Past, present, and future are all equally real, but they don't exist simultaneously any more than the whole surface of the Earth exists in the North Pole.

I mean you don't believe that there is an arrow of time - correct? So how can you have differing moments?

I do believe that there is an Arrow of Time. I simply don't believe that this Arrow is intrinsic to Time itself, and is rather a description of the observed pattern of entropic development.

So my dead self is co-extant with my live self? So in reality I am both dead and alive. I'm sorry Boxing, I believe that clearly undermines the law of non-contradiction.

Again, it most certainly does not. A rainbow has blue sections. A rainbow has red sections. Does this undermine the law of non-contradiction? Of course not, because the rainbow is not red and blue in the same place, at the same time. Neither are you dead and alive at the same place, at the same time.

The fact that an entity is composed of smaller subsets which have differing, or even logically opposite, properties is not a violation of non-contradiction.

[seer]

No. Simultaneously means "in the same moment." Obviously, all moments of time do not exist in the same moment. Past, present, and future are all equally real, but they don't exist simultaneously any more than the whole surface of the Earth exists in the North Pole.

I do believe that there is an Arrow of Time. I simply don't believe that this Arrow is intrinsic to Time itself, and is rather a description of the observed pattern of entropic development.

OK, so there is an arrow of time? Past, present and future. So past and future don't exist?

Again, it most certainly does not. A rainbow has blue sections. A rainbow has red sections. Does this undermine the law of non-contradiction? Of course not, because the rainbow is not red and blue in the same place, at the same time. Neither are you dead and alive at the same place, at the same time.

Ok, so if I am not dead, somewhere in the universe, then that is a future state that has not be realized? Or I could ask - how many "mes" are out there?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, so there is an arrow of time? Past, present and future. So past and future don't exist?

Why would you think that the existence of an Arrow of Time would imply that the past and future don't exist? That doesn't follow in the slightest. To what do you think "the Arrow of Time" refers?

Ok, so if I am not dead, somewhere in the universe, then that is a future state that has not be realized?

If you are not dead, somewhere in the universe (assuming "the universe" is referring to all of space-time), then there is no future state in which you are dead. On the B-Theory, there's no such thing as "a future state that has not [been] realized."

Or I could ask - how many "mes" are out there?

One. You are not simply the entity which exists at any single point in time any more than you are just the entity which exists at a single point in space. Just as you occupy many, many points in space, you occupy many, many points in time.

[Adrift]

Does this undermine the law of non-contradiction? Of course not, because the rainbow is not red and blue in the same place, at the same time.

Yes it is. We call that "purple".

[seer]

Why would you think that the existence of an Arrow of Time would imply that the past and future don't exist? That doesn't follow in the slightest. To what do you think "the Arrow of Time" refers?

I thought the arrow of time basically meant that time goes in one direction: past, present and future. I'm born, I grow old, I die - never the other way around.

If you are not dead, somewhere in the universe (assuming "the universe" is referring to all of space-time), then there is no future state in which you are dead. On the B-Theory, there's no such thing as "a future state that has not [been] realized."

So I am dead in the universe and I'm not dead in the universe?

One. You are not simply the entity which exists at any single point in time any more than you are just the entity which exists at a single point in space. Just as you occupy many, many points in space, you occupy many, many points in time.

But the one me is not dead yet! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh8mNjeuyV4

[shunyadragon]

Imagine someone asked you, "Is a rainbow red or blue?" You might reply that a rainbow has both red and blue in it, and it depends on where one looks at the rainbow to determine its particular color at that point.

Similarly, when looking at the whole of spacetime, there exist moments where a person is alive, and there exist moments where that person is dead. These points are entirely co-extant. It depends on where one looks at space-time to determine the life-or-death of that person at that point.

I have read some things about A-Theory and B-Theory. So Far . . . Essentially A-Theory is kind of Newtonian and time flows mechanically as we perceive time flowing. B-Theory fits modern physics and Quantum Theory better and allows for quantum indeterminacy.

What you are proposing is more a hypothetical philosophical example of what may be possible if B-Theory is true. I will look into this more but the following may provide some insight into A-Theory/B-Theory. For physics and Quantum Theory the human view of time is a matter of perception, and does not work well.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I thought the arrow of time basically meant that time goes in one direction: past, present and future. I'm born, I grow old, I die - never the other way around.

Nope. You're conflating the A-Theory with the Arrow of Time. The A-Theory posits that time flows, that temporal becoming is real, and that the direction in which time flows cannot be reversed.

The Arrow of Time, on the other hand, simply denotes that there is something which delineates one direction of time from being different than the opposite direction. It has nothing to do with whether or not the past and future are real and extant. A good analogy would be a magnetic compass. The compass points towards the North, but that doesn't mean that positions North of the compass are not actual or real. Similarly, the Arrow of Time points towards the Future, but that doesn't mean that moments in the Future are not actual or real.

So I am dead in the universe and I'm not dead in the universe?

Again, assuming you mean the whole of space-time, yes. There are moments were you are dead and there are moments where you are not dead, and all of these moments are coextant in a single space-time manifold.

But the one me is not dead yet! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh8mNjeuyV4

Again, "yet" is an indicator of temporal position. You are saying, "Right now, I am not dead." I agree.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I have read some things about A-Theory and B-Theory. So Far . . . Essentially A-Theory is kind of Newtonian and time flows mechanically as we perceive time flowing. B-Theory fits modern physics and Quantum Theory better and allows for quantum indeterminacy.

It's not really so much a matter of Quantum Mechanics. A-Theory is, indeed, Newtonian. It was Relativity which really caused the shift in view to the B-Theory, in physics. QM is fairly independent of these notions-- and, in fact, proposes some very interesting questions about what happens on the B-Theory at very small increments of space-time.

What you are proposing is more a hypothetical philosophical example of what may be possible if B-Theory is true.

Precisely.

I will look into this more but the following may provide some insight into A-Theory/B-Theory.

The article looks interesting. Do you have a link, by any chance?

[seer]

Nope. You're conflating the A-Theory with the Arrow of Time. The A-Theory posits that time flows, that temporal becoming is real, and that the direction in which time flows cannot be reversed.

The Arrow of Time, on the other hand, simply denotes that there is something which delineates one direction of time from being different than the opposite direction. It has nothing to do with whether or not the past and future are real and extant. A good analogy would be a magnetic compass. The compass points towards the North, but that doesn't mean that positions North of the compass are not actual or real. Similarly, the Arrow of Time points towards the Future, but that doesn't mean that moments in the Future are not actual or real.

So why do we only experience time in one direction? Why am I not getting younger?

Again, assuming you mean the whole of space-time, yes. There are moments were you are dead and there are moments where you are not dead, and all of these moments are coextant in a single space-time manifold.

So in this universe seer is both dead and alive. And that is not a contradiction?

Again, "yet" is an indicator of temporal position. You are saying, "Right now, I am not dead." I agree.

But are not all temporal positions equal and equally real? If so why am I only experiencing that specific temporal position?

[shunyadragon]

It's not really so much a matter of Quantum Mechanics. A-Theory is, indeed, Newtonian. It was Relativity which really caused the shift in view to the B-Theory, in physics. QM is fairly independent of these notions-- and, in fact, proposes some very interesting questions about what happens on the B-Theory at very small increments of space-time.

Precisely.

In the Quantum world we are dealing in units of plank time and distance. This discussion of possibly being a live in one planck unit of time and dead the next is not a very productive discussion as to what is B-Theory as opposed to A-Theory is about is as useful and practical as herding cats or splitting frog hairs. These moments are not percepable in human notions of A-time. B-Theory fits in the timelessness of the Quantum world beyond, before and after our universe, based on the foundation of relativity and the relationship of time/space that cannot be explained by A-Theory for time.

Actually the Quantum Matrix that our universe is expanding through probably is timeless, and time is only relevant to the change and movement of the macro scale 'things' including us in the universe that is expanding through the Matrix.

I believe QM can not be independently considered, but that I will leave to further discussion.

The article looks interesting. Do you have a link, by any chance?

google B-theory, and check the reference www.st-andrews.ac.uk/.../a_new_problem_for_..., and open the PDF file. There are several interesting references in this search

[Boxing Pythagoras]

In the Quantum world we are dealing in units of plank time and distance.

Quantum Mechanics does not only deal with Planck units, though much of the mystery and many of the unanswered questions of physics are found at those scales.

This discussion of possibly being a live in one planck unit of time and dead the next is not a very productive discussion as to what is B-Theory as opposed to A-Theory is about is as useful and practical as herding cats or splitting frog hairs.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the discussion. Seer is having a difficult time wrapping his head around a B-Theory conception of the universe, and is asking questions about the philosophical implications of that conception. As such, acknowledging that the thing we refer to as "me" is actually an amalgamation of a great many points in space and time is a fairly important step.

B-Theory fits in the timelessness of the Quantum world beyond, before and after our universe, based on the foundation of relativity and the relationship of time/space that cannot be explained by A-Theory for time.

"Beyond, before and after our universe" is an entirely nonsensical phrase. "Before" and "after" are indicators of temporal relation, and make absolutely no sense in the absence of Time. "Beyond" is an indicator of spatial relation, and makes absolutely no sense in the absence of space.

Actually the Quantum Matrix that our universe is expanding through probably is timeless, and time is only relevant to the change and movement of the macro scale 'things' including us in the universe that is expanding through the Matrix.

I am thoroughly confused by what you are attempting to say, here. What is the "Quantum Matrix?" Are you simply referring to the wave function of the whole universe?

google B-theory, and check the reference www.st-andrews.ac.uk/.../a_new_problem_for_..., and open the PDF file. There are several interesting references in this search

Your link was broken, but I managed to find the paper, here:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~sjp7/a_...ry_of_time.pdf

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Boxing Pythagoras;230818]Quantum Mechanics does not only deal with Planck units, though much of the mystery and many of the unanswered questions of physics are found at those scales.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the discussion. Seer is having a difficult time wrapping his head around a B-Theory conception of the universe, and is asking questions about the philosophical implications of that conception. As such, acknowledging that the thing we refer to as "me" is actually an amalgamation of a great many points in space and time is a fairly important step.

Well I consider this line of discussion fruitless in terms of what the B-Theory is.

"Beyond, before and after our universe" is an entirely nonsensical phrase. "Before" and "after" are indicators of temporal relation, and make absolutely no sense in the absence of Time. "Beyond" is an indicator of spatial relation, and makes absolutely no sense in the absence of space.

Disagree, "before," "after," or "beyond" are indicators of beyond temporal relations of our Universe, not the temporal relations of the universal. The universe will most likely fade into the non-univese of the Quantum Matrix. Our Universe most likely had a beginning in a some sort of singularity or other beginning, and the timeless Quantum world the singularity formed and the universe originated form. It is the Matrix of the multi verse.

I am thoroughly confused by what you are attempting to say, here. What is the "Quantum Matrix?" Are you simply referring to the wave function of the whole universe?

No, the regions between stars and all other objects in the universe that are at absolute zero, and all objects in the universe move through. These regions of space are not expanding as are the objects of the universe. These regions will grow as the universe expands and the entropy of the universe increases.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well I consider this line of discussion fruitless in terms of what the B-Theory is.

You think that a description of the nature of Time on the B-Theory is "fruitless in terms of what the B-Theory is?" How does that make any sense?

Disagree, "before," "after," or "beyond" are indicators of beyond temporal relations of our Universe, not the temporal relations of the universal. The universe will most likely fade into the non-univese of the Quantum Matrix. Our Universe most likely had a beginning in a some sort of singularity or other beginning, and the timeless Quantum world the singularity formed and the universe originated form. It is the Matrix of the multi verse.

What does any of this word salad actually mean? You're throwing about a bunch of nebulous terms as if they mean something. What do "before" and "after" mean, in the absence of Time? What does "beyond" mean, in the absence of Space? What is a "non-universe" and how can a universe "fade into" it? What is a "Quantum Matrix?" What do you mean by "beginning?" What do you mean by "multiverse?"

No, the regions between stars and all other objects in the universe that are at absolute zero, and all objects in the universe move through.

The regions between stars are not at absolute zero. The universe has an ambient temperature, so far as we can see.

These regions of space are not expanding as are the objects of the universe. These regions will grow as the universe expands and the entropy of the universe increases.

You are contradicting yourself, here. First you say that these "regions of space are not expanding," then immediately afterward you say that they "will grow as the universe expands." I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but when physicists say that the universe is expanding, they mean that the actual space-- that includes the "regions between stars and all other objects," you know-- is expanding. They are describing the geometry of space-time. They're not simply saying that things are moving away from one another.

[shunyadragon]

[

Disagree, "before," "after," or "beyond" are indicators of beyond temporal relations of our Universe, not the temporal relations of the universal. The universe will most likely fade into the non-univese of the Quantum Matrix. Our Universe most likely had a beginning in a some sort of singularity or other beginning, and the timeless Quantum world the singularity formed and the universe originated form. It is the Matrix of the multi verse.

No, the regions between stars and all other objects in the universe that are at absolute zero, and all objects in the universe move through. These regions of space are not expanding as are the objects of the universe. These regions will grow as the universe expands and the entropy of the universe increases.

These regions of the universe are at Quantum vacuum zero point energy.

[shunyadragon]

You think that a description of the nature of Time on the B-Theory is "fruitless in terms of what the B-Theory is?" How does that make any sense?

Hypothetical philosophical descriptions like being alive one moment and dead the next are fruitless and meaningless as to what B-Theory is. On the Macro scale of our existence time is what it is, and we are not alive one moment and dead the next, even if these are discrete moments.

What does any of this word salad actually mean? You're throwing about a bunch of nebulous terms as if they mean something. What do "before" and "after" mean, in the absence of Time? What does "beyond" mean, in the absence of Space? What is a "non-universe" and how can a universe "fade into" it? What is a "Quantum Matrix?" What do you mean by "beginning?" What do you mean by "multiverse?"

The "multiverse" is the world of all possible universes that our universe is in. The Matrix of the universe and the multiverse would be one continuous Quantum vacuum zero point energy

The regions between stars are not at absolute zero. The universe has an ambient temperature, so far as we can see.

True, this is the matrix of the universe is the regions between the stars that are at Quantum vacuum zero point energy at absolute zero (ambient temperature).

You are contradicting yourself, here. First you say that these "regions of space are not expanding," then immediately afterward you say that they "will grow as the universe expands." I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but when physicists say that the universe is expanding, they mean that the actual space-- that includes the "regions between stars and all other objects," you know-- is expanding. They are describing the geometry of space-time. They're not simply saying that things are moving away from one another.

No, these regions will not move as the material of the universe expands. The regions of Quantum vacuum zero point energy will become larger as the material in the universe moves outward from the point of the beginning of the expansion (maybe the Big Bang) and the entropy of the universe increases.

No, they (physicists and cosmologists?) do not mean that the regions of Quantum Vacuum zero point energy expand with the material of the universe. The material of the universe expands through the Matrix of the Quantum Vacuum zero point energy. If it moved and expanded it would not be at Quantum vacuum zero point energy at absolute zero.

If the region of ambient space around the expansion expanded with the matter that formed from the event what replaced it?