Is time physical?

[Machinist]

see my image of the gif frames. Each frame is a different point in time, and time is all the frames together.

That's easy enough, but isn't this a perspective of a perceiver inside the 4d block universe?

You see what Seer is saying right? From the outside, there would be no past present or future. From the outside, it would be tenseless in the most strictest sense. My understanding of what Seer is saying is that to God, there would be a contradiction, and God is logical. There would be no contradiction from our point of view of course, because time's arrow is flying in one direction. Outside of that, there is no arrow, no time. At least not the same time within the block. Now I know that that is just a possible world, this world or reality that exists outside of the block looking in, but it is something that we can somewhat imagine. If we can imagine it as a possible world, then it's something worth addressing I would think.

[seer]

There are specific times, just like there are specific locations in space. Space is just as "static" as you claim time to be. Yet there are specific and distinct locations in that space. Same with time. There are specific temporal locations in that static time. One such is the big bang, another was when you were born, another is now, another is tomorrow.

First Sparko, you don't know that is the case. Block theory is really no more than a guess. But that does not answer the question, where in the universe does the big bang still exist? No one can point to it. And we are left with the contradiction - somewhere in the block universe the entire universe is the size of a golf ball. And somewhere in the block universe the entire universe is not the size of a golf ball. And no amount of analogies changes that contradiction. And like I said just be consistent and give up Big bang cosmology because that is what B theory requires.

Again:

William Lane Craig Naturalism: A Critical Analysis (200) pp 232-3

''The Elliott Argument'' welcomes proponents of both the ''A-theory of time'' and ''B-theory of time''. B-Theory of time, or ''static time'', falls under the definition of ''STE'' because even though tenseless, spacetime still exists and is eternal (without true beginning). "On a B-theory of time, the universe never truly comes into being at all. The whole four-dimensional space-time manifold just exists tenselessly. Although the space-time manifold is intrinsically temporal, in that one of its four dimensions is time, nonetheless it is extrinsically timeless, in that it does not exist in an embedding hyper-time but exists tenselessly, neither coming into nor going out of being. The four dimensional space-time manifold is this latter sense eternal."

1. There is no available evidence for such a position (STE). In other words there is NO EVIDENCE that space-time existed eternally (without true beginning). NONE!! ZERO!! To the contrary, all the scientific evidence points to the opposite view of “STE”. Science says that the Universe did in fact have a finite beginning. A point in which space-time itself came into existence. To deny this is to deny science. To deny the evidence. To deny logic.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.c...%20tenselessly.

[Sparko]

That's easy enough, but isn't this a perspective of a perceiver inside the 4d block universe?

You see what Seer is saying right? From the outside, there would be no past present or future. From the outside, it would be tenseless in the most strictest sense. My understanding of what Seer is saying is that to God, there would be a contradiction, and God is logical. There would be no contradiction from our point of view of course, because time's arrow is flying in one direction. Outside of that, there is no arrow, no time. At least not the same time within the block. Now I know that that is just a possible world, this world or reality that exists outside of the block looking in, but it is something that we can somewhat imagine. If we can imagine it as a possible world, then it's something worth addressing I would think.

From the inside an observer would just see each frame of the gif at a time. Like watching it play. From outside an observer would see all of the frames at once. There is no contradiction. If you think TIME as a whole in the block universe it extends from the beginning to the end as one substance. Like a line. Yet just like a line, you can pick different points along the line and each point is a different location along the line. Same with time. Each point along the timeline is a different temporal location. Point one could be the big bang. Point X could be today. Just like the gif has different frames that contain different dots or circles. You can have a dot at frame 1 and a circle at frame 4. The shapes represent SPACE and everything in it at that particular temporal location.

[Sparko]

First Sparko, you don't know that is the case. Block theory is really no more than a guess. But that does not answer the question, where in the universe does the big bang still exist? No one can point to it. And we are left with the contradiction - somewhere in the block universe the entire universe is the size of a golf ball. And somewhere in the block universe the entire universe is not the size of a golf ball. And no amount of analogies changes that contradiction. And like I said just be consistent and give up Big bang cosmology because that is what B theory requires.

Again:

We can't point to the big bang because it doesn't exist in this temporal period. Just the remnants of the background radiation remain. But it does exist in the temporal location 14.8 Billion years ago. How many times do I have to keep repeating that?

If you are in frame 4 of that gif file, you would be claiming "Where is this dot? it still exists but nobody can point to it, its a contradiction" but it still exists in the gif file at frame 1. You just can't see it because you are in frame 4.

[seer]

We can't point to the big bang because it doesn't exist in this temporal period. Just the remnants of the background radiation remain. But it does exist in the temporal location 14.8 Billion years ago. How many times do I have to keep repeating that?

If you are in frame 4 of that gif file, you would be claiming "Where is this dot? it still exists but nobody can point to it, its a contradiction" but it still exists in the gif file at frame 1. You just can't see it because you are in frame 4.

I can grasp the idea of me being a baby somewhere in the universe (of course I don't believe it). But when we are speaking of the whole universe that is a completely different story. That dot universe that contained all space, times and frames still exists. When I ask where it exists, I mean how could it exist. If we look at the Block universe the entire universe exists as its large present or future size, and the entire universe exists as a dot. There is no place in the Block universe for the dot sized universe to exist with the large sized universe. Since both contained the entirety of space and time. I will hit this again, you need to give up Big Bang Cosmology because that does not work with B Theory.

[Stoic]

I can grasp the idea of me being a baby somewhere in the universe (of course I don't believe it). But when we are speaking of the whole universe that is a completely different story. That dot universe that contained all space, times and frames still exists. When I ask where it exists, I mean how could it exist. If we look at the Block universe the entire universe exists as its large present or future size, and the entire universe exists as a dot. There is no place in the Block universe for the dot sized universe to exist with the large sized universe. Since both contained the entirety of space and time. I will hit this again, you need to give up Big Bang Cosmology because that does not work with B Theory.

The Big Bang cosmology works just fine with B theory. If you look at the Block Universe (from outside) such that the time axis extends from your left to your right, then the Big Bang is at the left-most end of the Block Universe.

[Machinist]

It's still unclear to me why the big bang doesn't work in B theory. Let me try: It has something to do with the obvious fact that the big bang was a beginning of sorts. When something begins, it implies tense, duration, subsequent events, etc. B theory maintains a tense-less universe, and the only way for that condition to be, is for it to be truly timeless. Timeless=tense-less. There is no yesterday per se, a yesterday that is gone and no longer exists, because yesterday still exists in some sense. It may be encoded or recorded, much like the gif analogy, but it has some existence even now. Therefore, technically, you can't say "last year", because last year is happening simultaneously to this present moment. Each slice, is "now".

If the big bang doesn't work in B theory, then no event works. The rotting apple doesn't work based on the same logic that the big bang is rejected as incompatible.

These are just some thoughts i've been ruminating on. I would appreciate any feedback.

Also, as to how the past exists, not where, but how...this reminds me of the Akashic Records. How does the big bang still exist? How does the past still exist? In B theory, there is at least some sort of ontological existence of the past and future, even if it's stored in a different form per the Gif, or the Akashic Records. In A theory, the past and future have no ontology. In A theory, the past and future is not stored, it's not accessible... ontologically, it's just not there! In B, there is an ontological existence of sorts of past and future.



“I’m sick and tired of this block universe,” said Avshalom Elitzur,
a physicist and philosopher formerly of Bar-Ilan University.
“I don’t think that next Thursday has the same footing as this Thursday.
The future does not exist. It does not! Ontologically, it’s not there.”

-From the article that I linked earlier.

[seer]

The Big Bang cosmology works just fine with B theory. If you look at the Block Universe (from outside) such that the time axis extends from your left to your right, then the Big Bang is at the left-most end of the Block Universe.

So the universe grew from a dot to what we see today? Wait, I thought space and time were static? And somewhere in the universe all time and space is still contained in that dot?

[Machinist]

From the inside an observer would just see each frame of the gif at a time. Like watching it play. From outside an observer would see all of the frames at once. There is no contradiction. If you think TIME as a whole in the block universe it extends from the beginning to the end as one substance. Like a line. Yet just like a line, you can pick different points along the line and each point is a different location along the line. Same with time. Each point along the timeline is a different temporal location. Point one could be the big bang. Point X could be today. Just like the gif has different frames that contain different dots or circles. You can have a dot at frame 1 and a circle at frame 4. The shapes represent SPACE and everything in it at that particular temporal location.

This reminds me of this quote from Aristotle:

A line is not made up of points. ... In the same way, time is not made up parts considered as indivisible 'nows.'

[Machinist]

So the universe grew from a dot to what we see today? Wait, I thought space and time were static? And somewhere in the universe all time and space is still contained in that dot?

Yeah, space is still contained in that dot somewhere in a different temporal location within the universe. However, for some reason unclear to me at the moment, when " a different temporal location" is offered as an explanation, it strikes me as being very weak. It's like temporal location is some kind of contradiction barrier that no contradictions are allowed to cross over. I see what you're saying about there being contradictions: How can I be a baby and an adult at the same time? How can I be alive and dead at the same time? Different temporal locations? I don't know, it's just not a satisfying answer.

[seer]

Yeah, space is still contained in that dot somewhere in a different temporal location within the universe.

It is worse than that. If B Theory is correct then there is no need for the Big Bang. If the universe actually expanded then neither time or space are static. The universe actually changed state from an initial small size to what we see today - the universe is not frozen in static time. Of course this all goes away if we give up the nonsensical Block theory.

[Stoic]

So the universe grew from a dot to what we see today? Wait, I thought space and time were static?

No, it would not be correct to say that the universe grew from a dot to what we see today, given Block Universe theory, any more than it would be correct to say that a pyramid grows from its tip to its base.

However, it would be correct to say that the 3-dimensional cross section of the universe is a dot at a particular time, and is much larger at other times, just as you could say that the 2-dimensional horizontal cross section of the pyramid has a very small area at a particular height, and much larger areas at other heights.

And somewhere in the universe all time and space is still contained in that dot?

No, that dot does not contain all of time, any more than the tip of a pyramid contains all of its height.

[seer]

No, it would not be correct to say that the universe grew from a dot to what we see today, given Block Universe theory, any more than it would be correct to say that a pyramid grows from its tip to its base.

However, it would be correct to say that the 3-dimensional cross section of the universe is a dot at a particular time, and is much larger at other times, just as you could say that the 2-dimensional horizontal cross section of the pyramid has a very small area at a particular height, and much larger areas at other heights.


No, that dot does not contain all of time, any more than the tip of a pyramid contains all of its height.

If the universe did not expand (grow) from small to large then of what use is the Big Bang? In other words what role did the Big Bang play in the creation of the universe?

[Stoic]

If the universe did not expand (grow) from small to large then of what use is the Big Bang? In other words what role did the Big Bang play in the creation of the universe?

The Big Bang is just what you get when you model the universe based on the best information we have about it, and look at the earliest time periods for which the model gives valid results (i.e. the leftmost part of the model when you arrange the t axis from left to right).

I get the impression that what you are most concerned about is what role there is for God if the Block Universe theory is true.

You can still ask, "Why does this Block Universe exist, rather than a different one?"

And you still get the same arguments, just in slightly different forms. Some might say that God caused this particular Block Universe to exist (with "cause" being defined in a way that is not time dependent), while others will suggest that there might be infinitely many Block Universes, etc.

[seer]

The Big Bang is just what you get when you model the universe based on the best information we have about it, and look at the earliest time periods for which the model gives valid results (i.e. the leftmost part of the model when you arrange the t axis from left to right).

I get the impression that what you are most concerned about is what role there is for God if the Block Universe theory is true.

You can still ask, "Why does this Block Universe exist, rather than a different one?"

And you still get the same arguments, just in slightly different forms. Some might say that God caused this particular Block Universe to exist (with "cause" being defined in a way that is not time dependent), while others will suggest that there might be infinitely many Block Universes, etc.

No, because the best science tells us the initial size of the universe was very small then expanded to what we see today. If Block theory is correct there is no need for a cosmic big bang. Or expansion, because expansion never really happened. And this is not about God, except concerning my discussion with Sparko...