Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[seer]

Time doesn't need to actually flow in order that events have a discernible sequence.

So what are sequences if there is no actual flow of time? Wouldn't these events be an illusion too?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So what are sequences if there is no actual flow of time? Wouldn't these events be an illusion too?

Sequences are simply ordered sets. Do numbers need to flow in order to be in a sequence? Does the surface of the Earth need to flow in order for New York City to be north of the equator? Why should a flow be necessary to a sequence?

[seer]

Sequences are simply ordered sets. Do numbers need to flow in order to be in a sequence? Does the surface of the Earth need to flow in order for New York City to be north of the equator? Why should a flow be necessary to a sequence?

Then we are back to time being an illusion. So if we don't obverse time by flow how do observe time by sequence? In other words sequence tells us nothing about time, whether it exist or not.

[JimL]

Then we are back to time being an illusion. So if we don't obverse time by flow how do observe time by sequence? In other words sequence tells us nothing about time, whether it exist or not.

If I remember right BP is a B-theorist, which means that he believes that all of time exist, that it flows is the illusion.

[seer]

If I remember right BP is a B-theorist, which means that he believes that all of time exist, that it flows is the illusion.

Right, but how then do we observe time? If it not by flow, then how?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Then we are back to time being an illusion. So if we don't obverse time by flow how do observe time by sequence? In other words sequence tells us nothing about time, whether it exist or not.

How do you figure? Does the fact that New York City is north of the equator tell us nothing about the surface of the Earth, whether it exists or not? Sequence tells us the ordering of events. The fact that one event is ordinally subsequent to another is information about time which we are told by the sequence. Again, why do you think that time needs to flow in order for information to be gained from a given sequence of events?

[seer]

How do you figure? Does the fact that New York City is north of the equator tell us nothing about the surface of the Earth, whether it exists or not? Sequence tells us the ordering of events. The fact that one event is ordinally subsequent to another is information about time which we are told by the sequence. Again, why do you think that time needs to flow in order for information to be gained from a given sequence of events?

Boxing, I'm not getting you - what about exactly about sequence tells us that time exists? If it doesn't point to flow, then what does it point to? And why?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Boxing, I'm not getting you - what about exactly about sequence tells us that time exists? If it doesn't point to flow, then what does it point to? And why?

It points to a dimension by which we can differentiate between events in space. Which is precisely what we mean when we talk about "time." Again, why do you think "flow" is necessary to this?

[shunyadragon]

It points to a dimension by which we can differentiate between events in space. Which is precisely what we mean when we talk about "time." Again, why do you think "flow" is necessary to this?

. . . or why?

[seer]

It points to a dimension by which we can differentiate between events in space. Which is precisely what we mean when we talk about "time." Again, why do you think "flow" is necessary to this?

Again Boxing, that does not make sense. Isn't your view that past present and future exist simultaneously?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Again Boxing, that does not make sense. Isn't your view that past present and future exist simultaneously?

No. My view is that they are coextant. Simultaneity is a temporal concept meaning "at the same time." Obviously, events at two different times are not at the same time. That does not imply anything about their ontology.

[seer]

No. My view is that they are coextant. Simultaneity is a temporal concept meaning "at the same time." Obviously, events at two different times are not at the same time. That does not imply anything about their ontology.

If we could stand outside of the universe we would see all events happening in the same moment - correct? And what do you mean by two different times? How are times different without flow?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

If we could stand outside of the universe we would see all events happening in the same moment - correct?

No, because that's not a cogent statement. You cannot stand or see in the absence of space and time.

And what do you mean by two different times? How are times different without flow?

Whether time flows or not, 10:30 pm on January 1st, 2017, is a different time than 5:12 am on December 28th, 1982. Flow is not necessary to differentiate two different points in a dimension of measure.

[seer]

Whether time flows or not, 10:30 pm on January 1st, 2017, is a different time than 5:12 am on December 28th, 1982. Flow is not necessary to differentiate two different points in a dimension of measure.

But didn't you tell me in the past that time was static? So there really isn't a 5:12 am or 10:30 pm. We only believe so because of our limited view.

[JimL]

No, because that's not a cogent statement. You cannot stand or see in the absence of space and time.

I think its a hypothetical. What if you stood outside of the this universe in a world where time did flow and you could see into this universe of spacetime. What would you see? You'd see a static, ergo a timeless universe, no?

Whether time flows or not, 10:30 pm on January 1st, 2017, is a different time than 5:12 am on December 28th, 1982. Flow is not necessary to differentiate two different points in a dimension of measure.

I don't consider two points in space to be a meaningful descriptor of time. The descriptor would be how long it takes information to travel from one point to the other. If information doesn't flow from one place to the other, then what is it that you mean by the term time?