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

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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?

Again, the question doesn't make sense. It's like asking me what a four-sided triangle would look like. However, if you're asking about a way to model the whole of spacetime, you would have a four-dimensional block universe. You couldn't refer to it as "timeless," since one of the dimensions being modeled is time. Now, if you had the resources of Laplace's Demon and could create an accurate model of the whole block, you would see all of the past, present, and future at once.

I don't consider two points in space to be a meaningful descriptor of time.

I never said that two points in space are a meaningful descriptor of time. I said that flow is not necessary to differentiate two different points in a dimension of measure.

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?

By "time" I mean the dimension by which displacement between events is measured.

[Jedidiah]

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.

Past present and future are simply different locations in the time dimension, just as New York and Chicago are different locations in the spatial dimension. The question of simultaneity simply confuses the issue. We have points (so to speak) with dimensionality, either in one or more of what we see as 'ordinary' dimensions plus location in a temporal dimension.

[JimL]

Again, the question doesn't make sense. It's like asking me what a four-sided triangle would look like. However, if you're asking about a way to model the whole of spacetime, you would have a four-dimensional block universe. You couldn't refer to it as "timeless," since one of the dimensions being modeled is time. Now, if you had the resources of Laplace's Demon and could create an accurate model of the whole block, you would see all of the past, present, and future at once.

In other words the idea is that past, present and future events all exist "at once" in their respective places along the time line. But the idea that all events exist "at once" is tantamount to saying that all events exist at the same time even though they are distinct events. In other words is there no differentiation between past, present and future events other than their respective locations within the spacetime block.

I never said that two points in space are a meaningful descriptor of time. I said that flow is not necessary to differentiate two different points in a dimension of measure.

But you can't measure time the way in which you can measure space. I can take out a ruler and measure the distance between two points in space, but in order to measure time I need an instrument that flows, aka a clock. If time is a dimension like space, if time doesn't flow, why do I need a measuring device that flows in order to measure the distance between 2 points within it?

By "time" I mean the dimension by which displacement between events is measured.

But isn't the displacement between events different than the act of measuring the displacement.

[JimL]

Past present and future are simply different locations in the time dimension, just as New York and Chicago are different locations in the spatial dimension. The question of simultaneity simply confuses the issue. We have points (so to speak) with dimensionality, either in one or more of what we see as 'ordinary' dimensions plus location in a temporal dimension.

Jed, you can't be both a Christian and believe in the block universe. Its determined!

[seer]

Past present and future are simply different locations in the time dimension, just as New York and Chicago are different locations in the spatial dimension. The question of simultaneity simply confuses the issue. We have points (so to speak) with dimensionality, either in one or more of what we see as 'ordinary' dimensions plus location in a temporal dimension.

This makes no sense, New York and Chicago are physically in different places. If time is static there are no real differences in the big picture. We just use artificial designations. My past, present and future DO exist simultaneously in this universe. And if there is no genuine flow of time then how does one observe time, how do you demonstrate that it exists?

[seer]

Jed, you can't be both a Christian and believe in the block universe. Its determined!

He could be a Calvinist.

[hansgeorg]

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?

There are sequences in which one item is based on previous, those are essentially ordered.

N and S are not so. An ordering along a meridian could as well go from N to S as from S to N.

However, present is based on past, future, if it comes, will be based on present and past.

Like 2 is based on 1, 3 on 2, 4 on 3 and so on.

[JimL]

He could be a Calvinist.

Very true seer, I forgot about that. I don't think that Jed is a calvinist though, and though I may be mistaken, but i don't think that even Calvinists believe in strict determinism such as is descibed by the block universe idea.

[hansgeorg]

Seriously? Spacetime hasn't been observed? I mean, I could understand a debate regarding the properties of spacetime, but to claim that space and time are not observed parts of the universe seems fairly disingenuous.

Spatial dimensions in particular areas have been observed ... only through the matter filling them, not in themselves.
Time is observed ... only through the events filling them.

The dimensions of space being part of same coordinate system as time and that being four or pluridimensional has most certainly not been observed at all.

[seer]

Very true seer, I forgot about that. I don't think that Jed is a calvinist though, and though I may be mistaken, but i don't think that even Calvinists believe in strict determinism such as is descibed by the block universe idea.

It depends, I know Calvinists who would have no problem with this kind of determinism.

[hansgeorg]

Every single hair which makes up a polar bear's fur is transparent. Does that mean a polar bear's fur is not white?

I was expecting butterfly feathers ... but this will do.

Every single hair is transparent in isolation, no doubt, but since good reflectors, they are also in that respect white, especially going together so as to prevent the light just passing through at other end.

So, every single hair of the polar bear is, in the fur itself, in at least some sense, and actually the most obvious one, white. Only when plucked out does it become actually transparent.

[hansgeorg]

You realize you're replying to people who haven't posted here in two or three years, right?

That happens some times, and I might have noticed tomorrow if you hadn't told me today.

At least helps to revive a debate ...

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Jed, you can't be both a Christian and believe in the block universe. Its determined!

...have you never heard of Calvinists?

But, in all seriousness, there's a position in philosophy known as Compatibilism which holds that Determinism and Free Will are not mutually exclusive concepts; so even if you DO think that Free Will is a necessary belief to be Christian, that doesn't preclude a person from also being a Determinist.

In other words the idea is that past, present and future events all exist "at once" in their respective places along the time line.

No more than it is true to say that the North Pole and the South Pole exist at the same location in their respective places in space. Yes, it is true that the South Pole exists even if you are standing at the North Pole, but the two locations are not the same.

In exactly the same way, on the B-Theory of Time, it is true that 2053 exists for a person in 2017, but these are not the same moments of time.

In other words is there no differentiation between past, present and future events other than their respective locations within the spacetime block.

Again, that's exactly the same as saying, "There's no differentiation between the North Pole and the South Pole because even at the North Pole, the South Pole exists."

Even if the surface of the Earth was entirely uniform, it would not be true to say that there is no difference between the North Pole and the South Pole, since they differ in location. That difference is all the more pronounced when the actual topology of the Earth is considered.

In exactly the same way, the fact that the past, present, and future are coextant does not imply that they are they same. Even if all of spacetime was uniform, the past, present, and future would not be the same thing. The difference becomes all the more pronounced when the topology of spacetime is considered.

But you can't measure time the way in which you can measure space. I can take out a ruler and measure the distance between two points in space, but in order to measure time I need an instrument that flows, aka a clock.

This is question begging. You are presuming that time actually flows for a clock in order to conclude that time actually flows.

A ruler is able to measure space because it has different demarcations for different positions in space, and those demarcations divide the space occupied by the ruler into equal sections. In exactly the same way, a clock has different demarcations for different moments of time, and those demarcations divide the time occupied by the clock into equal sections.

The A-Theory is not required for clocks to be able to measure time.

But isn't the displacement between events different than the act of measuring the displacement.

Sure, in exactly the same way as the displacement between locations is different from the act of measuring the displacement.

[seer]

In exactly the same way, on the B-Theory of Time, it is true that 2053 exists for a person in 2017, but these are not the same moments of time.

But again speaking of moments is only rational in the context of the flow of time. In B-Theory time is actually static there is literally only one moment where all events exist together.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I was expecting butterfly feathers ... but this will do.

Every single hair is transparent in isolation, no doubt, but since good reflectors, they are also in that respect white, especially going together so as to prevent the light just passing through at other end.

So, every single hair of the polar bear is, in the fur itself, in at least some sense, and actually the most obvious one, white. Only when plucked out does it become actually transparent.

That's actually not the case. You do not need to pluck a polar bear hair for it to become transparent. It is transparent, whether in the fur or not.

Another example: every single cell which composes a human body is microscopic in size. Does this imply that a human body is microscopic in size?