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

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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.

No, there is not literally one moment where all events exist together, on the B-Theory. That's a Straw Man which I have repeatedly told you is not the case. While it may be easier to knock down that Straw Man than to deal with the actual B-Theory, it remains fallacious to do so.

[seer]

No, there is not literally one moment where all events exist together, on the B-Theory. That's a Straw Man which I have repeatedly told you is not the case. While it may be easier to knock down that Straw Man than to deal with the actual B-Theory, it remains fallacious to do so.

But how can you speak of "moments" without flow in the first place? What distinguishes one moment from the next? Doesn't my past, present and future exist together in this universe?

[JimL]

No, there is not literally one moment where all events exist together, on the B-Theory. That's a Straw Man which I have repeatedly told you is not the case. While it may be easier to knock down that Straw Man than to deal with the actual B-Theory, it remains fallacious to do so.

But you said yourself that all events exist "at once" in the same way that the north and south pole at exist "at once."

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But you said yourself that all events exist "at once" in the same way that the north and south pole at exist "at once."

No, I said that all events exist "at once" in the same way that the North Pole and South Pole exist "at one location."

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But how can you speak of "moments" without flow in the first place? What distinguishes one moment from the next? Doesn't my past, present and future exist together in this universe?

Moments in time are distinguished from one another in exactly the same way as positions in space are distinguished from one another despite being coextant. The fact that two things exist together does not imply that they are therefore the same thing.

[seer]

Moments in time are distinguished from one another in exactly the same way as positions in space are distinguished from one another despite being coextant. The fact that two things exist together does not imply that they are therefore the same thing.

But again, how can you have moments without flow? If time is really static then that can not be the thing that distinguishes events, physical location can be what makes the difference, but not time since time never changes, or flows.

[JimL]

No, I said that all events exist "at once" in the same way that the North Pole and South Pole exist "at one location."

Right, pretty much the same thing, no? If all events exist "at once" then you can't in the same breath say that they exist at different times. You can say that they exist at different locations in time, but being that time itself in this case is static then every event existing "at once" would mean that every event exists at one and the same unchanging time.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But again, how can you have moments without flow?

How can you have locations without flow?

If time is really static then that can not be the thing that distinguishes events, physical location can be what makes the difference, but not time since time never changes, or flows.

Here's a nice, simple model of time on the B-Theory.

blank-timeline-template_83319.png

Now, here's a model of a single dimension of space on both the A-Theory and the B-Theory.

blank-timeline-template_83319.png

Why do you claim that the former needs to flow in order for two points on the model to be differentiable, but the latter does not?

[Just Passing Through]

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Right, pretty much the same thing, no? If all events exist "at once" then you can't in the same breath say that they exist at different times.

If a person is standing at the North Pole, does the South Pole exist for the person at that location? Does that imply that the South Pole is the same location as the North Pole?

In exactly the same way, for a person in 2017, it is true to say that 2025 exists (on the B-Theory). That does not imply that 2025 is the same period of time as 2017.

The fact that two things exist together does not imply they are the same thing.

[seer]

Why do you claim that the former needs to flow in order for two points on the model to be differentiable, but the latter does not?

Because in the A Theory of time there are actually different times, in B Theory there are not "different" times since time is static. There is only one time, not plural times.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Because in the A Theory of time there are actually different times, in B Theory there are not "different" times since time is static. There is only one time, not plural times.

Once again, on the B-Theory there are different moments of time within the overall dimension of time. I don't know why you continue to insist upon knocking down Straw Men instead of addressing the things which I've actually said.

[seer]

Once again, on the B-Theory there are different moments of time within the overall dimension of time. I don't know why you continue to insist upon knocking down Straw Men instead of addressing the things which I've actually said.

Boxing, that makes no sense, how can there be different moments of time when time is static? I ask you this before, what makes one moment of time different than another?

[Jedidiah]

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?

New York and Chicago exist in 'physically' different temporal locations. Flow of time is just like what we experience when we move from one place to another in space. The only difference it that we can only move in one predetermined direction in the time dimension. The dimension of time is really quite like the dimensions of space. You are just making it difficult when it is really simple (sort of).

[JimL]

If a person is standing at the North Pole, does the South Pole exist for the person at that location? Does that imply that the South Pole is the same location as the North Pole?

In exactly the same way, for a person in 2017, it is true to say that 2025 exists (on the B-Theory). That does not imply that 2025 is the same period of time as 2017.

The fact that two things exist together does not imply they are the same thing.

Yes, but both scenarios imply location, the one in space the other in time, but time in this case is no different than space since all events in both space and time, no matter their location, all exist "at once." Time ceases to have any real meaning if all events within it all exist "at once." Similtaneous events whether labeled differently such as 2017 and 2025 are still similtaneous so that the time labeling difference is basically meaningless.
I understand what you are saying, but unlike space which all exists "at once", time really ceases to have any meaning if it all exists "at once," if all events within time exist "at once."