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

[Jedidiah]

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?

Flow is purely the result of our experience. When we ride, for example, a train we can look out the window and see the physical world flow past.

[Jedidiah]

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."

You are confusing experience of time by us folks going along a single direction, with the dimensionality of time. Maybe this is more difficult than it seems to me.

[JimL]

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).

No Jed, New York and Chicago exist in physically different spatial locations, not different temporal locations. I suspect that is probably what you meant to say, its confusing to think about, But in the B-theory of time which is what we are discussing, there is no flow of time, in the B-theory of time all events exist at once, think the "Block Universe", there is no moving from one location in space to another, you are in both places "at once."

[JimL]

You are confusing experience of time by us folks going along a single direction, with the dimensionality of time. Maybe this is more difficult than it seems to me.

Its kind of difficult to grasp at first because it goes against our experience as well our usual way of thinking about time, but basically all you need do to understand the basic idea behind the B-theory of time is to think of the "block universe" wherein all of space and all of time exists "at once". Nothing actually ever changes, our experience of change is an illusion. Hard to swallow I know, but it agrees with the physics. I don't buy it myself.

[shunyadragon]

Its kind of difficult to grasp at first because it goes against our experience as well our usual way of thinking about time, but basically all you need do to understand the basic idea behind the B-theory of time is to think of the "block universe" wherein all of space and all of time exists "at once". Nothing actually ever changes, our experience of change is an illusion. Hard to swallow I know, but it agrees with the physics. I don't buy it myself.

Likewise I do not buy it, but I do not consider it necessarily in agreement with physics.

[seer]

Flow is purely the result of our experience. When we ride, for example, a train we can look out the window and see the physical world flow past.

Yes, but our experience of the flow of time would be an illusion, false, if the B Theory is correct since time is static.

[Jedidiah]

No Jed, New York and Chicago exist in physically different spatial locations, not different temporal locations. I suspect that is probably what you meant to say, its confusing to think about, But in the B-theory of time which is what we are discussing, there is no flow of time, in the B-theory of time all events exist at once, think the "Block Universe", there is no moving from one location in space to another, you are in both places "at once."

That is indeed what I meant, New York and Chicago exist in physically different spatial locations, different temporal events exist in different temporal locations.

[JimL]

Likewise I do not buy it, but I do not consider it necessarily in agreement with physics.

Well i am not a physicist, so I don't really know for sure, but that is what i've heard, that the "block universe" is the model that squares with the physics.

[shunyadragon]

Well i am not a physicist, so I don't really know for sure, but that is what i've heard, that the "block universe" is the model that squares with the physics.

One aspect of the problem of squaring with physics is the observed fractal chaotic nature of our existence in that this observed nature of our physical existence is not a 'block universe.' For examples: All observed solar systems are similar within the range of possible solar systems. but no two are the same. Same as all clouds look like clouds, but no two are the same.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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?

And I answered it before: one moment in time differs from another in its ordinal position along the whole dimension, in exactly the same way that one location in a spatial dimension differs from another in its ordinal position along the whole dimension. Even if all else was uniform, these moments would differ from one another. Add in the fact that different events are situated at each of these different moments, and you have even greater means of differentiation. Again, time doesn't need to flow in order to differentiate moments any more than space needs to flow in order to differentiate locations.

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."

Again, I have to object to the phrase "all events exist at once," as it is terribly misleading. All events exist, no matter which moment of time one happens to be observing. That does not mean that all events occur in the same moment of time.

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."

I really don't think you do understand what I am saying if you continue to insist that the B-Theory implies that all events are occurring in a single moment.

One aspect of the problem of squaring with physics is the observed fractal chaotic nature of our existence in that this observed nature of our physical existence is not a 'block universe.' For examples: All observed solar systems are similar within the range of possible solar systems. but no two are the same. Same as all clouds look like clouds, but no two are the same.

Wait, are you claiming that the fact that celestial objects differ from one another is somehow in opposition to the B-Theory of Time? I'm really not understanding what you mean by this statement.

[JimL]

Again, I have to object to the phrase "all events exist at once," as it is terribly misleading. All events exist, no matter which moment of time one happens to be observing. That does not mean that all events occur in the same moment of time.

That all events in time exist "at once" was your definition BP, not mine. But I agree with that phrasing because time is static, no? If so, then in that case all events, or moments, exist whether one happens to be observing them or not, the observers may be located in a different "moments" of time and so not be able to observe other moments, but those other moments exist whether they can observe them or not, no?

I really don't think you do understand what I am saying if you continue to insist that the B-Theory implies that all events are occurring in a single moment.

I don't believe I said that all events exist in a single moment, but if I did then what I meant is that because time is static, all events exist "at once," thus the distances between moments in time is little different than the distances between events in space, in both instances, there is no flow, all of the increments of space, and all of the moments in time, exist "at once" even though they exist in different locations within their respective dimensions.

[seer]

And I answered it before: one moment in time differs from another in its ordinal position along the whole dimension, in exactly the same way that one location in a spatial dimension differs from another in its ordinal position along the whole dimension. Even if all else was uniform, these moments would differ from one another. Add in the fact that different events are situated at each of these different moments, and you have even greater means of differentiation. Again, time doesn't need to flow in order to differentiate moments any more than space needs to flow in order to differentiate locations.

This is misleading Boxing, because if you are correct somewhere in this universe I am presently a babe in my mother's arms, writing to you, and an 85 year old drooling on himself in a nursing home, and I'm dead. All these events DO exist together at one moment, this moment. As I speak to you they are all happening in the universe.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

That all events in time exist "at once" was your definition BP, not mine.

No, it wasn't. The only times I have used the phrase "at once" in this thread have been in response to others who brought it up. I've been consistently attempting to show that the phrase is misleading. I have consistently held that time on the B-Theory is composed of an ordered set of moments, that there are more than one of these moments, and that not all events occur in the same moment.

But I agree with that phrasing because time is static, no? If so, then in that case all events, or moments, exist whether one happens to be observing them or not, the observers may be located in a different "moments" of time and so not be able to observe other moments, but those other moments exist whether they can observe them or not, no?

This is accurate.

I don't believe I said that all events exist in a single moment, but if I did then what I meant is that because time is static, all events exist "at once," thus the distances between moments in time is little different than the distances between events in space, in both instances, there is no flow, all of the increments of space, and all of the moments in time, exist "at once" even though they exist in different locations within their respective dimensions.

Again, this is accurate. The reason I object to the phrase "at once" is that it becomes terribly easy to commit an equivocation fallacy based upon it. Seer has fallen prey to this, earlier in the thread, by claiming that if all of time exists "at once," then there can only be one moment of time.

As such, I intentionally avoid using phrases like "at once" or (even worse) "simultaneously" when talking about the ontology of moments of time. They only breed confusion, and they're certainly not necessary to the conversation.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

This is misleading Boxing, because if you are correct somewhere in this universe I am presently a babe in my mother's arms, writing to you, and an 85 year old drooling on himself in a nursing home, and I'm dead. All these events DO exist together at one moment, this moment. As I speak to you they are all happening in the universe.

Close. It's not "somewhere" in the universe, but "some when" or "at some moment of time" in the universe. The phrase "somewhere" is a spatial descriptor, not a temporal one.

So, yes, on the B-Theory, at any moment in the universe it is true that another moment exists in which you are a baby, and another moment exists in which you are dead. This does not imply that those three moments are therefore the same moment.

[seer]

Close. It's not "somewhere" in the universe, but "some when" or "at some moment of time" in the universe. The phrase "somewhere" is a spatial descriptor, not a temporal one.

So, yes, on the B-Theory, at any moment in the universe it is true that another moment exists in which you are a baby, and another moment exists in which you are dead. This does not imply that those three moments are therefore the same moment.

Sheesh! Moments apply only to the flow of time, how can you have moments if time is static? The fact is, I am presently in all four conditions. They do in fact exist at this moment, since if time is static there is ultimately only one moment. One static moment.