The cool thing about this conjecture is that we engage the possibility that discrete states are reflected as a set (a or maybe a bag, cf Java) without order. And the reason for the lack of, or even the potential for, an order is that 'the bulk' in which the states reside, exist distinct from the laws of thermodynamics which give rise to the ordering (time as we know it). Each state is reversible with respect to the next and so no glass whole/glass broken conundrum. — JosephS

It would be very neat, but can time really emerge from timeless thermodynamic phenomena? If entropy increases causes time to flow, we would expect time to flow faster where entropy is increasing faster. Has this ever been observed?

There are other possibilities for the pre-Big Bang rather than timeless quantum soup. Quantum soup does not explain why the universe is fine tuned for life (without resource to unparimouous multiple universe models). We could imagine a macro world with a non-linear time dimension. It might or might not have the familiar 3 spacial dimensions. In that world, a timeless intelligence would compute the requirements for a life supporting universe and craft some sort of bomb that would set off the chain reaction leading to time/inflation/the BB.

Not necessarily. Pool is a two dimensional game played in four dimensions, hence the need for a three dimensional ‘vessel’ to contain the play. Change, on the other hand, is a 4D event. It only requires a 3D vessel if you’re trying to portray it in only two dimensions. — Possibility

Time has a start implies something physical must have changed when time started which implies time is a physical thing.

Rovelli has it that space-time is Einstein's gravitational field. — PoeticUniverse

Fields making up empty space? Sounds like substantivalism. All the fields I’m aware of have time as a determinate variable; a field is just a static picture without time - so time is a requirement for fields to exist and time is not a field in itself. So I do not see how the time dimension could emerge from fields.

This demolishes claims of infinite divisibility, and so Zeno's hare beats the tortiose. Analog falls, digital rises; there is no continuum. — PoeticUniverse

To solve the puzzle of the actually infinite, it seems we have to choose either eternalism or discreteness (or both). I am not so sure about vanilla eternalism. That would suggest everything in existence is co-eternal from a 4D perspective. How could such a seemingly sequential structure as space-time ever exist as a single, co-eternal whole? So we need to consider discreetness.

For each motion we make, do we complete an actual infinity? Actual infinity seems (otherwise from continuous motion) an unrealisable and disprovable concept; how for example could a real world set have a non-finite cardinality? It would cross the t’s and dot the i’s if the world turned out to be discrete. Quantum loop gravity is a discrete theory for example.

Happenings are ubiquitous, meaning ever-present; change is all; there is never not any change; there is a continual transitioning. I wish it would stop so I could sleep for a week. — PoeticUniverse

Change may need a vessel. Playing pool without a pool table is difficult. That vessel gives us tell-tale signs such vacuum energy and dark energy. Something must have preexisted spacetime (by some unknown measure) - meaning something physical changed when spacetime began - therefore spacetime must be a physical thing.

Dualism, being a reality of two, as usually the opposites of spirit and matter, often gets rejected, for there can be no interpenetration/interaction of distinctly different categories. — PoeticUniverse

Quantum engagement seems like interaction of matter linked via a separate world. The start of time also seems to be the intersection of two different realities. There are maybe many such realities, some forever disconnected, others able to influence each other.

Relationalism, then, goes beyond them each, admitting both, in a balance, which empirical quality is bolstered by our experiencing each in Reality. We have brains that echo both unity and multiplicity, for we can understand holistically, in parallel, as well as understand details, sequentially. — PoeticUniverse

I think that substantivalism does not preclude either Monism and Pluralism. Foe example, if spacetime is fields and energy/matter are fields then we have a form of monism. Likewise, switching energy/matter to strings and spacetime to dark energy or ether, yields a form of pluralism.

Time is mostly constituted by us — PoeticUniverse

Both the time and space dimensions are fundamentally sequential. Sequential things need a start (or else they are actually infinite - an impossibility). Things that have a start are physically real. So time is real IMO.

You misunderstand me - I will try to clarify. I’m aware of how multiple dimensions work. What I was discussing in my last post was if there is any alternatives to the static 4D block universe view.

Time appears linear to us (presentism/growing block theory). The other touted way it could work is a 4D block universe view (eternalism). We do not know which view is correct (they could both be wrong).

The problem with the 4D block universe view of the universe is that all is static and eternal, as in a still picture (when viewed from a 4D perspective). This presents a number of challenges:

1. We cannot sense the past or future. We do not appear to be 4D spacetime worms
2. Dynamic processes like evolution to not fit well with the static nature of 4D block universe
3. Causality is a feature of time and even within the 4D block universe view, causality exists and is sequential. But a never ending sequence of causally related events is impossible - it must start somewhere and the question is then what is the cause of that start. Time, as a sequential ordering of events, has a definite start (maybe the BB). If we represent the time dimension as a line, then it has to have a start and something must be sequentially before time (in respect of that dimension). Eternalist views do not explain what that something is and how it morphed into the sequential time that we are familiar with.
4. The universe appears fine-tuned for life. This requires a fine-tuner. In the 4D block universe view, everything is equally eternal - everything has existed forever - the universe and its fine tuner would be co-eternal - so when viewed from that perspective, there is no room for a fine-tuner to come before the creation of 4D block universe and fine tune it. That can maybe be skirted with multiple universes all of differing configurations, but it’s not a very parsimonious solution.

So whilst acknowledging that a purely eternalist universe is a possibility, I am also interested in looking for at possible alternatives of a more dynamic nature - that would not have the problems mentioned above. Hence I suggested that the timeless environment has a pseudo-dimension that is actually an unordered sequence of events but it contains a subset of ordered events that represent our familiar, sequential time.

Potential is timeless - it doesn’t make sense to say that it goes from one situation to another. There was never a time when potential wasn’t aware. — Possibility

But you have potential which is nothing by itself - it has to lead to the actual. What is the mechanism by which this happen? Does time exist as a dimension when this happens? Then it would be a sequential, cause and effect based mechanism (even when viewed from the 4d block universe perspective, causality, thus sequentiality hold)- which is impossible.

I believe your model has 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension? What purpose does the 5th dimension serve beyond being a larger container for the 4D universe? I don’t see how the presence of a 5th dimension would make for a timeless environment?

Potential energy is always associated with pre-existing energy/matter. I do not understand the existence of potential by itself?

The thing about a linear history of the universe is that time doesn’t work like that. We’ve sequentially ordered it all the way back to the BB from an imagined perspective of observers who experience ‘time’ in a particular way. — Possibility

You can view time from the 4d block universe perspective, but it is still sequentially organised - all time-like or space-like dimensions can be represented on a graph by an axis - so they are fundamentally sequentially organised - which means the time dimension has to stretch back forever (impossible - infinite regress) or start at some point (what is the reason why it started?).

Time appears to have ‘started’ from our perspective 13.8 billion years ago, because that’s the point back to which we can trace our broadest perspective of the universe in time. — Possibility

The argument in the OP is that time as we know it (as a linear ordering of events) must have had a start. That may or may not have been the Big Bang, but the point is, it is more than just an ‘appears’ to have started, it is that it actually did start. Something about the nature of the universe is quite different in the no time picture to the time picture - something physically changed. That is why I’ve suggested that our time is itself part of a larger, non-sequential ‘dimension’.

I wonder if we could have the timeless environment as the usual 3 spacial dimensions plus an unordered set to represent the 4th dimension:

- Events would happen somewhere in space but all be 'concurrent' with each other in a sense
- There is no first event
- Time as we know it would be a specialised, ordered subset of the 4th dimension

Here’s an attempt to articulate my view of the ‘birth’ of our universe - although it may seem vague because it is speculation based on awareness — Possibility

Interesting. I have a few questions:

What caused potential to go from a non-aware situation to an aware situation? Or was the potential ‘always’ aware in some way? The universe appears to be fine-tuned for life so single universe models seem to lead naturally to the presence of a timeless fine tuner. Multiple universe models may avoid the need for a fine tuner. Your view sounds like a single universe model?

What is the nature of time in your model? Do you have it as one of your 5 dimensions so that it has permanent existence? Or is it created 'subsequently'? Or does time start when observers first appear? If (proto-)time exists permanently in the 5D environment, is that not introducing a sequential ordering of events into the timeless environment? - Once there is any form of sequential ordering, the need for a ‘start’ is introduced (or else an impossible infinite regress).

I was trying to think of a timeless environment for which there would be no starting event and I could not come up with anything similar to spacetime - that is fundamentally sequentially ordered. So I though of the concepts of an unordered set of events or a graph of nodes. Both are abstract, but both do not have a starting point - so they can represent unordered, timeless existence. Really, I'm trying to think of ideas that get around questions like this:

- What caused the first movement?
- What caused God to have his first thought?
- What caused potential to become aware?

This is Relationalism, which I like. All seems to have to be relative/relational, since there is no outside or before Totality, thus no absolute rulers or clocks or anything to have a say. Seems there wouldn't be intrinsic properties, this still in accord with the eternal not being able to be anything specific. — PoeticUniverse

I am unsure over the nature of spacetime, including the Relationalism Vs Substantivalism question. As a supporter of the first, maybe you can address these questions:

- Time appears to pass without change. Change appears to have no impact on the speed time is passing (or the wrong impact - SR - time slows down rather than speeds up with increasing movement).

- If time is change, then more change should result in time running faster? This does not happen, for example, a mechanical clock (lots of change) tells the same time as a digital watch (less change).

- What are dark and vacuum energy? Space itself seems to have inherent properties.

- It seems time had a start, maybe the BB. To go from a no time to time situation, would something physical have to change in the universe? Does that suggest time is a physical 'thing'?

What about GR versus QM? Do we have to pick one? — PoeticUniverse

QM (or a ToE) is a micro level theory, so is not so useful for predicting the macro behaviour of the universe. The question of origin of the universe involves huge amounts of matter/energy so seems primarily a macro question. Sure we need QM/ToE for the singularity but before/after its a macro problem. So we will always need classical theories like GR - they are continuous approximations for a discrete reality but that seems the only feasible way to model the macro scale universe.

And yet we really do not know what Jesus had to say. — Fooloso4

I believe that many early christians were vegetarian. I'm a vegetarian and so I'd like it if Jesus was too, but the bible seems to contradict this:

- His 'feeding the multitude' miracles involved feeding them fish.
- Jesus himself eat fish according to Luke 24: '"Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.'

But there are opposing views too - Jesus may have entered the temple to protest against animal sacrifice:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/was-jesus-a-vegetarian_b_276141

I'm discussing a timeless basis for reality and a timeless God - not quite sure what you mean?

We have an ‘eternal realm’ - a required, atemporal basis for all of reality and a ‘timed realm’ - the sequentially ordered reality we are familiar with. The eternal realm is the cause of the timed realm (in some atemporal sense). The eternal realm may or may not contain the timed realm.

One way to categorise the possible models is by whether whether each of these realms supports change or not:

Eternal realm: static, Timed realm: static

- Multiverse - Eternal Inflation
- Multiverse - QM Many worlds

Problems:
- The timed realm being static runs contrary to 'gut feeling' about the world
- The strong anthropic principle does not account for everything - some aspects of all universes would have to be fixed (aspects of the standard model) so could not vary across life supporting / non life supporting ranges
- multiverses are not parsimonious
- Multiverse generator may need fine tuning (and there is no room for a fine-tuner in this model)

Eternal realm: dynamic, Timed realm: static

- God + an eternalist universe.

Problems:
- The timed realm being static runs contrary to 'gut feeling' about the world
- How does an eternal, dynamic, non-sequential realm work?

Eternal realm: dynamic, Timed realm: dynamic

- God + presentist universe
- God + growing block universe
- God + circular time universe

Problems:
- How does an eternal, dynamic, non-sequential realm work?

Eternal realm: static, Timed realm: dynamic
(no models I can think of)

I have probably missed some possible models above. The 2nd and 3rd model require a dynamic eternal realm which is discussed below.

How could a dynamic eternal realm work?

I tried hard to think of topologies that a dynamic eternal realm could take but any topology is basically open (a line) or closed (a circle) so they are all inherently sequential and not suitable. So I think if there is a dynamic, eternal, realm, it is nothing like our spacetime.

Perhaps its better to think first of a dynamic, eternal, realm as an unordered set of events:

{ ‘God causes Big Bang’, ‘God plans Big Bang’, ’God observes 2019’, ‘God observes 1066’, … }

What could it be physically though? It may not be physical. If it is physical, maybe it is just nodes of information, perhaps connected by links that represent relationships between the nodes - so a directed graph of some sort.

Maybe all of the events in our spacetime would be represented in this graph plus events external to our spacetime. So spacetime maintains the sequential ordering of spacetime events, but the graph represents relationships between all events. Might tie in with quantum entanglement - there would be a relationship between the nodes of the entangled particles and no time/space between those nodes so they could synchronise immediately.

What is God? Certain nodes in the graph? All nodes in the graph?

“Eternity is the complete possession all at once of illimitable life” - Boethius

I lean toward this lately, because existence, having no opposite/alternative would have to all be there, as everything, not just some of it; however, that is only the implementation, which is the 'messenger', yet the 'message', which is of the real importance, remains the same as that of presentism, that we and the universe develop/change, which is why we can't tell the difference, and since we can't, we still have to go on, as mostly only considering the 'message', via some reasoning such as 'a difference (in implementation) that makes no difference in the 'message' is no difference." — PoeticUniverse

The static block universe has attractions - it is physically familiar model to the world around us - it does not require some strange additional representation like the graph I mentioned above that a dynamic eternal realm seems to require.

For example, either way suggests determinism, one way as pre-determined and the other determined as things go along, not that we need to worry about it too much in this thread, unless it bears on something here. My continual transition theory, based only on the 'message', works either way. There is still never any lasting particular state of affairs. — PoeticUniverse

Maybe we can separate predestination from determinism - the 4D block view requires the first, but maybe not the second? So a fixed future that is undeterminable by us. So the possible/debated randomness of QM could still fit with an eternalist model?

I wonder if the fact that we have a universal clock isn't a tell as to whether this universe is a simulation. — JosephS

The simulation hypotheses is interesting and there are some strong arguments in favour of it, but an argument against it is that there are approximately 10^86 particles in the observable universe and they all interact with each other via gravity. With our computers, we cannot even solve the 3 body problem of gravity. The simulation would have to be running on some very exotic hardware.

So when we consider something that is timeless, in my view it must also be formless - existing everywhere/when in both our time dimension and our spatial dimensions, yet unpredictable in either. — Possibility

Would we need observer(s) to make the formless have form and therefore lead to concrete events that could lead to the birth of our universe?

I think we've discussed two basic models:

- Classic eternalism. Everything is a completely still 4D block. Change is an illusion. This appears to need multiple universes to exist (to account for our life supporting via the strong anthropic principle). Even then I'm not sure the SAP fully explains the life supporting nature of our universe.

- Some type of 'dynamic' eternalism. Change of some form is somehow possible in the eternal realm. A single, life supporting universe is accounted for by either an eternal fine tuner or a massive fluke (=weak anthropic principle). Our universe could be eternal, growing block or presentist under this model (but the eternal realm must be eternal).

Both models have problems so returning to the possibility that things have in fact existed ‘forever’ in time (and we are going down the wrong track), there is this quote from Leibniz:

’Suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy having been written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out, we should never come to a full reason. What is true of the books is also true of the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’ - Leibniz, Theodicy

So Leibniz (one of the greatest thinkers in history) is saying we are not on the wrong track.

So it may be that time is circular or that the universe exhibits some other yet to be discovered facets that will allow us to get beyond the singularity of the BB — JosephS

I think there is a very plentiful supply of very depressing cosmological models. I'm a natural optimist, so I'm interested in the less talked about, more uplifting models. Circular eternal time would be wonderful. Closed time-like curves in GR lend support this model but seemingly, as with the other avenues, there are problems:

- The universe seems to exhibit the signs of being a fine-tuned creation. When does creation / fine-tuning take place (if the circle of time is eternal)?
- On a similar vein, circular time does not seem the most naturalistic solution; more the solution of some anthropomorphic entity with our interests at heart (again leading to the question of 'when').
- It does not fit in too well with the dynamic nature of the universe (but I did mention a possible circular compromise model here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/307147).

This All sounds rather like an ultimate free lunch,
For the basis is already made, with no punch,
It ever being around, as is, never a ‘was’—
Everywhere, in great abundance quite unheard of. — PoeticUniverse

Putting my God shoes on, if I had the means to create a multiverse from nothing, I think I would not be able to resist doing it (for the thrill of it at the very least). As you can probably tell, I would prefer a universe with a god rather than without. This probably clouds my judgement a little - apologies.

My brain is a little exhausted... I will bid you folks good night...

What says we aren't the drunk looking for his keys at the lamp post because that is where the light is? — JosephS

You could well be correct. We are fundamentally sequentially ordered creatures of time and sequentially ordered time appears insufficient to explain the origin of things. Other possible types of existence may explain the origin of the universe but be beyond our sequentially ordered comprehension. So it is perhaps an unsolvable puzzle. I enjoy trying to solve puzzles even if they are beyond me or impossible. I personally think that we can understand and discount actual infinity on purely logical grounds.

Nice video, you are clearly very creative. Lot worse things than being human.

One of the well known problems with multiple universe theories is the need for fine tuning of the mechanism that generates the multiple universes. Some of the physical laws that govern the 'universe generation mechanism' are inherited by each and every universe generated. So the strong anthropic principle appears to break down. The most popular flavour of these theories is Eternal Inflation. It does not (also) IMO really explain the origin of the universe (beyond some speculation about quantum fluctuations that I discount).

Something like that, but the timeless 'IS' already has everything (possible) all at once, with no initial state. — PoeticUniverse

I was speaking rather loosely with the term 'initial state'. I meant with QM many worlds, each possible world has to branch off from another world and this process cannot stretch back infinitum, so by initial state I meant the the (eternal) root node of the (eternal) tree of possible worlds. A possible problem with eternalist QM many worlds is that some laws of physics must govern the initial state, else it would not have laws to evolve it to the next states. These laws would underpin every possible state and would be reflected in all possible worlds. So the again the anthropic principle seems to break down - the initial laws would need fine tuning and there is nowhere for a fine-tuner to fit in.

To briefly recap the problem: all sequential-based explanations for the origins for the universe seem to break down - they always lead to an impossible infinite regress. Does not matter which model it is - what caused the start of Eternal Inflation? Or what caused God to have a first thought? It's the same basic problem - a sequence requires a start for the rest of the sequence to be real and then what caused the start of the sequence? So a non-sequential explanation of the origin of the universe seems to be required... hence our discussion on eternalism. But the universe appears to be a dynamic, fine-tuned creation... which is incompatible with vanilla eternalism (if it existed eternally, how exactly can it be dynamic? How could it be created / fine-tuned?). End of recap.

I'm struggling to come up with anything much:

- Someone mentioned time travel a while back on this or another thread: the human race would eventually work out that there is no possible origin of the universe and therefore we would be compelled to travel back in time to create the Big Bang so that the universe has an origin. It does not appear to work though... first time round there is nothing so no time travellers.

- The idea of instantaneous change (maybe like a photon) - an eternal spacial only universe in which some entity is simultaneously at all points in space. This entity could be causally active so create / fine tune our universe.

- The get out of jail / cop out solution of a non-material God of some sort.

The initial state has to be agnostic to the laws of physics and the standard model - they must be somehow determined during the branching of worlds process so that all variations are accounted for (even more monstrous).

There are an actually infinite number of variations of the laws of physics (gravity can vary from 0->∞ for example), so I'm not sure it flys.

So QM many worlds combined with eternalism could account for everything (by definition really). When combined with the anthropic principle, it would explain the fine tuning of the universe. It would need a fixed 'initial' state from which the tree of possible worlds could branch. Time would need a definite end to avoid an actual infinity of possible worlds.

It is not exactly a parsimonious solution though - such a monstrosity existing eternally is quite a lot to swallow.

Given what energy/matter is in time, how would you describe its existence in a timeless state? — Possibility

That's a good question. I am really not sure of the answer. My argument seems to lead to the need for timeless existence, but it is difficult to see how such a thing could work. This maybe indicative that I have it all wrong and there is in fact no such thing as timelessness, or it maybe indicative that its just difficult for beings of time to conceive of a different possible state of existence. I hold out some hope for the second - of all the possible realities, the human race is familiar only with one and that could lead to a rather blinkered outlook on the possibilities - which maybe almost without limit.

I wonder if timeless matter could be matter which exists in all possible configurations simultaneously (in the 'eternal now'). So maybe a little like a quantum superposition.

I wonder if the idea of 'instantaneous change' might help with eternalism/timelessness. Photons could be a possible precedent, so maybe quantum entanglement. From a photon's perspective, travel to anywhere in the universe can be accomplished in no time.

Is it possible to imagine an eternal being of space but not of time (4 spacial dimensions say). It would be in all possible states simultaneously. It would have no past or future, yet it would be causally efficacious and would have permanent existence.

So with this model, the 'eternal realm' would be 4 spacial dimensions, one of which maps to our time dimension. If we were to look on that realm through time-based eyes, the eternal being would appear to be everywhere and everywhen simultaneously.

In the timeless realm, there maybe not be the familiar 4 forces - forces act over time and there would obviously be no time. I'm not sure what the nature of a timeless force would be.

Please forgive me for being rather nebulous and vague... its a difficult question.

This is a common view derived from Aristotle/Aquinas. Are you sure of the direction of causality here? If we are aware that an object possesses potential, then where did that potential come from? If it is only a consequence of the presence of energy/matter, then how did this energy/matter come to be present except through potential? — Possibility

I see two possibilities:

1. Energy/matter was created in the BB via the zero energy universe hypothesis
2. Energy/matter existed timelessly and entered time at the BB (likely candidate for the start of time)

Both respect the conservation of energy. With the 2nd, the energy/matter has 'permanent' existence.

And yet time is what we experience. I’m going to recommend Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ here again - it explores the relativity of time to this point you have currently reached in suggesting eternalism as the ‘only’ credible option (from a physics standpoint), and then proceeds to rebuild our notion of time in the light of quantum theory (or more precisely quantum gravity). — Possibility

I do not think eternalism is the only credible option for time - just exploring the possibilities. It's a struggle to find any credible options for time - they all have problems. But I think we can rule out vanilla presentism.

I should really take a look at Carlo Rovelli's book - sounds interesting.

I sticking with the all Natural, as probable — PoeticUniverse

I’m of the view that that the Big Bang and the initial conditions of the universe are probably unnatural. The supernatural evolvement goes no further than setting these initial conditions for the universe though. To me it’s as if a giant intelligence computed the requirements for a life supporting universe and designed some sort of device/bomb that would result in such a universe.

The BB seems unnatural - it is a singleton, natural events come in pluralities. It had unnaturally low entropy to start with - the CMB radiation is isotropic to one part in 100,000 - and thats 400,000 years after the BB - nothing natural has such low entropy. The BB itself appears engineered to keep the universe out of gravitational equilibrium. Space itself is expanding in an unnatural manner to do this.

The standard model appears fine-tuned to support life. The strengths of the forces (strong nuclear force and electromagnetic) and masses/charges/other characteristics of sub-atomic particles all have to be set to close to their current values in order for atoms to hold together; if the forces were different, atoms would not form or be stable, or if they would form, it would only be the simpler elements (no carbon so no life).

The apparent fine-tuning of the atom allows the wonderful range of matter we experience in the world today (the elements all 100+ of them). Then we have the remarkable chemical bonding process that give rise to the hugely diverse range of chemical compounds in the world, many of which are essential for life.

The atom seems like a toolkit for construction of advanced matter and life. Contrast our universe to most hypothetical universes; particles would just bounce off each other endlessly without any cohesion because the forces and particles where not fine-tuned such that atoms and compounds would form.

Gravity appears fine-tuned to allow the formation of stars (energy sources for life) and planets (living surfaces for life).

I think it is likely that atmospheric evolution and thus subsequent biological evolution play out similar on all potentially life supporting rocky planets. The reports of UFO encounters are supportive of this. The atmosphere would always start with a main constituent of hydrogen. Volcanos (which all rocky planets seem to have) would introduce nitrogen and carbon dioxide. At this point, early life forms appear. From then on, evolution may take a predicable path, resulting in plants, photosynthesis and oxygen. In any case, I do not believe that all advanced life forms need oxygen to proper. There are other possibilities.

If there was no moon, then we would be subject to more extreme weather and more ice ages, but life has prospered through such conditions in the past and is very resilient and adaptable. Evolution would win the battle.

Asteroids are an unavoidable ’feature’ of the design chosen for the universe - solar system evolution is not possible without occasional asteroids. The number of astroid impacts is a function of the age of the solar system - it reduces with time. In any case, any reasonably advanced life would be able to develop counter measures against such eventualities.

In summary, there are about 20 constants that must be at or near their current values for this universe to be life supporting. The chances of that happening by accident are tiny (billions to one), so we can infer that conditions for life in the universe are the result of fine tuning - which implies a fine tuner.

Freud and many psychologists thought the same. But, I don't think that the proper conscious to arrive at is that the unconscious mind is in some sense separate or detached from the conscious mind. What do you think? — Wallows

Things I worry about in waking life sometimes carry over into dreams. So the simple process of thinking about something before sleep sometimes seems to direct my dreams. But other times, the dreams seem unrelated to any recent conscious thought.

The subconscious mind is always active and perhaps is more attentive than the conscious mind. Maybe a lot of the information taken in by the senses is not processed by the conscious - but is processed by the subconscious - which experiences more in some sense. Maybe it shares its conclusions during dreams. The conscious mind is present during a dream, but a whole alternative reality is presumably generated by the subconscious - so the subconscious would seem to be intellectually quite formidable (at least in creativity terms, not so for pure logic I think).

I suspect that in most dreaming states, that the mind has more resources available to analyze or be able to determine differing thoughts and stuff. — Wallows

The few dreams I remember are sometimes quite stunningly creative in content, if not always particularly logical. More creative than my waking mind. So it seems correct that more/different parts of the brain maybe involved. To be able to direct the dream and harness that creativity would be wonderful.

One interesting question is that if dream entities do indeed have an intent of their own, then what is their goal or 'desire' to get out of interactions with them? What do you think? — Wallows

I wonder if the subconscious is a different person in some sense. One body, two minds. You meet the other 'you' directly only in your dreams. I think some of my dreams I can interpret as desires (that I presumably share with my subconscious).

Interesting. Please post if it works.

Even if we cannot actually speak to different entities in our dreams, maybe it allows access to the subconscious mind in a way that the waking conscious does not. Like a computer, there seems to be various background activities going on in the mind and nervous system. Maybe it might be possible to engage with these processes. I drink quite a bit, so maybe I'd not like to talk with my liver, it might be a mite angry with me.

Could it be that there are different classes of characters in our dreams? Some might be wooden, bit part actors added by our subconscious, others are actually real, separate entities?

I think you should learn how to lucid dream - it sounds great - never managed it myself.

Maybe other people, aliens, gods can participate in our dreams - stray EMR maybe. You could ask them if you should move back to Poland. I have various questions about time, God, infinity I would like answered - I would grill all comers until I get answers. Has anyone tried that BTW?

As an ex-computer programmer, I wonder about the ultimate source of all the information in the universe. Maybe it requires random, or maybe pseudo-random, as in a complex mathematical fractal is all that is required. I hope the second, but it seems the jury is still out.

Since presentism has some problems, we are leaning toward eternalism herein. — PoeticUniverse

One thought is an eternal realm for the ‘IS’ and a temporal, presentist, realm for us poor mortals. But it seems the eternal realm must come ‘first’ and the temporal realm be part of the eternal realm, so it’s not a natural model - more natural is for our realm to inherit the properties of the eternal realm. Or equally depressing, we have the ‘IS’ as a non-material, eternal being who needs no container but has created a transitory, presentist world (selfish). Both options have disadvantages though: SR/GR and Zeno’s paradoxes are not addressed.

Thinking, for example, seems to be a dynamic process, but it could have been all laid out beforehand in the Great Block, like everything else. Smolin, though, would say that qualia are always only about the 'now'. — PoeticUniverse

One model I’ve always found interesting is circular time. It receives some theoretical support from closed time-like curves in GR and the Big Crunch hypothesis. There is a possible way that might allow a compromise between the seemingly dynamic processes around us and the static nature of eternalism:

- It starts out as growing block theory. The first time around the ‘circle of time’, the future is not real, only the present and past (which is built up dynamically as a growing block)
- On the next time around the ‘circle of time’, the past circumnavigation of time is replayed, as if it were a movie being replayed on a computer

If we anthropomorphise the ‘IS’, then this scheme might be seen as quite an effective way to build a universe that is eternal for its occupants. It is an Occam’s Razor design for eternal life, at least when compared to traditional views of eternity like heaven and hell - which seem to present insurmountable implementation difficulties.

How that fits in with an eternal ‘IS’ I’m not too sure. It would have to be causally prior to the eternal, circular realm in some sense to be its creator. So some things would have to be 'more eternal' than others.

I wonder if we could imagine the ‘IS’ as some sort of limit process. The way 1/n tends to zero but never quite gets there. The ‘IS’ would eternally be ‘greater than zero’, but would take a long time to materialise in its full form. Like music ‘fades out’ at the end of the song, a sort of eternal ’fade in’ for reality. But it’s not really an eternalist model and I’m personally not keen on infinite processes.

The Theory of Relativity demonstrates the undeniable unity of reality, as the spacetime continuum, while Quantum Theory demonstrates the inescapable discrete multiplicity of plurality, so in these these two working theories we have some confirmation, one pertaining to the large and further away, holistic view and the other about the close-up detailed view. — PoeticUniverse

There is a strong hint of eternalism from the quantum easer experiment.

I return to the possibility of a non-material ‘IS’ that is not bound by time or space. If we could see reality from a perspective of a photon, then it would not experience time or space, so maybe spaceless and timeless is not completely far fetched. The ‘IS’ has to have no start in a temporal/sequential sense and also has to be causally efficacious. I’ve thought about various structures (basically open and closed topologies) but at present, the nebulous ‘non-material’ remains as the only candidate I've come up with. Sherlock Holmes used to say when all of the probables are eliminated, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. Don’t think we are quite at that point yet though.

But anyhow, the nature of time has defeated all comers for thousands of years, so we must not get depressed about not solving it in the last few posts! Thanks for the conversation!

I'm a little confused by your comments. My point was that all time-based models for the origin of the universe ultimately fail - they result in an infinite regress of events - which is impossible - only something timeless can be the basis for everything in existence. I'm not quite sure where you discussion of potentiality fits in? Potential energy does not exist without associated objects that possess the potential? So to my mind, potentiality by itself does not shed light on the origins of energy/matter, it is a consequence of the presence of energy/matter. Maybe you could expand?

I find QM confusing, but I was pointed to quite a helpful document which relates to your point:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf

One of the author's points is that QM as it stands does not prove that reality is random at a micro level - that's down to the interpretation of QM.

On Bell's inequalities, I believe that the loopholes you mention imply that locality or realism do not hold. That seems like a large loophole - the violation of the inequalities does not mean that realism does not hold.

Quantum entanglement seems to be an established fact - non local behaviour. But I am not aware of any QM proof/evidence that realism does not hold?

So I believe I can maintain a belief in micro realism at this stage? Bell was, as I understand it, himself a supporter of Bohmian mechanics - non-local hidden variables but a realist interpretation.

My OP is an argument from macro level, which seems the more appropriate level when discussing the origin of the universe. The time around the singularity requires a quantum theory of gravity, but before and after the singularity, the origin of the universe appears to be a macro problem for which causality can be applied.

I'm not sure its completely clear cut, only parts of physics are on a fully axiomatic basis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_sixth_problem

So the axiomatic method is not used formally and consistently across physics.

So I can see your side of the argument.

I didn't buy that explanation either. — T Clark

I'd be grateful if you could tell me why you did not buy the explanation.

I don't think the source you are using addresses axioms in the physical sciences. Axioms are used in the physical sciences and they are testable. As I mentioned earlier SR has two - Wikipedia calls them postulates - another word for an axiom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

In general, to create a theory, you start with some axioms/postulates/premises as Einstein did and then make deductions from those axioms.

Or you do as Newton did and create axioms from observation - his 3 laws of motions are axiomatic - they are assumed to be true - but they are tested assumptions.

This is what Wikipedia says:

'An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]'

'Axioms play a key role not only in mathematics, but also in other sciences, notably in theoretical physics. In particular, the monumental work of Isaac Newton is essentially based on Euclid's axioms, augmented by a postulate on the non-relation of spacetime and the physics taking place in it at any moment.'

'Regardless, the role of axioms in mathematics and in the above-mentioned sciences is different. In mathematics one neither "proves" nor "disproves" an axiom for a set of theorems; the point is simply that in the conceptual realm identified by the axioms, the theorems logically follow. In contrast, in physics a comparison with experiments always makes sense, since a falsified physical theory needs modification.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Einstein assumed the speed of light is constant and then deduced SR from that. Any premise you assume as a basis for logical/mathematical deductions counts as an axiom.

I think I'm trying to work from axioms towards a logical conclusion - I guess you can call it speculation if you want.

I can speculate that time travelers created the universe — Three-Buddy Problem

Thats an interesting idea - a future human, time traveller travels back in time and sets off the Big Bang via some sort of device. It would be ironic, after all the effort invested in religion down the years if it turned out that we are our own gods.

No, it doesn't. That's the purpose of axioms. They are accepted as being true without inquiry or investigation. Axioms are not tested, by science or by anything else. That's what axioms are, and it's what they are for. — Pattern-chaser

For example, Einstein used for SR two axioms:

1. Speed of light is constant
2. Laws of physics are the same everywhere/when

Both of these axioms have be the subject of very intensive testing by science. The first for example has been derived as 299,792,458 m/s from multiple different experimental approaches.

Sciences axioms are tested wherever possible... that is the scientific method.

It is an assertion of causality and an assertion of non-causality at the same time in the original formation (IE God is the cause of himself).

The point of the OP was to bring out how the PSR can be altered so it makes more sense and how it neatly ties in with scientific evidence.

The BB is a huge, suspicious looking explosion:

1. It is a singleton; natural events always come in pluralities
2. Entropy was unnaturally low at the Big Bang
3. Rather than the objects themselves moving further apart, it is space itself that is expanding - the Big Bang is no normal explosion. This expansion of space is keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself into a massive black hole.
4. That the expansion is speeding up rather than slowing which also seems unnatural

If we can't judge by appearances, that handicaps us somewhat. By appearances, I judge it is possible that the BB is a creation. That ties in with other arguments.

Also, if something's out of spacetime then by definition it isn't bound by causality...I thought we've already established that. — Three-Buddy Problem

Not bound by causality but maybe still able to initiate (and even participate in) causality.

I don't think its possible to outright prove the existence of God (unless he turns up in person).

It is a hobby of mine to try to arrive at a tentative conclusion with respect to the existence / non-existence of a creator of the universe. It passes the time. I'm hardly the only one on the forum who does it. It's certainly been a popular pastime for philosophically inclined folks down the ages (too many names to mention).

I have many beliefs. One or two might even be correct. But I don't call them axioms. Where appropriate, I call them "guesses" — Pattern-chaser

So do you build on your 'guesses' with the tools of logic to arrive at (provisional) conclusions?

That's what I do with my 'axioms'. Possibly this is partly a syntactic difference? What I call axioms, you call guesses?

Science then takes things a step further by testing the axioms and the provisional conclusions against reality. Obviously that can be achieved for some philosophical questions (maybe not all). We test cause and effect in our everyday activities for example.

I guess we could introduce a level of confidence for the axioms/guesses. That way we could derive a level of confidence for any derived conclusions.

So for example, I'm pretty sure that the law of non-contradiction should hold in all possible worlds. So I might assign 95% certainty to that.

I'm pretty sure cause and effect hold in time-based worlds, so maybe 90% for that.

Then if I arrive at a conclusion that uses the above two axioms, the combined level of confidence would be 95% * 90% = 85.5%.

If you reject 3 then there is a contradiction viz. the PSR is false and true because any contingent reason would be sufficient. That's how far I got. Any comments? — TheMadFool

There are different formulations of the PSR, for example:

1. 'Everything must have a reason'
2. 'Everything contingent must have a reason'
3. 'Everything in time has a reason'

With [1], there appears to be a contradiction because what is the reason for God?

With [2] I think it matches your reasoning above - God is exempt from the PSR because he is a necessary being.

With [3], God becomes a timeless being - he just 'IS' without any need for a reason (there is and can be nothing logically or temporally prior to a timeless God). I personally prefer [3] as it is seems more explanatory than the other two.

The problem then with non-eternalist models is the need for a first action - what caused the first action? When thought of in a sequential, causal, manner, it does not seem to work.

So something more like the eternalist model. The eternal 'IS' has permanent existence concurrent with the whole of creation. It cannot be said to have a first ‘anything’ - it is fundamentally not a sequentially organised being of time.