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.

Potentiality: latent or inherent capacity or ability for growth, fulfilment, etc.

The 'IS' would be the one and only permanent thing, it necessarily being in a continuous transition, and thus never existing as anything particular, even for an instant, as befitting its necessary nature as eternal in that there is thence no point for it to have been designed, leaving it to be not anything in particular, as if it were everything, even.

Properly speaking, only the 'IS' “exists” and all the rest “happens.” — PoeticUniverse

Potentiality is not something different in each object/event, but has a unity in multiplicity. It is existing on its own, and is necessary to the existence/creation/development of the universe.

Potentiality is inherent in all aspects of the universe in time, across time and yet remains eternally unchanged - it is only awareness of it in time and with respect to each object/event that changes. Its latent quality is directly related to the awareness of its existence in relation to objects/events. Once we’re aware of that existence, we interact with it as inherent potential: we assume it was always there.

Potentiality is both scientific and non-material - although it is rarely discussed as a unitary concept (unless you count the dismissive/passive nature of descriptions in Aristotle/Aquinas). Potential energy, for instance, is ‘something’ that is scientifically predictable, and yet is ‘nothing’ in spacetime until it effects change. In quantum physics it can be predictable in limited conditions, but is unmeasurable in its purest ‘form’.

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?

all actions would be in some sense concurrent for the 'IS' - it would exist in the 'eternal now'. — Devans99

Since presentism has some problems, we are leaning toward eternalism herein. If we take Parmenides’ view, as Einstein did, time is completely left out and with it, seemingly all Happening, the 'IS' reduced to an impenetrable, immoveable and never-changing geometric object; however, we still have to admit that there are happenings and thus account for them.

From our viewpoint, we can't really tell the difference between presentism and eternalism.
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'.

Anyway, the 'IS' is the unity and the happenings are the multiplicity. We can look at our greatest findings and also at ourselves to see if this theme is reflected, as it well ought to be. The problem of the one and the many is perhaps the most difficult in metaphysics.

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.

We humans, too, reflect the same scheme, in that we take in scenes further away as a whole, probably processing them in parallel, while the close-up can get examined in detail, in a serial process; so, again, these clues confirm.

Consciousness is also a unity, built from the individual constituents' qualities, via higher and higher brain modules.

Thoughts, too, ever transition to the next thought.

More later, perhaps. My keyboard needs help.

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!

Potentiality is not something different in each object/event, but has a unity in multiplicity. It is existing on its own, and is necessary to the existence/creation/development of the universe. — Possibility

It appears that for anything to be, it first has to be possible (to have potential), although the timeless has no 'first', about which I don't know what to say.

For those who want spontaneous events amid 'Nothing', it always useful to remind them that they are referring, knowingly or not, to a capability/potential/possibility, and that's what's eternal, and that thus they didn't really have a 'Nothing'.

more natural is for our realm to inherit the properties of the eternal realm. — Devans99

Yes, as I've mentioned recently, although overall we remain mired in the temporal. or, if we are really traversing the eternal's pseudo-temporal we can't jump to the other parts of it, and there's no real difference since what makes no difference is no difference. It's like that live music versus mp3 music is still music, for the message is the same no matter the messenger implementation difference.

For now, I'm trying to follow Sherlock in following what been derived here in the last few days rather than getting too much into 'maybe' offshoots.

What more to say about the eternal? Well, it has no first anything, no first kiss, no first star…

If, say, in a time view, we note that a star requires previous stellar material to achieve its stellar ignition, we wonder how the first star got going, that's a puzzle, but in the eternalist view, all is at once and there is no first or last star; somehow, everything and anything needed is already there, for the eternal is its own precursor.

What else can be derived from the impossibility of 'Nothing'? It's just as impossible for there to be spacers of nothing between particles, and so if there's not anything between them, then they are adjacent. Perhaps all is field, as Einstein suggested.

Support for only the Natural being so:

Everywhere we look, we see but the natural. Nothing appears out of the ordinary after the repeat occurrences, such as Quasars, which may have been thought as miraculous the first time.

— If, say, our Earth was far from the Goldilocks zone, then we could claim magic, but it isn’t; it is where it could prosper.

— Without our moon, the Earth would rotate like a top in and out of freezing and scorching zones, which would prevent or at least greatly hinder plant growth. There would be thousands of such conditions required, but the universe is very large, and so someplace had to be full of them.

— Bacteria formed our atmosphere over two billion years by expelling oxygen, which to them was a poison. The oxygen race could then prosper.

— Without even looking back, such as for the above, we already know that the useful events, to us, had to have happened and we can thus even surmise what many of them were before they get discovered.

— One of many near extinctions, the Permian, wiped out 95% of all the species, including the dinosaurs, apparently opening the field for the further evolution of mammals. Such doesn't appear to be intelligent design.

—Or, the supposed Supernatural ever gets constrained to act and produce exactly like the natural would do—evolution, for example.

— If the Supernatural and the Natural were truly two distinct categories then how could they interpenetrate and affect one another without speaking the same language?

— Etc.

I sticking with the all Natural, as probable.

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? — Devans99

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?

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. — Devans99

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).

The distinction between past, present and future is not an illusion. It is the temporal structure of the world. But the temporal structure of the world is not that of presentism. The temporal relations between events are more complex than we previously thought, but they do not cease to exist on account of this. The relations of filiation do not establish a global order, but this does not make them illusory. If we are not all in single file, it does not follow that there are no relations between us. — Carlo Rovelli

There is nothing mysterious about the absence of time in the fundamental equation of quantum gravity. It is only the consequence of the fact that, at a fundamental level, no special variable exists.
The theory does not describe how things evolve in time. The theory describes how things change one in respect to the others, how things happen in the world in relation to each other. That’s all there is to it. — Carlo Rovelli

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.

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 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. — Devans99

I have a question:

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

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.

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. — Devans99

Since all the paths are superposed, there is no particular state, as all the states are there all at once. Most of the paths lead to not much, such as a zillion barren places, but at least they got that far, further than some more instant dead-ends. Some paths, such as our Earth and us are even still going strong. The universe is only .02% through its paces.

Photons are some kind of key: as said, they don't age in our temporal realm, being instant in our space-time.

QM suggests that the universe is not in a particular objective state at any given time of ours, which kind of goes along with a continual transitioning.

With an 'IS' block containing everything, there will be gems amid the extravagant waste. Even in our universe, there is a humongous amount of stuff. It appears that stuff is very easy to come by. 2x10**76 last time I counted it!

My Hubble Deep Field discovery video, with my invented characterization of the discoverer:


My Vault of Everything video, adapted from a Borges' story:

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.

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). — Devans99

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

I wasn't really pushing many worlds. Everything is already a lot. (What a wisdom, ha! We should put it on a plaque somewhere.)

After an ice age near extinction, the population of our ancestors was down to just a few thousand hardy souls, as told by Marine Isotope Stage 6, and it thought that they may have subsisted on shell fish in South Africa, but the location is still being worked out.

Our history was indeed full of 'good fortune':

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.

I remain at the point where we have assumed the fundamental nature of the universe needs to be comprehensible to the human mind. Isn't it possible that our sensory systems and limits of abstract thinking are incapable of modeling the universe at its most fundamental level, even in a grotesquely simplistic way?

I'm not saying it is incomprehensible, only that before the claim is made that it can't be infinite you have to be able to support the claim that our concept of logic (any possible human logic) is applicable to the totality of its investigation. The best we can say is that our survey of the universe we can see (and as far back as 13.8Byrs) is amenable to human comprehension.

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

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

We totally are. :chin:

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.

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. — Devans99

For me, reading this thread and contributions by you and others stoke my imagination and curiosity. Without evidence, what we have is conjecture. But conjecture, as long as it coheres, can be as aesthetic as poetry.

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. For me, as it was when I was a child (in as much as I'm a layman), the interest in speculation is more for what it tells us about ourselves and the spark of wonder it brings, the thought of resolving the unknown.

I ruminate that the actual is to the possible as the countably infinite is to the uncountably infinite. That when we consider travel to the outer reaches and time before the BB, when Erdos spoke of proofs from the book, when we talk about what actually matters to us, we live in the realm of the possible. The actual intrudes when we have to work to pay the rent.

Speaking of potential, my mind goes to the tendency of creation myths to express the concept of the 'void', that in which creation was exhibited. I'm most familiar with the biblical creation myth, but I've seen the void mentioned elsewhere in translations of other creation myths.

I found its complement, the concept of 'the bulk', a long time ago when considering the age-old conundrum of where did all this stuff come from. In searching for it, I was looking for an alternative to the void, literally nothing, from which its hard to contemplate anything originating.

It felt comfortable to consider that all potential simply exists without constraints in time or space and the universe as we know it started as an actualization of a potential found (as are all things possible) within the bulk. Feel free to correct my misconceptions if I'm off-base here.

What I found most notable at the time is why did this event (the BB) occur at a specific time? Why 13.8Byrs ago and not another time? I wonder if the fact that we have a universal clock isn't a tell as to whether this universe is a simulation. It could simply be a facet of a cosmic cycle, but it remains that the cycle found its 'zero' at one appreciable instant.

It just doesn't smell transcendent. It smells of artifice. Not God, but of a clock keeper.

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...

the void — JosephS

What always comes back to haunt me about the seemingly impossible Void is that most everywhere in physics a zero-sum balance of opposites seems to be so, or else nearly so. I have a list somewhere.

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 always existed.

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. — Devans99

A photon potentially exists everywhere at once until it is observed/measured by a subject, but not everywhen. It exists in both time and space - formless, but not timeless. A photon is not a 3D object, but a 4D event, along with life and energy - whatever we experience in time, but has no form (only potential) until it is intentionally measured/observed. It is our awareness of these 4D events that enticed science to explore the universe in relation to time.

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. Only when it is valued by us (an event interacting in spacetime) does it collapse into a 4D event: an experience that impacts on our awareness, with which we can interact. Whatever we name this 5D experience, it entices us to explore beyond a 4D universe: to interact with the universe in relation to value. To search for what else is potentially valuable that we cannot (objectively) observe/measure, yet we can open ourselves to subjectively experience in time as 4D events.

I hope I’m making sense here. It isn’t easy to explain.

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.

Everything is a completely still 4D block. Change is an illusion. — Devans99

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."

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.

We have still progressed in our posts. We have banished Stillness, Beginnings, Ends, 'Nothing', an Infinite, and perhaps even 'Random', for why does a Geiger counter not beep when it doesn't beep?

The message/benefit of the All would seem to be 'experience', we we still have even in the face of determinism.

Time to ramble on the will anyway: Note that 'random' wouldn't help the will but harm it, and so the Libertarians who seize upon the possibility of 'random' don't really accomplish free will through it, but still have that things could have gone differently if the universe were rerun, although we can't rerun it; however, the block universe seems able to rerun it, but then why would the static block have variables.

A photon potentially exists everywhere at once — Possibility

Um, how about that timeless spaceless photons made everything at once, in no time, and so we must now be experiencing in a time-dilated broadcast of our portion of everything.