Multiverse Paradox

StuartL

I posted this theory on a leading physics forum two months ago and although it was roundly rejected because:

a) I cannot provide proof.
b) It isn't what they believe to be the case.

They weren't able to say “It's impossible because...”, so I thought that I'd post it here.

If we take several theories/conjectures with varying degrees of validity and piece them together, an interesting possibility arises.

All time is present all of the time.
The flow of time is an illusion.
Time probably breaks down into 'smallest possible units of time'.
Space-time is set.
A multiverse or multiverses may exist.
The “Big Bang” may have been an event in time ('Imaginary Time' proposed by Stephen Hawking).
An observer within a given dimension, is subject to the physical laws of that dimension.
To an observer within a given dimension, the 'flow of time' is the same regardless of the 'flow's' orientation.
The properties of the surface of a sphere are infinite.

If I have a billiard ball sitting on a billiard table, the ball is said to contain potential energy, that can be converted to kinetic energy if I strike it with another ball. Let us assume that tomorrow I am going to do just that. Because the ‘flow of time’ is an illusion, and space-time is set, the ball already contains properties for any and all interactions that I'm going to have with it tomorrow (its future is set).

Now, if I have another ball, on another table, in another dimension where the 'flow of time' is infinite, and time is not set: Does that ball have no future, or an infinite number of 'possible futures'?

To me, although it may sound a little bizarre, the ball now contains an infinite number of 'potential future properties', one for every possible interaction in the dimension. Because, isn't saying that the ball no longer possesses 'potential future properties', that could be converted into actual futures, akin to saying that the ball no longer possesses potential energy, that could be converted into kinetic energy?

At this point I'd like to introduce a paradox that I came across the other day, because things do start to get a little strange from this point on:

'If all possible dimensions exist, and a dimension for which a multiverse is impossible, is a possibility, shouldn't at least one such dimension exist?'

I'd also like to add a variation to that paradox for your consideration:

'If all possible dimensions exist, and a dimension for which the 'flow of time' is infinite, and time is not set, is a possibility, shouldn't at least one such dimension exist?'

What follows satisfies both of the preceding paradoxes.

If Stephen Hawking's “imaginary time” dimension is in fact an actual dimension (the singularity's dimension), time is not set within it, and 'potential future properties' exist, then the following becomes a possibility:

Keeping the following in mind:

All time is present all of the time.
The ‘flow of time’ is an illusion.
Time probably breaks down into 'smallest possible units of time'.
An observer within a given dimension, is subject to the physical laws of that dimension.
To an observer within a given dimension, the 'flow of time' is the same regardless of the 'flow's' orientation.
The properties of the surface of a sphere are infinite.

It's possible that Space-time exists not as an actual dimension, but rather, as a 'potential dimension' or 'potential future property singularity' for the singularity itself. If that's true, then all possible dimensions can also exist, not as actual dimensions, but rather as 'potential future property singularities' for the singularity itself. Hence a multiverse of 'potential future property singularities' for the singularity. It's important to note, that no physical laws of any dimensions change. The dimensions themselves are, like the ‘flow of time’ itself, simply illusions to the observers within them.

This then also satisfies the first paradox. Because a multiverse is not a possibility for the “imaginary time” dimension itself. Because, the realization of any of its 'potential future properties' would automatically result in the destruction of the “imaginary time” dimension.

MiloL

without directly commenting on your post I do wonder as to your application of the rules you mention. For example if you are thinking of imaginary time and its interact with our universe/dimension isn't it also just as plausible and requiring its place in your theory, that with multiverses comes the option that each verse operates per its laws, which in my opinion are likely to all vary to some degree.

noAxioms

If I have a billiard ball sitting on a billiard table, the ball is said to contain potential energy, that can be converted to kinetic energy if I strike it with another ball. Let us assume that tomorrow I am going to do just that. Because the ‘flow of time’ is an illusion, and space-time is set, the ball already contains properties for any and all interactions that I'm going to have with it tomorrow (its future is set).

Now, if I have another ball, on another table, in another dimension where the 'flow of time' is infinite, and time is not set: Does that ball have no future, or an infinite number of 'possible futures'? — StuartL

The first paragraph seems to describe a sort of eternal 4D block universe, vs. the second case which has a 3D spatial state that is 'the present'. OK, either view can be translated to the other. Both can be deterministic or not, so it is possible to have a future that already is, yet has multiple possible futures. On the other hand, presentism doesn't imply a set of multiple possible futures. The ball may not yet have been struck, but it is perhaps inevitable anyway.
So you seem to be exploring determinism/non-determinism more than block/present views of spacetime.

Secondly, 'potential energy' usually refers to something that is capable of accelerating due to gravity, such as a ball atop a hill. The billiard ball does not contain the energy that makes it moves tomorrow, but rather acquires that energy from the ball that strikes it. Just a terminology thing that doesn't seem to affect your point.

To me, although it may sound a little bizarre, the ball now contains an infinite number of 'potential future properties', one for every possible interaction in the dimension. Because, isn't saying that the ball no longer possesses 'potential future properties', that could be converted into actual futures, akin to saying that the ball no longer possesses potential energy, that could be converted into kinetic energy?

You are going to have to define 'dimension' here because you are using it in a bizarre way. To me, dimension is the mathematical one: A square has two dimensions, a cube has three, and spacetime has four. You really rely on this word below, and I have no idea what you're asking.

'If all possible dimensions exist, and a dimension for which a multiverse is impossible, is a possibility, shouldn't at least one such dimension exist?'

???? Like maybe longitude exists but not latitude? I have no idea how 'dimension' is being used in this context. It is in quotes, so perhaps it is the definition being defined by somebody else.

Perhaps you mean 'world', but even that doesn't fit this context. You seem to use the word to mean that different rules apply in them. Can two universes exist if one of them precludes the existence of the other? Something like that? I suppose that they wouldn't be separate universes if one is dictating the rules about the others.
Yes, a single-world hard deterministic universe is possible, and it precludes other worlds in that universe. But a non-deterministic universe is also possible, and it might have multiple worlds. I see no paradox with that. Not sure if this is what is being asked.

StuartL

↪MiloL

It's important to note that essentially nothing else changes regarding the laws of physics itself, nor alternate multiverse theories. Different 'potential universes/ time dimensions' would have their own physical laws in the same way that different 'actual universes/time dimensions' would. Each 'potential universes/time dimension' could vary very little from another, or could vary vastly from each other.

↪noAxioms

I am probably using incorrect terminology here and there, I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it all objects in the Universe contain potential energy because all objects in the Universe are being acted upon by one force or another at all times.

What I'm referring to in the billiard ball example is, that in the Space-Time dimension, the fact that the billiard ball is on the table at all, and any interactions that I may have with the billiard ball, are already determined. The instant the “Big Bang” occurred and our universe's time dimension came into existence, all of Space-Time was determined. The “where/when” of everything within the Universe was determined instantaneously. So the billiard ball never exists in a state of “Maybe I'll be interacted with” instead, it always exists in a state of “I will be interacted with, in this manner, at this time”.

My views on determinism vs. indeterminism are, that although Space-Time is set (determined), it is set by the choices that you made/make/will make. Ergo, you cannot change your future, but you wouldn't anyway, because your future was set by your choices, and you are you, so you would never have made different choices. An alternate you in an alternate universe may have made alternate choices, but you here in this universe made the choices that you made, and will make the choices that you will make. The moment of your conception and the moment of your death still/already exist. The flow of time is an illusion. Of course things get much more complicated when you realize that you didn't choose your parents, when they copulated, or...

For me the Space-Time dimension is analogous to a DVD. When the DVD is played, you make an appearance on screen at some point, but you are already/still on the DVD whether you are on screen at the time or not, or whether the DVD is being played or not.

What the paradox is saying is, that if every possible time dimension exists, and it is possible for a time dimension to exist that cannot exist in a multiverse of time dimensions, then such a time dimension must also exist. Ergo, a paradox, both a multiverse of time dimensions, and a time dimension that cannot exist in a multiverse of time dimensions, cannot exist at the same time.
What I am saying is “Yes they can, and here's how...”. (Apparently physicists hold symposiums and seminars to discuss this paradox and cannot figure out how to resolve it. But anyway...I digress.)

If we return to my analogy of Space-Time being like a DVD, what I am saying is that 'Imaginary Time' is like a massive DVD player, containing every possible DVD. However; none of the DVDs are actually playing, and if someone did come along, select a DVD and start playing it, all of the other DVDs and the DVD player itself, would cease to exist. Hence the existence of a multiverse of time dimensions, that includes a time dimension that cannot support the existence of a multiverse of time dimensions. From that point on, if the time dimension contains an inflationary multiverse, a quantum branching multiverse...That would all play out too. The laws of physics within our Universe are not being altered in any way in this scenario. I'm just proposing that given that all time is present all of the time, the entirety of our time dimension can be contained within a singularity of time, and that singularity of time can be contained within 'Imaginary Time', within a singularity. No “Big Bang”, just the potential for a “Big Bang” to happen, if someone comes along, selects our DVD, and presses the play button.

noAxioms

Glad you are still around after the post got no hits for an entire month. I never say it until MiloL bumped it.

Different 'potential universes/ time dimensions' would have their own physical laws in the same way that different 'actual universes/time dimensions' would. Each 'potential universes/time dimension' could vary very little from another, or could vary vastly from each other. — StuartL

This bit gives me a clue as to you usage of the term 'dimension'. You seem to picture them as different universes with different rules, sort of what you get with eternal inflation theory with each 'spacetime' being a bubble in the inflation material.

What I'm referring to in the billiard ball example is, that in the Space-Time dimension, the fact that the billiard ball is on the table at all, and any interactions that I may have with the billiard ball, are already determined. The instant the “Big Bang” occurred and our universe's time dimension came into existence, all of Space-Time was determined. The “where/when” of everything within the Universe was determined instantaneously. So the billiard ball never exists in a state of “Maybe I'll be interacted with” instead, it always exists in a state of “I will be interacted with, in this manner, at this time”.

OK, this seems to be a single-world hard determinism view. Quantum Mechanics suggests this is not the case (all events are probabilistic, not predictable at all), but there is no proof one way or another. The view is not invalid.

There is many-world determinism (everything is completely determined, but all possible outcomes are real). In this sense, all of Spacetime is determined at the big bang, but the billiard ball is still in a state of 'Maybe I'll be interacted with' since there are multiple potential futures, only some of which involve a specific interaction.

Then there is the non-deterministic view where events are truly random, or where there is interference from outside the universe, violations of what could otherwise be deterministic physics. As a relativist, I suppose I'm classified under the single-world random category as to what is real.

My views on determinism vs. indeterminism are, that although Space-Time is set (determined), it is set by the choices that you made/make/will make. Ergo, you cannot change your future, but you wouldn't anyway, because your future was set by your choices, and you are you, so you would never have made different choices. An alternate you in an alternate universe may have made alternate choices, but you here in this universe made the choices that you made, and will make the choices that you will make. The moment of your conception and the moment of your death still/already exist. The flow of time is an illusion.

I agree with all of this. To 'change' the future is an incoherent concept. Change means to alter state from some prior state to some different later state, say a candle changing from tall to short as it burns. The future is not something that is one way until you 'change' it to something else. It was never the first way then, so there is no difference that is the 'change'. This is an arguable point, since the first state could be expressed in a 'would have been had I not ...' sort of manner. My choice 'changed' it from this abstract would-otherwise-have-been state. But that state is completely abstract and nowhere real.

For me the Space-Time dimension is analogous to a DVD. When the DVD is played, you make an appearance on screen at some point, but you are already/still on the DVD whether you are on screen at the time or not, or whether the DVD is being played or not.

A completely determined DVD need not be played for there to be subjective reality to the inhabitants of the DVD. Harry Potter hates Snape regardless of the DVD being played. The playing only serves a purpose to whoever initiates the playing of it, an outside entity that wants to observe the story. That observer is completely undetectable to the inhabitants of the universe/DVD, so Harry cannot detect when his DVD is being played.

What the paradox is saying is, that if every possible time dimension exists, and it is possible for a time dimension to exist that cannot exist in a multiverse of time dimensions, then such a time dimension must also exist. Ergo, a paradox, both a multiverse of time dimensions, and a time dimension that cannot exist in a multiverse of time dimensions, cannot exist at the same time.

Here you really lose me again, mostly because I cannot figure out what this set of 'time dimensions' is. Perhaps I could understand the paradox if these terms were spelled out a little more clearly.

What I am saying is “Yes they can, and here's how...”. (Apparently physicists hold symposiums and seminars to discuss this paradox and cannot figure out how to resolve it. But anyway...I digress.)

Not a digression at all. If physicists actually do this (it is a philosophical topic, not a physics one), then there would be a link somewhere describing the issue and some of the sides taken.

If we return to my analogy of Space-Time being like a DVD, what I am saying is that 'Imaginary Time' is like a massive DVD player, containing every possible DVD. However; none of the DVDs are actually playing, and if someone did come along, select a DVD and start playing it, all of the other DVDs and the DVD player itself, would cease to exist.

Why? What rule says this must be the case?

StuartL

I can't figure out how to clear up the initial paradox question for you. To me its meaning is clear, and I have never seen it be addressed in this manner, but perhaps the following video will help. To be honest, I only came across this paradox by accident, after having formulated my theory. It just happened to be the case that my theory provided a possible solution to the paradox. The video also addresses your remark regarding seminars and symposia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TDCFxsZcOA

I am not saying that the branching multiverse suggested by quantum mechanics isn't the case, it may well be. If I flip a coin, for me the result may be heads, but for an alternate me, created by that event, the result may be tails. However; for me, here, this me, the me that got heads, I will always get heads not matter how many times the DVD gets played. The other me, the me that got tails, the me that came into existence when I got heads, will also always get tails, no matter how many times this DVD is played.
And that may all prove to be BS, it makes no difference to my theory.

No rule says that any of it must be the case, it just may be the case. It's a bizarre concept. What I am saying is that it's possible that the singularity that supposedly "Banged" never actually "Banged". For us to exist it never had to, and that if it did "Bang" that it would cease to exist. What I am saying is that our existence, and the place in which we perceive ourselves to exist, are in actuality merely potential futures (time singularities), for the singularity that never actually "Banged". DVDs in a DVD player with nobody about to press play.

noAxioms

Well, the video is using the word 'dimension' like some fantasy place where you might go, like Narnia. They use it interchangeably with 'universe' so it sort of means the same thing to them, but that usage of the word doesn't even gather a mention in dictionary.com.
The video gets off on the wrong foot by answering a question about the 'multiverse theory', of which there are several . They don't say what kind (leaving you guessing). Most are a single universe with multiple non-interacting worlds.
Max Tegmark enumerated them all:
Type 1 is distant places, a relational concept. A star 50 billion light years (BLY) distant is completely nonexistent to Earth, and we are nonexistent to them, but if the universe is 'played' like your DVD, their universe probably gets played as well despite the lack of an obvious inertial reference frame in which we both exist. These are thus technically 'worlds', not whole different universes. 'Multiverse theory' is probably not a reference to this one.
Type 2 is different inflation bubbles in quantum eternal inflation theory. The view is as close to a scientific theory as you are going to get since it explains empirical evidence. Under the theory, there are different bubbles of spacetime, with different numbers of space and time dimensions, and different settings for the various cosmological constants. The existence of one of the worlds (ours for instance) by no means has any effect on any of the others. There just isn't a paradox here.
Type 3 is MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is definitely one universe with multiple semi-interacting worlds. You speak of it below. A split is not a creation event of a new universe since both worlds still interact with common elements. Like Type 1, the laws of physics are identical in this world and another branch, so there is no paradox about the existence of one world having some new rule that negates all the others.
Type 4 is true separate universes, completely separate structures not based on any common thing (like quantum mechanics which binds all the types above). All rules are off with type 4, so perhaps this is the multiverse theory spoken of, except it isn't a theory at all, just a metaphysical musing on our part.

If there is a common element binding them all, like a juke-box waiting to 'play' one of the DVDs, then it really is one juke-box universe with a bunch of objects, not a bunch of separate universes. If they're joined like that by the juke box, then sure, there might be a law that allows the playing of one DVD to destroy all the others. I still fail to see that as paradoxical.

I am not saying that the branching multiverse suggested by quantum mechanics isn't the case, it may well be. If I flip a coin, for me the result may be heads, but for an alternate me, created by that event, the result may be tails. However; for me, here, this me, the me that got heads, I will always get heads not matter how many times the DVD gets played.
The other me, the me that got tails, the me that came into existence when I got heads, will also always get tails, no matter how many times this DVD is played. — StuartL

Pretty much how it goes, except 'you' are the one who gets heads, and yes, the one who gets heads gets heads every time the DVD is played. That's a tautology.

And that may all prove to be BS, it makes no difference to my theory.

Not exactly clear as to what is your theory. I mean, you say the flow of time is an illusion, but then you say that the universe is like a DVD being played, which would be a flow of time, would it not?
And then you say the properties of the surface of a sphere are infinite, which seems completely unrelated to any of the other points in the list in which it appears.
So mostly I am attempting to figure out the paradox, which would benefit from a bit of formal argument where supposing X leads to a conclusion of not-X, which demonstrates at least inconsistency, or a paradox if also not-X leads to a conclusion of X.

No rule says that any of it must be the case, it just may be the case. It's a bizarre concept. What I am saying is that it's possible that the singularity that supposedly "Banged" never actually "Banged". For us to exist it never had to, and that if it did "Bang" that it would cease to exist.

You're saying that our own big bang made itself nonexistent? Or just asking us to suppose this? If the latter, for what purpose? If the answer is nonsensical, perhaps it is an invalid thing to suppose.

What I am saying is that our existence, and the place in which we perceive ourselves to exist, are in actuality merely potential futures (time singularities), for the singularity that never actually "Banged". DVDs in a DVD player with nobody about to press play.

That's not a paradox unless you insist that the DVD must be played for there to be a DVD. Harry Potter on the DVD does not change a single bit by the playing of the DVD. Harry is aware of how the DVD begins, but not that is is playing, or was ever played. I find that most logical. The playing of the DVD on the other hand is not, since it implies something outside playing it, and then is their DVD being played? That would be infinite regress. So why posit that it needs playing?

StuartL

I think that you may be overthinking all of this and getting yourself in a bit of a muddle. Or maybe I'm just not conveying any of this correctly. So I'll try to synopsize it all.

The singularity's (the one that the “Big Bang” is said to have originated from) time dimension = Imaginary time = The jukebox

Space-time (our universe) = A possible future for the singularity = A DVD inside the jukebox

The multiverse = All possible universes that could result if the singularity “Bangs” = All possible DVDs inside the jukebox

Imaginary time = A time dimension orthogonal to all other possible time dimensions/space-times

The singularity is most probably spherical.

The properties of the surface of a sphere are infinite.

Therefore; whatever external force causes the singularity to actually “Bang” could result in any of an infinite number of actual universes. Depending upon the 'where' the external force interacts with the singularity, causing the “Bang”.

All of any given time dimension is present all of the time. Therefore, all of any given time dimension can be contained within a singularity of time of said time dimension.

The flow of time is an illusion. To an observer within a singularity of time, time still appears to be flowing even though it is not. To an observer within a singularity of time, the entire universe (space-time) appears to be as real as it would if it were actually real. 'Harry is still on the DVD even when it isn't being played'.

The paradox = If all possible universes exist, and a universe that cannot be part of a multiverse is possible. Then a universe that cannot be part of a multiverse must exist. Therefore; a multiverse cannot exist, because it cannot contain a universe that cannot be part of a multiverse. They are mutually exclusive.

If all possible space-times exist as time singularities of possible space-times, that could result if the singularity itself actually “Bangs”, then:

A multiverse of all possible space-time singularities, exist within imaginary time, but for any of them to become actual space-times, imaginary time (and the singularity itself) must be destroyed.

Ergo; a multiverse contained within a time dimension, that cannot itself be part of a multiverse. For space-time or any other universe to exist (DVD to be played) the singularity (DVD player) must be destroyed.

Finally, the flow of time is an illusion whether or not the DVD is being played, or space-time is an actual reality and not just a possibility. Because all of space-time is present all of the time. What you see as flow is merely an illusion specific to the observer. You are still being born, reading this, and already dead. Singularity of time or no, there is no flow.

StuartL

Oh, and since you know who Max Tegmark is, perhaps this video will help a little. Pay particular attention to his remarks about how time probably doesn't move from one planck time to the next. If all of time is contained within a singularity of time, and the flow of time is just an illusion, there is no 'one planck time to the next' necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fZVQzcqyKU

StuartL

Perhaps this will help too:

My theory in a nutshell

A singularity of pure energy exists in a its own time dimension (imaginary time).

Nothing else exists within imaginary time.

The singularity is spherical.

In order to “bang” the surface of the singularity must be interacted with (struck).

Although nothing exists to strike the surface of the singularity, and cause it to “bang”, the potential for such an event still exists for the singularity. Therefore; the singularity possesses potential future properties for each possible interaction upon its surface. Given that the properties of the surface of a sphere are infinite, the possible resultant potential futures for the singularity are also infinite.

Space-time, our universe, is one possible result of an interaction with the surface of the singularity, but does not actually exist. However; given the nature of time itself, to an observer within what is in fact just a potential event (with a dimension of time of its own), said event still appears to be real and obeys all the physical laws of said event, were it actually to occur. Because, the flow of time is an illusion, and all of space-time's time dimension can be contained within a singularity of time aka a potential future property for the singularity.

Only the singularity exists, space-time is just an illusion of the observer within it.

A multiverse of potential futures for the singularity exists, but should any of them get “banged” into actual events, the singularity and its dimension of time would cease to exist.

Nothing changes within space-time itself, whether it is an actual event, or just a potential event, everything is identical in every way, to any observers within it.

This also helps to address the question:

If an infinite number of universes are possible, how come this one with us in it exists, if God didn't make it specifically for us? - Because they all exist, but we are only aware of this one with us in it.

Now if we return to my billiard ball example...

In space-time the billiard ball always exists in a state of not having been placed upon the table yet, sitting on the table, being struck for the first time...Because space-time is set (predetermined) and the flow of time is an illusion. The billiard ball possesses properties for everything that ever happens to it in space-time.
Now if we take the billiard ball out of space-time, and place it in a dimension of time that is not set (predetermined), then we can either say that it has no future, or that it possesses an infinite number of potential futures (all the places upon its surface that it could be struck). You may think that the velocity of the strike also comes into play here, but it doesn't, only the location of the initial strike is relevant. The velocity of the strike only becomes relevant in subsequently.

For the ball the potential future properties only need contain the resultant direction of travel, but if the singularity is struck from any direction, that strike doesn't result in movement, but in the instantaneous creation of a new “space-time”. Therefore; the potential future properties of the singularity, all contain time singularities and the illusion of flow that accompanies them.

Odd, but there it is...

noAxioms

Commenting first on the most recent post, since some parts of the picture are being clarified.
I see something like an argument that there is an unfertilized egg and all these sperm could come along representing potential people. If one wins, it renders nonexistent all the other potential people. But it doesn't render the whole pregnant woman nonexistent. That part is confusing.

A singularity of pure energy exists in a its own time dimension (imaginary time).

Nothing else exists within imaginary time. — StuartL

How is there this imaginary time if there is no change? You have a sole existent with zero difference from one moment to the next, which is indistinguishable from no time at all.
You have a strange mixture of flowing and block time, and of existence and nonexistence. Why does this imaginary time seem to flow, but our time does not? Our spacetime doesn't exist, except as potential of an actual singularity.

The singularity is spherical.

Then it isn't a singularity, which would be a dimensionless point. A sphere has a spatial radius.

Therefore; the singularity possesses potential future properties for each possible interaction upon its surface. Given that the properties of the surface of a sphere are infinite, the possible resultant potential futures for the singularity are also infinite.

By infinite properties, you mean there are infinite way in which it could be struck, which would be true of any object, sphere or not. It would require a second existent with which to strike it, but you say that doesn't exist.

A multiverse of potential futures for the singularity exists, but should any of them get “banged” into actual events, the singularity and its dimension of time would cease to exist.

Why do they cease to exist? Why propose that?

If an infinite number of universes are possible, how come this one with us in it exists, if God didn't make it specifically for us? - Because they all exist, but we are only aware of this one with us in it.

I thought this one didn't exist, but was mere potential.

In space-time the billiard ball always exists in a state of not having been placed upon the table yet, sitting on the table, being struck for the first time...Because space-time is set (predetermined) and the flow of time is an illusion. The billiard ball possesses properties for everything that ever happens to it in space-time.

The billiard ball is said to be a worldline in this example, not moving through spacetime, but existing in a path within it.

Now if we take the billiard ball out of space-time, and place it in a dimension of time that is not set (predetermined), then we can either say that it has no future, or that it possesses an infinite number of potential futures

Or it could still have exactly one determined future. All you've done is changed time from block to flowing, and that doesn't have an effect on determinism. Determinism can be true or false in both cases.

You may think that the velocity of the strike also comes into play here, but it doesn't, only the location of the initial strike is relevant. The velocity of the strike only becomes relevant in subsequently.

I do think that in the case of your singularity, since a singularity (or a sole-existant sphere for that matter) has no distinct locations, and thus can only be struck one way if the magnitude of the force is not a factor. There is only strike or not-strike. There is no strike differently, at least not the way I see it. OK, the billiard ball has distinct sides since it is perhaps on a table or something. It travels in a direction depending on the strike angle. Maybe the analogy is not applicable to the singularity.

noAxioms

Oh, and since you know who Max Tegmark is, perhaps this video will help a little. Pay particular attention to his remarks about how time probably doesn't move from one planck time to the next. If all of time is contained within a singularity of time, and the flow of time is just an illusion, there is no 'one planck time to the next' necessary. — StuartL

Tegmark does say that time probably does not flow, but he described time as a 4th dimension in addition to the 3 of space (not the same way you are using 'dimension'), and not as being contained in a singularity any more than is space is thus contained. The big-bang singularity is just one point (event) in spacetime.

I suspect that you don't know what is being described by time not flowing, and perhaps this is the source of confusion in your posts. It is not a suggestion that time is 'stuck' at one point (the singularity say) and the rest being just potential. No, all of spacetime (all points in space and in our past and future) share equal ontology, and there is no particular moment that is the present one. Flowing time is the assertion of that special addition to the model, the present. It supposedly moves (or is stuck, the way you seem to envision it). But the block view says there is no present at all. There is no one state that is the actual current one. All states are equally real.

This was all suggested about a century ago by Minkowski who originated the idea of spacetime, or at least formalized a lot of the mathematics behind it.

StuartL

Oooo…

Eureka moment?

Thanks for that.

Prolly won't be back given that my post seems to be buried somewhere in the bowls of this site.

Multiverse Paradox

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions