Things outside of time do not have a temporal start or end, they are not created or destroyed, they just ARE. — Devans99
Things outside of time do not have a temporal start or end, they are not created or destroyed, they just ARE. — Devans99
Why not? There is nothing that happens without a cause. — god must be atheist
Being "outside of time" wouldn't imply anything about being creation or destruction. It would only imply something that can't move/change at all. If it's possible for there to be existents that can't move/change at all, that could be possible for any arbitrary existent, right? — Terrapin Station
So the arguments for a start of time imply that timeless change must be possible — Devans99
It could be the timeless environment is like growing block universe maybe. So part of it has permanent, unchanging existence, but it can 'grow' to allow change of some form. — Devans99
Another possibility is future real eternalism - then change is just an illusion — Devans99
Change can't be an illusion, because the illusion(s) change. — Terrapin Station
If we only perceive part of reality (now) but all of reality actually exists in some unchanging form (past, present, future) then change would seem to be an illusion - nothing changes in reality - it is just what we are looking at that changes. — Devans99
Imagine sitting still in front of window watching the world go by. The view changes but you do not. So we would be part of reality and unchanging - but we'd see the ever changing 'now' view of the world. — Devans99
Okay, but then the view is changing, and the view is part of the reality, isn't it? — Terrapin Station
Then there is the next moment, the view is different but we and the view are still static.
So nothing is changing from the perspective of a static 4D universe. — Devans99
What has changed is the cursor of time has moved onto a different version of the person with a different view of a different 'now'.
But the past person and past view are static and the current person and current view are static - when considered from a 4d spacetime perspective. — Devans99
That model might not be right - we always think it is 'now' so maybe a cursor of time is not required, then everything would be completely static. — Devans99
But you always experience what you are experiencing. You always belief now is now. So each version of you in 4d spacetime thinks now is now. — Devans99
If you plot a 2d graph of space and time, then from the perspective of a point moving through spacetime, its position is always changing - so the point would always think the world is dynamic. But viewed from the perspective of looking at the graph, all is static. — Devans99
If there's a point "moving through spacetime" (I'm putting that in quotation marks because the "time" part is identical to moving; spacetime isn't some sort of thing or container that other things are in) then there's something not static. Whether things could be static from some perspective is irrelevant. Something exists that isn't static. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.