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
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. — PoeticUniverse
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
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
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
more natural is for our realm to inherit the properties of the eternal realm. — Devans99
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
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
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
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
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 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
Given what energy/matter is in time, how would you describe its existence in a timeless state? — Possibility
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
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. — PoeticUniverse
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. — Devans99
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
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
the void — JosephS
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
I wonder if the fact that we have a universal clock isn't a tell as to whether this universe is a simulation. — JosephS
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
Everything is a completely still 4D block. Change is an illusion. — Devans99
A photon potentially exists everywhere at once — Possibility
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.