Timeless Causation

[Lord Emsworth]

oh, what's that?

This whole "outside of time" business.

 

[daniel777]

This whole "outside of time" business.

no no, what was your conclusion about "the universe itself"?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

no no, what was your conclusion about "the universe itself"?

That it is not subject to a timeline. That it is "outside of time." And most of the other stuff from Solarwave's post too.

 

[daniel777]

That it is not subject to a timeline. That it is "outside of time." And most of the other stuff from Solarwave's post too.

if the universe is every"thing", or matter, how can it be outside of time?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

if the universe is every"thing", or matter, how can it be outside of time?

Pray tell where does the universe exist?

 

[daniel777]

Pray tell where does the universe exist?

in space. not as in "outer space"... but as a concept, like "time"....

 

[Lord Emsworth]

in space. not as in "outer space"... but as a concept, like "time"....

If I am not entirely mistaken then the universe IS a time-space continuum, or something like that. It does not (need to) exist in one. Hence, the time-space continuum that is called the universe, does not (need to) exist in another time-space continuum.


(And even if it does, you just have another, a meta time-space continuum that exists where and when exactly?)

(Oh, and whether "matter" or not is immaterial to me.)

 

[daniel777]

i never hinted towards "another" time and space continuum.

isn't it possible that what the universe is is where it is?

but what "is" outside of the universe.

a body of "space" has to be contained in something.

just because our minds can't comprehend it, doesn't mean it isn't there. if it is there, would our finite minds be able to comprehend it?

also, how can the universe exist outside of time? you haven't answered this.

 

[TeddyKGB]

in space. not as in "outer space"... but as a concept, like "time"....

What's north of the north pole?

 

[daniel777]

What's north of the north pole?

the sky , once you go far enough, you're outside of the earth's gravitational field. nice try though.

 

[TeddyKGB]

the sky , once you go far enough, you're outside of the earth's gravitational field. nice try though.

You're doing it wrong.

 

[daniel777]

You're doing it wrong.

I never said that you could reach the outside of the universe by any means of travel... or if you go in any one direction long enough.... just that it has to be there. The universe is to complex to be stable in a constantly changing environment (it is a constantly changing environment) without an unchanging source of stability, outside and penetrating in and through it.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I never said that you could reach the outside of the universe by any means of travel... or if you go in any one direction long enough.... just that it has to be there. The universe is to complex to be stable in a constantly changing environment (it is a constantly changing environment) without an unchanging source of stability, outside and penetrating in and through it.

Amazing how you have managed to deduce (somehow) precisely the opposite of what 100 years of cosmology indicate.

 

[daniel777]

Amazing how you have managed to deduce (somehow) precisely the opposite of what 100 years of cosmology indicate.

I'll just go ahead and tell you. It's because I'm a genius.

fine then, explain it to me. I'm curious now.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

i never hinted towards "another" time and space continuum.

Ok, then I just don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

isn't it possible that what the universe is is where it is?

but what "is" outside of the universe.

a body of "space" has to be contained in something.

just because our minds can't comprehend it, doesn't mean it isn't there. if it is there, would our finite minds be able to comprehend it?

also, how can the universe exist outside of time? you haven't answered this.

Sorry, the only time that we know of is part of this universe.

 

[solarwave]

If God was changeless, he would be like a statue, doing nothing. How can God think or act without a change of state?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I suppose if God is outside time then everything He ever does or feels or experiences all happens in an instant and God stays the way He is all the time, since any thought, etc, would have all happened in that instant. Really I would have a good guess that timelessness is impossible for the human brain to comprehend.

I have concluded a very similar thing for the universe itself.

That everything that makes up the universe is or was outside of time? I don't think it is physically possible to have matter outside time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I suppose if God is outside time then everything He ever does or feels or experiences all happens in an instant and God stays the way He is all the time, since any thought, etc, would have all happened in that instant. Really I would have a good guess that timelessness is impossible for the human brain to comprehend.

Possibly with good reason. It may be impossible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elman]

This is an old objection, but I was wondering how a proponent of the KCA would answer it. It goes like this. If God caused the first state of the universe into existence, and therefore caused space and time to come into existence, then how could God's causing of the universe be "before" the universe came into existence? And if the act is not "before" the universe came into existence, then how could it be the cause of the universe?


1. Either God's causing the first state of the universe (E) into existence preceded E or it didn't.
2. If God's causing E did not precede E, then the act of causing E must have occurred simultaneously with E.
3. If God's causing E is occurred simultaneously with E, then it makes no sense to say that God's causing E is the cause of E, since causes precede their effects.
4. Therefore, God's causing E must have preceded E.
5. Therefore, God's causing E was not a "timeless" act. (from 4).

One might object that causes occur simultaneously with their effects, but I see a problem with this view. Say A and B are occur simultaneously, and one is the cause of the other. How do we know which is the cause and which is the effect? It doesn't seem like we can know.

This seems to me to a semantical problem rather than a philosophical one. How can we uderstand being outside of or not subject to time? We don't have the language to describe that nor the ability to understand it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

That everything that makes up the universe is or was outside of time? I don't think it is physically possible to have matter outside time.

There is neither any need to be so hung up on "matter," nor to forget that everything that makes up the universe consists of more than said "matter" - time and space come to the mind. And that time is by definition not subject to itself.

 

[solarwave]

There is neither any need to be so hung up on "matter," nor to forget that everything that makes up the universe consists of more than said "matter" - time and space come to the mind. And that time is by definition not subject to itself.

I was just saying that if matter cannot have existed outside time before the start of the universe, so if that couldn't have, then it doesn't matter to life if anything else can.