Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not.

[tar]

Now, this being a philosophy section, I am considering that "in a sense" I have not been born yet, as an "observer", "currently looking" in this direction from a distance of 61.5 lys might see my Mom (who died a while back) on her way to the hospital, to have me (given that this observer has a very powerful telescope.) But me being born, in terms of the universal now, is a past event. It already happened and the waves produced by my presence and movement about the place for the last 61 years are real and existent in exact fitting relationship to the rest of the universe. That is, the observers 60 lys from where the Earth was in about 1953 see an image of me "happening" as a little baby, whereas the observers 62 lys distant see my mom pregnant with me.

 

But, and this is the biggest but, in terms of accepting your block universe idea, I have no way to communicate with those observers, instantly. I can imagine the observers existing, and what the must see and what they could not see yet and what the will see in the future, but I have no way to verify my prediction, because I can not "get" there, now, since I am not god.

 

If you are to posit a universe where past present and future are the same thing, and there is no special now to act as a reference point for all other events, then I don't think you are talking about the universe that I am witnessing and present in.

 

Regards, TAR

david345,

 

But, something to the left of something else requires space, and according to big bang theory, space and time, matter and energy all came into existence, together, without any space and time in which to come into existence in reference to. The analogy of something being "to the left" is a mathematical construct. It is an imaginary thing to which we cannot attach a real component.

 

Regards, ,TAR

I am not sure you can just add a dimension, where you need one, without describing what that means and how that is related to the other 4 dimensions we already have.

 

The block universe is suspect to me, because it handles time in an unmeaningful way. It is not tied to anything sensible, it is completely imaginary. Yet you call my sensible definition imaginary nonsense. Interesting.

Edited July 26, 2015 by tar

[david345]

But, and this is the biggest but, in terms of accepting your block universe idea, I have no way to communicate with those observers, instantly. I can imagine the observers existing, and what the must see and what they could not see yet and what the will see in the future, but I have no way to verify my prediction, because I can not "get" there, now, since I am not

 

Regards, TAR

There is no way to communicate with any thing instantly. When I say the past exists it is not the same as saying "A unicorn exists on a distant planet. To prove me wrong you must travel there." The past has been observed. We know it was real. The question is has it disappeared? It is true we can not go back and double check. We can not go back and double check the results of past Olympics. Should we throw out the Olympic records. Say a particle was observed at x,y,z,t. We never observe the same x,y,z,t position and see the particle is not there. It was observed at that position once. It was NEVER not observed at that same position. According to my scoreboard that's 1-0.

 

In ordinary life we see things move around. Birds, planes, and asteroids whizz by. You might ask "Why can't things move along the time line like they move along the distance line?" Things can move along the distance line because of the dimension of time. For something to move along the time line we would need a second dimension of time. You can't assume something moves in the time dimension the same way it moves in the spatial dimensions.

[Strange]

Look at the above picture. There is a slice that is labeled "present" that which happened before the present is located to the left of the present in the direction of time. If something existed before the big bang then that would be similar to saying it exists to the left of the big bang.

 

More importantly, t=0 in the big bang model is a singularity so talking about "before" this has no more meaning than asking what is north of the north pole.

 

(As an aside, I have debated tar's concept of time before and, apart from the fact it makes no sense, he is unwilling to consider any alternative or any evidence that might contradict his ideas.)

[tar]

Strange,

 

It is actually worse than that. I really don't see where my idea makes no sense. It seems logically forced to me. If Alpha Centauri exists and if it is located 4.37 lys from here, it is BOTH currently shining and currently in our night sky. There is only one instance of the star though, and whatever is happening there right now is happening for the first and only time. We see it happen 4.37 years from now.

 

 

So we are really connected to that star in a present way, by the light it emits, hitting our equipment today. That is what we sense of the star, that is what is real and present and sensible. Only in our imagination can we say it is doing something now that we will not see until 4.37 years from now.

 

 

So it exists for us, in two senses. The way it looks, and the way we imagine it to be.

 

There is the local now, that exists as all the electromagnetic waves hitting us from all directions from distances consistent with how long ago the photons left their atom are currently arriving.

 

And there is the universal now, as this moment all matter in the universe is 13.8 billion years old, or has constituents that have a 13.8 billion year long history, and these distant atoms MUST be releasing electromagnetic waves today, and in the case of an atom in Alpha Centauri, it must have released a lot of photons, yesterday, that we will see as the "current" Alpha Centauri, the day before 4.37 years from now.

 

 

I mention this, because the block universe idea does not include any definition of how the propagation of light is to be considered. Does something "happen" or exist, when you see it, or when it announces the electron level change to the rest of the universe?

 

Once the photon is released, there is no way to recall it. It is a past event. The universe has already done that. However that event will possibly never be "over" since the photon is potentially still "on its way" to a distant observer.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

Strange,

 

It is actually worse than that. I really don't see where my idea makes no sense.

 

I know. And that is the problem.

 

 

And there is the universal now ...

 

There is not. And that is perhaps why you are confused by the fact it takes light a finite time to travel to us from a star.

 

 

as this moment all matter in the universe is 13.8 billion years old

 

According to whom? Or, better, in what frame of reference?

 

Of course, practically, that is irrelevant as the error bars on that estimate are far larger than any difference in the age that might be measured by different observers.

 

But the principle is the same: different observers will come up with different times since some event. And, in fact, for some observers, the event will not have happened yet.

 

 

I mention this, because the block universe idea does not include any definition of how the propagation of light is to be considered.

 

No, but GR does.

 

 

Does something "happen" or exist, when you see it, or when it announces the electron level change to the rest of the universe?

 

That depends on how you want to define "happen" or "exist". With no clear definition of those, I imagine someone would end up very confused.

 

 

Once the photon is released, there is no way to recall it. It is a past event.

 

Whose past?

[John Cuthber]

What does the "uni" bit of "universe" mean?

[david345]

I mention this, because the block universe idea does not include any definition of how the propagation of light is to be considered. Does something "happen" or exist, when you see it, or when it announces the electron level change to the rest of the universe?

The block universe is fully compatible with the laws of relatively. It describes light according to the laws of relatively. It is also compatible with several versions of quantum mechanics such as MW. You seem to be using a variation of the argument "it doesn't exist until you observe it". This argument mainly applies to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. In QM there is reason to suspect a particle may not have a definite position or momentum until it is observed. It would be silly to claim, in relativity, the present does not exist until it is observed. Arguments about the existence of the future according to relativity typically involve the Rietdijk–Putnam argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument If you are asking what interpretation of QM is correct then no the block universe can not answer that. As I said earlier, the block universe is compatible with relatively and versions of Quantum mechanics.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

Quite. Uni sort of answers the thread question by definition.

 

Strange,

 

The answers to the confusing questions are in my simple definition. There is the here and now observer to which the rest of the universe arrives at the speed of light, and the same situation exists at distant locations where there is also a here and now observer experiencing the rest of the universe at the speed of light. The two observers are tied to each other by a universal now, that is implied and imagined, by the historical connection that both observers have with the big bang, and the causal connection that both locations have had with each other, and the rest of the universe, since the beginning. If I am a certain amount of light years distant from observer B, then observer B is the same amount of light years distant from me. I experience observer B's location as being the age of the universe, minus the distance between, and observer B witnesses me, or rather the Sun's locale, as being the age of the universe, minus the distance between.

Simple and complete. There is no confusion. Only when somebody makes a claim of knowledge of a current event, at a distant location, before information from the event can get here, is there confusion.

 

david345,

 

Like in the Andromeda paradox you linked, where the passer by headed toward Andromeda thinks the invasion is being planned and the one headed away knows its coming, neither actually knows anything about the invasion, as what we see of Andromeda when we look at her, is what she was up to 2.5million years ago. They didn't even have rocket ships yet, as far as it looks to either passer-by.

 

Regards, TAR

when the Mars rover was first doing its thing, it was separated from us by 14 minutes...yet it carried the universal now with it, that it always had, and continues to have

[Strange]

The two observers are tied to each other by a universal now

 

Apart from the small detail that we know there is no such thing.

 

If I am a certain amount of light years distant from observer B, then observer B is the same amount of light years distant from me.

 

Observer B may not agree with you about your relative distance. And observer C may have a different idea, again.

 

I experience observer B's location as being the age of the universe, minus the distance between, and observer B witnesses me, or rather the Sun's locale, as being the age of the universe, minus the distance between.

 

Only if you have agreed to use the same coordinate system.

What does the "uni" bit of "universe" mean?

 

It meant "one" when the word was created.

 

This might be an example of the etymological fallacy: "deeply mathematical work that suggests there might be multiple universes must be wrong because Latin".

If you like, you can retcon the "uni" bit to mean "one (of the possible instances in the multiverse)".

Edited July 28, 2015 by Strange

[StringJunky]

 

...

This might be an example of the etymological fallacy: "deeply mathematical work that suggests there might be multiple universes must be wrong because Latin".

 

"Deeply mathematcal" supersedes "deeply etymological", of course. Science just gets to alter words as it sees fit and calls it a "fallacy" when the historical meaning is used. Etymologically, Universe as pertaining to multiverses is an oxymoron.

[Strange]

"Deeply mathematcal" supersedes "deeply etymological", of course. Science just gets to alter words as it sees fit and calls it a "fallacy" when the historical meaning is used. Etymologically, Universe as pertaining to multiverses is an oxymoron.

 

The etymological fallacy isn't (just) about science. It is universal. If anyone appeals to what a word "originally means" then they are almost certainly wrong.

 

For example, the English word decimate means "to severely damage or destroy; to reduce greatly in number". It does not mean to kill one in ten centurions or any such nonsense. (Because English really, really needs a word meaning that.)

[John Cuthber]

 

Apart from the small detail that we know there is no such thing.

 

 

Observer B may not agree with you about your relative distance. And observer C may have a different idea, again.

 

 

Only if you have agreed to use the same coordinate system.

 

It meant "one" when the word was created.

 

This might be an example of the etymological fallacy: "deeply mathematical work that suggests there might be multiple universes must be wrong because Latin".

If you like, you can retcon the "uni" bit to mean "one (of the possible instances in the multiverse)".

Or we can say there's still one Universe.

We live in the local bit of it which we can call the observable Universe.

Without needing to redefine any words.

 

So, how did the observable universe come into being?

Well we don't really know- but wee can go with the big bang as a reasonable guess- which seems to fit the data so far.

 

How did the unobservable bits of the Universe come into being?

We really don't know- perhaps we never will because we can't observe them.

 

Did the unobservable bits of the universe give rise to the observable bit?

We will presumably never know, but it's possible.

[Strange]

Or we can say there's still one Universe.

We live in the local bit of it which we can call the observable Universe.

Without needing to redefine any words.

 

If you use the word "universe" to describe the "multiverse" concept (assuming you reject that term), you will need some new terminology for the thing that exists between the observable universe and what is described by "multverse'; i.e. the thing we currently call "the universe".

 

 

So, how did the observable universe come into being?

Well we don't really know- but wee can go with the big bang as a reasonable guess- which seems to fit the data so far.

 

The big bang theory doesn't say anything about how (or even, if) the universe came into being.

[david345]

Tar,

You seem to be claiming something doesn't exist if it is outside your light cone. Consider the following example. A distant star explodes. I am standing closer to the star then you. The light from the explosion reaches me before it reaches you. I see the explosion when the light is still outside your light cone. You claim the explosion doesn't exist because it is outside your light cone. I personally see the explosion with my own eyes. How can the explosion not exist when I personally see it with my own eyes. Just because you have not personally seen something does not prove it doesn't exist. There are events which you would call the unobservable future. Others might call these events the observed past. You would claim they live in the future. They would say tar lives in the past. You would say "I am right because I live in the universal now". There is no universal now. I do not understand why you think you can disprove the block universe by talking about what you personally don't know. You may not know what will happen tomorrow. This does not disprove the block universe. This does not prove the future does not exist. Today you may call something the future. Tomorrow you will call it the observed past. We all observe that a future exists. We may not know all the details. This is no excuse to say the future doesn't exist. You have provided no evidence that contradicts the block universe. You simply have claimed that you can't see outside your own personal light cone.

 

david345,

 

Like in the Andromeda paradox you linked, where the passer by headed toward Andromeda thinks the invasion is being planned and the one headed away knows its coming, neither actually knows anything about the invasion, as what we see of Andromeda when we look at her, is what she was up to 2.5million years ago. They didn't even have rocket ships yet, as far as it looks to either passer-by.

 

Regards, TAR

 

This is not what the page says at all. Read the page again.

[tar]

david345,

 

There are a number of premises on the page that I don't agree with, so its difficult to follow logic when one wants to say "wait a minute" "why that?". According to my personal view, the information coming from Andromeda will be the same waves of electromagnetic energy that are present in the location where the two passers by pass each other. The only difference that the one headed toward Andromeda will notice is the waves are a bit blue shifted and of higher energy than the waves experienced by the fellow walking away. Prior their meeting, the one closer to Andromeda was being hit by Andromeda information prior the further away guy, so he would know of the invasion, while the more distant guy only knew of the plans, but the difference in time would only be the time it would take light to get from the one's position to the other's, a matter of pico seconds. Not really enough time to plan and execute an invasion launch. AND once they are passing each other, they are witnessing the SAME moment on Andromeda, no matter which direction they are going, or at what speed they are moving. The light waves could care less who is seeing them, or how fast in what direction they are going. The light waves are, the light waves exist, prior the observation, in the exact fitting relationship to the event. The event was 2.5 billion years ago, and the event was 2.5 billion lys away, and right on schedule, here they are, arriving in the eyeballs of both passers by.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Sorry I posted without reference to the thread topic, but it is sort of required to get this time thing and what is considered "existing" figured out and agreed upon, before guessing at what does or does not exist "prior" or outside of everything.

[david345]

If they were separated by a larger distance then it would take more then picoseconds. An attack can be launched with the push of a button. After they pass they would once again be witnessing different moments. I don't see how this disproves the block universe or the andromeda paradox. According to the block universe the past, present, and future all exist.

[tar]

but they exist only in an imaginary sense, not one that matters to Earth bound individuals in practice

 

I can imagine my Uncle Woody still exists in the Universe, because the image of his birth has not yet arrived at a location 100 lys from here, much less the image of his death. But since I cannot actually get anywhere to witness such, it does not matter to me, except that I imagine it being so, and it gives me some comfort, as imagining a dog I put to sleep, waiting for me in a green field across the rainbow bridge, when I die.

 

The block universe says all events are of equal reality and are not objectively to be valued as past present or future. This only works if you can get somewhere else, at the speed of thought. It means nothing, if you hold yourself to witnessing the universe as a human, at the speed of light. Which is, by the way, the way that even non thinking things witness the rest of the universe.

 

If Strange tells me that a universal now, does not exist, I have to answer that I think he is wrong. It is the only way that everything adds back up, and one can honestly say that a star in the sky is really currently burning, and the thing we see in the sky is an image of what and where the thing was 10s of thousands of years ago.

Edited July 29, 2015 by tar

[david345]

These claims are based on your imaginary universal now. You can not go back in time and observe that your uncle has disappeared. Let us say your uncle was alive and observed at x,y,z,t. Your uncle was never observed to not be in that same x,y,z,t position of space time. You are assuming he has disappeared when you have not observed this. The block universe agrees with what has been observed. Your claim agrees with that which has never been observed. People have observed the past. No one has ever seen the past disappear.

 

The andromeda paradox is a reductio ad absurdum proof.

 

1. Assume X is true. (The future is uncertain)

2. Show a contradiction occurs if X is true (person A's uncertain future is person B's certain past.)

3. Conclude X is false (the future is not uncertain)

 

It might take time to get the results. No experiment produces faster then light instantaneous results. Once the results are in a conclusion can be made. Conclusion: It is a historical fact that there was a time that was both uncertain and certain therefore X is false.

 

Tar:

"The block universe says all events are of equal reality and are not objectively to be valued as past present or future. This only works if you can get somewhere else, at the speed of thought. It means nothing, if you hold yourself to witnessing the universe as a human, at the speed of light. Which is, by the way, the way that even non thinking things witness the rest of the universe."

 

This is complete nonsense.

Edited July 29, 2015 by david345

[tar]

david345,

 

Perhaps it is important to my thinking, to understand that there is "truth" from a local perspective, that is not true from a distant perspective, and vice a versa.

 

When you say it is proved that the future is not uncertain as soon as you notice a contradiction based on you premise you bypass completely the basis of my argument. There are two truths. That which is what we see, and that which we know has to be happening, in order for us to see distant things later.

 

In my logic it is both true that the star is shining in our sky, and it is true that it is shining now which will be witnessed in our sky later. This HAS to be the case. But at the same time, there is only one instance of the star, which is at the exact here and now of the star, which is in exact fitting coordination with the rest of the universe, as to the photons hitting it, from everywhere else, and in terms of the photons it is just now sending out in all directions, and its history of having sent out photons in all directions, before.

 

In this take, the future is uncertain, because it has not happened yet. The here and now of the star is at the intersection of the rest of the universe, and that particular combination of electromagnetic waves has NEVER happened at that spot, before. It is fresh existence. New reality. The arrangement just before is gone forever, the current arrangement is a first time arrangement, and the next arrangement has not happened before. There is, for every here and now a definite past, present and future. And you are conflating terms when you speak as if there is a way to understand a specific time and place as not being unique and instantly lost, as soon as the next moment arrives.

 

The Andromeda invasion launch is true as soon as it launched, but only to Andromeda warriors. On Earth, it is NOT true yet. The contradiction is already built into reality, by the immense distances that separate us from the current now of a distant place. The beauty of the place, is that we can see Andromeda now, in our skies, and are thusly not out of reach of Andromeda. It is in our present. But its present is not in our present. Its past is in our present. But its future has not happened yet. Not for Andromeda warriors, or anybody looking at Andromeda. The whole universe, according to my thinking, is just about to do the next thing, take on the next arrangement, for the first time, just right now. This takes an understanding of the current here and now, as what we sense, and an understanding that we imagine the current condition of the rest of the universe. We don't know what that is, for sure, because of the propagation of light speed that lets us in on close stuff soon and far away stuff much later. There could be a deadly cosmic ray collection on its way toward the Earth, right now, from a nearby supernova that has happened, but we don't know about it yet.

 

A contradiction. The supernova has occurred, but it has not happened here, yet.

 

Regards, TAR

[david345]

Tar, your entire post is complete nonsense. It would be nice if the universe could be whatever we want it to be. Your version of the universe was disproved by relativity years ago. There is no universal now. You are claiming things are false simply because you do not like the idea. This isn't science. It isn't even philosophy. It is you just saying whatever you want.

[tar]

david345,

 

Well I am making no claims that are not falsifiable. And I am making no claims that are not already completely accepted facts.

 

Relativity is one way to look at the place, but it is a theory, a mathematical model that requires imagination on its own. It is philosophy that I am talking about, and it has to do with the difference between the model and the place. There are as Kant says things we can say about a thing in general, but it is difficult to know the thing as it is.

 

The thread has asked the question, is the universe created alone.

 

The universe, as far as I am concerned, is the thing we both have in common to say something about. It does not change appreciably according to what I say, or what you say, or what relativity says or what Strange says about it. It is still the same immense, longlived place, that we see only a little slice of, for only a brief moment. Nothing we could say here would allow us to see it all.

 

Now you have claimed that relativity is the block universe. I disagree.

 

Regards, TAR

So relativity has been validated. It is relativity I am talking about. A distant place we see, is not happening currently. Only the observers on the spot know what is happening there now.

 

And I can prove that there is currently images of past moments on their way here. Look at the sky tonight, and you will see stars at all sorts of incredibly distant distances burning in the sky. The light you see from none of them, bar the Sun, left the star you see today, or yesterday. Then look at the sky tomorrow. The same stars are in the sky, so photons that they sent out several years ago, or several scores, or hundreds or 1000s or tens of thousands of years ago, had to be "on their way" here as of now, for us to see them all in the sky tomorrow.

[david345]

david345,

 

Well I am making no claims that are not falsifiable. And I am making no claims that are not already completely accepted facts.

This statement is unacceptable and has been for some time.

 

Tar: "And there is the universal now, as this moment all matter in the universe is 13.8 billion years old "

Tar: "So relativity has been validated. It is relativity I am talking about."

Relativity is not your theory and it clearly contradicts your claim.

 

Tar: "The Andromeda invasion launch is true as soon as it launched, but only to Andromeda warriors. On Earth, it is NOT true yet. "

This leads to the contradiction "X is true and X is not true" What If there are 3 people on different planets? Are there 3 truths?

 

Tar: "Not that it matters much, if there's a God (and that's a mighty big "if") then He too is part of the Universe.

So we either have to include everything in everything, or we can't call it everything."

Apparently your theory is "one universe many truths" This is extreme. Even for a philosophy forum.

Tar: " The contradiction is already built into reality"

Reality is defined as "The quality or state of being actual or true" A contradiction can not be true.

Tar: "And I can prove that there is currently images of past moments on their way here."

Tar: "But, and this is the biggest but, in terms of accepting your block universe idea, I have no way to communicate with those observers, instantly. I can imagine the observers existing, and what the must see and what they could not see yet and what the will see in the future, but I have no way to verify my prediction, because I can not "get" there, now, since I am not god."

Tar, you need to make up your mind. Does something exist when it happens or when the light hits your eyes. You can't keep flip flopping back and fourth. You can't say the present exists and then tell me I am wrong when I say a present event exists. You have claimed something isn't real until you see it. Have you personally seen the nerves connecting your eyeballs to your brain? Have you seen these nerves in action? I don't think so. Observation is unreal according to your own definition of reality. (at least one of them)

[tar]

david345,

 

I have made up my mind. We, here on Earth are all in the same now. I think its easy for us to make the translation and accept a few seconds of light lag, like understanding that if we ask the guy connected by satellite a question, he is not going to respond right away, because he did not hear the question when we asked it, and we will not hear his response when he makes it. A few seconds we can discard and adjust for and add everything back.

 

However it becomes more difficult when you are talking to the Mars rover or the the Pluto probe. They never left the now, I am calling the universal now. They have however left the local Earth, couple of moments wide now. They are not "present". This is a distance thing, and the separation of one local now, from another local now, in terms of time, gets greater with the distance.

 

I think it makes sense that every item in the universe should be exactly as old as the universe. There is no place to go, other than the universe to exist. (unless there is some other place and time to be, than the one connected collection of places I thought we were calling the universe.) Now I suppose it is possible that items could pop into existence from some vacuum disturbance or from the spontaneous creation of some matter/anti-matter pair or something, and these items are not the age of the universe, but in terms of the macro stuff, the collections of galaxies and stars and dust and planets and so on, I am considering that these items have a history exactly as long as the age of the universe.

 

If we see a quasar that existed 10 billion years ago, but does not exist now, it is not me, who is not making up my mind, as to whether a thing exists or not. It is our definitions that cause the thing to exist in two different senses.

 

Has no one ever said to you "that star is 5 light years from here"? What do you think that means in terms of that star's existence? Is it here, in our sky, now or does it exist only in our imaginations as a star currently burning, that we will see in 5 years?

 

I am calling both true. The universal now is where everything is currently happening. The local now is where we are, as a race of individuals, each who has the ability to remember and model the place, based on the information arriving at our eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin, and comprehended through our a priori understanding of time and space.

 

What is incorrect about modeling the universe, is to do so, without regard for the way a human models the universe. To think you can see it all at once, is not correct. You can imagine it all being there now, and we get to see it later. And because this has been the constant situation, the past of distant places all arrives here in a smooth and fitting manner, like it has been doing for ever.

 

Still requires that there be a universal now, where someone could currently be looking at the Earth, as it was 5 years ago, from a distance of 5 lys.

 

Regards, TAR

and also, right now an observer could be looking at the Earth, as it was 10 years ago, from a distance of 10 lys...

the observer at a distance of 5 lys saw what the Earth was doing 10 years ago, 5 years ago

[david345]

Tar, I answered the thread in my original post. You flip flopped even on this question. In one post you claimed the universe is 13.9 billion years old. In another post you claimed it has been around forever. In another post you claimed if we are part of a bigger universe then we should consider the bigger universe the correct one. Personally I am tired of hearing your theory of time. You have provided no evidence and it has already been disproved by relativity. You should open another thread if you want to preach this nonsense. Goodbye.

[tar]

David345,

 

The universe being created makes little sense in the block universe view. A moving point is represented by a line in 4d. Imagine A as a point at the beginning of our universe that caused our universe. In the block universe view this would be similar to A being a point at the left end of our block universe in the direction of time. The beginning of our universe would be like the edge of our universe. If A caused our universe that would mean A allows us to determine what is to the right of A. This is similar to knowing the slope at a point on a curve. You can determine what the curve does to the left or right of the point. Some might ask "what created the block universe?" This argument fails. For the block universe to be created would require a second time outside of our 4d space time. We will call this time t'. At t'1 the block universe does not exist. At t'2 the 4d block universe (past, present, and future) is created. This second time would probably be a block time also. You would turn a 4d block universe into a 5d block universe.

This is an answer to the thread question? You say it makes no sense that the universe is created, and go on to explain why it makes no sense, using an imaginary block universe with dimensions appearing and things to the left in the newly appearing dimension. I do not like dropping dimensions and adding dimensions, I don't know what that would mean. I don't know how to visualize it, and test it, to see if it fits, nor how the thing folds back in and wraps around, and fits together. So I do not know whether this is a strawman argument or not. Are you saying that the universe being created makes no sense, because you cannot fit it into the block universe view, or that the block universe makes no sense, because then the universe could not have been created?

 

Regards, TAR

 

I will not "preach" my realistic view of time, as Strange and I have gone round and round in another thread and gotten nowhere, but you are right I should not hijack this thread, with that.