(March 1, 2017 at 5:47 pm)SteveII Wrote: Why should causality require our space/time?
Causal relationships, by definition, require time, as a cause must, by definition, precede its effect. Time can only be demonstrated to exist within the universe.
If you wish to assert the existence of some sort of meta-time, or time-outside-time, or what have you, you are free to do so, but it reduces your argument to nothing but bare assertion on its face, even ignoring the incoherence of the premise.
(March 1, 2017 at 5:47 pm)SteveII Wrote: I see your move from space/time to just time in your second sentence.
Because "time" is the relevant half of "space-time", yes. It doesn't actually change anything, so your focusing on it is rather nonsensical.
(March 1, 2017 at 5:47 pm)SteveII Wrote: You are simply defining time and then telling us time by itself is nonsensical.
I have no idea what post you think you are responding to with that sentence, but it certainly isn't mine.
(March 1, 2017 at 5:47 pm)SteveII Wrote: I would agree since time is simply a measurement of change
No. Time is a dimension. Hence the phrase "space-time".
(March 1, 2017 at 5:47 pm)SteveII Wrote: Establishing that all physical changes have a cause is the only thing our experience and rational reasoning has ever told us.
Within the universe.
(March 1, 2017 at 5:47 pm)SteveII Wrote: Additionally, if things can happen uncaused, why don't they happen now?
Because we are within the universe, where causality holds due to the existence of time.
This is not complicated.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
