RE: describing the "collaboration" of parts; thoughts on spacetime
May 28, 2014 at 12:45 pm
(This post was last modified: May 28, 2014 at 1:11 pm by Coffee Jesus.)
What do you mean "there is no time", and how do you know?
This is irrelevant to e=mc2. I haven't had any education in physics (yet). The issue here is whether and how spacetime could be an emergent phenomenon.
In my mind, it seems like there are two and only two possibilities. Either causality is a pattern that supervenes on time, or time 'emerges' from the inherent causal nature of objects.
If the former, then time is uncaused and needs no explanation, which is ironic because it's the possibility that would hypothetically allow for alternate, extra-dimensional types of "causality" (e.g. a god beyond space and time). If the latter, then time is caused, and we should ponder how objects "collaborate" like this.
Applied to the concept of a god beyond space and time ("GBS&T" for short), my argument would be:
- Either A or B.
- If A, then a GBS&T is unnecessary.
- If B, then a GBS&T is impossible.
- The GBS&T is either unnecessary or impossible.
This is irrelevant to e=mc2. I haven't had any education in physics (yet). The issue here is whether and how spacetime could be an emergent phenomenon.
In my mind, it seems like there are two and only two possibilities. Either causality is a pattern that supervenes on time, or time 'emerges' from the inherent causal nature of objects.
If the former, then time is uncaused and needs no explanation, which is ironic because it's the possibility that would hypothetically allow for alternate, extra-dimensional types of "causality" (e.g. a god beyond space and time). If the latter, then time is caused, and we should ponder how objects "collaborate" like this.
Applied to the concept of a god beyond space and time ("GBS&T" for short), my argument would be:
- Either A or B.
- If A, then a GBS&T is unnecessary.
- If B, then a GBS&T is impossible.
- The GBS&T is either unnecessary or impossible.
