(October 20, 2021 at 3:20 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I didn't invalidate your argument for no reason but because it contained an example of the fallacy of equivocation which makes your argument invalid.
How can it be equivocation if I explicitly said, repeatedly, that time belongs to the spacetime...? Any sane mind can apprehend the idea of a succession of causes of effects. The fact that you need the additional time dimension to accept this possibility is simply your lack of imagination, nothing else.
And surely you must have noticed, you're repeating the word "equivocation" quite a lot recently.
(October 20, 2021 at 3:20 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Since it, fluxnaub, has nothing to do with time, temporality, "prior", or any related temporal concepts then it's pointless as an object tion to Hawking-Hartle.
Um.. Nobody here is objecting to Hawking-Hartle's model, I am not sure to whom you're writing this. This model suggest that, simply put, there was only space and no time near the beginning of the universe.
More importantly, this model implies that the universe didn't exist forever.
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lect...ng-of-time
Quote: "In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago"
Quote: "In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary."
So this model is not exactly on your side, as you might have noticed.
(October 20, 2021 at 3:20 pm)Angrboda Wrote: This is just a bare assertion and can be dismissed if you can't support it. Do you have an argument or evidence that something caused spacetime?
I simply used the causality principle, which you seem to have conceded to. Or am I mistaken?
(October 20, 2021 at 3:20 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I'm not the one arguing semantics, but seeing as you've doubled down on causal order not requiring temporal order
Exactly. There can be a causal order without the need of time.
(October 20, 2021 at 3:20 pm)Angrboda Wrote: If a cause does not need to temporally precede its effect, then it's possible that something created within this universe caused our universe to exist, forming a sort of temporal loop. I don't have a problem with that if you don't. You've provided yet another way the universe can exist without a creator.
Seriously, @Angrboda ?
If you use the word "temporally", then you are placing yourself inside the universe, in which case a cause has to temporally preceed the effet.
Outside the universe/spacetime, there is no temporal order anymore, and we're left with causal order.