Timelessness

[Time Traveler]

Timelessness

Theists readily embrace a timeless, immutable deity.

But what does it really mean, to exist timelessly? Physicists like Victor Stenger (author of Timeless Reality, amongst other books), along with philosophical advocates of the B-theory of time, consider it possible to view our universe as “timeless,” where time is perfectly symmetrical at a quantum level. But what this really implies is that what we consider to be all times in the past, present, and future co-exist, neither more temporally privileged than the other. It’s important to note that this view does not eliminate causal events or the arrow of time based upon things like ever-increasing entropy. For example, in this block universe model, we can still say that there was a causal relationship that one or more stars went supernova prior to the formation of our solar system which used the heavier elements forged from these exploding stars.

This view is something of a paradigm shift from everyday perceptions of time for those new to the theory. Try this: rather than thinking of time like a tourist on vacation taking photographs every second, the current photo representing “now” and the previous photos representing “past” with future photos yet to be taken – the B-theory imagines all photographs of the entire vacation have already been taken and co-exist, all equally real, despite the fact that the photographer himself may only perceive he is currently taking the first, or second, or third photograph, etc. Another way to think about it is that time becomes an address or navigation point in a space-time manifold where all times co-exist, just like all houses may co-exist spatially within a neighborhood. To get to any one house you may have to take a certain path depending upon where you start, but there is no privileged single house which all others define themselves by, just as there is no privileged “now” under the B-theory.  But is this what theologians mean when they say God is timeless?

Absolutely NOT!

To apologists like William Lane Craig, the past really happened, the present is now, and the future has yet to be written. This A-theory of time is one of the foundational assumptions of his Kalam Cosmological Argument, without which even Craig doesn’t believe the KCA can be supported.

So to exist “timelessly” prior to the creation of the universe based upon an A-theory of time, God would not have a past, nor a future, only an eternal, unchanging “now.” This begs the question of how an unchanging, timeless being can do anything? Some theists want to imagine that God first existed prior to creating the universe, then created the universe (including, ironically, time itself). This is having their cake and eating it too. Others imagine God existing, considering, deciding, and creating the universe all at the same instant the universe came into being. But this implies God never existed prior to the universe, and thus if the universe had a beginning, so did God; or if God is eternal, so then the universe.

But what if God is not timeless after all, but lives in a different “metaphysical” time, as WLC has himself imagined? Then they must face the problem of who created this metaphysical time which God is himself subject to. If metaphysical time can come to exist without God, then why not universal time (along with space, which Relativity demonstrates is intrinsically linked with time as space-time). Once theologians open the door to something existing independently of God, then entire universes can logically exist independent of his creation. But if God created metaphysical time, then when did he do that?. In “super-metaphysical” time? Just imagining something as “metaphysical time” doesn’t make it real or solve the problem.

The true nature of time is still being contested amongst physicists and philosophers, though more believe in a relativity based B-theory than not. But to be “timeless” in an A-theory model while still maintaining the freedom to move from one event to another is contradictory, illogical, and wholly impossible… even for a god.

References:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjkPcqDU7uA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-NTXoYTvao
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TheBThe

[GrandizerII]

Nice! You said it exactly the way I think about this topic, but with way better words than I could have ever come up with.

No matter how you look at it: God is either illogical or not needed as an explanation.

If God is timeless, then no way in hell he could've done anything. Not logical.

But if God never was timeless, always in some time dimension (whatever it is), then why not just stick to the universe then and forget about God as an explanation?

[Edwardo Piet]

Life is timeless.

Europe endless.

[RoadRunner79]

Thanks TT,
I think this should be an interesting topic. I'm a little familiar with the generalities between the A and B theory of Time, but admit I haven't studied it that much.

Why do you think that the Kalam Cosmological argument fails, if the 'A' theory of isn't true?

Also, I haven't time to watch your video yet, but it looks interesting, and I look forward to getting around to it.

[robvalue]

Very nice post! Thank you.

"Timeless" just seems to be one of the latest fashionable excuses as to why there is no evidence to back up these wild claims.

Another thing: how could you possibly know that god is timeless? You can't even demonstrate his merest existence, yet you're positing something so incredible like this? Evidence?

It seems to be either pulled straight out of one's anus, or else it's a "solution" to a paradox the theist themselves have imposed upon reality:

"Reality, according to how I describe it, wouldn't work. So there must be a magical extra thing X with all these amazing abilities which accounts for the difference between my understanding of reality, and what we observe"

Maybe if how you describe reality doesn't mesh with reality, you just don't understand it properly in the first place. And you're creating problems that aren't there by constantly insisting that you can use philosophy alone to "investigate" the origins of the universe, when all of science has hit a hard barrier; then claiming there needs to be this magical explanation for the logical problems you imagine there would be. It's the obsession with wanting to know more, without accepting the fact that we simply can't yet. And of course, it's trying to connect the dots for conclusions that have already been drawn, mostly via indoctrination.

Trying to force reality into a story book...

[Alex K]

But what does it really mean, to exist timelessly? Physicists like Victor Stenger (author of Timeless Reality, amongst other books), along with philosophical advocates of the B-theory of time, consider it possible to view our universe as “timeless,” where time is perfectly symmetrical at a quantum level.

What does this mean? Symmetrical with respect to what?

[Ignorant]

Timelessness

...Some theists want to imagine that God first existed prior to creating the universe, then created the universe (including, ironically, time itself). This is having their cake and eating it too. Others imagine God existing, considering, deciding, and creating the universe all at the same instant the universe came into being. But this implies God never existed prior to the universe, and thus if the universe had a beginning, so did God; or if God is eternal, so then the universe... [edit: emphasis mine]

Do you think it is possible that this formulation unconsciously imports temporal meaning into a reality where temporal expressions would have no meaning? What does existing "prior" to temporal events even mean (if anything)? I think that adds to the difficulty of the issue.

[Time Traveler]

Why do you think that the Kalam Cosmological argument fails, if the 'A' theory of isn't true?

I think it's because, under the B-theory where all times co-exist as equally real, the universe cannot really be said to have "begun", and thus the premise from the KCA: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is in trouble.

---

But what does it really mean, to exist timelessly? Physicists like Victor Stenger (author of Timeless Reality, amongst other books), along with philosophical advocates of the B-theory of time, consider it possible to view our universe as “timeless,” where time is perfectly symmetrical at a quantum level.

What does this mean? Symmetrical with respect to what?

As I understand it, Stenger is talking about the time symmetry between past and future at a quantum level. He details his perspective in Chapter 8 - The Timeless Quantum of his book, Timeless Reality: Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes. Also, in The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, Stenger writes on pg. 93 the following hypothesis: "An important component of [his Atoms in the Void] model is time reversibility. That is, there is no arrow of time at the fundamental level, and all processes can proceed in either time direction." Stenger also seems a fan of the biverse model proposed by Carroll, Chan and Aquirre, Gratton in which the universe contracted prior to expanding again as we know it post big bang. "The other beauty of the biverse scenario is its symmetry. It is invariant under time-reversal (as well as particle-antiparticle conjugation C and parity P). It also explains why the universe has low entropy at t = 0." p. 145

---

Timelessness

...Some theists want to imagine that God first existed prior to creating the universe, then created the universe (including, ironically, time itself). This is having their cake and eating it too. Others imagine God existing, considering, deciding, and creating the universe all at the same instant the universe came into being. But this implies God never existed prior to the universe, and thus if the universe had a beginning, so did God; or if God is eternal, so then the universe... [edit: emphasis mine]

Do you think it is possible that this formulation unconsciously imports temporal meaning into a reality where temporal expressions would have no meaning? What does existing "prior" to temporal events even mean (if anything)? I think that adds to the difficulty of the issue.

If I understand your question correctly, it has to do with the semantic difficulty of trying to describe events happening in a timeless manner without using words like "prior" or "before". But I think the difficulty is more fundamental than that, because absent time, by what possible mechanism does something ever change? It is up to the theists who believe God existed timelessly before the creation of our universe to explain and defend these apparent paradoxes.

[Ignorant]

If I understand your question correctly, it has to do with the semantic difficulty of trying to describe events happening in a timeless manner without using words like "prior" or "before". But I think the difficulty is more fundamental than that, because absent time, by what possible mechanism does something ever change? It is up to the theists who believe God existed timelessly before the creation of our universe to explain and defend these apparent paradoxes.

Well, sure there is a semantic difficulty, but my question deals with the conceptual difficulty which makes your questions lack meaning. In other words, "timeless" existence "prior" to time is empty of any meaning. A thing can't be temporally prior to time itself, but can it be "prior" in a different sense? I don't know. If it can, then maybe that is in play here. If it can't, then both the claim about God's "prior" existence and the objections to that claim are meaningless. At least it seems that way to me.

[AFTT47]

The "B" theory of time really blows me away. I have a hard time wrapping my head around all points of time existing simultaneously. It's never a good bet to go against Einstein but is that really what is meant in relativity when it says all observers viewpoints are equally valid? Must all of time simultaneously exist like Brian Green's slices on a loaf of bread analogy to satisfy that tenant of relativity?