Timelessness

[robvalue]

The descriptions of the dumbass gods in the story books are anything other than timeless. They show a magic humanoid interacting with humans, very much subject to time.

[Alex K]

Ah, I think I get it. I've posted about the low entropy point with futures in both directions before, it's very appealing. What seems to break time symmetry (apart from the tiny CP violation in weak interactions which is not a drastic breaking) is the wave function collapse of the usual copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It only goes one way apparently. Is Stenger says something interesting about that, I have to read it.

[Time Traveler]

Ah, I think I get it. I've posted about the low entropy point with futures in both directions before, it's very appealing. What seems to break time symmetry (apart from the tiny CP violation in weak interactions which is not a drastic breaking) is the wave function collapse of the usual copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It only goes one way apparently. Is Stenger says something interesting about that, I have to read it.

I think Stenger's books are probably more targeted to laymen, though he does include blocks of physics equations which will certainly mean a lot more to a physicist like you than me. I think he wrote a number of white papers and other technical publications which would probably be more up you alley. In The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, Stenger gives a very superficial explanation of the "biverse" model, so you may have better luck exploring Carroll, et al. who originally published the hypothesis.

My question for you would be: At the beginning of our universe there was a slight disproportionality of what we now consider matter over antimatter (about 1 part per billion difference if I remember correctly.) Is it possible both matter and antimatter were indeed produced in equal quantities and the antimatter resides on the other side of the "biverse" Carroll and other proponents imagine? Because my limited understanding is that antimatter can be looked at like matter, simply flowing in the opposite time direction. In other words, if Carroll (and others) biverse model is correct, would we expect to find it populated with antimatter, or matter?

---

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?

That's my understanding. Of course, Relativity breaks down at a quantum level, which gives theorists some wiggle room in exploring certain aspects of how time works on micro-levels. But read about the twin paradox, time dilation, length contraction, etc., and if the reality of those things don't hurt your head, nothing will.

[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?

That's my understanding. Of course, Relativity breaks down at a quantum level, which gives theorists some wiggle room in exploring certain aspects of how time works on micro-levels. But read about the twin paradox, time dilation, length contraction, etc., and if the reality of those things don't hurt your head, nothing will.

I've known about all the other stuff since the 1970s. It never fazed me. Brian Green's documentary was the first I've heard about the time slices all existing at once. That would mean there is a near-infinite amount of copies of the universe - one for each Planck time since the big bang.

[Time Traveler]

I've known about all the other stuff since the 1970s. It never fazed me. Brian Green's documentary was the first I've heard about the time slices all existing at once. That would mean there is a near-infinite amount of copies of the universe - one for each Planke time since the big bang.

For any who are perhaps unfamiliar with Greene's documentary, here is a video where he discusses the time slices...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1WfFkp4puw

[RozKek]

My knowledge of physics is quite weak so I apologise if I sound stupid or missed something, but if the past, present and future co-exist doesn't it mean that everything is predetermined?

[Time Traveler]

My knowledge of physics is quite weak so I apologise if I sound stupid or missed something, but if the past, present and future co-exist doesn't it mean that everything is predetermined?

That's what many physicists and philosophers believe (especially Brian Greene - see video above). In this model, we all exist in space-time as a complete"worldline," your birth, every moment of your life, and death all co-extant.  However, the seeming random nature of quantum mechanics does allow some to conclude the future may not be predetermined and we don't yet have the full picture. Until Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are finally reconciled, we won't know for sure.

[Edwardo Piet]

One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that nothing happened before time itself and nothing is outside of space itself.

[AFTT47]

One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that nothing happened before time itself and nothing is outside of space itself.

That's not a certainty at all. There is nothing to preclude other 4-D space-time loaves (other universes).

[RoadRunner79]

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.

It doesn't seem that anything could begin to exist in that model.... and it appears that you are doing away with causality (which I agree, is harmful to the KCA as well as much of scientific endevour).  

I also found this article which describes what Craig means by "Beginning to exist" http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7834
He quotes Craig asking the following question?  

Because the atoms currently composing my body have always existed, have I always existed?

And a further explanation:

[We might say] “In order for something to come into existence, there must be a time t such that the thing exists at t and there is no time t* earlier than t at which the thing exists,” or more simply, “In order for anything to come into existence, there has to be a first moment of its existence.”

I don't think it is explicit from what Craig said, but I would also include vector among those properties that require an explanation. So even in the B theory of time, which you described, which has an arrow of time (entropy) and as you say, doesn't impede causal relationship. Then even within the block of time, it can be said that something began to exist, which it did not exist in prior.