What would you call my new beliefs?

[Nonpareil]

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.

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.

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.

I would agree since time is simply a measurement of change

No. Time is a dimension. Hence the phrase "space-time".

Establishing that all physical changes have a cause is the only thing our experience and rational reasoning has ever told us.

Within the universe.

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.

[SteveII]

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.

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.

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.

I would agree since time is simply a measurement of change

No. Time is a dimension. Hence the phrase "space-time".

Establishing that all physical changes have a cause is the only thing our experience and rational reasoning has ever told us.

Within the universe.

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.

Thank you for the response. Let's define time to assure us that we are talking about the same thing. 

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_as_.22unreal.22

So it appears that causality does not require time (as you have suggested), but rather causality creates time. So it would appear you cannot hide behind that distinction to evade the question what caused the universe?

[Nonpareil]

So it appears that causality does not require time (as you have suggested), but rather causality creates time.

No. That does not follow even from the Wikipedia article that you quoted to try and back it up.

Time is a dimension. Causality is an operation taking place within that dimension.

Read a physics textbook.

[SteveII]

So it appears that causality does not require time (as you have suggested), but rather causality creates time.

No. That does not follow even from the Wikipedia article that you quoted to try and back it up.

Time is a dimension. Causality is an operation taking place within that dimension.

Read a physics textbook.

You keep saying time is a dimension--like that answers the question. It is a dimension because it cannot be considered a separate thing from space because of relativity theory and reference frames. That has nothing to do with the question. In a universe that consist of one object, there would be no time because causality (relative movement, changes in states) creates "time". If you disagree, tell me why.

[Nonpareil]

In a universe that consist of one object, there would be no time because causality (relative movement, changes in states) creates "time". If you disagree, tell me why.

That is exactly the opposite of how this works.

You assert that causality "creates time". This idea is incoherent and unsupported by any evidence, because time is not "changes in states". Changes in states happen within time. They are not equivalent to time. Time is a dimension, not a collection of events.

Causality is an operation within time. A system that contains no causal relationships - that is, an entirely static one, wherein no parts interact with any others - would still possess the dimension of time. If you disagree, then it is your job to establish that this is not the case.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Try thinking of it like this, Steve: In your universe with one object - let's call it a cube, for ease of reference - the object exists in four dimensions. It has height, breadth, depth and duration - three spatial dimensions and a time dimension (up to these four, there's really no difference in the quality of dimensions). Nothing ever, ever, EVER happens to our cube. It doesn't spin, it isn't acted upon by radiation, there's nothing to bang into it, etc. But that nothing happens to our cube doesn't alter the spatial dimensions - it maintains the same height, breadth and depth. Because of Special Relativity, any object - me, you, an elephant, the cube in question - that has spatial dimensions must have a time dimension (this is what is - in this case - meant by 'spacetime'). To talk of something existing - even if is the sole object in a given universe - without a time dimension is nonsensical.

Suppose now that a quantum particle pops into existence (I'm given to understand that they do this) and bangs into our cube. The collision hasn't created time, any more than it created the spatial dimensions of the cube - it has impinged on a dimension that was already there. In your argument, the bridge abutment I drive my car into didn't exist - that is to say, it was non-dimensional - until I hit it.

I hope this helps.

Boru

[SteveII]

In a universe that consist of one object, there would be no time because causality (relative movement, changes in states) creates "time". If you disagree, tell me why.

That is exactly the opposite of how this works.

You assert that causality "creates time". This idea is incoherent and unsupported by any evidence, because time is not "changes in states". Changes in states happen within time. They are not equivalent to time. Time is a dimension, not a collection of events.

Causality is an operation within time. A system that contains no causal relationships - that is, an entirely static one, wherein no parts interact with any others - would still possess the dimension of time. If you disagree, then it is your job to establish that this is not the case.

Simply saying time is a dimension over and over in slightly different words is not working for me.  If you can't explain why a static universe would still experience time, than you lost (in the sense of a discussion/debate) for the simple fact you can't articulate what you believe--let along convince others of it's truthfulness. 

My position remains that causality (successive changes in states of matter) is all that is necessary for a measurement of time and you have done absolutely nothing to indicate why that position is wrong.

---

Try thinking of it like this, Steve:  In your universe with one object - let's call it a cube, for ease of reference - the object exists in four dimensions.  It has height, breadth, depth and duration - three spatial dimensions and a time dimension (up to these four, there's really no difference in the quality of dimensions).  Nothing ever, ever, EVER happens to our cube.  It doesn't spin, it isn't acted upon by radiation, there's nothing to bang into it, etc.  But that nothing happens to our cube doesn't alter the spatial dimensions - it maintains the same height, breadth and depth.  Because of Special Relativity, any object - me, you, an elephant, the cube in question - that has spatial dimensions must have a time dimension (this is what is - in this case - meant by 'spacetime').  To talk of something existing - even if is the sole object in a given universe - without a time dimension is nonsensical.

Suppose now that a quantum particle pops into existence (I'm given to understand that they do this) and bangs into our cube. The collision hasn't created time, any more than it created the spatial dimensions of the cube - it has impinged on a dimension that was already there.  In your argument, the bridge abutment I drive my car into didn't exist - that is to say, it was non-dimensional - until I hit it.

I hope this helps.

Boru

Buro, I appreciate the effort. Can you point me to something I can read? Because what I am finding in my research is things like below:

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. Since 300 BCE, the spacetime of our universe has historically been interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension". By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space in 1908, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

This is describing spacetime as a mathematical model for the purposes of theories to understand better relative motion. (which you would not have in a universe with a static cube). And further in the same article:

In non-relativistic classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, because time is treated as universal with a constant rate of passage that is independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.

In physical cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe. Mathematically it is a manifold whose points correspond to physical events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Explanation

So I am not getting that resembles time as being a necessary component of matter. I don't think it is nonsensical to think that an object can exist timeless (I don't think that it really happens, I just can't understand why it couldn't).

[Nonpareil]

Simply saying time is a dimension over and over in slightly different words is not working for me.

Your lack of understanding is not really my problem. I have explained the issue quite clearly: time is not what you assert that it is, and is not "created by causality" in any sense. It is a dimension in which entities can exist and interact. It is not the interaction itself.

If you can't explain why a static universe would still experience time

Because time is a dimension, and is not dependent on things happening within it in order to exist any more than space is dependent on things moving across it.

My position remains that causality (successive changes in states of matter) is all that is necessary for a measurement of time and you have done absolutely nothing to indicate why that position is wrong.

Save to explain exactly why it is, you mean.

---

Can you point me to something I can read? Because what I am finding in my research is things like below:

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. Since 300 BCE, the spacetime of our universe has historically been interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension". By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space in 1908, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

This is describing spacetime as a mathematical model

...And describing time as a dimension.

for the purposes of theories to understand better relative motion. (which you would not have in a universe with a static cube).

And which alters nothing about time being a dimension.

And further in the same article:

In non-relativistic classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, because time is treated as universal with a constant rate of passage that is independent of the state of motion of an observer.

In other words, it is treated as a dimension through which the rate of movement of all objects is equal and constant.

So I am not getting that resembles time as being a necessary component of matter.

Time is not a component of matter. Time is a dimension in which matter exists.

I don't think it is nonsensical to think that an object can exist timeless (I don't think that it really happens, I just can't understand why it couldn't).

Whether or not an object could exist without time is irrelevant. The question is whether or not causality can hold without time, with a side order of whether or not causality creates time.

It cannot, because causality is defined as an interaction within the dimension time, and it does not, because dimensions are not created by the interactions that take place within them, respectively.

[SteveII]

Simply saying time is a dimension over and over in slightly different words is not working for me.

Your lack of understanding is not really my problem. I have explained the issue quite clearly: time is not what you assert that it is, and is not "created by causality" in any sense. It is a dimension in which entities can exist and interact. It is not the interaction itself.

If you can't explain why a static universe would still experience time

Because time is a dimension, and is not dependent on things happening within it in order to exist any more than space is dependent on things moving across it.

My position remains that causality (successive changes in states of matter) is all that is necessary for a measurement of time and you have done absolutely nothing to indicate why that position is wrong.

Save to explain exactly why it is, you mean.

---

Can you point me to something I can read? Because what I am finding in my research is things like below:


This is describing spacetime as a mathematical model

...And describing time as a dimension.

for the purposes of theories to understand better relative motion. (which you would not have in a universe with a static cube).

And which alters nothing about time being a dimension.

And further in the same article:

In other words, it is treated as a dimension through which the rate of movement of all objects is equal and constant.

So I am not getting that resembles time as being a necessary component of matter.

Time is not a component of matter. Time is a dimension in which matter exists.

I don't think it is nonsensical to think that an object can exist timeless (I don't think that it really happens, I just can't understand why it couldn't).

Whether or not an object could exist without time is irrelevant. The question is whether or not causality can hold without time, with a side order of whether or not causality creates time.

It cannot, because causality is defined as an interaction within the dimension time, and it does not, because dimensions are not created by the interactions that take place within them, respectively.

Note the bold and tell me how much you added to this conversation. Physics describes the world by means of formulas that tell us how things vary as a function of time, but it does not explain what time is.

[Nonpareil]

Note the bold and tell me how much you added to this conversation.

Very little, because you have yet to grasp this very simple point. It is hard to add anything beyond it until you do.

Physics describes the world by means of formulas that tell us how things vary as a function of time, but it does not explain what time is.

Yes, it does. It explains that time is a dimension.