What would you call my new beliefs?

[Nonpareil]

So, it seems you agree that space-time exists, but in socially constructed mathematical relationships. It doesn't seem like you are being inconsistent with the KCA then, just that space and time are dependent upon the first event and all of those arising afterwards.

Quite. Which is what makes this whole objection to the idea of dimensions so bizarre.

It doesn't actually help his argument any even if it is granted that time doesn't "really exist", whatever that means. It still comes down to bare assertion, and there is absolutely no reason to accept the argument as true.

[SuperSentient]

So, it seems you agree that space-time exists, but in socially constructed mathematical relationships. It doesn't seem like you are being inconsistent with the KCA then, just that space and time are dependent upon the first event and all of those arising afterwards.

Quite. Which is what makes this whole objection to the idea of dimensions so bizarre.

It doesn't actually help his argument any even if it is granted that time doesn't "really exist", whatever that means. It still comes down to bare assertion, and there is absolutely no reason to accept the argument as true.

I see it as a different perspective on the nature of time and space. Part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is devoted to determining that the cause of the universe (supposing the two main premises on a cause for existence and beginning of the universe are true) must transcend space and time. Dimensions are automatically assumed from this ontological analysis of the properties of this cause.

[Nonpareil]

Part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is devoted to determining that the cause of the universe (supposing the two main premises on a cause for existence and beginning of the universe are true) must transcend space and time.

And that is exactly my point. There is no reason to assume that these premises are true. It is bare assertion on its face.

All this nonsense about trying to deny that time is a dimension is just pointless waffle. I only keep it up because it's pretty entertaining to watch him keep quoting things that agree with me and pretend that they don't.

[SuperSentient]

Part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is devoted to determining that the cause of the universe (supposing the two main premises on a cause for existence and beginning of the universe are true) must transcend space and time.

And that is exactly my point. There is no reason to assume that these premises are true. It is bare assertion on its face.

All this nonsense about trying to deny that time is a dimension is just pointless waffle. I only keep it up because it's pretty entertaining to watch him keep quoting things that agree with me and pretend that they don't.

Pretty much, there is no reason to believe it is true besides just accepting it at face value.

[Cyberman]

Time is the fourth, the dimension in which changes in the previous three occur in sequence.

I would argue that time is the first, or perhaps more accurately the zeroth, dimension, underpinning the 'higher' ones. Otherwise there would be no time for events to happen in them.

Inasmuch as it makes sense to order dimensions anyway.

[Nonpareil]

I would argue that time is the first, or perhaps more accurately the zeroth, dimension, underpinning the 'higher' ones. Otherwise there would be no time for events to happen in them.

Inasmuch as it makes sense to order dimensions anyway.

Well, you could. I tend to consider time as the fourth dimension because of the way a multi-dimensional space is constructed.

Start with a point. It has no dimensions. It has no length, width, or breadth. It is simply a point in space.

To construct the first dimension, place a second point beside this one, an infinite distance away. Then connect them.

You now have a line. This is one-dimensional. It has infinite length, but no height or breadth.

To construct the second dimension, place a second line beside this one, an infinite distance away. Then connect them.

You now have a plane. This is two-dimensional. It has infinite length and height, but no breadth.

To construct the third dimension, place a second plane beside this one, an infinite distance away. Then connect them.

You now have three-dimensional space. It has infinite length, height, and breadth.

To construct the fourth dimension, take a second three-dimensional space and place it beside this one, an infinite distance away. Then connect them.

Of course, you can't really do this spatially. Not in our universe, anyway; we have only three spatial dimensions to work with. So what separates one three-dimensional space from another? What separates one particular configuration of the universe from the next?

The answer, of course, is time. We now have four dimensions: length, height, breadth, and duration. Together, they make up spacetime.

Of course, this is an extremely simplified explanation that I've just kicked out in a few minutes. If you're interested in more information, or would simply like a more visual demonstration, you can check out this video, to start. It's not a perfect video, either, but it does explain the basic idea rather well.

[Angrboda]

[SteveII]

1. LOL. You don't even understand your own position. Let's pull apart the word 'dimension' that you are so fond of:

You do realize that everything you just quoted agrees with me, yes? A line has one dimension - that is, it has one area in which two points can be differentiated from one another. Our universe has four. Time is the fourth, the dimension in which changes in the previous three occur in sequence.

To sum it up, a dimension is a mathematical expression of relationship... It does not exist separately from the things you are describing.

This does not follow, even from - again - the Wikipedia articles you are citing to try and prove it. And even if it did, it would not help your argument for causality without time.

If you only had one object in the universe, there would be no space.

Yes, there would. It would be empty, but you would still have space.

You have your work cut out for you if you think you can defend "causality requires time". Since time is a measurement of change, you are really saying, "causality requires a measurement of change". However, that does not make any sense. Wouldn't it be the case of the reverse: "A measurement of change requires causality?"

No.

Even granting your completely mangled definition of "time", this is gibberish.

Still wrong in literally every way possible.

Sorry you don't get it.

---

<video>

I liked your video. However, I am confused on whether you believe spacetime is an actual entity or mathematical coordinates (albeit more complicated that 3+1 dimensions). I see nothing in the video that indicates that we must believe spacetime is a "thing" in which everything happens. I found this link that was interesting:

http://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html

[Nonpareil]

Sorry you don't get it.