
Originally Posted by
futureboy
simple objections as "outside our physical/temporal dimensions" is not a coherent concept
I’ve seen you make this statement on a half dozen occasions in this this thread, but you never explain why it is incoherent. Why does something not being contained within a specific set of spatial and temporal dimensions make it incoherent?
Unless you actually address the question, your point simply states that you don’t understand the concept, not that it is incoherent. Now there well could be a defense of that concept being incoherent, but it hasn’t been presented here.

Originally Posted by
future
If you'd instead like to move on to the other arguments you think are "inescapable the deeper they are delved into" (Moral & Fine Tuning), we could do that, otherwise, I'll leave it at that.
I’d be happy to move on. Let’s start with the Fine Tuning argument. Since all of our discussions start (and usually end) with you expressing that you don’t know what a term in common usage means, which term of the argument would you like a formal definition of first?

Originally Posted by
future
I'd recommend that in the future when you are trying to convince a non-theist of KCA, you stick to a single definition.
I’ve never had someone express such concern over a term widely understood before. But given this response I’m assuming this was another “tldr” section for you? Because I offered multiple supports doesn’t mean I offered a large set of definitions.
To be clear, I am relying on; “the entirety of a connected spacetime manifold.”

Originally Posted by
future
This is a shifting of the burden of proof. You are the one claiming that the principle of causation can apply outside the universe and absent the existence of the universe. Please provide support for this claim.
There appears to be some confusion about this claim. My initial statement was a defense of causality as a presupposition of physics. IE it is a principle that exists independently of physical laws and is, indeed, a requirement for physical laws to exist. I supported this premise with several links to academic sites related to physics and philosophy on the subject.
Its status as an underlying presupposition for physics means it cannot, by definition, be limited to the confines of what is governed by our laws of physics. It would be like saying that the laws of gravity are confined to engineering. Engineering relies on the laws of gravity, gravity isn’t bound by engineering.
This is also not an uncommon or unique status. It shares this status with mathematics and other principles like coherence for example.
Given that definition and evidence, I would put forward that I have supported the claim that causality governs both premises of this argument.
Now, you then objected to this by saying that causality was, in fact, bound to the physical dimensions of this universe. What I’m asking you to do is defend your rebuttal. If you are not maintaining that as a rebuttal (as you seem to imply) then the original argument I put forward stands and we can rely on causality as an applicable principle in this analysis.

Originally Posted by
future
I'm not sure you've exressed yourself clearly here. My statement was: Again, "outside our physical/temporal dimensions" isn't even a coherent concept.
Your response: it means, in this context, that something is contained within our physical and temporal dimensions
I apologize for the confusion. I missed a negative in there. Restated:
Given that clarification, do you have further objections to its coherence? If so, can you detail why it isn’t coherent?

Originally Posted by
future
I'm saying that the actual coming into existence has never been observed, and therefore virtual particles are not an actual example of coming into existence.
I fully understood your point. I am pointing out that your point is invalid. If we were to accept it, then we would also need to reject the existence of quarks, photons, gravity, etc.
This is because you are rejecting inferential observation, a basic principle of all physical sciences (and, in reality of all physical sense, you aren’t really “seeing” a letter, you are interacting with photons).
The status of those things as “coming into existence” is irrelevant because I wasn’t claiming that they did. I was addressing your wholesale dismissal of inferential observation.
Given the high intellectual price for rejecting that concept, we can dismiss your objection and realize that we have, in fact, observed virtual particles coming into existence via their effects on measurements within controlled experiments, as detailed in earlier posts.

Originally Posted by
future
Again, changes in existing matter/energy within and existing universe are not examples of things beginning to exist.
Well, A, remember we aren’t talking about matter/energy changing. That was what you meant when you said: “ if we accepted virtual particles as changing from demonstrably and actually not-existing to demonstrably and actually existing…” We are talking about the implications if we accept basic inferential observation and the conclusions of actual particle physicists.
And B, you keep claiming that there is a material difference that precludes all examples from counting, but you haven’t detailed what that difference is and why it matters. Until you do that, this is simply a “nu-uh” response.

Originally Posted by
future
Essentially you're saying that, in the thought experiment I forwarded, the 5th would still exist in some way even after all the matter that was arranged in representations of it was rearranged to no longer represent it.
No, if you had read through my response in total, you would notice that I said quite the opposite. What matters to this specific section of my response was the question, if I destroy a manuscript does the 5th cease to exist? Or if I copy it to another piece of paper and destroy the original does it cease to exist? Of course not. Even though the matter is different, we recognize the thing (the 5th in this case) as still existing. Likewise, future doesn’t cease to exist despite the fact that the matter in his body changes constantly. There is an entity we recognize despite the matter change.
Thus your 1:1 convergence of identity and matter construct doesn’t hold up.

Originally Posted by
future
The mind is an emergent property of a physical brain, so there's no issue with using either term. Changes in a mind can be expressed as changes in matter/energy in the brain.
Good luck proving that. Monism (what you’ve stated here) is certainly one area that some people hold to. It has its own issues and gaps.
Regardless, your last statement is irrelevant to demonstrating monism. Changes in matter can be expresses as changes in mathematical formulas. It doesn’t mean they are the same thing. For that matter, changes in matter can be expressed as changes in physical models that are demonstrably wrong. Because something can be expressed as something else is irrelevant to whether they are, in reality, the same thing.
Likewise, as noted above, changes in matter and energy can occur with no change in a mind. That happens, in fact, to all of us every day. Neurons die and new ones are generated, matter switches in and out of molecules within brain cells. All of those occur with no change in the mind, so it is unwarranted to assume a 1:1 nature as you seem to do here.

Originally Posted by
future
Words don't have intrinsic meaning, they have usages. The same goes for collections of electrons representing a word or idea. The electrons may be different, but as long as they are arranged in a representation of what is recognizable by both parties, communication takes place.
Ahh, so you agree that there is a meaning absent the specific electrons right? That I can replace one electron with another and the meaning doesn’t change.
We can even take this a bit further. If we both agreed the word “cow” was now to be used to refer to an aix sponsa, nothing about that affects the physical reality of either aix sponsa or Bos primigenius, right? IE there is an objective reality beyond the physical characters?

Originally Posted by
future
The arrangement is the information. The information is not created.
Even if we were to hold to this kind of self-contradictory materialism, your fundamental objection to beginning to exist still fails. Even if we accept that the arrangement is the information, then the act of arranging is the act of creating the information, right?

Originally Posted by
future
No, again, words don't have intrinsic meaning, they have usages. The same goes for notes and arrangements of notes/sound. If someone plays an arrangement of sound that others recognize as the arrangement they previously experienced as the 5th, then they will identify this new arrangement as also being a representation of the 5th.
Correct. A representation that is independent of any specific matter/energy combo. IE it is the pattern that is the symphony, not the material it is dictated on.

Originally Posted by
future
If nobody understood reality enough to understand that 1+1=2, it would still be possible for representations of 1+1=2 to exist, for example a tree growing in a field, and then another tree grew next to it would be two trees growing in a field.
Yes, exactly! All those different representations and arrangements are still referencing the same true relationship. The existence, or non-existence, of a particular matter set and agreed to pattern is irrelevant to the truth value of that relationship.

Originally Posted by
future
Here is the final word on said discussion from Vilenkin via Krauss' Facebook page…
Even if we presuppose that Krauss’ statement here speaks for Prof. Vilenkin (and given Krauss’ reputation since this incident and the fact that Vilenkin hasn’t worked with him but has worked with Craig since then I’m not sure that is a safe assumption), it doesn’t disagree with anything Craig really said.
We need to go back to what Prof. Krauss’ initial argument was;
1) Nothing in science is certain.
2) WLC claims it is certain.
3) We could get around the BVG Theorem.
1 is an obvious fact. Science, as an inductive reasoning system, cannot be certain by definition. That is why 2 is so patently false (as Prof. Vilenkin points out in his personal response to Dr. Craig, when he says that Prof. Krauss misrepresented Craig’s view.) In fact, if you look back at the original debate at the 52:18 mark you’ll see Craig take Krauss to task for implying that we are discussing certainty and Krauss backs off and agrees.
Nothing in the FB post relates at all to 1 and 2. So what about 3?
Prof. Krauss’ claim is that we can get around the BVG theorem by adopting a non-classical model of spacetime at the earliest stages of the universe. He claims that this is reasonable via quantum gravity. He produces Vilenkin’s email to support that claim. He says the removed sections are only “technical” details, which we should all be able to agree isn’t the case. Those weren’t technical model details, they were Vilenkin’s summary of the likelihood of Krauss’ escape to be valid.
Remember, for Krauss to be right, we need more than just a quantum theory of gravity. We need one that specifically overturns Relativity. The single most confirmed prediction set in all of modern physics. Vilenkin agrees that that is certainly possible (as does Craig and anyone who understands what science is), but is it likely? Vilenkin says no. And the “joint statement” on FB doesn’t address that at all. It wasn’t the edited version that distorted the content, it was Krauss’ statements in the debate that distorted the content. It was Krauss claiming that the BVG theorem is essentially dismissible until we get a theory of quantum gravity that was distorting, and that wasn’t part of the email edit, but part of Krauss’ monologue.
So we are left with a defense that doesn’t address the actual debate and Prof. Vilenkin’s statement: “I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately.”

Originally Posted by
future
And FYI, I haven't seen debunkingwlc.com before…
Interesting. Your argument and objections so closely mirror those on their site that it seemed an obvious reference point. Perhaps random parts could fall together in a bag to form a watch after all.

Originally Posted by
future
Again, all you've done provide examples of changes in existing matter/energy within an existing universe that are often referred to as "come into being". And again, the fact that these changes follow the cause-effect principle that has been observed within the existing universe is irrelevant, because they're a different process than what you're attempting to describe in KCA.
Hmm, again this doesn’t seem to address the actual point at all.
Your initial objection was that “come into being” was “ambiguous,” despite two formal and rigorous definitions and one more lay definition.
I pressed you to define how it was ambiguous. To which you replied in post 290: “It's the variety of ways in which "come into being" could be applied which is the issue.”
If we are to hold that the fact that there are a “variety of ways” something could come into being is relevant to this thread, it would need to be that it undermines the premise under discussion. To whit, “all things that begin to exist have a cause.”
If the entire set of the “variety of ways” require causes, the fact that there are a variety of ways isn’t a relevant rebuttal to the premise.
Take for example the idea that there are a variety of ways that someone can become wet. They could have a liquid poured on them, they could jump into a liquid, etc. But none of the different ways someone becomes wet undermines the fact that “to become wet you must come into contact with liquid.”
Every single method for becoming wet requires that one come into contact with liquid. Thus, highlighting the myriad of ways one can do that is completely irrelevant to whether or not contact with liquid is required to become wet.
Likewise, highlighting there are a variety of ways that something can come into existence, but unless those variety of ways affect the need for causation, it isn’t a relevant point.
So,
do any of the ways that something can come into existence not require causality? If not, then we can dismiss this particular objection, right?

Originally Posted by
future
So again, causal set theory applies to spacetime.
I’m assuming you don’t know what a spacetime (lowercase with no definite or possessive pronouns) means then? Nor did you actually read the papers?
A spacetime is simply a model of physical and/or temporal dimensions. It isn’t necessarily actualized (IE it doesn’t have to be our universe). It can be hypothetical, it can even contradict our laws of physics if stated outright. “A spacetime is a 4-dim collection of points with additional structure.” http://faculty.poly.edu/~jbain/space....Spacetime.pdf
Remember, that was the entire point Prof. Krauss was making above, that in models where we use a non-classical spacetime, BVG doesn’t apply. The question is, is our universe correctly modeled by a classical or non-classical spacetime?
You can see this definition all over the place in physics. Notice that we are modeling the function of the dirac equation in a specific, not actualized set of spacetimes here: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/...rnalCode=ijmpd
Or, the discussion of how anti-de Sitter spacetimes (IE explicitly spacetimes that violate our observed data) still follow certain physical laws: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02589.pdf
We can even see causal set theory applied to two-dimensional spacetimes here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.10281.pdf
Which I think even you will agree are not models for this universe.
But, more importantly, I think you’ve missed the original point of your objection. Your objection was that causal set theory takes place within time. IE that it requires time in order to make sense. Even your paper states the opposite. Rather, causal set theory is the underlying theory of how time exists (more accurately how order exists) within different spacetimes.
Causal set theory doesn’t rely on time, time relies on causal set theory.
If causal sets comprise the true structure of spacetime they must produce a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold in macroscopic limits (such as a large number of causal set elements).
(From your paper)
In other words, it extracts the causal structure that it takes to be essential for relativistic spacetimes, posits it as fundamental, imposes discreteness, and tries to establish that these spacetimes generically arise from the resulting structures in the continuum limit.
http://jamesowenweatherall.com/wp-co...alSets_v12.pdf
Furthermore, the topology of ‘spatial’ antichains should cohere with, and in fact give rise to, the nearness relations as we find them in spatial slices of the emerging relativistic spacetime.
Ibid
Notice here both the use of multiple spacetime models to explore the topic and the fact that causal sets are the underpinning of tensed reality. http://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/impe...ssertation.pdf
In that paper take note of causal space discussion for example, which demonstrates causal set theory being applied to space only manifolds, absent any time.

Originally Posted by
future
Same problem here: phrases like "earlier than it" make no sense absent the existence of time.
Clearly we can agree that time is past finite if there are a finite number of seconds (or hours, or milliseconds, or years or whatever) prior to this second/hour/year, right?

Originally Posted by
future
Again, it would depend on how you are defining "universe", which I've repeatedly asked you to clarify.
Given the definition I have provided above, are you still objecting to the definition of exist: "Have objective reality or being" by arguing that all things we identify as having objective reality are contained within our universe. To whit; "Everything which we identify as having objective reality or being, has it within an already-existing universe."
If so, can you support that?
If not, then it appears we agree on the definition of exist, and this can move forward.

Originally Posted by
future
Sure, I completely understand why Craig seems to think this demonstrates that the universe began to exist, but it simply doesn't meet the rigorous standards required by mainstream cosmology.
Hmm, you seem to have dodged this challenge. Are you retracting this claim?
1) Please support or retract that Craig's definition "assum[es] the existence of time before it existed."
2) Please support or retract that Craig's definition "doesn't meet the rigorous standards required by mainstream cosmology."
I'm assuming that you also would argue that Prof. Smith's definition "doesn't meet the rigorous standards required by mainstream cosmology" as well? If not, please support or retract that assertion as well. [Time begins to exist if and only if for any arbitrarily designated, non-zero, finite interval of time, there are only a finite number of equal intervals earlier than it; or, alternatively, time begins to exist if and only if for some non-zero, finite temporal interval there is no equal interval earlier than it.

Originally Posted by
future
Ok then, based on your definitions, what was there before the universe existed?
I just want to be clear that we have an accepted definition for the universe beginning to exist? Or at least, that you are not putting forward a specific objection to any of the three offered definitions? (Lay Definition, Formal Logical Definition, Formal Physics Definition).
Given that, I think the answer to your specific question is clear in the original post I linked about this argument; a cause sufficient to warrant the effect we are discussing.

Originally Posted by
future
I checked, and could not find any serious/reputable cosmologists asserting that the universe actually began to exist.
This does not constitute valid support. Your research skills and understanding of physics does not represent the consensus opinion in physics. Unless you can offer something a bit more concrete, you’ll need to retract this claim: “no serious/reputable cosmologists assert that the universe actually began to exist.” 

Originally Posted by
future
Really, this would all be made a lot simpler if you'd simply provide the clarification which has repeatedly been requested and we can go from there: Everything which we identify as having objective reality or being, has it within an already-existing
I’d be happy to…once you provide support that the latter statement you’ve made is true. 
Likewise, given that I’ve provided a technical definition above, what ambiguity remains in any of the three definitions offered above?

Originally Posted by
future
It appears as though you're saying that virtual particles are not changes in existing matter/energy in an existing universe.
Yes I am saying they are not changes in existing matter and energy.
No, I am not claiming they don’t happen within our universe, I’ve never claimed that, and specifically challenged you to explain why it is relevant.
And your two links don’t disagree with me. A fluctuation in the quantum field is not a change in existing matter or energy.
Prof. Strassler is absolutely correct that most virtual particles exist as fluctuations in the background quantum “foam” of the universe. But that foam isn’t existing matter or energy (https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...ec_quantumfoam). Nor does the process of creating them involve transitioning existing matter or energy (see link).
What Prof. Strassler is pointing out is that these fundamental particles exist as waves…like all fundamental particles (https://www.livescience.com/55833-wh...particles.html). Electrons, photons, etc. are all waves when in an indeterminate state. This is the basis for quantum mechanics in part. He is noting that these particles begin to exist based on probability fluctuations in the underlying fabric of spacetime. That is the basis, for example, of Quantum Tunneling, which was referenced earlier (https://www.azoquantum.com/article.aspx?ArticleId=12)
That was discussed in the original link I offered about virtual particles from Prof. Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, when he says:
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy,
What Prof. Strassler, and Prof. Kane are saying is that the total energy of the universe is increased for a short period as part of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Dr. Andreachi does a good job of explaining it here (https://io9.gizmodo.com/5731463/are-...icles-for-real) for Gizmodo:
Those of you familiar with The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle probably recall that it has something to do with not being able to measure the position and momentum of a particle to better than a particular combined uncertainty. Measure the position well, and you'll be very uncertain about the momentum, and vice-versa.
But there's another part to the Uncertainty Principle, and one that makes a mockery of the conservation of energy: You can create particles for a short while, but the more massive they are, the shorter they'll last….
Think of it like the fractions of pennies in Superman III or Office Space. The roundoff error is so small that nobody would notice, and it's all supposed to cancel out in the end. So on the whole, energy conservation will work out eventually, after microscopic fractions of a second.
…
Even in the so-called vacuum, virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time, but they do so in pairs. At this very moment and all around you, electrons and their anti-particles, positrons are being created and, about a billion-trillionth of a second annihilated again. The same is true (with even shorter lifetimes) for virtually every other possible set of particle/anti-particle pairs.
…
A variant of this may also have happened in the very early universe. In the tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, particles pairs were created constantly. But during the period of "Inflation" (which I'd love to talk about in a future column, if only somebody would ask), the universe exploded in size, and particles which were initially near one another quickly became separated by such huge distances that they couldn't possibly recombine.
Thus we can see that virtual particles are not transformations of energy and matter, they are creations of it, if for just an incredibly brief period. Regardless, it certainly fits the definitions offered. Begins to exist means "Expressing the result of a process or action where the object comes into being at a certain time or place, thus having an objective reality or being."
Or
Begins to exist: X can be said to "begin to exist" if and only if it meets the following three criteria at t.
a) x exists at t (and the actual world includes no state of affairs in which x exists timelessly).
b) t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any earlier t at which x existed by an interval in which x does not exist.
c) x's existing at t is a tensed fact.

Originally Posted by
Future
No, the chair is an example of changes in existing matter/energy in an existing universe….
If one defines "chair" as something made by a carpenter that supports your weight on legs when you sit on it", then the carpenter could make something he considers to be an "incomplete chair" with only 3 legs (not "chair") that could still be called a chair by someone adhering to that definition.
And then the carpenter adds the 4th leg. Did two chairs begin to exist? Did the first representation of "chair" cease to exist and then another began to exist?
To be clear, you are objecting and saying that the chair example does not meet criteria b of the definition of begins to exist. Specifically, you are saying that t is not the first moment the chair began to exist, but that it already existed. Or, that two people could have different definitions for the identity thus it is “vague” in your view.
This objection fails because it presupposes that because people might not share a definition, an object’s identity doesn’t exist. This is patently false because you’ve committed an equivocation fallacy (You’ve specifically conflated an indefinite article with a definite article. Ie a chair and this chair). I call it this chair, someone in Spain calls it este silla. Because we use two different words does not mean we aren’t referring to the same object.
Likewise, we might define the category of things that constitute a chair differently, but that is completely irrelevant as to the fact that the identity of the object changed when the carpenter added the fourth leg. It affects what categorization you and I might put it in respectively, but it has nothing to do with whether or not a separate object with a different identity began to exist when the carpenter added the fourth leg.
To highlight why your thought experiment fails, let’s apply the exact same logic to human beings. You and I almost certainly disagree on when a human being begins. Conception, birth, sentience, whatever. Let’s say you adopt birth, I adopt conception. We differ in our categorization of what objects are included in the criteria of humans.
Does that mean that future never began to exist? No of course not. Now we might disagree on exactly which t was your first t, the first moment you existed, but that doesn’t affect that there is, in fact, a moment (t) which you did not exist prior to.

Originally Posted by
future
A chair did not begin to exist - there was something that was called "pile of wood" which was existing matter/energy, and it was changed within an existing universe into something that was then called "chair".
So you are claiming that, ontologically, a pile of wood and a chair are the same thing? They share the same identity?

Originally Posted by
future
Again, you have not provided any examples of something that "begins to exist" - only examples of changes in existing matter/energy in an existing universe.
Future, I want to highlight that you don’t have the option of just ignoring a challenge. You must either support it or retract it. You need to support or retract
that this definition is incoherent when used in the following sentences as you claim.
1) All things that begin to exist have a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.

Originally Posted by
future
LOL, I don't think I'm having a hard time pointing out why your examples of changes in existing matter/energy in an existing universe don't serve as examples of the kind of "begin to exist" you need to support for the KCA. In any case, a quick googling of "Big Bang Model" easily provides the following results.
Hopefully you can understand that a simple google search is not a good review for a highly technical field right? And if you had taken more than the first result you would have noticed that the vast, vast majority of findings reference the big bang theory, not the big bang model. Google was being kind and including more accurate results for the lay person’s reference name. You’ll notice that this is especially true for the more technical links (https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html). And if you search an actual archive of physics papers, you notice that every single use refers to a class of theories or models, not a specific model: https://arxiv.org/search/?query=%22B...&source=header
Look at your second link, which by the way is two philosophers rather than physicists, “Big Bang cosmology that holds there to be a point singularity at some past time…” We are talking about Big Bang cosmology, ie a field of study, not a model. There is no “big bang model” it is a category of models that describe an initial low entropy state within an inflationary spacetime.

Originally Posted by
future
If you truly cared about the status of cosmology, you'd leave the scientisting to the scientists
I’m a bit confused by this response. Do you mean if I was clearly interested in the status of cosmology I would not be quoting cosmologists? That seems an odd position. So far, all I’ve offered is the assessment of actual scientists referring to their particular field.
It isn’t clear at all what your objections are aside from “I don’t understand” related to definitions.

Originally Posted by
future
Actually, you made up the debunkingwlc part - complete with a made-up URL to nowhere
You realize I didn’t offer a url, right? I simply referenced the site. The parallels between your objections and theirs could be coincidence, sure. And a watch could self-assemble in a junkyard. It is in the realm of possibility, though not probability.

Originally Posted by
future
No, but nice strawman.
Well, if that isn’t the distinction you are drawing here, the statement you made, “having a beginning is not the same as beginning to exist” are identical statements. Your distinction is related to the difference between identity and matter. Which is a red herring (except in the case of virtual particles, where it is just wrong). The chair begins to exist. It’s wood does not, sure. But that isn’t the claim. In order for your objection to hold, you have to adopt a reductionist viewpoint that identity does not exist.

Originally Posted by
future
Please leave the scientisting to the scientists.
If that means willingly invoking magic, no thanks. But I suspect it is just a veiled attempt to not address the point. You have to adopt one of those two positions, there isn’t a mystical third path for you here.
1) When we discuss whether causation is internal to the universe or independent we have two possible stances to hold.
a) Causation is independent of our universe. This is my position and was defended earlier in thread and in the thread I linked to.
b) Causation is dependent on our universe. The consequence of this assertion is that we can invoke universe creation absent any necessary cause. IE the universe can spontaneously create. It is hard (actually impossible) to reconcile that view with a past finite universe like ours. If the universe can just magically jump into existence, it should have always and in all states existed. It also invokes essentially magic (or as some physicists term it worse than magic) to create the universe. We don’t need an explanation, just abracadabra..universe! That position is impossible to reconcile with anything like scientific method of thought.
Given these problems, a becomes the far more probable view. And, to paraphrase Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; “when you remove all the impossible options, whatever is left, no matter how odd, must be correct.”
2) You also seem to tie causation to time. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but on several occasions you’ve argued that causation requires or presupposes temporal dimensions. This however, isn’t the case. If we were to imagine a universe that is only spatial dimension, with no time present, just eternally existing. There is nothing contradictory about an object existing in that universe dependent on another object. IE if object 2 exists, object 1 must exist. For example, in that universe if a light is on, the room is not dark. That is a causally dependent relationship that is irrelevant of time.
Bookmarks