Coming from Nothing?

[bilby]

If time is properly considered to be the 'fourth dimension', then a dynamic three dimensional system that changes with time is indestinguishable from a static four dimensional system. There's no problem having dynamic consciousness for three dimensional brains occupying a part of a static four dimensional block space-time.

Dynamic entities at lower dimensions translate directly into the mere existence of a dimension above those in which the dynamic processes occur. It's just two different ways to describe the same thing.

 

[Juma]

There's no problem having dynamic consciousness for three dimensional brains occupying a part of a static four dimensional block space-time.

Except it isnt dynamic if it static...

 

[Speakpigeon]

If time is properly considered to be the 'fourth dimension', then a dynamic three dimensional system that changes with time is indestinguishable from a static four dimensional system. There's no problem having dynamic consciousness for three dimensional brains occupying a part of a static four dimensional block space-time.

Dynamic entities at lower dimensions translate directly into the mere existence of a dimension above those in which the dynamic processes occur. It's just two different ways to describe the same thing.

I agree there's no formal difficulty in considering time as just another spatial dimension.

Accordingly, the material, or physical structure, purported to be conscious would have to be seen as 4-dimensional, fully spatial, structure. Everything that we see as occurring in reality in terms of events would have to be modelled in this way. However, without time, there's no causality. A memory would no longer be the end result of a process of memorising, coming after a process of perceiving etc. The thought of having been at a birthday party would be entirely an illusion. The memory would be real but no longer what we think of as a memory. I would just be a spatial pattern somehow including the impression of representing a past event. So, basically, our lives, our existence, would be entirely illusory. Also, and it's a bit more embarrassing, the structure of this timeless universe would make no sense at all. Certain parts of it (memories) would relate to other parts (past events) without that one would have been caused by the other. There would be this relation but it would be an entirely fictional relation. Essentially another illusion. Consciousness itself couldn't possibly be explained. It would be a mere fact. Very real but unexplainable. Which may well be the situation in any case but at least we tend to think of it as somehow explainable. And I think one couldn't prove that the universe is really a timeless, four-dimensional, entirely spatial universe... The illusion of time would be part of the reality of it. At best we could have the illusion to have explained things. Which we do to some extent.
EB

 

[ryan]

First of all, why not? Do we know whether or not it is possible to be in a static moment of experience?

As I said to Bilby, my concern is that consciousness as we experience it is shaped and formed by electrochemical activity and of course any form activity is an instance of time....if time is defined as a measurement of a rate of change. So while you are experiencing a moment it is the underlying electrochemical activity that is forming your experience. Your example is not related to a static state.

Skip this part if you didn't mean the non physical experience, such as qualia.

How do you know that we wouldn't be frozen in a state of experience? I don't think that can even be tested, at least not that I can imagine.

Second, I didn't mention it had to be experienced.

Then it is unknown and un-knowable.

But it's just a thought experiment. It is not knowable, but it still might be possible.

Thirdly, how do you know we are not just scanning a 4 dimensional spatial universe and mistaking it for time/change.

Isn't time itself considered to be the fourth dimension, ie, changing relationships between three dimensional objects.

This is a major philosophical topic. Physics, specifically general relativity, has a model of time being like a spatial dimension that works sometimes. But I am not sure how general relativity distinguishes it from the classical 3 spatial dimensions.

It makes sense to me that there is "a conscious light" scanning through 4 static dimensions, but this light is also sometimes able to choose its path when the opportunity arises.

Finally, aren't you of the belief that the consciousness is nothing more than the matter it is composed of. In other words, what would be the difference to your understanding of the universe with and without consciousness?

It is not possible to understand anything without consciousness. Understanding implies awareness of the state of whatever happens to be understood.

Okay, I take it you are using the physical meaning of the term "consciousness"; sometimes people mean the non physical meaning.

 

[DBT]

Dynamic entities at lower dimensions translate directly into the mere existence of a dimension above those in which the dynamic processes occur. It's just two different ways to describe the same thing.

But, presumably, there are no dynamic processes within the static universe model that ryan proposed, hence no change or dynamic perception of this 'world' by an observer...if such an entity could even exist within that model.

 

[bilby]

There's no problem having dynamic consciousness for three dimensional brains occupying a part of a static four dimensional block space-time.

Except it isnt dynamic if it static...

Which it is depends on the dimensionality of the observer. A three dimensional observer moving in the fourth dimension of a static four dimensional universe sees a dynamic three dimensional universe.

A dynamic n dimensional universe can always be modelled as a static >n dimensional block; it's just a different way of describing the exact same thing.

 

[bilby]

If time is properly considered to be the 'fourth dimension', then a dynamic three dimensional system that changes with time is indestinguishable from a static four dimensional system. There's no problem having dynamic consciousness for three dimensional brains occupying a part of a static four dimensional block space-time.

Dynamic entities at lower dimensions translate directly into the mere existence of a dimension above those in which the dynamic processes occur. It's just two different ways to describe the same thing.

I agree there's no formal difficulty in considering time as just another spatial dimension.

Accordingly, the material, or physical structure, purported to be conscious would have to be seen as 4-dimensional, fully spatial, structure. Everything that we see as occurring in reality in terms of events would have to be modelled in this way.

Agreed.

However, without time, there's no causality.

Wait, what?

Who is imagining a scenario without time? Time is explicitly a part of our model - it is the fourth dimension of the model we are discussing. There's no problem here caused by the absence of time; time is right there in the set of dimensions - it hasn't gone away, we just shifted our perspective so that we can see all of it.

A memory would no longer be the end result of a process of memorising, coming after a process of perceiving etc. The thought of having been at a birthday party would be entirely an illusion. The memory would be real but no longer what we think of as a memory. I would just be a spatial pattern somehow including the impression of representing a past event. So, basically, our lives, our existence, would be entirely illusory. Also, and it's a bit more embarrassing, the structure of this timeless universe would make no sense at all. Certain parts of it (memories) would relate to other parts (past events) without that one would have been caused by the other. There would be this relation but it would be an entirely fictional relation. Essentially another illusion. Consciousness itself couldn't possibly be explained. It would be a mere fact. Very real but unexplainable. Which may well be the situation in any case but at least we tend to think of it as somehow explainable. And I think one couldn't prove that the universe is really a timeless, four-dimensional, entirely spatial universe... The illusion of time would be part of the reality of it. At best we could have the illusion to have explained things. Which we do to some extent.
EB

These objections are baseless, as time is NOT absent from our model.

 

[bilby]

Dynamic entities at lower dimensions translate directly into the mere existence of a dimension above those in which the dynamic processes occur. It's just two different ways to describe the same thing.

But, presumably, there are no dynamic processes within the static universe model that ryan proposed, hence no change or dynamic perception of this 'world' by an observer...if such an entity could even exist within that model.

I'm not sure what you mean. A dynamic process is one that changes with time. Time is still present - a static four-dimensional block universe can be mapped exactly to a dynamic three-dimensional-plus-time universe; they are not different things, any more than an area surveyed using polar coordinates is a different thing from the same area surveyed using Cartesian coordinates.

Which model is more useful depends only on what use we choose to make of it.

 

[DBT]

But, presumably, there are no dynamic processes within the static universe model that ryan proposed, hence no change or dynamic perception of this 'world' by an observer...if such an entity could even exist within that model.

I'm not sure what you mean. A dynamic process is one that changes with time. Time is still present - a static four-dimensional block universe can be mapped exactly to a dynamic three-dimensional-plus-time universe; they are not different things, any more than an area surveyed using polar coordinates is a different thing from the same area surveyed using Cartesian coordinates.

Which model is more useful depends only on what use we choose to make of it.

According to the OP hypothesis/model - ''Imagine that there were no time, and that the universe was simply frozen in whatever state it is in, say, the present. So I am asking you to imagine a universe that never had a past or future; there is no time, there never was time and never will be time (I realize that if time doesn't exist, then to say time would never happen would imply time exists). So imagine your state right now and the state of the universe; that would be all there ever can be'' - there cannot be dynamic processes at work. There cannot be change, movement or motion. Just a frozen, inert state of existence. Like the characters in a painting, people if they existed would be absolutely motionless.

This type of universe (most probably impossible) could not have began with expansion or inflation or any process whatsoever. It must exist without beginning or end without motion, movement or any change in relationship between particles whatsoever.

 

[bilby]

I'm not sure what you mean. A dynamic process is one that changes with time. Time is still present - a static four-dimensional block universe can be mapped exactly to a dynamic three-dimensional-plus-time universe; they are not different things, any more than an area surveyed using polar coordinates is a different thing from the same area surveyed using Cartesian coordinates.

Which model is more useful depends only on what use we choose to make of it.

According to the OP hypothesis/model - ''Imagine that there were no time, and that the universe was simply frozen in whatever state it is in, say, the present. So I am asking you to imagine a universe that never had a past or future; there is no time, there never was time and never will be time (I realize that if time doesn't exist, then to say time would never happen would imply time exists). So imagine your state right now and the state of the universe; that would be all there ever can be'' - there cannot be dynamic processes at work. There cannot be change, movement or motion. Just a frozen, inert state of existence. Like the characters in a painting, people if they existed would be absolutely motionless.

This type of universe (most probably impossible) could not have began with expansion or inflation or any process whatsoever. It must exist without beginning or end without motion, movement or any change in relationship between particles whatsoever.

Sure. I agree completely.

But we have moved on from discussing that model - because it's kinda boring, and there's not much to say beyond your succinct summary.

So now I am talking about a universe that is static at higher dimensionality - not three static dimensions, but three (or more) dynamic dimensions, which is (I assert) the same thing as four (or more) static dimensions. A dynamic four dimensional model would be equivalent to a static five dimensional model, and so on. We can always model time as one (or more) extra dimensions, and we can always consider any dynamic effects in an n dimensional universe as being merely structures (or patterns) in a static >n dimensional universe. A circle that changes diameter continuously over time is a dynamic two dimensional entity; but we can describe the exact same system as a static three dimensional entity - a cone - by mapping the t axis to the y axis of our familiar three dimensional space. The same choice of perspective is open to us when considering a three-dimensions-plus-time universe, which we can equally well model as a static four dimensional universe.

Whether this is any more interesting is a matter of opinion, of course; but I suggest that it may (unlike the static three-D universe) be a realistic model for our own real universe, which we know has at least four dimensions, if we include time, and which may well have considerably more.

 

[DBT]

That's fair enough, bilby. I think I got the wires crossed. I was thinking of the original hypothesis and wondering how it fitted with what you were saying. Time for a beer!

 

[Speakpigeon]

I agree there's no formal difficulty in considering time as just another spatial dimension.

Accordingly, the material, or physical structure, purported to be conscious would have to be seen as 4-dimensional, fully spatial, structure. Everything that we see as occurring in reality in terms of events would have to be modelled in this way.

Agreed.

However, without time, there's no causality.

Wait, what?

Who is imagining a scenario without time? Time is explicitly a part of our model - it is the fourth dimension of the model we are discussing. There's no problem here caused by the absence of time; time is right there in the set of dimensions - it hasn't gone away, we just shifted our perspective so that we can see all of it.

A memory would no longer be the end result of a process of memorising, coming after a process of perceiving etc. The thought of having been at a birthday party would be entirely an illusion. The memory would be real but no longer what we think of as a memory. I would just be a spatial pattern somehow including the impression of representing a past event. So, basically, our lives, our existence, would be entirely illusory. Also, and it's a bit more embarrassing, the structure of this timeless universe would make no sense at all. Certain parts of it (memories) would relate to other parts (past events) without that one would have been caused by the other. There would be this relation but it would be an entirely fictional relation. Essentially another illusion. Consciousness itself couldn't possibly be explained. It would be a mere fact. Very real but unexplainable. Which may well be the situation in any case but at least we tend to think of it as somehow explainable. And I think one couldn't prove that the universe is really a timeless, four-dimensional, entirely spatial universe... The illusion of time would be part of the reality of it. At best we could have the illusion to have explained things. Which we do to some extent.
EB

These objections are baseless, as time is NOT absent from our model.

Oh Ok, I thought I had read "static" somewhere in your post.

is indestinguishable from a static four dimensional system

Ya' just wanna have your cake and eat it is all.
EB

 

[ryan]

Sure. I agree completely.

But we have moved on from discussing that model - because it's kinda boring, and there's not much to say beyond your succinct summary.

So now I am talking about a universe that is static at higher dimensionality - not three static dimensions, but three (or more) dynamic dimensions, which is (I assert) the same thing as four (or more) static dimensions. A dynamic four dimensional model would be equivalent to a static five dimensional model, and so on. We can always model time as one (or more) extra dimensions, and we can always consider any dynamic effects in an n dimensional universe as being merely structures (or patterns) in a static >n dimensional universe. A circle that changes diameter continuously over time is a dynamic two dimensional entity; but we can describe the exact same system as a static three dimensional entity - a cone - by mapping the t axis to the y axis of our familiar three dimensional space. The same choice of perspective is open to us when considering a three-dimensions-plus-time universe, which we can equally well model as a static four dimensional universe.

Whether this is any more interesting is a matter of opinion, of course; but I suggest that it may (unlike the static three-D universe) be a realistic model for our own real universe, which we know has at least four dimensions, if we include time, and which may well have considerably more.

A 4 dimensional static universe does not explain some things like why a person's point of reference changes in time. It also does not allow for a truly random nature of quantum mechanics.

 

[Juma]

It also does not allow for a truly random nature of quantum mechanics.

Yes it does. Points on a paper can be static but truly random.

 

[Playball40]

Even if such a Universe existed in eternal stasis, it couldn't be perceived or experienced.

Sure it could. A static n dimensional structure can be experienced by any <n dimensional consciousness that has a non-zero velocity in the n^th dimension; the n^th dimension thereby becomes the 'time' dimension for that entity.

More complex possibilities also exist with multiple time dimensions, where the dimensionality of the consciousness is less than n-1.

As three dimensional consciousnesses in a space-time with possibly between ten and twenty-six dimensions, there is no particular reason not to model the universe as a static block with a dimensionality >3 through which we pass, experiencing time as a sequential flow of events, while it is in fact simply an ever changing slice of a static higher dimensional reality.

How useful such a model might be I don't know; but perhaps the string theorists can find a testable hypothesis emerging from it that could advance our understanding of reality, by either confirming or refuting its existence.

Uh, what?

 

[ryan]

It also does not allow for a truly random nature of quantum mechanics.

Yes it does. Points on a paper can be static but truly random.

It wouldn't be truly random if it is already in a 4d form. Perhaps I should have said indeterminate.

 

[Juma]

Yes it does. Points on a paper can be static but truly random.

It wouldn't be truly random if it is already in a 4d form. Perhaps I should have said indeterminate.

You realize that all time exist in your model. Including all future?

 

[ryan]

It wouldn't be truly random if it is already in a 4d form. Perhaps I should have said indeterminate.

You realize that all time exist in your model. Including all future?

If you mean the 2nd model in the OP, then yes. But it was not meant to be this universe.

And my issue is about bilby's claim about the temporal dimension being equivalent to a spatial dimension. Clearly there seem to be differences in this 4d universe.

 

[bilby]

You realize that all time exist in your model. Including all future?

If you mean the 2nd model in the OP, then yes. But it was not meant to be this universe.

And my issue is about bilby's claim about the temporal dimension being equivalent to a spatial dimension. Clearly there seem to be differences in this 4d universe.

That's not clear at all.

The block universe is completely deterministic; but there is no observation you can make that shows our universe is not, so that's not a problem.

You presumably have no issue with the idea that the past is immutable; there is no clear reason why that cannot apply to the future as well. Indeed, to posit that it is not - that the future is fundamentally different in nature from the past - is adding a huge amount of needless complexity.

 

[bilby]

Agreed.

However, without time, there's no causality.

Wait, what?

Who is imagining a scenario without time? Time is explicitly a part of our model - it is the fourth dimension of the model we are discussing. There's no problem here caused by the absence of time; time is right there in the set of dimensions - it hasn't gone away, we just shifted our perspective so that we can see all of it.

A memory would no longer be the end result of a process of memorising, coming after a process of perceiving etc. The thought of having been at a birthday party would be entirely an illusion. The memory would be real but no longer what we think of as a memory. I would just be a spatial pattern somehow including the impression of representing a past event. So, basically, our lives, our existence, would be entirely illusory. Also, and it's a bit more embarrassing, the structure of this timeless universe would make no sense at all. Certain parts of it (memories) would relate to other parts (past events) without that one would have been caused by the other. There would be this relation but it would be an entirely fictional relation. Essentially another illusion. Consciousness itself couldn't possibly be explained. It would be a mere fact. Very real but unexplainable. Which may well be the situation in any case but at least we tend to think of it as somehow explainable. And I think one couldn't prove that the universe is really a timeless, four-dimensional, entirely spatial universe... The illusion of time would be part of the reality of it. At best we could have the illusion to have explained things. Which we do to some extent.
EB

These objections are baseless, as time is NOT absent from our model.

Oh Ok, I thought I had read "static" somewhere in your post.

is indestinguishable from a static four dimensional system

Ya' just wanna have your cake and eat it is all.
EB

You appear not to understand dimensionality is all.