Coming from Nothing?

[ryan]

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.

It wouldn't have come from anything; it would have come from nothing.

Now think about time and space as a four dimensional structure instead of the static 3 dimensional structure, and assume that's all there is or ever will be (ditto to what I said in brackets above). Like a 3 dimensional freeze frame of the universe with no time, a four dimensional universe would not have a beginning, end or boundary but would be limited in a temporal dimension and 3 spatial dimensions - it would just be a four dimensional object that exists.

It wouldn't have come from anything; it would have come from nothing.

 

[abaddon]

What is the 4th dimension? What is a temporal dimension in a universe with no time?

What do you mean “come from”? The words imply events in history, which is time.

If there were no time and yet the universe existed anyway, it would not have “come” at all, it’d just be what it is.

 

[ryan]

What do you mean “come from”? The words imply events in history, which is time.

If there were no time and yet the universe existed anyway, it would not have “come” at all, it’d just be what it is.

Yeah good point

 

[DBT]

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

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[DBT]

I'm not sure how these conditions would manifest in physical terms. How would consciousness emerge, for example?

 

[bilby]

I'm not sure how these conditions would manifest in physical terms. How would consciousness emerge, for example?

Nothing would 'emerge' in the higher dimensional context; the higher dimensional 'block' is static and contains all things - Past, Present and Future. At the lower dimensional level, everything would be indestinguishable from any other model of time; causes would lead to effects just as we observe them to.

To take a lower dimensional structure as an analogy, imagine a skyscraper. You are rising up at constant velocity; the stuff below you is the past, and the stuff above is the future. Each floor may be different from the last, but its layout and structure is dictated to some extent by the layout and structure of the floors below.

Or to borrow an analogy from Terry Pratchett (and my apologies to his memory for butchering it), a person in this multidimensional block would resemble a carrot - small at the end pointing at the past, then getting bigger and bigger, and then suddenly you reach the end, and the person is no more.

Every 'slice' through the block looks very similar to the previous slice, but not exactly the same, and it is those changes that we lower dimensional structures perceive as the flow of time.

Consciousness is a pattern embedded in the various carrots that are in turn embedded in the block of space time. Nothing emerges; it just IS.

 

[DBT]

Seems reasonable as a hypothetical construct, as such...but... our own experience of consciousness is inseparable from the flow of time. So if every slice of this block is different but there is no flow of consciousness between blocks, each 'segment' or slice of this consciousness block would be unaware of all other segments or slices, hence only a static perception of one thing and one thing only. Perhaps like frames in a reel of film that is not in motion?

 

[bilby]

Seems reasonable as a hypothetical construct, as such...but... our own experience of consciousness is inseparable from the flow of time. So if every slice of this block is different but there is no flow of consciousness between blocks, each 'segment' or slice of this consciousness block would be unaware of all other segments or slices, hence only a static perception of one thing and one thing only. Perhaps like frames in a reel of film that is not in motion?

There is no reason why each slice is unaware of the others.

Each floor of a skyscraper relies on, and is shaped by, the floor below; a CAT scan shows successive slices through a patient, but that doesn't make each slice of his femur (for example) not a part of the same continuous bone.

The slices could be arbitrarily 'thin'; or there could be a granularity below which it makes no sense to slice - but that doesn't render slices in time 'independent' of each other, any more than slices in space are.

You can imagine slicing in any dimension. Objects in space are not rendered discontinuous by such imagined slicing; nor are objects in time - causally linked processes.

 

[DBT]

There is no reason why each slice is unaware of the others.

Each floor of a skyscraper relies on, and is shaped by, the floor below; a CAT scan shows successive slices through a patient, but that doesn't make each slice of his femur (for example) not a part of the same continuous bone.

The slices could be arbitrarily 'thin'; or there could be a granularity below which it makes no sense to slice - but that doesn't render slices in time 'independent' of each other, any more than slices in space are.

You can imagine slicing in any dimension. Objects in space are not rendered discontinuous by such imagined slicing; nor are objects in time - causally linked processes.

It's the static part (no flow of time) that to me appears problematic. An absence of the flow time implies a frozen, unchanging structure, therefore incapable of information exchange between its constituent parts.

 

[bilby]

There is no reason why each slice is unaware of the others.

Each floor of a skyscraper relies on, and is shaped by, the floor below; a CAT scan shows successive slices through a patient, but that doesn't make each slice of his femur (for example) not a part of the same continuous bone.

The slices could be arbitrarily 'thin'; or there could be a granularity below which it makes no sense to slice - but that doesn't render slices in time 'independent' of each other, any more than slices in space are.

You can imagine slicing in any dimension. Objects in space are not rendered discontinuous by such imagined slicing; nor are objects in time - causally linked processes.

It's the static part (no flow of time) that to me appears problematic. An absence of the flow time implies a frozen, unchanging structure, therefore incapable of information exchange between its constituent parts.

The structure of the static block IS 'flow of time' when viewed from a lower dimensional perspective. The Bruce Highway is a static two dimensional structure; but to a one dimensional passenger on a Greyhound bus, who exists as a point on the highway, it 'flows' from Brisbane to Cairns. The Greyhound passenger's awareness simply proceeds at a constant speed in the northerly dimension; at any given latitude, his world is different to what it was at more southerly latitudes, and it will be different again at more northerly latitudes. But this is a two dimensional universe - there is no 'time' here. The bus, and passenger, exist at every point on the highway. Just as you exist at every time of your life.

 

[ryan]

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

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

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

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

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?

 

[Juma]

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

Yes, we know that experience is very dependent.
And to me it is pretty obvious that the "magic" of consciousness is to find in the dact that we are processes in time.

 

[ryan]

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

Yes, we know that experience is very dependent.
And to me it is pretty obvious that the "magic" of consciousness is to find in the dact that we are processes in time.

What are you talking about?

 

[Juma]

Yes, we know that experience is very dependent.
And to me it is pretty obvious that the "magic" of consciousness is to find in the dact that we are processes in time.

What are you talking about?

A word went missing. It should have said that experience is very time dependent.

 

[ryan]

What are you talking about?

A word went missing. It should have said that experience is very time dependent.

What you said about what you quoted from my post and the quote don't seem to have anything to do with each other. I was questioning whether or not a 3 dimensional still frame of the universe would "freeze" a moment of experience. So, you would want to be in a happy moment if this were all that existed.

 

[DBT]

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

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.

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

Then it is unknown and un-knowable.

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.

[
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.

 

[Juma]

A word went missing. It should have said that experience is very time dependent.

What you said about what you quoted from my post and the quote don't seem to have anything to do with each other. I was questioning whether or not a 3 dimensional still frame of the universe would "freeze" a moment of experience. So, you would want to be in a happy moment if this were all that existed.

Experience requires time.
I have no idea what you think you are saying.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

It wouldn't have come from anything; it would have come from nothing.

Now think about time and space as a four dimensional structure instead of the static 3 dimensional structure, and assume that's all there is or ever will be (ditto to what I said in brackets above). Like a 3 dimensional freeze frame of the universe with no time, a four dimensional universe would not have a beginning, end or boundary but would be limited in a temporal dimension and 3 spatial dimensions - it would just be a four dimensional object that exists.

It wouldn't have come from anything; it would have come from nothing.

Perhaps the universe is timeless with no beginning and no end.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps the universe is timeless with no beginning and no end.

In that context, you may mean eternal rather than timeless.