The block universe, free will, death, and Nietzsche

[Gospel]

Thirteen billion years ago is 'now' when looking at it in a telescope.

I assumed that when we look through a telescope, we're simply observing the light that strikes its lens in real-time, without any additional complexities. Sure the light may have traveled thirteen billion years to get to that lens but it's not the actual object 13 billion lightyears away that we are looking at. We are just looking at the light it sent our way.

Light travels at c, and so doesn't experience time. From a photon's perspective, everywhere is in the same place.

You can't actually see anything, except photons; The difference between photons that have travelled a metre, and photons that have travelled 13 billion light years, is not that in the first case you're experiencing the object they came from, but in the second case you're not.

Your experience of the nearer object is out of date too (just by a much smaller amount).

So in other words we are always looking at historical information. The more distant the object, the further back in time we are looking.

 

[Gospel]

Just as ocean currents (sorry for bringing this up again, but it's the only way I can make sense of all this 'stuff.) are influenced by the interplay of sea floor topography, surface winds, and gravity, the flow of time is shaped by the combined effects of gravity and motion, creating a non-uniform experience of time similar to the varying flow patterns in different parts of the ocean. Light is also influenced by gravity through the curvature of space, as well as by the motion of its source, such as how fast the source is moving away from an observer. Space itself, according to the theory of relativity, is intertwined with time, expanding faster than the speed of light and affected by unknown phenomena we've named dark matter and dark energy. I wager that if we had a big enough measuring stick, we could actually measure my p.... it all.

It seems there is an underlying principle at work here, as these phenomena all share the characteristic of being influenced by various factors that are constantly interacting, likely in predictable ways if we could measure my p.... everything.

From the perspective of block theory, where all points in time exist simultaneously within a four-dimensional spacetime, the Big Bang wasn't an explosive event originating from a singularity. Instead, it can be seen as an initial condition or boundary in the spacetime continuum, resulting from an indirect effect, much like how vacuums influence objects or how the Sun generates heat without being 'on fire.'

A singularity, as proposed by the Big Bang theory, seems to require us to believe that a state devoid of any physical, energetic, or spatial entities somehow gave rise to the physical, energetic, and spatial existence we observe today, all on its own. There's absolutely nothing—pun intended—that even remotely compares to this in any scientific observation. Not even in quantum mechanics/physics do particles arise from an absolute void. To me, it's no better than the 'let there be light' theory.

For now though, the Big Bang theory is the best explanation we have, that aligns with current observations if you want to avoid tons of conjecture.

 

[bilby]

Not even in quantum mechanics/physics do particles arise from an absolute void.

Yes, they do. Constantly, and in vast numbers. Of course, that depends what you mean by "absolute void"; As a vacuum has structure, and as not all fields have their minimum potential energy at zero, it is arguable that "absolute void" is a meaningless term.

A hard vacuum contains vast numbers of particles at any point in time; What makes it a vacuum is that the average number of particles is zero, as each is paired with an antiparticle. 0 = +1-1 = 0

 

[Gospel]

By absolute void, I mean the state prior to the Big Bang—the 'no before.' Have we ever generated, created, or produced (whatever term works for you) particles from the state of 'no before'? A vacuum, to my knowledge, is not the 'no before' because it still contains space & a vast numbers of particles at any point in time (including time itself). According to the Big Bang theory, spacetime and subsequently particles emerged from a singularity that came after the 'no before'.

 

[Gospel]

Oh, and I agree that both 'absolute void' and 'no before' are meaningless terms. They couldn't possibly be anything else.

 

[bilby]

By absolute void, I mean the state prior to the Big Bang—the 'no before.' Have we ever generated, created, or produced (whatever term works for you) particles from the state of 'no before'? A vacuum, to my knowledge, is not the 'no before' because it still contains space & a vast numbers of particles at any point in time (including time itself). According to the Big Bang theory, spacetime and subsequently particles emerged from a singularity that came after the 'no before'.

The whole point about the singularity is that it's impenetrable to our theorising - we literally cannot know anything about the singularity, what was before it, or even whether there was a before. To declare that there was no before, or "absolute void" before, is premature - we haven't and can't know whether there is or not.

And we have equally zero reason to speculate that there was no space, no time, no matter or no energy.

It might be that spacetime itself is meaningless "before" the singularity, in the same way that "North" is meaningless at the north pole; Or it may be that our entire universe is perfectly mirrored on the "other side", with or without a reversal of time; Or literally anything else might be possible.

It's not that the terms are necessarily meaningless, just that we do not and cannot know or even make an educated guess about them.

 

[Gospel]

It's not that the terms are necessarily meaningless, just that we do not and cannot know or even make an educated guess about them.

I disagree with that. We can make at least one educated guess. 'No before' implies 'no after,' making the concept of 'no before' invalid. We simply don't know what existed before what we currently understand as the beginning.

 

[bilby]

'No before' implies 'no after,'

Not necessarily. There is no north from the North Pole, but that doesn't imply that there is no south - indeed, at the North Pole, every direction is south.

One can easily imagine a spacetime in which the Big Bang singularity is the earliest point, and a "straight line" "through" it along the time axis is nevertheless possible, just as one can walk across the North Pole in a straight line, despite the fact that you start off heading north, and wind up heading south.

Of course, what we can easily imagine is not necessarily in any way related to what is real. As you correctly point out:

We simply don't know what existed before what we currently understand as the beginning.

 

[Gospel]

I understand your North Pole analogy, but I believe it doesn't fully address the core issue I'm raising. The analogy compares spatial directions (north and south) to temporal concepts (before and after), which are fundamentally different. Directionality on a sphere doesn't equate to existence or non-existence.

My argument is rooted in the principle that something cannot arise from nothing. If there truly was nothing before the Big Bang singularity, then logically, there should still be nothing now. This suggests that there has always been something; an absolute void or complete nothingness never existed. As such, the concept of 'no before' becomes invalid in this context.

In a Block Universe, time is treated as another dimension, making it a timeless and unchanging reality where everything that exists does so eternally. This perspective aligns better with the idea that something cannot come from nothing, unlike the notion of a sudden creation event implied by the Big Bang theory.

So, while your analogy illustrates how we can conceptualize spacetime, it doesn't address the fundamental issue of existence versus non-existence.

That's why I argue that the Block Universe theory makes more sense, at least to me, based on my own thought experiment, which isn't grounded in any formal academic background.

 

[bilby]

The analogy compares spatial directions (north and south) to temporal concepts (before and after), which are fundamentally different.

Are they? How?

 

[bilby]

My argument is rooted in the principle that something cannot arise from nothing.

That's not so much a principle as a wild guess.

I mean, sure, it's the First Law of Thermodynamics, and one of the bedrock assumptions about reality upon which all physics is based; But it is an assumption, nonetheless. Physical Law is generally applicable to specified conditions, and while 1LoT applies to all conditions with which we are familiar, it need not apply to a singularity.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you; But when thinking about a singularity, all opinions are equally valueless. Even mine.

 

[Gospel]

Spatial: top/bottom, next to, in front of/behind.
Temporal: first/last, beginning/end, before/after.

I have clock out and head home for the day. I'll try to return after my commute.

 

[bilby]

In a Block Universe, time is treated as another dimension, making it a timeless and unchanging reality where everything that exists does so eternally. This perspective aligns better with the idea that something cannot come from nothing, unlike the notion of a sudden creation event implied by the Big Bang theory.

A block can be infinite, or finite at one or both ends.

The big bang could just be one end of the block...

 

[bilby]

Spatial: top/bottom, next to, in front of/behind.
Temporal: first/last, beginning/end, before/after.

These are just a human perspective. We move through time with little or no influence over our speed in that dimension, so we have a tradition of using different words when discussing time from those we use when discussing space; But ultimately we are just looking at four dimensions which lie orthogonal to each other.

We could traditionally measure distance in miles when going north/south, and kilometres when going east/west; We could use different words for 'next to on the east/west axis' than those we use for 'next to on the north/south axis'. Because we don't, we feel as though these are "the same"; But note that on the up/down axis, we DO use different words, to some extent, because the force of gravity gives us a constant acceleration along that axis.

People find the absence of up/down very confusing - even nauseatingly so. It's not what we evolved to cope with.

Similarly it can be hard to think about the time axis without assuming that everything moves along it at constant velocity. But that assumption is demonstrably false; The rate at which time passes isn't the same for all observers, any more than the acceleration due to gravity is.

Time is unlike space, in the same way that left/right is unlike up/down. Have you ever wondered why a mirror swaps left and right, but doesn't swap top and bottom?

 

[pood]

I started this thread, I better read it.

I kind of let it go by the wayside while my puter was getting fixed.

 

[Gospel]

The big bang could just be one end of the block...

My brain exploded. Thanks.

 

[pood]

In a Block Universe, time is treated as another dimension, making it a timeless and unchanging reality where everything that exists does so eternally. This perspective aligns better with the idea that something cannot come from nothing, unlike the notion of a sudden creation event implied by the Big Bang theory.

A block can be infinite, or finite at one or both ends.

The big bang could just be one end of the block...

That’s the point, I think. The big bang is not just a moment in time, but an event in spacetime, per general relativity. It’s still when, and where, it is — eternally. Just like every other event and location in spacetime, past, present, and future. In this sense we can say the universe has “always” existed, and always will — not necessarily as an infinite succession of past or future events, but as an unchanging block, in which all moments in time actually exist in the same way that all locations in space actually exist. Thus, as argued in the OP, our lives, though finite, are “baked in” to the block eternally, between our births and deaths.

 

[Jarhyn]

In a Block Universe, time is treated as another dimension, making it a timeless and unchanging reality where everything that exists does so eternally. This perspective aligns better with the idea that something cannot come from nothing, unlike the notion of a sudden creation event implied by the Big Bang theory.

A block can be infinite, or finite at one or both ends.

The big bang could just be one end of the block...

That’s the point, I think. The big bang is not just a moment in time, but an event in spacetime, per general relativity. It’s still when, and where, it is — eternally. Just like every other event and location in spacetime, past, present, and future. In this sense we can say the universe has “always” existed, and always will — not necessarily as an infinite succession of past or future events, but as an unchanging block, in which all moments in time actually exist in the same way that all locations in space actually exist. Thus, as argued in the OP, our lives, though finite, are “baked in” to the block eternally, between our births and deaths.

But I think the point here is that the structure of the block encodes a directionality of "responsibility" within it, a smooth flow not unlike the frames of a movie, and the changes from one frame to the next are constrained in what will be seen by some unstated form of relationship that is not violated mong the structure of it.

Even if it is such, one can observe the directional nature of "responsibility" within the structure, and use this structure as if the film of a movie, revealing that even as a block object, there is still meaningfully "responsibility" and "free will" and "action" encoded in its shape.

 

[pood]

In a Block Universe, time is treated as another dimension, making it a timeless and unchanging reality where everything that exists does so eternally. This perspective aligns better with the idea that something cannot come from nothing, unlike the notion of a sudden creation event implied by the Big Bang theory.

A block can be infinite, or finite at one or both ends.

The big bang could just be one end of the block...

That’s the point, I think. The big bang is not just a moment in time, but an event in spacetime, per general relativity. It’s still when, and where, it is — eternally. Just like every other event and location in spacetime, past, present, and future. In this sense we can say the universe has “always” existed, and always will — not necessarily as an infinite succession of past or future events, but as an unchanging block, in which all moments in time actually exist in the same way that all locations in space actually exist. Thus, as argued in the OP, our lives, though finite, are “baked in” to the block eternally, between our births and deaths.

But I think the point here is that the structure of the block encodes a directionality of "responsibility" within it, a smooth flow not unlike the frames of a movie, and the changes from one frame to the next are constrained in what will be seen by some unstated form of relationship that is not violated mong the structure of it.

Even if it is such, one can observe the directional nature of "responsibility" within the structure, and use this structure as if the film of a movie, revealing that even as a block object, there is still meaningfully "responsibility" and "free will" and "action" encoded in its shape.

Yes, I gave my reasons in the OP why the existence of a block, and free will, are wholly compatible.

 

[Gospel]

But is not the "free will" depicted within the analogy of a film strip merely a representation and not genuine "free will"? The events portrayed by the film when played out are predetermined and lack the true spontaneity and agency associated with actual events. In the context of the Block Universe theory, what appears as free will is simply an illusion, as all events and decisions are already embedded within the fixed structure of spacetime. Our ability to perceive free will itself is embedded in the block. No?