"Outside Space and Time"-where and when, again?

Great Debates
41

Preferatory Clarifactory Remark: What I am about to say should be interpreted more in the way you interpret poetry than in the way you interpret statements about physics. The following does not claim to have anything important to do with theories in physics. I am spinning a parable. Please do not laugh at me for not understanding physics, because the following does not reflect my understanding of physics.

Okay, got that out of the way.

Here’s how I used to like to think of the whole “outside space and time” thing w.r.t God. Basically it amounts to treating “outside space and time” as not being outside all space a and time but as being outside our space and time. I am not sure it can possibly be coherent to ascribe actions to an entity that doesn’t exist in some space and time.

Imagine a one dimensional universe–Lineland. Imagine there are little beings moving back and forth in lineland. Now graph their movements by adding an axis perpendicular to Lineland and treating the second axis like a “time” dimension. The movements of beings in Lineland, then, are graphed as lines segments and curves in the spacetime graph we just made. Clear so far?

Now imagine you are looking at that graph. You’ve got your own space and time–yours consists in three dimensions of space and one of time–and Lineland’s spacetime is embedded in your own. Lineland’s space dimension extends in a spatial direction in your own spacetime, and Lineland’s time dimension also extends in a spatial direction in your own spacetime. In your spacetime, Lineland’s spacetime looks like a plane.

Now look at the spacetime, with all its spacetime paths traced out as curves and line segments on the plane I just described. Imagine you have the power to reach in and modify these paths. This means that from the point of view of someone in Lineland, you appear to be able to make changes at any place and any time.

Imagine some possible graphs of Lineland are in some way “better” than others. Imagine the actual graph is one of the “worse” graphs. But I have the power to make changes on the graph, so why don’t I just go in and move the curves and line segments around til they make a “good” graph? (Thereby changing not just the Linelanders’ present, but their past as well, but if that’s necessary to make a “good” graph then what can be the objection?)

Perhaps my power to make changes on the graph isn’t unlimited. Maybe there are rules (whether some kind of “physical” rule or some kind of “logical” rule) about what kind of changes I can make to an area of the spacetime graph of Lineland, constraints on what I can do to that area, based on what things look like in other areas of the graph, both in the “past” direction and the “future” direction.

In that case, I will do what I can, but I will need the Linelanders themselves to do certain things to get their own self-generated curves and line segments into the right configuration to let me work my own “magic” on their pasts and futures.

A way to think of this is as follows. Perhaps for any configuration of Linelanders in a single timeslice of Lineland’s spacetime graph, there are only certain “histories” and “futures” compatible with that configuration. I can make the history and future as good as possible given that configuration, but if the history and future is going to be even better, the Linelanders themselves are going to have to do something to make the history and future better than it might have been.

So the picture is this. The ideal situation is one in which the entirety of the spacetime graph of Lineland–from the beginning to the end of it–is “good.” In other words, the ideal situation is one in which the Linelanders are are in a “good” configuration, and always have been and always will be. But as things stand, it might be that in most areas of the spacetime graph, the linelanders are not where they should be, or haven’t always been as they should be, or won’t always be as they should be. In this case, however, it may still be possible for me to bring it about that their history and future changes into a better history and future, but I may need them to do part of that work due to constraints (compatibility constraints) on the kinds of changes I can make on the spacetime graph.

Of course the idea when I used to spin this kind of stuff out was for this to be an analogy or parable. The Linelanders is us, and you is God.

42

Well, IMHO I do think religious beliefs need to be held provisionally. I find the certitude of many believers to be a real progress blocker. I get ya there.

Indoctrination, family and peer pressure explain a lot, but I do think people have very real experiences that they interpret as communion with a “something more”.

I don’t see God as a separate entity that is out there some where ruling the universe anyway but just for discussion,

I don’t think the concept is that God is outside time and space but operates within it. I’d say it’s more like time and space exist for us because of our perspective but they don’t for God and our interaction with this higher power has nothing to do with time and space.

43

Hmmm interesting. It seems to me that there is a reason to wonder if God is, since people obviously do, but I understand and agree that “what” or “what else” is more useful and accurate.

Lot’s of people use lot’s of different words and concepts to try and describe the possibility of something more. I can see good reasons to discard outdated concepts and redefine words as concepts change, but I also see the God concept as something we are still using as part of man’s introspection and search for a purpose. {even with all it’s baggage}
I do think the recent challenges to religious tradition will prove very helpful in that introspection.

44

Were you sure you were discussing things with anyone religious?

Do you think condescension, and intolerance and ridicule will be the things that convince them religion is bad? Still up to you, but I’m just asking.

We all need some of that.

45

That’s exactly what it means in this context. ****** It’s not an honest argument; it’s simply an attempt to claim that God can’t be criticised for lack of evidence or implausibility. Just like the claims that God is beyond human morality or human comprehension or logic.

And THAT is why I call such arguments dishonest. The believers clearly don’t mean what they are saying; they throw out “God is beyond” arguments to shut up criticism, then turn right around and talk about all the things they know about the supposedly unknowable.

Not really; systems can be self created, like life is.

It’s stupid because it’s self destructive and irrational, and encourages evil. Both by providing easy victims for the unscrupulous in the form of anyone foolish enough to actually follow a rule like that, and because it encourages the idea that morality is stupid.

Besides, that’s hardly the only religious belief there is; “persecute gays” and “kill the unbeliever” are also popular.

****** Outside of a religious context it might have meaning and interest. For example; perhaps there are other kinds of dimension than space and time. But that’s not what the believers mean; they aren’t talking about any objectively real “outside”, because such an objectively real “place” would likely have qualities that contradict their fantasy. They’re looking for a “Get Out Of Criticism Free” card, not an honest exploration of the nature of reality.

46

To the characters in a book, its author is “outside space and time.”

To the characters in a computer game, the real-life programmers or players are “outside space and time.”

If this universe is just a giant simulation running on a giant computer, that computer could itself exist within a greater reality, in which anything and anyone that existed would be, to us, “outside space and time.”

These analogies serve to convince me that it is not inherently ridiculous for something to be “outside space and time.” I do not claim that God can or does exist outside our space and time in the exact same way as these analogies. And I do not know whether being “outside space and time” necessarily involves being part of a different “space and time,” or whether it’s possible to exist, but not in space and time of any sort. Since I myself am a being who exists in space and time, I can’t imagine or understand what it would be like not to be; but my failure to conceive such a thing does not constitute proof that such a thing could not be.

47

Not sure about this. If loving X meant helping X get what X wants, you’d be right. But I’m pretty sure that on reflection no one would think that that’s what loving X entails.

Of course this just shifts the discussion over to the question of what it means to love someone, and that brings problems of its own. For example, my own view (not original to me) is that loving X means wanting the best for X. But then what’s “the best”? Different people are going to think differently about this, and a certain type of religious type could insist that “the best” for anyone is that they either convert or die.

48

We can, however until we can find some evidence to support those things, they are purely theoretical. Although many things that were once theoretical in nature - the planets movement around the sun, nuclear energy, black holes, and so on - later proved to exist as predicted.

So the question is, how does one gain evidence of some higher level of reality outside what we can measure or perceive within our current understanding of the universe? Theories about God or Sims or Matrix style simulations are just a form of mental masterbation. The best you can do is observe how our universe works, try to figure out different ways to come up with new data and continually adjust your model to incorporate the new data.

49

I don’t disagree with this. I think people should understand that what we call spiritual is a constantly changing internal process and we should incorporate objective data as well. We observe how interpersonal relations work and how love, mercy, compassion, honesty, work in comparison to the alternatives and adjust. I’d like to think of it as growth, both personal and societal.

50

Actually existing without existing is a pretty brilliant summary of the circular logic that this thread revolves around if I dare say so myself (and I dare so I do). And if you can’t see how that is stupid without a more thorough explanation from me, well then you’re probably beyond my very limited pedagogical powers anyway.

I will conceed to lacking humility and will add that to the list of my many flaws. The best I can offer up as a surrogate is false modesty (and even that I usually find to be too much of an effort). I suppose I will be left to such limited sources for personal growth and learning as logic, science and rationality for now. Perhaps in the future (due to some fortunate cerebral damage) I will be able to absorb the learining that is so abundant in irrational bronze age myths.

First of all I find the very notion that I would be offended by religion to be offensive. If I was offended by everything I thought was stupid I would spend my life in a perpetual state of offendedness, and the very idea of that is offensive to my sensibilities. In fact I find religion to be somewhat interesting, to the extent that I even spent some time studying it, it’s only the belief in religion that I find stupid.

And what is religios about “love thy neighbour”? Religion is the belief in magic and a “supreme being” (that obviously exists without existing) and (usually) the belief that if you really really want this supreme being to change the laws of physics to accomodate you, it might. If you just listen to the local religious authority and don’t touch your genitals. And if you believe that… I have a bridge you may want to be interested in buying.

Loving thy neigbour however does not prequisite any belief in a magical being. I like my neigbours just fine (although I was a bit miffed yesterday when they had a party and didn’t keep the music down when I was trying to sleep) without having to be told so by a rabbi/priest/imam/guru/whatnot.

51

I can agree only with the last dependent clause here.

Be honest. Did you bother even to read and think about the posts in this thread before responding, or are you so convinced fo ryour rectitude that you consider further learning to be unnecessary?

If you didn’t read them, I encourage you to go read post 23, including the article to which it links, and think on it. If you can offer specific rebuttal to it, I welcome the discussion. However, it’s clear so far that you have no idea what’s being discussed in the thread, and in your ignorance you think yourself brilliant.

52

I don’t need religion for that. Nobody with a three digit IQ does. So, in a since, religion is superflous. Now, if we’re talking about orgins, then religion is wrong.

53

Okay, Bruce, if that is your real name, again, this thread isn’t about whether religion is stupid. It’s about a specific proposition that appears in many religions.

Perhaps you and Stoneburg could start a thread called, “Are religious people poopyheads or what?” in which you could engage in the debate you prefer. This atheist will gladly join you there. But it’d be nice if in this thread you’d address the thread topic.

54

Of course not. But since 98.7% of everything I do, say or write is mainly aimed at myself it’s not terribly important that I am sure about the other 1.3%.

You misunderstand. The ridicule is the strategy, the condesencion and intolerance are only my personal flaws. Do I believe that publicly ridiculing something will lessen the chance of someone latching on to it, yes. Most people strive towards social acceptance and status, by ridiculing something you signal to them that becoming a part of what is being ridiculed is detrimental to them achieving their goals. Peer pressure is one of the things that got us into religion, and I’m sure it will work just as well to get us out :wink:

Amen brother.

55

I bothered to read most posts more than once actually (I’m a bit slow I guess). The article you linked to isn’t new to me. I read a dissertation on the “holographic universe” a few years back that discussed the same thing, and I think the first time I formulated the idea myself was sometime in puberty (can’t be more specific possibly due to the following years of drugs and booze). It’s an interesting idea, which I assume that most people who spend time thinking about these things (and/or do drugs) come up with at some point in their lives. Hell, the aborigines have had a version of this idea for millennias. However, at the root of it, when you really think about it, it doesn’t actually matter whether we’re a simulation or not.

You may or may not have noticed that you are the only one who have resorted to ad hominem attacks in this discussion. I of course wouldn’t want to infringe on your right to express yourself in any way, but I would humbly* ask that you at least try to make them amusing. I would also humbly** ask you to not instruct me on where and what to post unless you can either make it nicely or provide evidence that you are either a moderator on this forum or my legal custodian.

If you find my style of prose annoying I can only offer as comfort that it’s a triple dose of self depricative irony, english is my second language (third if you count body language) and that I loathe myself much more than you could ever hope to loathe me. If that isn’t enough, I vaguely recall there being some sort of ignore function on this board, if they haven’t removed it I’m surfe you could put it to good use.

  • Or at least with fake modesty
    ** Well… you know.
56

As long as *you’re *sure of your brilliance.

I see. The problem is many religious type personalities like to perceive themselves as persecuted for their beliefs and may be more likely to be repulsed by ridicule they perceive as unnecessary cruelty and arrogance. Hey, you still got personal amusement.

57

Okay, so you agree that the idea of a simulated universe is plausible, yes? (I’ll ignore your self-congratulatory back-patting in which you pretend that your pubescent maunderings were equivalent to this scenario) If it’s plausible, and if we’re inside of a simulation, where in our understanding of space is our creator located?

In other words, every point within our universe can be signified by an XYZ coordinate. Set the far reaches of space that contains matter at +/- 10 for each axis. Where in this XYZ grid would the creator of the simulation be located?

It’s also plausible that such a simulation would be created to run backward, as a way to derive causes from effects. In order for such a simulation to work, its participants would need to perceive time as running forward. Stipulating such a scenario, how would the participants locate the creator in time?

If you agree that it would be impossible for members of the simulation to situate the simulation’s creator in space or in time, do you agree that your earlier assessments of this thread, the ones you called “brilliant,” were rather embarrassing misapprehensions of what’s under discussion? If not, why not?

58

I used to have a cartoon that said …The Universe is an island surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.

59

Exactly! 98.7% approval rating is pretty damn awesome, isn’t it? After all, you can’t please everyone.

First let me apologise. I think my initial statement that “you misunderstand” was presumptious. More correct would have been to say “I did not manage to communicate effectively”. My bad.

Second, I obviously didn’t manage to communicate my position effectively. As I stated previously I do not believe it is worth the effort (I’m against effort in general but especially so when it doesn’t lead anywhere) to try and argue with the ones that have already caught religion. As you say, they will probably feel persecuted and become defensive rather than change their mind. But I seriously doubt that people who aren’t religious or are on the fence (is that even possible?) will be encouraged to become so just by the prospect of being persecuted.

If I systemetically ridicule the Yankees (not that I ever would, we’re speaking hypothetically here) I’m sure that a Yankee supporter wouldn’t be the very least inclined to support the Yankees any less. Probably the opposite. But someone who ISN’T a Yankee supporter might be less inclined to become one, for feer of being ridiculed.

60

That does not come as a surprise, but how is that relevant? “God” is a term that may refer to something we can both regard as nonexistent, or to something that at least one of us would consider to exist. But the assertion “God is outside of time and space” should contribute to neither our disbelief nor our belief. Some things are, or at least some things that we probably both agree are genuinely existent have been held to be outside of time and space in arguments that we would probably both find to be reasonable even if we disagree with the person so arguing. So the assertion “X is outside of time and space” is not ipso facto a problematic metaphysical assertion.

(Nor, on the other hand, is it ipso facto a reason to decide that the term “God” does refer to an existent thing instead of a nonexistent thing)