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

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Consider the gamer who creates a backwards-running universe, the one we’re in. We perceive it as running forward, because that’s how we’re programmed, but in “real” time (i.e., that in which the computer running our simulation is operating), it’s running backward, and at 365 times the speed of “actual” time. For every day in the real world, a year goes backward in our simulated world.

There’s that simulation-thingy again, and so I’ll have to ask again whether that’s actually a good model for ‘existence outside of space and time’. As I argued before, the simulated universe plays the role of an embedded space, like the spherical surface I used in my previous post, or like Lineland, which Frylock brought up. An existence within the larger space then is not anything more surprising than an existence not limited to the sphere, and for all problems supernatural concepts have in our space, they have them in the larger space, as well; we can easily expand our notion of universe to encompass the whole of that larger space, and then ask the same question again: Is existence outside of this space possible?

If, now, this space turns out to be itself just embedded within some other space, then we can do the same dance again, and again end up back at square one; things only become interesting (and the question, in turn, only worth asking) when we are presented with a space that’s not embedded within another. Is some form of outside (or transcendent) existence possible then? Thus, in using the simulation argument, one essentially presumes an ‘embedded space’ kind of scenario for our universe; outside existence is then trivially possible, and the question ceases to be of any real interest.

Or, in other words, the creator in his mom’s basement would not be god, though he may well have godlike abilities relative to us; god, in any meaningful way, might be his creator, instead. Similarly, you would not call an alien with extremely advanced technological means, who is seemingly capable of performing magical feats, a true magician, I presume. Both the ideas of godliness and magic need an essentially supernatural element, it seems to me, which beings from some space that simply encompasses ours – there being perfectly natural existences, and their seemingly godlike powers just being a consequence of their nature – lack; their godliness thus would simply be a consequence of our ignorance of the embedded nature of the space we inhabit. No, I think the question of outside existence only becomes meaningful once you assume that there exists some space that is not itself embedded within another space (not necessarily ours, though).

That even reasoning about the relevant concepts without assuming some form of embeddedness becomes difficult to impossible only speaks to the inconsistency of the notion, I think.

@Voyager

Depends on the meaning of existing. In my book, interaction in our space and time implies at least a partial existence in there also.

That’s how it seems to me, as well. Consider a universe made up of a few balls on green felt; this universe certainly has an outside, and that outside has influences on the balls – it sets them in motion, causes them to collide, which sends some of them into deep, black holes, etc. But the outside beings have to use a special means – a long, wooden stick --, which has to at least in part enter the universe, to exert any influence on the balls, and they can’t make them move without it.

It works similarly in our universe; if god doesn’t at least partially exist within it, there’s nothing here to make the balls move. The problem is, that if something partially exists within the universe, it must exist totally within the universe; that’s why we don’t generally limit our universe to billiard tables, but describe everything external to them as part of it, as well.

The reason for that is something like: if something only consists of one part, and exerts influence on something within this universe, then, since a part must exist within the universe, the one part that wholly makes up that thing must exist within the universe; if something consists of multiple parts and exerts influence upon something within the universe, then at least the part that exerts influence must exist within the universe; but then, every part of the whole something that exerts any influence on the part that exerts influence on something within the universe exerts itself influence on something within the universe, and thus must exist within the universe; and so on, until every part of this something is shown to exist within the universe (for if there is a part that does not exert any influence on some part connected to the universe by a chain of influences, it cannot be thought of as being part of a connected whole, and thus, is not actually part of the thing in the first place).

[Revenant_Threshold]

One of the big problems in transcending space and time (well, time mainly) for me is that it pretty much screws us entirely over as far as cause and effect goes. We can never know whether a being outside of time is responding to something we’ve just done, will do, or did long ago, and they themselves might not have a clue. If we’re talking a being transcendant of time, then it makes no sense to say that they do things “in response” to something, or to have them plan for the future, or really pin down any of their actions or thoughts in any frame of reference as far as time goes at all.

@magellan01

As far as what we are to do with that information, I think, is up to each of us. We can each start or join our own belief system, and adhere to it to whatever degree we deem wise. Accepting there is a Creator God also give us a “who” from whom we derive our natural rights. Without it, they are arbitrary, something for man to grant or repeal at whim.

I’m not sure your last point is that much of a difference. With a Creator to derive our natural rights from, they’re still just as arbitrary as if they’re in human hands, because that Creator could choose to grant or repal them at whim. I don’t think there’s anything about a Creator God in and of itself that makes rights derived from it any less arbitrary than those derived from humans; if anything, there’s a good argument that it is more arbitrary, since those rights would rely upon the whims of a sole being, rather than humanity at large.

Beyond that, it could also be argued that natural rights derive simply from existence, and need no deliberate granter. Not by me, since I don’t believe in natural rights, but it’s a point to consider.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

There’s that simulation-thingy again, and so I’ll have to ask again whether that’s actually a good model for ‘existence outside of space and time’. As I argued before, the simulated universe plays the role of an embedded space, like the spherical surface I used in my previous post, or like Lineland, which Frylock brought up. An existence within the larger space then is not anything more surprising than an existence not limited to the sphere, and for all problems supernatural concepts have in our space, they have them in the larger space, as well; we can easily expand our notion of universe to encompass the whole of that larger space, and then ask the same question again: Is existence outside of this space possible?

The point of the Great Gamer is that the space in which they exist is wholly unlike the space in which we perceive ourselves to exist. A SIMS character does actually exist in space, but only as a set of magnetic gateways on a microchip. The character doesn’t exist in the house they perceive themselves to exist in.

Consider again the coordiate system I mentioned earlier. In a Great Gamer model, where all matter in our universe is contained within an area bound by +/- 10 on an XYZ scale, at what coordinate would you locate the Great Gamer?

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Consider again the coordiate system I mentioned earlier. In a Great Gamer model, where all matter in our universe is contained within an area bound by +/- 10 on an XYZ scale, at what coordinate would you locate the Great Gamer?

That’s like asking, if you’re on the moon, what are your geographic coordinates? You can’t answer that question, because you’ve left the space spanned by latitude and longitude. It’s not something terribly surprising, however, since we know that the spherical space of coordinates we use on Earth is embedded in the three dimensional space of the universe. If we were now two dimensional creatures confined to that spherical surface, would the question suddenly acquire depth, merely because we have no perception of this three dimensional space? I don’t think so, and that case is, or at least appears to me to be, exactly analogous to the simulation argument.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

That’s like asking, if you’re on the moon, what are your geographic coordinates? You can’t answer that question, because you’ve left the space spanned by latitude and longitude. It’s not something terribly surprising, however, since we know that the spherical space of coordinates we use on Earth is embedded in the three dimensional space of the universe. If we were now two dimensional creatures confined to that spherical surface, would the question suddenly acquire depth, merely because we have no perception of this three dimensional space? I don’t think so, and that case is, or at least appears to me to be, exactly analogous to the simulation argument.

With the balloon example, all that’s needed to locate a creator who’s (for example) inside the balloon is a third axis for coordinate. The inside-the-balloon creator already has placement along the two axes the ballooners know about.

[Frylock]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

That’s like asking, if you’re on the moon, what are your geographic coordinates? You can’t answer that question, because you’ve left the space spanned by latitude and longitude. It’s not something terribly surprising, however, since we know that the spherical space of coordinates we use on Earth is embedded in the three dimensional space of the universe. If we were now two dimensional creatures confined to that spherical surface, would the question suddenly acquire depth, merely because we have no perception of this three dimensional space? I don’t think so, and that case is, or at least appears to me to be, exactly analogous to the simulation argument.

Actually, I think LHoD should have asked the opposite question. If there’s a world simulated by my computer, what are the spatial coordinates, in my coordinate system, of the objects in that simulation?

I don’t think there are any such coordinates, and that’s why simulated space is not the same thing as embedded space.

Another way to put it: If my three dimensional world is embedded in a four dimensional space, then though I can’t visualize locations in the four dimensional space, I can through geometry comprehend that fourth dimension as one whose axis is at right angles to all three of the ones I’m familiar with. I can’t visualize this, but I can do the math that corresponds correctly to it. But if my three dimensional world is simulated in a four dimensional space, no such geometrical techniques are available to me. There is no determinate spatial relationship between any of the four dimensions in that four dimensional space and any of the three in my three dimensional space.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Frylock

Actually, I think LHoD should have asked the opposite question. If there’s a world simulated by my computer, what are the spatial coordinates, in my coordinate system, of the objects in that simulation?

I don’t think there are any such coordinates, and that’s why simulated space is not the same thing as embedded space.

Those objects exist in the coordinates of the microchip on which they occur.

[kanicbird]

@Czarcasm

In another thread someone(it doesn’t matter who-the term is used many times by many people) said “God exists outside Space and Time” as if this was all the explanation necessary for those trying to find evidence of that being.
Is this a valid explanation? What does “outside space” mean, and where is it? What does “outside time” mean, and when is it(not looking for discussion on the nature of time before the universe existed-the claim is that God is in a constant state of existing outside time)?

One take on it is the spirit world. Some people claim to be able to contact spirits, but those things can’t really exist in our physical 3D+t world. IMHO it is aspects of us that exist in extra-dimensional space that allow contact if we can get in touch with that aspect of our being, but most of us are grounded in the physical world and have a preconceived mental block preventing accepting of this extra-dimensional space.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Frylock

Actually, I think LHoD should have asked the opposite question. If there’s a world simulated by my computer, what are the spatial coordinates, in my coordinate system, of the objects in that simulation?

I don’t think there are any such coordinates, and that’s why simulated space is not the same thing as embedded space.

Actually, you may be right, but this can be fixed – think about two separate subspaces of some higher dimensional space, like two spheres in three dimensional space, Earth and Moon. Points on the Earth’s surface are not localizable in the Moon’s coordinates and vice versa, and you have to employ three dimensional coordinates to describe their relationships, thereby leaving either subspace.

In general, though, LHoD is right in saying that the simulation itself is just a representation of the state of the computer, and that state is wholly expressible in coordinates of the simulator’s space. Continuing on that line of thought, basically, the simulation is a mapping between a state of the machine and a state of the world that is simulated; if that’s a one-to-one correspondence, then it would seem to me that localization of the gamer/creator from within the coordinates of the simulation works just as well as the other way 'round, with an extension of the coordinate system used analogous to extending the flat spherical to a three dimensional coordinate system. But I don’t think that makes any great difference in practice; we’re still talking about (different kinds of) spaces, not things outside of space.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

I think he meant his interesting digression, not the thread as a whole. I also don’t see a Creator God having any particular moral authority just from being the creator.

If we see God as a separate being like some king on a throne then I agree. Why assume that being has moral authority other than the whole “I control everything so what I say goes” pov.

Is gravity the authority on how much I weigh at any given moment, or whether I can jump 100 feet or not? It’s not a decision gravity makes, it’s just the nature of gravity.

I think the moral authority also has to do with forces in play. The state of our consciousness, our priorities and choices, have an affect on the world around us. I think any moral authority God may have comes from certain states of consciousness being consistently positive while others are consistently negative. The positive states are in tune with immanent God, the negative states are not. So, IMO it’s not a matter of obeying the rules supplied by a higher moral authority, it’s more a matter of tuning in to the forces at play and making a conscious choice for the positive.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

Depends on the meaning of existing. In my book, interaction in our space and time implies at least a partial existence in there also. I’d also say a god existing both inside and outside of our space and time is greater than a god outside it only, therefore this is required for omnipotence.

I agree. That’s what the transcendent and immanent article is about. It can be seen as a paradox but both can be true.

I keep coming back to perception. We have measurements of space and time to describe how the earth rotates and circles the sun but the earth doesn’t actually do it on a schedule. It responds to the forces in play.

We perceive time and space but to God, transcendent, immanent, and eternal they don’t matter. It’s the forces in play. I think that’s what Jesus was talking about in the passage I mentioned. By attaching our priorities to things that fade and will disappear we put certain forces in play and deal with the consequences of the choices that spring from misplaced priorities.

[cosmosdan]

@Revenant_Threshold

One of the big problems in transcending space and time (well, time mainly) for me is that it pretty much screws us entirely over as far as cause and effect goes. We can never know whether a being outside of time is responding to something we’ve just done, will do, or did long ago, and they themselves might not have a clue. If we’re talking a being transcendant of time, then it makes no sense to say that they do things “in response” to something, or to have them plan for the future, or really pin down any of their actions or thoughts in any frame of reference as far as time goes at all.

Even though our choices have ripples that extend forward in time, the only moment we can really choose in or act in is the one we’re in. Which reminds me, have you seen my new watch? There’s no need to 2nd guess what God may be responding to.

I’m not sure your last point is that much of a difference. With a Creator to derive our natural rights from, they’re still just as arbitrary as if they’re in human hands, because that Creator could choose to grant or repal them at whim. I don’t think there’s anything about a Creator God in and of itself that makes rights derived from it any less arbitrary than those derived from humans; if anything, there’s a good argument that it is more arbitrary, since those rights would rely upon the whims of a sole being, rather than humanity at large.

Beyond that, it could also be argued that natural rights derive simply from existence, and need no deliberate granter. Not by me, since I don’t believe in natural rights, but it’s a point to consider.

If the universe is created in such a way that certain things are positive and certain things are negative then it’s not arbitrary. If God is immanent and in all things , including all humans, then it’s not a matter of whim but we as humans discovering the connection that has always been within us, and tuning in.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@cosmosdan

Even though our choices have ripples that extend forward in time, the only moment we can really choose in or act in is the one we’re in. Which reminds me, have you seen my new watch? There’s no need to 2nd guess what God may be responding to.

But that’s the problem. We react to the now, as would a Creator outside time; but for such a Creator, all time is now. Our choices ripple forward in time, but for a Creator outside time, choices may ripple at any and all points. Cause and effect for us requires one be first and the other second (barring quantum, mainly because I don’t get that ;)); for a Creator outside time, it’s nonsensical to suggest there are two different points in time, two states of its existence along a scale of time, because there is no such scale for it.

If the universe is created in such a way that certain things are positive and certain things are negative then it’s not arbitrary. If God is immanent and in all things , including all humans, then it’s not a matter of whim but we as humans discovering the connection that has always been within us, and tuning in.

It’s certainly a matter of whim, because God could elect to change it. A metaphysical snap of the fingers, and presto, the connection is changed, or even removed entirely. With a system of human-derived rights, we at least (in general) have to secure a majority of people’s agreement if we want to alter the rights we have; millions of people, in some cases. Rights deriving from God rest upon the whim of that one single being, who could change those rights whenever it wanted.

[Voyager]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Those objects exist in the coordinates of the microchip on which they occur.

Not in any meaningful sense. The pieces of the computation would be smeared across functional units and may exist in both the cache and the memory. Parts of an action might be done, then erased, without the actors knowing it (not that they would). I wouldn’t be able to give geometrical coordinates inside a chip for even much simpler objects.

[AHunter3]

@Voyager

I’m not assuming anything about anyone at the moment.

You apparently believe you are not, yet the rest of the text of your post makes some assumptions whether you’re aware of making them or not. Be that as it may, we aren’t in disagreement on the basics:

Say someone claims to be in communication with God. First, even assuming he is in communication with something, why assume that this something has any more moral authority than my cousin Irving? The person in contact owes us some evidence. In fact, even if I heard voices, why believe them unless the voices told me something I didn’t know, something which is verifiable? Deities in the religions of which I am aware figured this out, and gave signs - even George Burns IIRC.

Knowing whether an entity is a god is tricky, and has been covered before, but surely if an entity refuses to do anything remotely godlike, why consider it a god? It might be, true, but that doesn’t seem to be the way to bet.

The important measure of ‘being Godlike’ is that the quality of the answered received is impressively good. I don’t care if ‘God’ shows up and can walk on water, outrace a speeding bullet, belch louder than Krakatoa erupting, raise the dead, and predict the lottery. Can God instruct me, explain things to me, in such a way that I understand important issues better? if not, take a hike, O Spectacular One. Parlor tricks don’t make you God.

[Voyager]

@AHunter3

The important measure of ‘being Godlike’ is that the quality of the answered received is impressively good. I don’t care if ‘God’ shows up and can walk on water, outrace a speeding bullet, belch louder than Krakatoa erupting, raise the dead, and predict the lottery. Can God instruct me, explain things to me, in such a way that I understand important issues better? if not, take a hike, O Spectacular One. Parlor tricks don’t make you God.

How do you define “impressively good?” How do you distinguish something that is actually impressively good from something that seems good since it fits your preconceptions? Joseph Smith seemed to think that being allowed multiple wives was impressively good, after all.
Lots of people can instruct you or me in a way that lets us understand important issues better, ranging from parents to good teachers to writers of self-help books. We filter such advice based on our experience. The preacher who Bob thinks is enlightening Jim thinks is a pious windbag.
Demonstrations of supernatural power at least show the entity in question is singular. Whether it should be listened to is another matter entirely.

[cosmosdan]

@Revenant_Threshold

But that’s the problem. We react to the now, as would a Creator outside time; but for such a Creator, all time is now. Our choices ripple forward in time, but for a Creator outside time, choices may ripple at any and all points. Cause and effect for us requires one be first and the other second (barring quantum, mainly because I don’t get that ;)); for a Creator outside time, it’s nonsensical to suggest there are two different points in time, two states of its existence along a scale of time, because there is no such scale for it.

I see the difference I just don’t see the problem. If the point is for us to be positive in the now, non time based, our measuring time, cause and effect will get us there.

It’s certainly a matter of whim, because God could elect to change it. A metaphysical snap of the fingers, and presto, the connection is changed, or even removed entirely. With a system of human-derived rights, we at least (in general) have to secure a majority of people’s agreement if we want to alter the rights we have; millions of people, in some cases. Rights deriving from God rest upon the whim of that one single being, who could change those rights whenever it wanted.

I suppose that’s true if you perceived God as capable of whims. God is also often described as unchanging.

[Zoe]

Yes, Der Trihs, in keeping all possible scientific options open, I believe that our universe may* be small compared to what actually is. Your responses to me did not seem very scientific.

Half Man Half Wit: If, on the other hand, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that has created all of time and space, yet is itself outside of it, and all the rest of whatever might come with your particular flavour of faith (should you indeed have one) had come from Bozo the Clown, would you have believed that?

If given convincing faith. (It’s just impossible to will myself to not believe something that I really believe. Yet I can’t say that I “know” it for certain. I have evidence but no proof. I do know that I am content with it – content enough not to burden atheists with sermonettes on what they should be doing. I don’t generalize about atheists. I don’t blame the sorrows of the world on people who disagree with me. Most extend the same courtesy to me. The ones who don’t – the ones who generalize about religious people – have problems that I can’t remedy.

Thanks for the curvature response. I understand some of what you are saying, but not all. Your effort is appreciated and the imagery helps.

Voyager: And, Zoe, I can imagine all sorts of stuff, but it is useful to distinguish between what we imagine and what we have evidence for. In my research life I’ve imagined all sorts of incorrect things, but I’ve usually done experiments to screen them out before I try to publish them.

I would certainly hope that that is how you procede in your scientific endeavors! And as for you, personally, I have held no doubts that you have a marvelous imagination. Can you imagine a simple state of awareness that is bliss, but doesn’t involve space anymore than a geometric point does? You say that we make these things up. I don’t blame you for thinking that, but it’s not very scientific of you.

[AHunter3]

@Voyager

How do you define “impressively good?” How do you distinguish something that is actually impressively good from something that seems good since it fits your preconceptions?

Indeed, how? You can’t. For the same reason you can’t ever know for sure that you are right. (We would love certainty, wouldn’t we? We don’t get to have it!)

So anyone thinking that they are communicating with the divine needs to keep a rather emphatic reminder of their own human fallibility close by to remind them. Yeah, you could be wrong. And you can’t fix that, it’s the human condition.

[tim314]

Taken literally, “outside time and space” is an inherently contradictory phrase, since “outside” describes a spatial relationship. If something is not in any way part of space (where in this case by “space” I mean, basically, “the set of all possible positions”), then it isn’t really meaningful to describe it as being outside something.

However, criticizing the claim “God is outside time and space” on that basis is missing the point. When someone says that God is outside time and space, what they really mean (I suspect) is “God is not the sort of thing that can be said to occupy certain points in space and time.” That is, they aren’t saying God is “somewhere other than space”, they’re saying the concept of “location” does not apply to God.

Whether such a thing can “exist” is debateable, and depends on your definition of “exist”. (Good luck getting people to agree on that.) But in my opinion things can exist in some meaningful sense without occupying a time or a place. For instance, I would say that the laws of physics “exist” in a meaningful sense, given that they govern the behavior of the physical world that we all (probably) agree exists. However, the laws of physics can’t be said to occupy any particular location (as if they were carved into a set of stone tablets or something). They’re just “the rules of the universe”, whose existence is only evident to us indirectly be observing the universe and its tendency to follow predictable rules.

Perhaps God exists in a similar sense (although probably not in exactly the same sense).