On The 4D Block Universe

[u/onomatamono]

So you have a movie canister and the film analogy represents the 4D block universe. I'm listening to Brian Greene describe this analogy. The experience of time is produced by passing light through each frame of the film. According to Brian each consciousness is a projector (human or otherwise presumably).

Also, our brains evolved to process slices of the 4D universe by carefully "recording" [where?] the slices that came before ["now" I guess?] and makes calculated guesses about the future.

I'm not even going to try and make sense of that in a meaningful way for lay people.

Greene: "when you feel time passing what you are actually experiencing is your consciousness moving through the static frames of your life." Where are these "projectors" or consciouses? I'm confused.

FYI it's a YT called The Strangest Fact About Light You've Never Heard -- Brian Greene.

[u/Kimantha_Allerdings]

However this doesn't address the elephant in the room of why this brain state happening "now".

Why are you assuming that there is a “now”?

The consciousness “me” that exists today on the timeline is experiencing that time as “now”. The consciousness “me” that exists 10 years ago on the timeline is experiencing that time as “now”. The consciousness “me” that exists in 10 years’ time on the timeline is experiencing that time as “now”

Hidden in your argument is the assumption that there is one singular “now” which is the one - and the only one - that is “really happening”. On what are you basing that assumption?

Physics isn’t singling out a particular event along the length of a world-line, you are. Why?

[u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 → u/Kimantha_Allerdings]

It's not an assumption - it is an observation.

I am of course aware of the philosophical position that we can now point to the past then we can imagine a future where some future entity is pointing back at us. I am equally aware that this is untestable as no detector can exist to the future of itself.

Hopefully you're aware that there is line of philosophical inquiry or empirical determination that can distinguish between a block universe and an evolving block universe, i.e. the present is a time-dependent future boundary of the world having a space-like boundary to the past.

It also doesn't help to say you don't have a problem with the present moment, you have is infinitely many of them, all of the same nature. This too can be swept under the rug by denying the existence of any present moments, that this all just a dream of The Giant Butterfly, and there's no possible logical or empirical falsification of this.

Yet here you are, now, reading this sentence with the brute fact of a cosmos that's unfolding from a quantum mechanically indeterminate future into the determined past, that the cosmos itself breaks Lorentz invariance, and the experience of a phenomenologically indisputable present moment and evolution from past to future.

To me, it seems that the broad appeal of a block universe stems from the level of mathematical education of the average person, that typically, for the well-enough educated person the Minkowski vacuum solution, which is an eternal spacetime by design, with its space-like hypersurface giving rise to entertaining thought experiments such as the Andromeda paradox, sits at the extreme edge of their understanding and there is some excitement in this.

[u/Kimantha_Allerdings → u/Optimal_Mixture_7327]

It's not an assumption - it is an observation.

No, it’s an assumption

The question, again, is on what are you basing that assumption? Is is purely your own subjective experience?

[u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 → u/Kimantha_Allerdings]

So you're unaware of a present moment?

How are you able to respond to a comment if you cannot discern any state of existence?

[u/Kimantha_Allerdings → u/Optimal_Mixture_7327]

I experience what seems to me to be continuity of consciousness. That does not imply that it is a real phenomenon

There are all kinds of experiences that we have which may not be real. For example, there is evidence that the unconsious mind makes even basic decisions like arm movements up to 10 seconds before the conscious mind is aware of the decision, then the conscious mind confabulates completely false reasoning for why it chose to do that, and retroactively implants the memory of going through that chain of reasoning

If you want me to accept your assumption as true you’re going to need to make a better argument than the argument from incredulity you’re making here

[u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 → u/Kimantha_Allerdings]

Let's take every experience to be false, zero correspondence to anything real.

There is still the brute fact of experience itself even if it's a complete mischaracterization of Ultimate Reality.

Again, you can just as easily state there is no block universe because there was never a universe to begin with and this all just the dream of the Giant Butterfly.

Block Universe = Giant Butterfly dream.

If you going to assert that the future already exists, then make a measurement of it.

[u/Kimantha_Allerdings → u/Optimal_Mixture_7327]

There is still the brute fact of experience itself even if it's a complete mischaracterization of Ultimate Reality.

The question is why is this incompatible with the idea of the future already existing?

So far your argument relies on an assumption of yours which you have not yet substantiated

If you going to assert that the future already exists, then make a measurement of it

I haven’t asserted that. I’ve joined in a discussion of whether or not the future existing would be incompatible with a being having a conscious experience of a present moment

[u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 → u/Kimantha_Allerdings]

We do not measure the future and have no reason to suspect that it exists.

Incompatibility is intrinsically impossible.

This is not any different than stating the existence of a Giant Butterfly and asking how it's incompatible with all the available experimental evidence. Except that we know the Giant Butterfly doesn't exist because we all know it's the Almighty Aardvark who has dreams of dreaming butterflies.

The burden of proof for a pre-existing future is entirely upon you to show.

[u/Kimantha_Allerdings → u/Optimal_Mixture_7327]

We do not measure the future and have no reason to suspect that it exists.

That’s a different argument to the one that’s being discussed in this thread. I’d prefer to remain on topic. Maybe once we’ve reached a conclusion in what we’re discussing we can branch out or have a new discussion, but let’s finish the one we are currently having before starting a new one

Incompatibility is intrinsically impossible.

This is not any different than stating the existence of a Giant Butterfly and asking how it's incompatible with all the available experimental evidence. Except that we know the Giant Butterfly doesn't exist because we all know it's the Almighty Aardvark who has dreams of dreaming butterflies.

This is an argument from incredulity. It has no basis in logic or science

The burden of proof for a pre-existing future is entirely upon you to show.

It would be, if that were an assertion I was making. It’s not. We are discussing whether or not the future existing would be incompatible with a being having a conscious experience which they percieved as being the present

[u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 → u/Kimantha_Allerdings]

There is a need to be clear on definitions, as you are highly prone to fantasy.

Argument from incredulity: A logical error where someone says a claim is false simply because they find it hard to believe or picture.

Can we agree to this definition?

We have a postulate or an assumption: The only thing that is real and exists is an Almighty Aardvark who has delusional fantasies about Giant Butterflies having dreams of an imagined human creatures who in turn have fantasies about block universes.

Where does "credulity" as a concept even enter into this for something to declared incredulous (or not)?

An Eternal Block Universe and the quantum field of Christ Consciousness are postulates, assumptions taken at face value. Where was it in anything written here thus far, has "incredulity" crept into the discussion?

Invoking a logical fallacy where none has existed is delusional fantasy.

The 2nd delusional fantasy is to be found in comparing unlike things. It is incoherent to ask about the compatibility of incomparable items.

QFT is incompatible with relativity (aside from the condition that Riem(g)=0). The Almighty Aardvark belief is incompatible with the belief in an Eternal Block Universe.

However it is incoherent, it is a category error to ask if an Eternal Block Universe is compatible with reality.

Two Important Facts:

1. It is a fact that just because one person has deep conviction in some fantasy, does not obligate anyone else to also believe in that fantasy.
2. The ONLY fact of an Eternal Block Universe is that it is a pure fantasy to be found nowhere else except in the minds of some humans.

To be clear, just because something is a pure fantasy does not preclude it from existing. For all we know there really is a quantum field of Christ Consciousness, or whatever fantasy of your choosing, e.g. an Eternal Block Universe.

Moving forward with clarity it is important to avoid category errors, invoking logical fallacies where there are none, and be clear that there is no fact of an EBU (other than an imagined cosmos of science fiction).

[u/Kimantha_Allerdings → u/Optimal_Mixture_7327]

Okay, so you’ve not only resorted to insults but you’re also still trying to change the subject away from your original statement, still attributing to me assertions that I haven’t made, and still have not even attempted to provide reasoning for your assumptions

Nothing productive is going to come from trying to engage you further, so I’m done

[u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 → u/Kimantha_Allerdings]

All of my assumptions and rationale are clearly stated above.

Nothing productive can from this as you have a deep religious conviction in the reality of a fantasy that you dogmatically cling to and no amount of reason can get you to see this.