This is part of why time is so interesting to me - it is clearly a dimension, but it does not function the same way that space does. The time dimension can only be passed through in one direction, and only the current point can be clearly perceived or measured. If we say, for the sake of argument, that there is another dimension parallel to time, we could easily assume that it is also more free than time, in the same way that space dimensions are more free than time. A hypothetical entity in this plane might be able to transverse freely up and down their plane, as well as fully perceive the entirety of it at once. To be more succinct, they could conceivably be "omniscient" - and what's more, applying the same concept to space, they could also be "omnipresent" throughout what we know as space. Of course, those two things are a bit in the future and not necessarily related to the conversation at hand just yet.

For the record, all of this is only one theory that I haven't fully thought out yet. I believe that evidence points to something existing "outside" of spacetime - whether in a separate plane that is independent of spacetime or some other conceptual state, I don't know.

What about one that had no spacial dimensions and no time? That is what we would have to be talking about - an entity on a separate plane which is independent of spacetime. This entity would have had to have an effect on the formation of spacetime, and so must be independent of both aspects.



This is an interesting point that I was expecting to come up, and one of the problems I see with the concept that this entity is in a separate plane. The simple requirement would be that all events involving this entity must occur within spacetime - the assumption is that no event can occur outside of those dimensions. While the assumption might be flawed, it makes sense that events can't occur outside of time. Simply because the entity exists outside of spacetime, that does not necessarily imply that it cannot interact with entities within spacetime - the best answer I could offer here is that we would have to assume that all of the events spurred by this entity would have to occur within spacetime.



I think the confusion is that we are talking about an entity outside of spacetime, and treating it as if it were an entity inside of spacetime. Causality applies to anything within spacetime - events don't just occur, they have to be caused. Outside of spacetime, events don't seem to occur at all - there are no beginnings, no ends, no need to explain anything. Things do not require a cause, events require a cause. So, the Universe does not by nature require a cause. However, the beginning of the Universe - an event - does require a cause. Any entity outside of spacetime does not require a cause, because it was a thing. It also had no beginning (without time, the idea of a beginning is nonsensical), so its beginning also does not require a cause.

So, you are stuck in an infinite regression only so long as you assume that whatever created spacetime was within spacetime. When you consider the possibility that the Original Cause was outside of spacetime itself, the infinite regression problem to which you are referring no longer makes sense.

The Law of Causality I'm familiar with does.
If they could occur simultaneously, cause and effect would be undistinguishable and interchangeable.


Additional dimensions in the 'directions' sense. It's the only concept that is relevant to the discussion. If we talk about separate timespaces, there is absolutely no interaction between those timespaces and ours. Unless there would be occasional exchange of information, something like 'dimensional gates' to cross different worlds in s-f.

Well.. now that I've deleted my reply twice before sending it, I'll just make a few brief points before going for the hat trick.

Firstly, enough talk of the Torah, or at least the book of Genesis. Nearly every word, by syncrestical word, within it comes from mesopotamian myth. From Noah and the flood, to the wild hunter, to quite literally each story within it... even just reading the Enuma Elish or the epic of Gilgamesh will expose you to much of this fact. Changing the mesopotamians' snake-goddess creator of the world into the evil tempter misleading mankind is about the biggest change you'll find between the two. (You'll notice nowhere within the book does it mention the snake as being Satan, nor does it mention Satan whatsoever for that matter)

Secondly, spacetime. Spacetime is just that -- space and time mended together in a fabric of sorts, and it's a fabric that DOES get distorted. That is sort of what relativity is all about. Gravity and everything ties into this, and gravity itself distorts spacetime. To use Veonira's ideal of each "living in our own universe of sorts" to demonstrate this...

We could take two people, put one in a room over here, and put another in a room over there... we'll give one person the company of a lovely young lady, and we'll have the second person put their hand on a hot stove. Person 1 could spend two hours with the woman and it would seem like two minutes, whereas the second person could place his hand on that stove for two minutes and have it feel like two hours --- that is relativity. The entire universe is like this, and nothing is ever an entirely accurate measurement within it (that we've discovered yet).

This example for relativity is completely wrong...

Actually, that is not a requirement of the Law, it is just the way you are used to thinking about it. A quick search of Wikipedia shows three assumptions of the Law of Causality, proposed by Max Born in 1949. I added the emphasis myself:



Cause and effect are distinguishable by which is dependent on the other, not necessarily by the cause occurring before the effect.

I think of them as directional dimensions in a parallel sense, but we have to keep in mind that geometrical dimensions don't really form a proper model. Time is not a true dimension in the geometric sense, but it is obviously a dimension in experience - so, we cannot really apply geometric observations directly about which dimensions interact with which, since it is not even clear what sort of model "shape" the dimensions we know of would require.



For your point on Genesis, I would happily debate that topic with you, though this probably isn't the right thread for it. I will refer you instead to an apologist I have spoken with a bit before, known as James Patrick Holding (though that's not his real name). He answers all of these arguments of syncretism an copying on his website pretty succinctly: www.tektonics.org. If you would rather open another thread to talk about whether different aspects of the Genesis narrative were taken from other myths, I would be more than happy to demonstrate how they do not.

Back to spacetime...not much I can say to that. Deep Blue Sea quotes own me every time!

@ Kashim Oh, that is most certainly relativity. Not as it's commonly spoken about, and certainly not by physicists.. but it is a valid (and easy to piece together, most importantly) example.

@mitbulls I will take a look at that site now, actually

In physics the cause must precede the effect by the time it takes for information to be transferred between the cause and effect. This is the common understanding of the law. Simultaneousness belongs rather to the realm of logic than actual reality.


I should clarify I guess, I mean it's an incorrect example for relativity in physics (which is what we are actually talking about, and you kinda seemed to as well). As an example for psychological effect, it's fine I suppose.

It is the typical application of the law which you are used to seeing. An example of this sort of situation can be found in Newton's Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Think about a fish swimming. The fish pushes its fin against the water, which accelerates the water and causes it to move. At the exact same time, the water pushes back against the fish - the opposite reaction. Let's say that the fish flexing its muscles to push the water is A, the moment the fish pushes against the water is B, and the moment the water pushes back against the fish is C. We could say that A causes B, and that B causes C. Because the fish flexed its muscles, it pushed against the water. Because the fish pushed against the water, the water pushed back, and so the fish is propelled forward.

Obviously, A is chronologically before B, so that part works perfectly. The problem is that B and C occur simultaneously - even though B is the cause of C, B does not occur chronologically before C. The cause and the effect occur at the exact same time.

Kinda makes you wonder what the opposite reaction of the Big Bang was at the time

I don't know the scientific explanation, but I imagine it was similar to the opposite reaction of a huge explosion, just on a much, much, (repeat ad nauseum) bigger scale.

That law is only a simplification that doesn't take relativity into account. In reality, when you get down to it (particles level), there is always a delay between the cause and the effect, because no information bypasses the speed of light. Simultaneousness of that process is just an approximation.

In the case of the example I gave, they are actually perfectly simultaneous, not an approximation. The information has already passed - in the exact instant the fish begins to push against the water, the water also pushes back.

While logically, your stance makes more sense, all of the definitions I have found of the Law of Causality seem to disagree. While I can understand your point from a logical perspective, it seems that physicists do not agree with you.

First result I got on wikipedia. I'll try to look up more later, or you could link.

Here's the one I was quoting from: Causality

Hell, right under what you quoted earlier is a disclaimer:
It also links to the article I provided for causality in physics.

Another quote from the net:

I think I can see what you're trying to say, but I cannot for the life of me understand how it would work. Has anyone got something I can read about this?

@mitbulls I'm not sure that explosive reaction would quite work out if you truly believe that the universe came from a progenitory "atom" or some similar singularity. While it is true, that there is no way for us to even ponder at what such a substance might consist of or how it would act... I think it is largely accepted that if the Big Bang did occur, its reactionary material was solely hydrogen and helium (successive elements being produced within bodies such as stars). Now... if you could produce an explosion that doesn't ignite hydrogen... I will concede this argument immediately

EDIT : as I said, we would have no clue what it was, what happened, and how it reacted... so let's not argue about this. Let's instead argue the fact... that "nothing you know is for certain". Even scientific "laws" (including Newton's *winkwinknudgenudge*) are little more that a prediction. Dropping a ball? It's just likely to fall to ground. Mathematics? It's just likely to work out "correctly".

Of course, the disclaimer you quoted has already come up. I have granted (and will grant again) that we know absolutely nothing for certain. All we can deduce is what is most likely. This is the way science functions - you honestly don't know whether the sun is going to rise tomorrow or not, you just assume it will because it is most likely. The same thing is true of everything you know, and the Law of Causality is no different, including in its application to the beginning. I am not out to absolutely prove anything - it's not possible - simply to talk about what is truly most likely.

Can you link to where that second quote comes from? It doesn't seem to directly contradict anything I've been saying so far, but I'd like to read more about it.



I personally don't believe that there was a singularity - I mentioned before that the concept of "infinity" doesn't actually work in the physical world. The theory of the singularity requires that it was "infinitely dense" - a concept which seems nonsensical, since space does not seem to be infinitely divisible. I personally believe that everything came into existence at the moment of the big bang, not that it existed in a singularity previously. As for the actual explosion, I have no idea on that, it was just a random guess about things I've never thought or studied about.

I agree absolutely that nothing we know is for certain. However, unless we all want to become nihilists, we have to make the leap to believe whatever is "most likely." This is where Occam's Razor comes in. We could say that, since we cannot know for certain how things began, we should just accept that we will never know and move on. However, if we took the same approach toward other endeavors, there would be no science, medicine, technology, agriculture...really I can't think of any major field that would still exist. Everything we do relies on us assuming that the most likely explanation is the truth.

Sorry for the double post.

I haven't actually read this, but here is an article that talks some about the philosophical ideas relating God to time. At this point, I'm not talking specifically about God, but merely some sort of entity that is atemporal. Still, some of these ideas may be applicable to what we're talking about.

http://idol.union.edu/malekis/QM2004/qm_rela.htm

EDIT

Thing is, there is no evidence for simultaneous causality (except quantum physics where the occurences remain unexplained). At least I can find none.