The Ealing Interpretation

[Age]

The Universe, at Its most fundamental level, is made up of two things, which are; 'matter' and a distance between and around matter, whish is also known as 'space', itself.

Now, because these two things exist 'now', at any 'current moment', then these two things have to exist, always.

Therefore, the Universe is eternal.

This is, of course, when the 'Universe' word is being defined as, totality; all there is; everything.

[Age]

My own view is that treating time as a container creates its own problems.

Is change itself a container?

No.

[Belinda]

The Universe, at Its most fundamental level, is made up of two things, which are; 'matter' and a distance between and around matter, whish is also known as 'space', itself.

Now, because these two things exist 'now', at any 'current moment', then these two things have to exist, always.

Therefore, the Universe is eternal.

This is, of course, when the 'Universe' word is being defined as, totality; all there is; everything.

But space and time and the forces that cause matter to exist relate to who is observing them.If nobody observes time , gravity, and space then time, gravity, and space can't exist.

[Age]

The Universe, at Its most fundamental level, is made up of two things, which are; 'matter' and a distance between and around matter, whish is also known as 'space', itself.

Now, because these two things exist 'now', at any 'current moment', then these two things have to exist, always.

Therefore, the Universe is eternal.

This is, of course, when the 'Universe' word is being defined as, totality; all there is; everything.

But space and time and the forces that cause matter to exist relate to who is observing them.

Do 'you' KNOW this for absolutely sure?

If yes, then how did 'you' come to KNOW this for absolutely sure?

And, who and/or what is the 'you', exactly,.anyway?

Also, and by the way, because 'matter' always exists, it could be said and argued that there is nothing that 'cause' matter to exist, or that the one thing that 'causes' matter to exist is NOT dependent upon a 'who' is observing them at all, as it could be said and argued that the 'who' only come about 'after' 'matter' and 'space' was already existing.

But, maybe you are meaning some thing here that was not first obvious, to me.

If nobody observes time , gravity, and space then time, gravity, and space can't exist.

WHY do you believe that this is ABSOLUTELY true and right?

And, HOW would one KNOW, for sure, that if 'nobody' was observing time, gravity, and space, then time, gravity, and space can, supposedly, not exist?

[Will Bouwman]

My own view is that treating time as a container creates its own problems.

Is change itself a container?

I would be very surprised. I'll let Noax explain what he or she means by

...contained by time...

but there are those who believe that time exists independently of any change and would pass even if nothing happened. For all I know, they might be right, but for all practical purposes, 4 minutes of nothingness is indistinguishable from 40 gazillion years of the same.

[Age]

My own view is that treating time as a container creates its own problems.

Is change itself a container?

I would be very surprised. I'll let Noax explain what he or she means by

...contained by time...

but there are those who believe that time exists

The word 'time' obviously exists, and what the word 'time' means, or refers to, exactly, which could fit in with a G.U.T.O.E. perfectly, also exists. The word 'time' exists in the conceptual form of some thing that you human beings do.

independently of any change and would pass even if nothing happened.

But what you human beings BELIEF does not necessarily align with what is actually True, and Right.

For all I know, they might be right, but for all practical purposes, 4 minutes of nothingness is indistinguishable from 40 gazillion years of the same.

And, once again, until you actually do KNOW I suggest you do not speak and write, as though you do you KNOW.

[Belinda]

My own view is that treating time as a container creates its own problems.

Is change itself a container?

I would be very surprised. I'll let Noax explain what he or she means by

...contained by time...

but there are those who believe that time exists independently of any change and would pass even if nothing happened. For all I know, they might be right, but for all practical purposes, 4 minutes of nothingness is indistinguishable from 40 gazillion years of the same.

But nobody claims that the eternal now is a practical proposition for staying alive in a relative world. Your frame is yours and my frame is mine, and staying alive in a relative world necessitates frames.

[Noax]

I'll let Noax explain what he or she means by

...contained by time...

A 'thing' is contained by time and space. It has a beginning during which it comes into being by rearrangement of pre-existing material, and before which it isn't present anywhere in space. It similarly has an ending at a later time. That's what I mean by 'contained by time'. It is also contained by space. The 'thing' is bounded typically in some volume somewhere and is not in other places at a given time. You can point in the direction of an object.
Only a thing thus contained by time is meaningfully something created.

but there are those who believe that time exists independently of any change and would pass even if nothing happened.

And there are those that don't consider time to be something that 'passes'.
Your naive audience of course probably isn't interested in such a view, but some things like black holes (or the big bang) don't even exist except in this latter view.

4 minutes of nothingness is indistinguishable from 40 gazillion years of the same.

Agree with that

But space and time and the forces that cause matter to exist relate to who is observing them.If nobody observes time , gravity, and space then time, gravity, and space can't exist.

This is quite the idealistic definition of 'exists'. Not an idealist myself, but I consider it just a different perspective of the same things that the non-idealists posit.

Do 'you' KNOW this for absolutely sure?

A definition is something you choose to use, not something that is right, wrong, or can be meaningfully 'known'. Belinda's comment wasn't worded as a definition of 'exists', but it implies one.
I don't typically utilize the idealistic definition, but I do often utilize a relational defiintion. None are right or wrong, they're all just choices as to what to label as existent, an abstraction.

[Age]

I'll let Noax explain what he or she means by

...contained by time...

A 'thing' is contained by time and space. It has a beginning during which it comes into being by rearrangement of pre-existing material, and before which it isn't present anywhere in space.

So, what, exactly, is the 'Universe', if NOT a 'thing', to you?

And, BECAUSE the Universe, Itself, did NOT have 'a beginning', NOR 'will end', then so, obviously, It is NOT contained by what you class and label as 'time' and as 'space'.

It similarly has an ending at a later time. That's what I mean by 'contained by time'. It is also contained by space. The 'thing' is bounded typically in some volume somewhere and is not in other places at a given time. You can point in the direction of an object.
Only a thing thus contained by time is meaningfully something created.

'Meaningfully' in relation to 'who' and/or to 'what', exactly?

but there are those who believe that time exists independently of any change and would pass even if nothing happened.

And there are those that don't consider time to be something that 'passes'.
Your naive audience of course probably isn't interested in such a view, but some things like black holes (or the big bang) don't even exist except in this latter view.

4 minutes of nothingness is indistinguishable from 40 gazillion years of the same.

Agree with that

But space and time and the forces that cause matter to exist relate to who is observing them.If nobody observes time , gravity, and space then time, gravity, and space can't exist.

This is quite the idealistic definition of 'exists'. Not an idealist myself, but I consider it just a different perspective of the same things that the non-idealists posit.

Do 'you' KNOW this for absolutely sure?

A definition is something you choose to use, not something that is right, wrong, or can be meaningfully 'known'.

HOW do you, supposedly, KNOW 'this', exactly?

Belinda's comment wasn't worded as a definition of 'exists', but it implies one.
I don't typically utilize the idealistic definition, but I do often utilize a relational defiintion. None are right or wrong, they're all just choices as to what to label as existent, an abstraction.

So, to you, NOTHING you say and write is right, right?

[Belinda]

Noax wrote:

A definition is something you choose to use, not something that is right, wrong, or can be meaningfully 'known'. Belinda's comment wasn't worded as a definition of 'exists', but it implies one.
I don't typically utilize the idealistic definition, but I do often utilize a relational defiintion. None are right or wrong, they're all just choices as to what to label as existent, an abstraction.

How can the farthest reach of scepticism not lead to idealism?

Will you reply to Age's allegation like Socrates' "I know nothing" ?

[Will Bouwman]

...nobody claims that the eternal now is a practical proposition for staying alive in a relative world.

Well, just as there are those who believe that time flows independently of our relative frames, as Noax has pointed out, there are others who think our relative frames are all part of an eternal 'block' of time, in which everything that ever has or ever will happen is 'contained'.

Your frame is yours and my frame is mine, and staying alive in a relative world necessitates frames.

According to some, the block of time is a consequence of relativity. In my view, you have to take the ontology of relativity seriously to reach that position. Nothing wrong with that, I just happen to think that despite the epistemological brilliance of relativity, the ontology is a fudge. So eternalism, as it is known, is not an idea in which I've invested much effort, so I don't really understand how the practical business of staying alive works in that context.

[Noax]

How can the farthest reach of scepticism not lead to idealism?

I suppose it can (lead to solipsism actually), but it seems inconsistent since it can be shown that there is information in addition to ideals. Not sure how idealism would explain that.

Your frame is yours and my frame is mine

It's not like one can easily exit a frame. Everybody's frame is also everybody eles's frame, but I think you mean to say that we're each stationary in different frames. If you meant something else by that, kindly clarify.
Pragmatically, almost everybody uses the same frame as each other for day to day activity, and it isn't the frame in which I am stationary. When walking, I consider myself to be moving, not the world moving past me. It's not wrong to think of the latter to be 'my frame', it's just not the frame typically chosen.

According to some, the block of time is a consequence of relativity.

It depends on how the premises of relativity are phrased, empirically or metaphysically.
The latter:
1) Physical law is the same in any inertial frame.
2) Light moves at c in a vacuum relative to any inertial frame
Same premises worded more empirically:
1) Physical law appears the same in any inertial frame.
2) Light move at the same speed regardless of motion of source.

The primary difference being 'is' vs 'appears'.

The actual wording from the SR paper:
1) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good
2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body

That sounds like the former to me, mostly based on my bold. Given that, the block time follows, but only from the postulates, not from anything actually demonstrated with evidence. Also, this theory is in no way a model of the universe, so its applicability to the block nature of the actual universe is nonexistent. In fact, the GR paper takes a more empirical tone, suggesting even a preferred frame in some instances, and it treats spacetime as a sort of fabric without going so far as to invoke the 'E' word.
That said, the big bang and black holes are predicted only by a block view of GR theory, and these things don't exist in any competing interpretation that makes different postulates. The leading absolutest theory, generalized almost a century after Einstein's work, has only one preferred frame, light moving locally at c only in this frame, and black holes not existing at all. Falsifying this competing theory can be done in a way similar to falsifying the denial of an afterlife. You can prove it to yourself, but not to others.

[Belinda]

...nobody claims that the eternal now is a practical proposition for staying alive in a relative world.

Well, just as there are those who believe that time flows independently of our relative frames, as Noax has pointed out, there are others who think our relative frames are all part of an eternal 'block' of time, in which everything that ever has or ever will happen is 'contained'.

Your frame is yours and my frame is mine, and staying alive in a relative world necessitates frames.

According to some, the block of time is a consequence of relativity. In my view, you have to take the ontology of relativity seriously to reach that position. Nothing wrong with that, I just happen to think that despite the epistemological brilliance of relativity, the ontology is a fudge. So eternalism, as it is known, is not an idea in which I've invested much effort, so I don't really understand how the practical business of staying alive works in that context.

I feel that the practical business of staying alive is a more urgent skill when I understand that in order to existentially comprehend eternity I'd have to lose my ego-self. I cannot stay alive without my ego-self. I need to at least respect the idea of an eternal way of being which is an alternative to the everyday relative state of being.

[Belinda]

How can the farthest reach of scepticism not lead to idealism?

I suppose it can (lead to solipsism actually), but it seems inconsistent since it can be shown that there is information in addition to ideals. Not sure how idealism would explain that.

Your frame is yours and my frame is mine

It's not like one can easily exit a frame. Everybody's frame is also everybody eles's frame, but I think you mean to say that we're each stationary in different frames. If you meant something else by that, kindly clarify.
Pragmatically, almost everybody uses the same frame as each other for day to day activity, and it isn't the frame in which I am stationary. When walking, I consider myself to be moving, not the world moving past me. It's not wrong to think of the latter to be 'my frame', it's just not the frame typically chosen.

According to some, the block of time is a consequence of relativity.

It depends on how the premises of relativity are phrased, empirically or metaphysically.
The latter:
1) Physical law is the same in any inertial frame.
2) Light moves at c in a vacuum relative to any inertial frame
Same premises worded more empirically:
1) Physical law appears the same in any inertial frame.
2) Light move at the same speed regardless of motion of source.

The primary difference being 'is' vs 'appears'.

The actual wording from the SR paper:
1) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good
2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body

That sounds like the former to me, mostly based on my bold. Given that, the block time follows, but only from the postulates, not from anything actually demonstrated with evidence. Also, this theory is in no way a model of the universe, so its applicability to the block nature of the actual universe is nonexistent. In fact, the GR paper takes a more empirical tone, suggesting even a preferred frame in some instances, and it treats spacetime as a sort of fabric without going so far as to invoke the 'E' word.
That said, the big bang and black holes are predicted only by a block view of GR theory, and these things don't exist in any competing interpretation that makes different postulates. The leading absolutest theory, generalized almost a century after Einstein's work, has only one preferred frame, light moving locally at c only in this frame, and black holes not existing at all. Falsifying this competing theory can be done in a way similar to falsifying the denial of an afterlife. You can prove it to yourself, but not to others.

I reply only to your first two points.
Idealism does not lead to solipsism because we all have the attitude that there be other minds.

Information is filtered through nervous systems (Brainmind in particular). The two candidates for unfiltered information are mathematics and classical formal logic. But maths and logic are ways to measure stuff and cannot exist without basic axioms.

The frame any given Dasein chooses is not fixed or stationary for as long as the Dasein lives, but changes according as the Dasein's perceived environment changes.

It's not a way to freedom for a Dasein to eschew change as circumstances change. True, the huge advances of science and technology would seem to indicate those are cumulative but only until along comes a Copernicus, a Galileo, or a Darwin with his new worldview.

[Impenitent]

agreed, time (like space) only exists when it is measured by the observer...

that measurement fluctuates...

watching the clock monotonously - one tick at a time

laughing uproaringly - ignoring the clock

an underlying absolute space and time without measure? I don't see it...

-Imp