Board index ‹ Science and the Bible

[Wicker]

What does it mean to “exist” outside of space and time?

Doesn’t existence imply that there has to be a temporal entity to occupy a certain space for a certain period of time?

[jimwalton]

I think we can only speculate about such things since we as humans are bound in both space and time. I guess it's sort of like us trying to think of what it means to exist without length, width, and depth.

Mathematically we at least theorize that a point has no dimension and yet it technically (mathematically) exists. We theorize that a line has no width or depth but only length. In a sense these are absurdities, but we understand the underlying concepts and to some extent accept them.

Current theory about the Big Bang is that back at the singularity, all was dimensionless, time did not exist (though that is being challenged), and physics breaks down. Stephen Hawking, in an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, likened the space-time dimensions of the Big Bang to the South Pole. "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang," he said.

As far as relativity is concerned, we know that time is not a constant as was once thought, but can be slowed or bent. But if I observe time being bent, isn't time on its usual pace, at least for me?

Science fiction writers have been toying with the concept of timelessness for a while. The movies Interstellar (2014) and Arrival (2016), along with many others, speculate that in certain conditions it's possible to experience being able to access multiple times at the same time. Yes, I know it's Hollywood, but the physics isn't as far-fetched. There are also speculations about how black holes distort or destroy time.

I read an article in a science journal a few days ago that said scientists really don't know and can't define what "matter" is, let alone what "space" is. Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin theorizes that time is actually space. (Bhwllhhwhll—the sound of my head exploding).

Then we have to define "existence"—even tougher. "Existence" certainly doesn't apply to materiality, for it is speculated by others that time has no materiality but is just as real as anything else. And what about consciousness? Though it it based in material beings and processes, I'm not sure anyone would say consciousness is material.

There is so much we don't know—and hence the fun of scientific hypotheses and discovery.

Does dark matter occupy space? Is it a temporal entity? Did time begin at the Big Bang? What about space? No one knows, though there are hypotheses. It is generally presently thought that before the Big Bang time and space did not exist, but something had to have existed because it's not regarded as possible for something to self-generate out of non-existence.

Presumably what it means to exist outside of time and space is that this entity (like time and perhaps dark matter) has no materiality and no basis in materiality, and that this entity exists in a state where time is a dimension within which ones moves but is not controlled by it (where time is bent or absorbed or slowed to a stop—all theoretical, of course)—where time is a tool and not a master, something to observe but not live in.

[Docx]

There are some things that we use in this life, that exist without regard to time, space or matter. In other words, they are timeless, spaceless and in material.

Logic is one. Being able to see how this is possible is simple. If you remove all of the sentient beings out of the universe, would it still be accurate to say that this planet is here, and that planet is over there? The answer is yes. The rules of logic continue on without the need or the presence of a thinking being. And without the need to follow the rules of time, space or material.

Math is the same. 1+1 will always equal 2 without being concerned what language is being used, and without concerned with the symbols being used to represent the concepts.

[Wicker]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It’s definitely a hard concept to think about. It’s interesting how such a fundamental concept is just starting to be explored through mathematics and physics. The most basic ideas seem to be the most difficult to understand.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, I agree, and time is particularly elusive because we can't exactly do experiments on it. I watched "Arrival" again last night, toying with the concept that time is not necessarily linear, which is so difficult to entertain.

I had a conversation over coffee just this morning with a guy working on his PhD who is researching time, and it's all so theoretical, it's tough to get any kind of a handle on. He made an interesting remark that classical physics and Quantum Mechanics contradict each other, and yet we accept both as true. He's thinking that some day we will discover that they're both false and that instead there's another paradigm that explains space and time more adequately. What that might be is anyone's guess. Fascinating stuff, but I hardly know where to go with any of it.

[Wicker]

I’ve heard that about the different branches of physics. My understanding was that classic physics works great for most of everyday calculations, but once you get to really really big or really really small things, it tends to start breaking down.

I definitely regret not staying in school, there are so many fascinating areas of science yet to explore The more I learn, the more I realize that I don’t know much of anything, lol!