| Dear Paul,
A “proof” is a formalistic philosophical term that I agree would seem to rather overstate the case. As you referred to in your first response, there have been many such efforts down through the ages. What you are basically asserting is not something that I, or anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy, would dispute. That is, an argument can be logically valid but not true in fact. Anyone who has studied syllogisms in Philosophy 101 understands this. Thus, we have no point of contention here.
Still, such “proofs” have their usage in that they establish the logical framework within which an asserted proposition can tenably exist; in my case, a creator. It is thus up to opponents of my assertion to establish a logical framework for their competing contention that the reality that we exist within and observe has or had no creator by successfully refuting my proof on a logical basis. If one is an orphan with no idea who his or her actual parents are or were, he or she is still quite justified in deducing they exist, or once did, by invoking the logic of the reality within he or she exists and observes.
Events have causes which implies a sequential creation in time. That is, the cause once existed while the effect did not. Since causes and effects obviously exist, and since the past, present and future exist simultaneously—as implied by the STR—then the sequential creation causality mandates cannot have occurred within the dimension of realty that we exist within. Therefore, our reality must have been created in a higher dimensional reality outside of ours. Being created implies a creator, at least of some kind.
Your pointing out that from any cause one can extrapolate a virtually infinite regression of antecedent causes is also not contested by myself or anyone. So I don’t understand your point. Yes, there are myriad causes and effects that result in the given reality that constitutes any singular, four-dimensional point within spacetime.
According to Einstein’s STR, if a person travels at an extremely fast rate, say ninety percent of the speed of light, his or her “internal clock” will significantly slow down relative to that of a person traveling at a normal speed on Earth. When the (presumably space) traveler returns, he or she will have aged only a fraction of what the latter has. Assuming STR is correct—as every credible physicist believes since every experiment thus far performed has vindicated it—, such a phenomenon is not considered true time travel by physicists, though in a sense the traveler has traveled to a future he or she would not have otherwise reached at his or her present biological age. True time travel would be the instantaneous variety (in either direction) that you incorrectly deny that many very credible physicists accept as theoretically possible via “wormholes” or elaborate theoretical schemes involving “black holes”; which, again, mandates that the past and future actually exist simultaneously with the present.
One such example would be Dr. David Deutsch of Oxford University. He is at present the foremost adherent of the validity of the MWI of QM within the physics community. I’d suggest you read his The Fabric of Reality in which he has two chapters devoted to time, one on time travel.
Dr. Deutsch is not the physicist I refer to within my proof whom I contacted by email to verify or clarify my understanding of the block universe. However, I did contact him by email as well to inquire about what I felt were certain self-contradictions within his book. I must confess that I found his response to be somewhat less than satisfying, though eminently polite and cordial.
Don  |