Three or Ten Dimensions, with Bubbaman

Correspondence started with video comments:

Trin80ty : Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (Part 1, disc 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10 space time dimensions ...

I hold with good old St Augustine that there are three dimensions and they are spatial. Time has no different dimensions, but three parts: present, surrounded by past and future.

Now, supposing there were such a thing as space time and more than three dimensions, if space is three of them, time a fourth, what are the other six supposed to be?

bubbaman235

dimensions in which the first four dimensions operate and interact. If you try to enact more, the collapse into the first ten dimensions.

in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 25/VIII/2013

(I was blocked from posting on the videos of Trin80ty):

Oh ... the three dimensions of space need other dimensions to interact?

And what do you mean by a dimension operating?

Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 25/VIII/2013

I might add i'm only describing them as interacting as means of description, not that they are entities or anything. This is my description of them in lamens terms, describing them in great detail would take some time lol the three dimensions that we perceive are the first three, the dimensions we can view, and can observe. The fourth is time, in which the first three operate. The fifth and sixth dimensions have to deal with the future, and how the first four dimensions interact with each other to create possible outcome of those events. The fifth and sixth dimensions deal with the branching of each of these possibilities from the combinations of the first five dimensions, in an even higher space of existence in which these possible outcomes can become reality if given variables become actual. The dimensions 7 through 10 deal with universes. It basically states that there are several universes that each have their own progressions of dimensional reality and possible outcomes. The tenth and final dimension is actually the sum of all universes and all their possible outcomes. Anything higher than the tenth will cause it to collapse back into the first ten dimensions because the tenth dimension combines everything into a universal cover as it were. With me so far?

Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 25/VIII/2013

Well, yes.

Problem one: time is not at right angles with the three dimensions of space, so it is not a dimension.

Problem two: what acts in time is substance, material or spiritual, not the three dimensions that hold material substance.

Problem three: the future and the possible are not extra dimensions.

Problem four: there is no clear indication of a multiverse.

Thus, dimensions 4 to 10 go and we are left with three.

Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 25/VIII/2013

i think your misunderstanding. time is, as you put it, at right angles with physical things. As we perceive it, objects can only be contained with a time dimension, and thusly can only exist with a time dimension. It may be perceived else where at different intervals or at different rates, but if doesn't take away the fact of it's necessity in dimensional space time. Your second problem is stating that things that fall within the first three dimensions are not physical, which they are. You can't have a three dimensional object without a time dimension, and you can't express a time dimension without a three dimensional object within to verify it's appearance as a dimension. I don't know where you got spiritual, there isn't any proof of that lol Your third problem is just wrong, future events and the correlating possible events are dimensions of space time. They are apart from time as we perceive it because it isn't linear, yet still present, and thusly create their own presence as dimensions of space time along side time and the first three dimensions. And your fourth, it is counter intuitive. when i say that the tenth dimension is a blanket statement, and thusly covers everything, i saying that there is the possibility of a multiverse which would reside within the first nine, and it simply conjectures as to the possibility.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 26/VIII/2013

It is actually your starting point of time being "at right angles" with physical things which is the first counterintuitive point, the second being your denial of spiritual things despite the fact that you think.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 26/VIII/2013

you can't deny that time is co-reliant with the first three dimensions, if you don't think so then your irrational. My denial of things spiritual is because there isn't any proof for the claim, its a completely different argument.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 27/VIII/2013

I was not speaking about co-reliant.

I was speaking about "at right angles".

A lump of matter cannot think, that is the very simplest proof for spirit, that you are thinking.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 27/VIII/2013

no, physical neuronic activity in the physical brain is proof that i think, nothing spiritual. This lump of matter thinks, and it is purly physical. I still don't understand what you mean by right angles, please clarify.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 28/VIII/2013

there is nothing to actually prove that the physic neuronic activity is identic with the thoughts and there is lots - once you think about thought instead of imagining you study it by studying the brain - to disprove it.

Time is not at an 90° with [any of the three] dimensions.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 28/VIII/2013

um, no? lol There has been thousands of studies done on the brain which have fine tuned the fact. There is an entire science field dedicated to the study, it's called neurology. certain thought processes are active when certain parts of the brain becoming stimulated. The neuro-receptors within each neuron receive a variety of chemical molecular compounds which cause this thing that we perceive to be a consciousness to exist. Our cognitive process can be completely explained though science, making your claim of a mind or spirit or whatever, ridiculous. You still are not explaining you thought on right angles in relation to time as well. Time is not a physical entity, but rather an aspect that physical entities posses that grant them a physical nature, you can't state that time somehow has an angle in relation to physical objects, that would be absurd. They simply are co-reliant to each other to exist, or rather to have a perceived existence.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 28/VIII/2013

"Our cognitive process can be completely explained though science, making your claim of a mind or spirit or whatever, ridiculous."

Does not follow from any fact of neurology, nor from all of them taken together.

Whether a certain part of the brain is active at a certain thought because the activity is that thought or because it accompanies that thought cannot be deduced from the activity as studied.

Your Theory of Knowledge is faulty.

"Time is not a physical entity, but rather an aspect that physical entities posses that grant them a physical nature, you can't state that time somehow has an angle in relation to physical objects, that would be absurd."

I was speaking of right angles to the other dimensions - the three real DIMENSIONS. As you admit, it is absurd to claim it has right angles to them, so it is absurd to correlate time to them as another dimension like them.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 28/VIII/2013

I am not the one saying they are at right angles of each other. they correlate to each other because they are reliant on each other to exist. Beside the point, correlation doesn't equal right angles, i am not making that claim, your using a straw man argument. also, what we perceive at thought accompanies the physical stimulus, not the other way around. It would be like me saying an earth quake occurs because a town was demolished. The effect is the physical neurological stimuli, and the effect is what we perceive as thought. You can't have mental cognitive thought without the stimuli. I think you might have a slightly miscued idea of the scientific process if your conclusion is the mind and not the brains neuronic activity.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 30/VIII/2013

"correlation doesn't equal right angles,"

My point is that dimension does equal right angles. Which is why space-time is at best a misnomer.

Space contains substance (with action), time contains action (of a substance). They measure different aspects of reality that correlate in action being attribute of substance.

Future and possibility do not correlate to space and time as these to each other (or as action and substance).

"what we perceive at thought accompanies the physical stimulus, not the other way around."

That is what we perceive at perception. I was speaking of thought.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 30/VIII/2013

future, and possibilities still measure substance within space, and actions of substance, and since time is relative, it isn't any great feat to included them as dimensions of space-time.

"That is what we perceive at perception. I was speaking of thought." right, which is physical, not spiritual. What we perceive is physical, even at what we would consider thought. If you argue that fact, then you also can't claim that the first three dimensions exist, so it would be non-sensical to amend it to your argument.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 31/VIII/2013

1) Future as future does not measure substance or its actions.

A dimension like "how long" is not "not yet". However "not yet" is a direction within time.

2) If I perceive an apple, clearly the apple is physical and exists before I see it. If I realise that 2 and 2 always make four, there is nothing physical to the "always", and there is nothing to prove this realisation is only from physical processes in the brain. If that were so, that would discredit every thought that "two plus two is always four" but also every thought of the - supposedly - fact itself or any other proven fact or any other proof.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 1/IX/2013

lets focus on one issue at a time, we can get to cognitive interpretation after our discussion with dimensions, is that ok?

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 1/IX/2013

I was ok with having first half on one and second half on other subject. And second half was not "cognitive interpretation", it was thought.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 2/IX/2013

cognitive interpretation is thought, i don't want to argue terminology lol so, basically, explain to me why you are denying that time and the proceeding dimensions do not exist.

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 3/IX/2013

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

I am not arguing that time does not exist.

I am arguing it is not a dimension, because it is not at right angles with the three dimensions that are at right angles with each other.

I am not arguing the future does not exist (unless you add "yet"), either.

I am arguing that it is a part of time. Thus not another dimension even if time were a dimension, which for said reason it is not.

I am not arguing there is no such thing as the merely possible unrealised.

I am arguing that as long as it is not anything more than just possible it is neither substance nor time nor space, and therefore no dimension (even if anything other than space and corporeal substances in it were dimensions).

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 3/IX/2013

i think what you are misinterpreting is when some says "dimension", they are not talking about an entity, or a separate thing. it's all the same state of being, and time, sub-sequent events, and possible sub-sequent events are aspects of the same entity of the three dimensional universe/multiverse/what ever you want to call it. Just because possible succeeding events, and future events haven't happened yet, or when they reach us they are the present, doesn't mean that they don't exist before the reach our perceived existence. Hyperspace is very vast and complex system, and to understand it, you have to be able to look at all aspects of the three-dimensional world besides the obvious.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 3/IX/2013

My dear, time and space are separate aspects of substance. Interconnected through substance but separate.

The three dimensions of space are very much not separate. Stating any one direction pair as first dimension is arbitrary. It could have been set any amount of degrees further here or there in two dimensions of the circle, in full globe.

Setting the second dimension 90° to first is less arbitrary. Only one circle is there for alternative settings of it, in relation to the first.

Only third dimension is invariably a function of first two, what angle it is set in.

So, three dimensions are three very interconnected aspects of space.

My point is that the other supposed dimensions do not interconnect with these three that way at all.

The past and future are not places in hyperspace. An object's dimension in time cannot swing over 90° into a space dimension and get replaced by a space dimension (unless God makes a miracle, but I think He would not do that).

Present, past and future are three parts of time, and are as Trinitarian as three dimensions of space.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 3/IX/2013

That is why it is called space-time, not separate space and time. don't be condescending. The first three dimensions are interconnected as we perceive them to be, as well as time, future events and possible events, they are simply extensions of the postulates you are stating on the first three physical dimensions. However, i agree that they cannot be replaced by one another, but you cannot simply lump present, past and future by that logic and not call them a dimension.Also, your cop-out on how God can disregard space-time, because he is God, is ridiculous. It's like saying, here are the established rules of the physical universe, but i can amend them by saying there is a magic being who can manipulate them at will, thus making any claim i make valid, even though i have no proof of this being. It's nonsensical.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 4/IX/2013

First of all, God is the Creator of Space and of Time. He made every rule and decided in advanace every possible exception and for whom (Himself alone, Himself and angelic beings etc) the exceptions are accessible to. You will hardly claim a Christian ought to talk AS an atheist or agnostic because he is talking TO one. I was not making a cop-out, I was merely guarding myself against saying too much, like stating anything contrary to my faith.

But second, I take exception to this:

"they are simply extensions of the postulates you are stating on the first three physical dimensions."

That is precisely what they are simply not.

"i agree that they cannot be replaced by one another"

Precisely, which up-down, front-back and left-right certainly can. I stand and my head is up. I lie down on my stomach or back and my head is front or back. I lie down on my side and it is left or right.

Objects turn their three dimensions within three-dimensional space. Turning can by some mathematicians be considered or - on my view - artificially constructed as "half-dimensions" (for turns of 45°) or any other part of a dimension for any other angle of turn.

Integrating time into that is simply not possible. I cannot turn my future into my back or my past into my front. I cannot have a plane of righ-left per past-future and turn my left side into my past and my future into my right side and my right side into my past and my past into my left. Unlike what is the matter with space.

Past - present - future are not exactly as the two directions of any dimension. The difference is that for one thing the "origo" is moving - on one view every instance of it from future into past and in another way the title itself from the past into the future. That is not parallelled in the dimensions of space. And for another thing, this means that time, unlike any dimension of space, has a single direction.

But this is a difference between time and space which added to the separateness (quite unlike the non-separateness of space dimensions) makes it non-sensic as in unnecessarily imprecise terminology to regard time and space as four dimensions.

Rather, they are two different categories around substance, and time has three parts, space three dimensions.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 4/IX/2013

What proof do you have that god is the Creator of Space and of Time? or that He made every rule and decided in advance every possible exception and for whom (Himself alone, Himself and angelic beings etc) the exceptions are accessible to? Also, i am not saying that past, present, and future can be interchangeable for each other, i don't understand why you can't understand that i am not saying that. I am saying that without time relative to an object's position in space, that object will not have existence. when you say that there is a linear timeline for the physical universe, that is false.

Declaring absolute knowledge relative to time, or anything for that matter, is ignorant, hence why there is the other 7 dimensions of space-time. it's not imprecise to say there is combination of space and time, it's universalizing and finding a more fluent way in which the universe works. We don't look at a car piece by piece and then except that it could work by only looking at each piece separately. We combine them and find that the different components work together to preform a common task, or in the case of the universe, simply to exist with physical matter and energy.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 5/IX/2013

You seem not to get that I was not for the moment inviting a debate about God's existence.

I was informing you that according to any view that can be called theistic, God is above these things we are debating, and that includes my Christian view.

"universalising" and "more fluent" tend to go hand in hand with less precise, when it comes to sci/maths terminology.

Number line is a scary example, leading to "complex numbers" and calling pi a number when it is a size relation (or other magnitude relation).

"Declaring absolute knowledge relative to time, or anything for that matter, is ignorant"

I am declaring ordinary knowledge. The kind you might label as "naive" or "pre-scientific".

"hence why there is the other 7 dimensions of space-time."

Complete non sequitur. Me having no absolute knowledge of the kind of space and time I believe in from experience does not equal some other guy having an absolute knowledge or even relatively better knowledge for the opposite.

"I am saying that without time relative to an object's position in space, that object will not have existence."

Time as in time extension? Or time as in point of time?

Either of which is of coruse false for the eternal being who created time.

But in space a point cannot exist in itself. A point is a limit between existing extensions of a line, which is a limit between existing extensions of a surface, which is a limit between existing extensions of a volume.

In time, the present - which is precisely punctual - is all that really totally exists. The future only exists potentially so far, the past only in traces.

Time and space reverse the extension / point relation when it comes to what exists.

" We don't look at a car piece by piece and then except that it could work by only looking at each piece separately."

Nor do we confound steering system with ondriving system.

"We combine them and find that the different components work together to preform a common task, or in the case of the universe, simply to exist with physical matter and energy."

I was not denying that time and space are categories around substance. I was saying that time is to space as another category and not to the three dimensions of space as another dimension.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 5/IX/2013

""universalizing" and "more fluent" tend to go hand in hand with less precise, when it comes to sci/maths terminology." No they don't, combinations of foundational theorems that are already in themselves precise cannot create anything that is anything less than that. When you ask, "Time as in time extension? Or time as in point of time?", The answer being both, neither or one or the other, sometimes lol i would need it in context. Both of which are valid, since, your claim that time is somehow created by a creator, is again, not scientifically accurate. You could look at it as time coming into existence at the same time that our universe did, or that if the universe is truly infinite, time would follow suite.

"I was not denying that time and space are categories around substance. I was saying that time is to space as another category and not to the three dimensions of space as another dimension." By what other means could time be when it is reliant on space-time and vice versa? the only answer is that it is another dimension of the same existence that the first three dimensions fall under.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 6/IX/2013/2013

"combinations of foundational theorems that are already in themselves precise cannot create anything that is anything less than that."

They can. They can that by mixing apples and oranges.

" By what other means could time be when it is reliant on space-time and vic versa? the only answer is that it is another dimension of the same existence that the first three dimensions fall under."

More precisely (and more aristotelically) time (with its three parts) is another category in the same reality where also place (with its three dimensions) is a category.

"When you ask, 'Time as in time extension? Or time as in point of time?', The answer being both, neither or one or the other, sometimes lol i would need it in context."

The context was which aspect of time, punctual or extansional, that was a condition for substance to exist.

Now the aspect of space that is conditional for a corporeal substance to exist with its quantity (aka volume) is extensional. But the aspect of time that is conditional for any created substance (corporeal or otherwise) to exist is punctual, since only the point called present is at any time real. Which is one of my key reasons for coordinating space and time rather than time with each dimension of space.

We can get back to discussing whether substance, time and space are created by a God above them, when you have shown some precision of terminology about space and time, and about dimension and category.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 6/IX/2013

i'm sorry to say, but physics is nowhere near the analogy of "apples and oranges", for instance; Uniform acceleration and constant velocity are both consistently correct formulas for their respective fields of physics, yet, when both are combined and used in a different manner, behold, newtons second law of motion and uniform friction are created, and both are consistently valid. It's an example, but the idea works for most branches of physics, making precise outcomes from precise formulas.

If your going to say that it depends on the different context of time, and your claiming that only the present is real at any given time, then there would be no past and future under your definition, they cannot fade in and out of existence as you have suggested, they are absolute and finite, relatively speaking. Just because the present may be currently real, doesn't mean the other frames of time can be disregarded as something of the same dimension, they are different frames of the same dimension, sure, but they are not the same.

"We can get back to discussing whether substance, time and space are created by a God above them, when you have shown some precision of terminology about space and time, and about dimension and category." Do you know what i do for a living? and implying you didn't just google that five minutes before we started talking. Get over yourself.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 7/IX/2013

"Do you know what i do for a living?"

U R a Phycisist? Might make you biassed for your paradigm.

"and implying you didn't just google that five minutes before we started talking."

Google what? I am not aware of anything I would just have googled, and if you think otherwise, provide me with key words of plausible search and with the relevant passage.

"Get over yourself."

Sounds like a cop out from serious discussion to me.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 8/IX/2013

You're right, i am. Does that give me a bias on the matter? no. I have a good understanding of how the mechanics of the universe work, and with that knowledge and with given evidence, it would seem more plausible for ten dimensions to exist rather than your standpoint, i'm not giving any special pleading for any view. When i said you googled "that" in five minutes, i was referring to the terminology and physics principles you are using to support your argument, and i am not copping out of anything, but being rude and condescending by saying i need to obtain a more broad set of terminology and understanding before we continue a discussion, is no means for good discussion., that's all i was implying.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 8/IX/2013

I was maybe condescending, but I was not asking you for a broader terminology, rather for a more precise one.

A distinction between category and dimension (the latter being a feature of category quantity=volume, category place - closest you come to space in Aristotle, category situs=sitting, standing, lying, standing on your head, and of course, with time as other relevant category, of either action or passion involving movement). So as to understanding what I mean by it being more precise to say that time and space are correlated categories, but time is no more a fourth dimension of space than an eighth colour of the spectrum (category quality, subcategory visible quality, sub-subquality directly per se visible quality = colour) or a thirteenth half tone to the octave (also quality, this time audible).

And I was not implying you needed that before doing your job, just before we discuss whether there is a God who created time and place, body and action, and is above all of these and can do whatever he wants with all of these.

Now, before the quarrel, if you like to call it that, you said something of time not just existing in the present, but also in past and future - i e you are implying that in a way the past and the future are as real as the present.

You may want to argue how this follows from your view of mechanics.

If all you mean is that if the past ceases to exist by becoming the past, then why is it relevant for present and future, I sympathise with you, I even submit there ought to be an ideal world in which past, present and future are all eternally present. But that is not the material world in which we live, that is only the mind of God.

If God could nowise already see the future as we see the present, then the only way the Biblical God could foretell the future would be by programming it and knowing how his programme will work out. I disagree, God created us free, and if He still knows our future, it is because He sees our future decisions as in an eternal present. As we make them, not as he calculates from His programming it.

Actually the idea of space as independent of body - in Aristotle place means "surrounding bodies in relation to a body" - as a kind of empty coordinate system was born of a purely theological debate - the conclusion of which was not that such a space actually exists, but that God could make it exist by moving all of the material universe sideways - by leaving behind the mere coordinates of the places where the part was that moves inward and by moving it into the coordinates of the places moving outward to the other side and creating new coordinates for the further strech on that outer side. St Thomas Aquinas and Avempace (Ibn Bajja) both answered that to Averroës who had denied that even God Himself could (if He bothered) move the Universe out of its place.

Were you saying the coordinate system (in the sense of St Thomas Aquinas, Avempace and Newton) has to exist before bodies can be created by God in it, or were you saying it has to exist before they can form in it without any God, or were you saying because it has to exist, time has to be a coordinate just like the other three of space? And future and possibilities two more on top of time?

Sorry, how would you convince a Theist of either of these?