Being eternal and being necessary are quite distinct.

an eternal being exists necessarily, but a necessary being is either eternal or non-eternal, so you admit to the possibility of a necessary being that is also contingent? Which beings are necessary but not eternal? I do not think that your comment gets to the heart of the problem here.

an eternal being exists necessarily, — TheGreatArcanum

Why?

Eternity is a temporal state, necessity, a logical.

furthermore, if space itself is born out of some non-dimensional point, then what is the essence of that non-dimensional point? — TheGreatArcanum

Points of singularity, whether in the physical world or mathematics, allow bizarre behavior in their neighborhoods. I dabble in the complex plane where these things appear now and then. Even in that well-trod territory there are minor differences of definition. The most severe singular point is called an "essential singularity" and weird things happen in its vicinity. Most, if not all, such points connect to the function f(z) = exp(1/z), which takes on all complex values infinitely often in any neighborhood, no matter how small. Is there a counterpart in the physical universe?

Why?

Eternity is a temporal state, necessity, a logical. — Banno

this is incorrect, you cannot have time existing in itself apart from being. time, by definition, requires the persistence of being and is therefore defined in relation to being. there is no persistence without existence, and there can be no existence without persistence. this is a necessary truth.

Spacetime is eternal. A 5d spacetime on which 4d big bangs occur one after another. But from where comes this? Onlu the gods can create this. Time and space don't exist for them. Time is maybe not even inherent to Nature.

Points of singularity, whether in the physical world or mathematics, allow bizarre behavior in their neighborhoods. I dabble in the complex plane where these things appear now and then. Even in that well-trod territory there are minor differences of definition — jgill

but is it possible for there to be motion within a non-dimensional point? if, as Cantor claims, there are multiple (or an infinite) number of infinities, is it possible for an infinitely small domain to be contained within an infinitely small domain, in which movement in space is possible?

Spacetime is eternal. — Thunderballs

even if space/time is eternal, does it necessarily follow that it is not contained within an eternally existing non-spatial dimension that may or may not be contingent upon the existence of relative space/time?

Onlu the gods can create this. Time and space don't exist for them. Time is maybe not even inherent to Nature. — Thunderballs

so space/time itself is a produce of intentionality (i.e. willing)? but how can a god exist without persisting in existing from one moment to the next? it doesn't seem to be the case that anything can exist apart from the ontological category of duration. maybe this purely durational category, however, is transcendent of relative time (which is defined in relation to motion and not persistence)?

None of which shows that an eternal being exists necessarily.

To do that you would have to show that there are no possible worlds that are not eternal.

So, I posit a world that exists for ten minutes. Demonstrate that this involves a contradiction.

None of which shows that an eternal being exists necessarily.

To do that you would have to show that there are no possible worlds that are not eternal.

So, I posit a world that exists for ten minutes. Demonstrate that this involves a contradiction. — Banno

even the existence of alternate worlds is an assumption. if you wish to posit the existence of alternate worlds, please prove that the existence of alternate worlds is possible. the 'many worlds theorist' simply assumes that the existence of many worlds is possible without proof.

the 'many worlds' hypothesis states that all possible worlds are born simultaneously out of some a priori potential. this means that the only possible world that can exist eternally is omnipresent substratum from which all worlds are born and contained within. the eternality of this non-spatial realm is dependent upon whether a non-spatial entity can come into existence out of another non-spatial entity or not, for if not, it cannot have come into being and must therefore be eternal. we cannot reduce the nature of this realm to the laws of nature which necessitate space. the causal chain, therefore, does not extend into this non-spatial realm, so it cannot be just another link in an infinite regress of physical causes.

I am aware that there is a fashion on the forums not to tell folk when they are confused. But doing so is the very essence of philosophy. So suck it up.

even the existence of alternate worlds is an assumption. — TheGreatArcanum

Sure is - that's rather the point. Possible World Semantics says "If there were such-and-such a world, what would the consequences be?" It provides a grammar in which such questions can be sorted, the nonsense from the sense. To demand one prove the existence of a possible world is to entirely miss the point of the semantics.

That is, you appear to be making use of an archaic understanding of modality, and as a result posing questions that make no sense.

the 'many worlds' hypothesis states that all possible worlds are born simultaneously out of some a priori potential. — TheGreatArcanum

Rubbish.

So the lesson here is simply that @TheGreatArcanum hasn't understood modality. Pretty much, that's all there is to this thread.

the many worlds hypothesis has its origin in the infinitesimal chance (1 x 10^123 odds against chance according to Penrose) that the universe came into being by means of chance and not the antithesis of chance (i.e. reason or intentionality). in order to avoid conceding to the notion that the universe came into being for a reason or a purpose and not accidentally or randomly, that is, in order to preserve the validity of physicalism, the physicalists invented the many worlds theory.

I am not interested in talking about semantics. this type of talk is for the sophists. I am interested in talking about being and its limitations. my understanding of modality is grounded in the concepts of necessity and contingency, not in the concepts of necessity and possibility. I have developed my own system of logic and philosophy, and that philosophy is grounded in the distinction between necessity and contingency (as it relates to being), and not in the concepts of necessity and possibility.

I am certainly not the one who is confused here.

Yeah, you are. Now you are confusing many worlds logic with many worlds physics.

if the universe is born out of 'quantum fluctuations' (as physicists claim), do those fluctuations necessitate space, — TheGreatArcanum

The quantum fields of QFT that fluctuate are Fundamental, exhausting Reality, so, there's no 'space' as something else.

You may be right, and that gives you the right to ignore all of my other points? Instead of addressing my argument, you simply nit-picked an inconsequential aspect of that argument out, attacked it, and just ignored the rest, as if that invalidates all of my other points, and as if my understanding of the difference between many worlds logic and many worlds physics in any way relevant to my argument as a whole. My argument pertains to the what is possible within the confines of a non-spatial realm, not what is possible within the confines of spatial realm, that is, within the context of many worlds existing in many different spatial realms.

what about the substratum from which quantum fluctuations emerge and disappear into?

You may be right, and that gives you the right to ignore all of my other points? — TheGreatArcanum

If I am right, you have not made any other points. Your argument is at its heart ill-formed. That's not a small issue.

So it's over to you to see if you can re-present your view in a coherent fashion.

Cheers.

is space itself contingent, or necessary? — TheGreatArcanum

Can this be asked in a coherent fashion?

Can one imagine a world with no space? Sure - extrapolate down form four to three to two to one to no dimensions.

A possible world with zero dimensions, while otherwise pretty boring, might still be postulated. There is no obvious contradiction here.

All ears for suggestions.

But notice that this exercise is very different from asking if space came into existence at some point in time. Our best understanding - the one that fits what we see around us - is that it did, something like 13.8 Billion years ago.

what about the substratum from which quantum fluctuations emerge and disappear into? — TheGreatArcanum

There's no emerging or coming from or going to for what is Fundamental; it is ever and always. The fields themselves fluctuate all over, always; there is no stillness—else naught could happen. Where there is a unit stable quantum it is directly an elementary particle; else there are just other fluctuations not amounting to a unit level.

Consider that since the fields are everywhere and partless and continuous and eternal they would seem as 'space', yet there is not another space that is just there to hold the fields.

The fields were there before the Big Bang and are still here after and ever. They are ungenerated and deathless.

↪jgill
None of which shows that an eternal being exists necessarily. — Banno

Nothing to do with my passing comments on math singularities.

Ah, my bad - mis-clicked the reply button.

There's no emerging or coming from or going to for what is Fundamental; it is ever and always. The fields themselves fluctuate all over, always; there is no stillness—else naught could happen. Where there is a unit stable quantum it is directly an elementary particle; else there are just other fluctuations not amounting to a unit level. — PoeticUniverse

The field fluctuations and subsequent inflation and excitation of fields happens time after time again. And maybe even around a multiple of 5d Planck sized throats (from which our 4d universe inflates as a big bang to rush away to infinity, on the way spawning life every time, in every new big bang). You can say this eternity doesn't need a creator and it can exist as the fundamental, of course. I thought that too. Eternal, no beginning required. But then I got a bit more mature and softer and sweeter and riper... Though still a child...

Relative space?

every new big bang — Thunderballs

Sure, if there can be one bang, there will be others.

Relative space? — Thunderballs

relative space

An understanding of *space wherein the relative location of bodies is determined with respect to other bodies. Relative space contrasts with absolute space, wherein location is understood with respect to an independent frame of reference such as a coordinate system. The dimensions of absolute space are fixed and immovable, whereas relative space is a movable dimension. The difference between absolute and relative space has been a long-running debate in physics. For example, while Newton posited the existence of a universal absolute space, Leibniz thought that space made no sense except as the relative location of bodies.... .

See 'Helgoland' by Rovelli about relationism.

Sure, if there can be one bang, there will be others. — PoeticUniverse

It's a banging universe. Bangs chasing one another. When our bang has reached infinity (big rip), another bangs behind us.

Ah! It's just the spacetime of relativity? The question there is: is time real or do we assign it?

When our bang has reached infinity (big rip), another bangs behind us. — Thunderballs

And fear not lest Existence closing your
Account, and mine, should know the like no more;
The Eternal Cycle from that Bowl has pour’d
Millions of Bubbles like us, and will pour.

Yet worry you that this Cosmos is the last,
That the likes of us will become the past,
Space wondering whither whence we went
After the last of us her life has spent?

The Eternal Cycle has formed trillions of baubles
Like ours, for e’er—the comings and passings
Of which it ever emits to immerse
In the universal bubbles blown and burst.

So fear not that a debit close your
Account and mine, knowing the like no more;
The Eternal Source from its pot has pour’d
Zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

What though the sky with its blue canopy
Doth close us in so that we can not see,  
In the etern Cupbearer’s wine methinks
There float a myriad bubbles like to me.

So, as thus thou lives on yester’s credit line,
In nowhere’s midst, now in this life of thine,
As of its bowl our cup of brew is mixed
Into the state of being that’s called ‘mine’.

When You and I behind the Veil are past,
Oh, but the long, long while the World shall last,
Which of our Coming and Departure heeds
As much as Ocean of a pebble-cast.

is time real or do we assign it? — Thunderballs

We don't yet know the mode of time, whether as presentism or eternalism.