Metaphysics philosophy of space and time

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of
being and the world that encompasses it, although the term is not easily defined. Traditionally,
metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:
1: What is ultimately there?
2: What is it like?
Metaphysics literally means before physics, showing that its meant to be the philosophy of the aspects
of reality that science cannot directly determine, which is actually a great deal. (Note however that this
does not mean that it is idle speculation without valid means to approach it.) However, being a meta
relation to physics, it is often directly informed by the sciences itself, and so closely ties to them. The
sciences actually grew out of natural philosophy, which at the time was seen as a double sided coin to
metaphysics.
A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and
how they relate to each other. ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be
said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided
according to similarities and differences.

Philosophy of space and time

An interesting thing to note about the concept of space, and especially time is that despite there being
seemingly intuitive ways that people imagine it as functioning, these ideas are not inherent. In some
sense, they were as ideas actually created, and before then people would have only a general concept of
it. Some did not even have names for it.
Philosophy of space and time is a subset of metaphysics that talks about the background that items in
the universe exist in. Although time and space used to be seen as separate by many, now they are seen
together as the single entity timespace that time and space are merely two types of dimensions of
measurement in. Obviously this branch of metaphysics has a bit of crossover with regular physics, and
theoretical physics, since the theories are often developed off of and interrelate with one another.
However, we will not delve much into physics, as that is its own topic.
Realism as regards time and space hold that time and space objectively exist in some sense, although in
what sense may be uncertain. Some positions may skirt the line between realism and anti realism, or
make distinctions on what counts as existence.
Anti-realists hold that in some sense time and or space are illusions. For instance, all of reality could
be some form of data system which includes data for what we consider spacial interaction or an arrow
of time, but which don't actually exist. Some forms of idealism hold that since nothing exists outside of
mind, that time and space are illusions in some sense created by it. Some also hold that the concept of
even combined spacetime is a little vague and needs to be better explained, although technically realist.
How realist such theories are depends on what the proposed solutions are. It should be noted that
thinking that space time is imprecise and needs to be replaced with a new concept is actually a
mainstream belief in science now.

Since Quantum field theory models have shown that it is possible for theories in two different
spacetime backgrounds, to be equivalent, some hold that this is an argument for their unreality
altogether, with both models being nothing more than pragmatic illusory constructs.

Absolutism and relationalism

Substantivalism, background dependance, or Absolute time and absolute space was originally the
concept that space and time exist as absolute structures independent of the existence of any observer,
and that places in them are absolute. In this system, the frame of reference exists independently of the
objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself.
Although the form of this theory where space and time have absolute separate existence has had doubt
shined on it by the general theory of relativity, some hold that the form which posits spacetime as a
single entity has superseded it. What's more, quantum physics seems to require more background
dependance, whereas relativity is more (though not entirely) background independent, opening the
possibility of degrees of which it might be. Which makes it uncertain where to come down is a better
description of reality, since while both relativity and qm seem to be accurate, they contradict.
The question of whether or not quantum gravity (the theory which will link relativity and quantum
physics together) should be background-independent (or to what degree) is still open. The most popular
approaches are background-dependent. String theory is an example, though there are attempts to find a
background-independent picture of string theory.
Relationism, relationalism, background independence, or Relational time and relational space
hold that motion, and by extension space and time exist only as a relation between objects. Thus, if
only one object at a single point existed, it would make no sense to describe where in space it was,
since the concept of a where is meaningless. Background independence is less popular, since it is less
useful as a calculation tool. In practical terms, most people operate under a background dependant
framework, whether or not they consider it inherently true. One question relationism then has to
answer is against what background things like acceleration and inertia occur, the answer to which is
generally a formulation of mach's principle of some kind.
Mach's principle answers the question of You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms
are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning.
The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your
arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars
don't move? A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by
the large-scale structure of the universe." Things such as the background gravity of stars has been
presented as a reason for this, although there are a number of rival formulations.
General relativity is the idea that space and time are two aspects of the single spacetime. Spacetime is
bent by mass, which is what controls gravity and tells mass how to move, positing gravity not as a
force, but as a result of things moving straight in bent space-time. This principle holds that the rules
of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that
light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames, and thus how fast time moves changes for
people moving at different speeds.
The way that this works is that everything is moving through spacetime at C, which we consider the
speed of light, at all times. Light, moves purely through space, having no mass, and so individual

particles of light have/percieve no time. Things with mass can slow down their movement through
space, and gain movement through time instead. This is why speeding up slows the movement of time
for them. Because everything is moving at the same speed at all times. It just changes how much of this
is through either the space or time dimensions. Since our current model of quantum mechanics does not
seem to account for relativity, an important issue of science is how to merge these theories together into
a form of relativistic quantum mechanics.
The hole argument is an argument against background dependance that says that if you have two
distributions of metric and matter fields related by transformation, substantivalists must maintain that
the they represent two ontologically distinct physical systems, even though you have nothing with
which to justify this conclusion. And as such, occam's razor would seem to imply background
independence.
Conventionalism states that there is no fact of the matter as to the geometry of space and time, but that
it is decided by convention. The first proponent of such a view, Henri Poincar, reacting to the creation
of the new non-Euclidean geometry, argued that which geometry applied to a space was decided by
convention, since different geometries will describe a set of objects equally well, based on
considerations from his sphere-world. Contemporary philosophy is still in disagreement as to the
correctness of the conventionalist doctrine.
Sphere world is a description of a world which is ruled by hyperbolic geometry rather than Euclidian
geometry. Such that curved lines (in geodesic form) would appear to be straight in it. This world,
looking normal to internal inhabitants, was used as an argument for conventionalism and that space and
time's arrangements are based on subjective mapping.

The direction of time

The arrow of time, or time's arrow, refers to the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time. Why
should you be able to remember the past, but not the future? Time seems to move in one direction, and
moving forward has different properties than moving backwards. If indeed moving backwards is a
coherent concept to begin with. There are a few arrows of time that describe different things. One of
the important questions to answer is whether these arrows are fundamentally the same thing in any
meaningful sense, or whether there isn't some overarching arrow of time that the ones we see are mere
results of.
T-symmetry refers to the symmetry of physical laws under a time-reversal scenario. At the
microscopic level, it seems that if time were to reverse, the theoretical statements that describe certain
physical processes would remain true. Yet at the macroscopic level it often appears that this is not the
case: there is an obvious direction (or flow) of time. Sometimes variables that do not change upon time
reversal are referred to as even, and those that do are referred to as odd.
The thermodynamic arrow of time is the arrow of entropy. This is considered the most important
arrow of time in physics, because Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences (apart from
certain rare interactions in particle physics) that requires a particular direction for time. As one goes
"forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of an isolated system can
increase, but not decrease. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is a way of
distinguishing the past from the future. However in thermodynamic systems that are not closed, entropy
can decrease with time: many systems, including living systems, reduce local entropy at the expense of

an environmental increase, resulting in a net increase in entropy. Examples of such systems and
phenomena include the formation of typical crystals, the workings of a refrigerator and living
organisms.
In the most general sense, entropy itself refers to statistical distribution. If you were to throw things
about randomly, over time, you would expect them to even out, and thus lose order in the specific
sense, but become more statistically uniform in the overall sense. Since entropic forces are emergent
effects resulting from systems tending towards maximum entropy some posit that entropy itself should
not necessarily be described as an arrow of time, but as a result from it.
Maxwell's demon refers to a demon working at a microscopic level that could operate a gate
(presumably of low-friction construction) allowing only swift molecules to pass through it. In this way,
the demon's work would result in slow molecules (i.e. cold) on one side of the gated barrier, and heat
on the other side. Yet movement from uniformity of temperature to a split of hot/cold violates the
Second Law of thermodynamics, allowing it to beat entropy. Since entropy is only a statistical law
there is nothing making it inherently impossible to overcome, however unlikely. What implications this
has for using it as an arrow of time are unknown.
Causality, or the causation arrow of time takes a metaphysical view, in which the direction of time
follows from an asymmetry of causation. We know more about the past because the elements of the
past are causes for the effect that is our perception. We feel we can't affect the past and can affect the
future because we can't affect the past and can affect the future. There are two main objections to this
view. First is the problem of distinguishing the cause from the effect in a non-arbitrary way. The use of
causation in constructing a temporal ordering could easily become circular. The second problem with
this view is its explanatory power. While the causation account, if successful, may account for some
time-asymmetric phenomena like perception and action, it does not account for many others.
However, asymmetry of causation can be observed in a non-arbitrary way which is not metaphysical in
the case of a human hand dropping a cup of water which smashes into fragments on a hard floor,
spilling the liquid. In this order, the causes of the resultant pattern of cup fragments and water spill is
easily attributable in terms of the trajectory of the cup, irregularities in its structure, angle of its impact
on the floor, etc. However, applying the same event in reverse, it is difficult to explain why the various
pieces of the cup should fly up into the human hand and reassemble precisely into the shape of a cup,
or why the water should position itself entirely within the cup. The causes of the resultant structure and
shape of the cup and the encapsulation of the water by the hand within the cup are not easily
attributable, as neither hand nor floor can achieve such formations of the cup or water. The question
then is whether causation as we know it drives the other forces, or in some sense is a result of them.
Retrocausality refers to the possibility of an effect taking place earlier in time than its cause. Although
no known retrocausality has been proven to occur in the natural world, many models for it have been
made which at least on the surface do not violate any physical laws. If it were possible, a question is
what implications it has for viewing causality as an arrow of time.
A light cone refers to the maximum speed information is able to travel in order to be causally related.
Since if something is many light years away from eachother, causation will take that amount of time to
reach one place from the other, that is said to be the boundary of its light cone at that given amount of
years. What this means is that anything outside something's light cone is said to not in any meaningful
sense exist in the past of that item until it enters it even if it intuitively takes place earlier in how we
would see time. Since this is according to relativity a real function of the universe, and not a mere
construct it is uncertain what that could mean for time and causality.
The flow of time refers to the idea that time in itself has an objective present which need not be
explained in terms of internal laws, but which internal laws operate in relation to. As such, whether

causality or thermodynamics operate as the main internal arrow of time in a given universe, that this as
a whole is not sufficient to explain time.
The laws solution refers to a subset of the theory of causality that posits that it is not cause and effect
themselves which generate this arrow, but merely that the laws of the universe in themselves have built
in an arrow of time that is non-reversible. Which though similar, is in some senses distinct.
The cosmological arrow of time points in the direction of the universe's expansion. An important
question is what causes this. Is it inherently related to the other arrows, and such time can only go
forward as we understand it while the universe is expanding, and thus there will be a sudden end of
time if it were to ever begin contracting? Or is it merely an artifact of the fact that we have only ever
seen it expanding. Some physicists assumed the first originally, although it should be noted that there is
little direct support.
The weak arrow of time refers to a few cases in particle physics which operate on a specific direction.
Although it is noted that the only one arrow in physics large enough that it accounts for most of what
we see is the arrow of entropy, the fact that a few other things, no matter how insignificant, seem to
operate in a similar manner is enough to give evidence that entropy itself may not be what causes the
subjective flow of time.
The quantum arrow of time, refers to the fact that that according to the Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics, quantum evolution is governed by the Schrdinger equation, which is timesymmetric, and by wave function collapse, which is time irreversible. As the mechanism of wave
function collapse is philosophically obscure, it is not completely clear how this arrow links to the
others, and whether it is related in any sense to the thermodynamic arrow at all, or exists totally
separately. It should be noted that having a mathematical model for the process of something is not
equivalent to understanding what causes that process to occur.
The psychological arrow of time or the perceptual arrow of time refers to the human psychology of
remembering things from the past, but not from the future. It should be noted that the fact that the
psychological time arrow goes in one specific direction does not inherently justify the assumption of an
objective flow of time, but could merely be the results of physical processes which allow this. For
instance, if a universe physically had all the same events at all the same times, but the flow of time
went backwards, but you still remembered forwards, then to you would there even be a difference?
Even if your perceptions were undergone in reverse, you wouldn't know that this was the case.

presentism and eternalism

One of the important questions in the philosophy of time is what objects one can say actually exist.
Presentism is the philosophical doctrine that only events and entitiesand, in some versions of
presentism, timeless objects or ideas like numbers and setsthat occur in the present exist. According
to presentism, events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all. Although this
is the most intuitive sense of time, it is not inherently correct for that reason.
Eternalism, block universe, or block time is the position that the past, present, and future all exist
equally. And that what we perceive as the present is not in any sense an actual flowing of time, but
merely that aspect of us that had that perception in any given location of time. Although this theory is
suggested by the general theory of relativity, especially since relativity posits that time in some sense
does not work at the same relation in all reference frames, it also seems to be contradicted by quantum

mechanics, (which suggests something closer to presentism) posing an issue as to which should be
privileged, if not one of the in between ones. It has some implications for the mind, since it posits that
one is actually experiencing all events simultaneously, even if the brain and causality order it to not
realize this. (Note that this position does not necessarily inherently imply that time goes to infinity in
both, or even one direction.)
It also has some implications for concepts such as death. For instance, even if annihilationism (the idea
that people do not exist past death in any sense) were true, all this would mean is that death is one of
our temporal borders. But if the Eternalism is correct, there is no such property as ceasing to exist, or
certain events being done. They continue to exist timelessly, alongside eternal, unchanging moments
of each individual point in time of life.
The static interpretation of time is a subset of eternalism that posits that even if time is eternalist, that
an ontologically privileged present of observers moving through the block universe is the case. It
describes it like a reel of film, where time is the film which in a real sense exists as an absolute single
block, but which can be played through in a form of progression. In this sense, it can also be seen as a
form of middle ground between presentism and eternalism.
The growing block universe is another middle ground between presentism and eternalism, which
posits that although there is an ontologically privileged present, that the past also has objective
existence, and thus while the past is never destroyed, more time is always coming into being. Thus, the
past exists, but not the future. Although some criticize this view, saying that if it were true we would
have no way of knowing whether what we see as the present is the true present, others argue that
although there exists a past, it is lifeless and inactive. Consciousness, as well as the flow of time is not
active within the past and can only occur at the boundary of the block universe in which the present
exists.
A-series identifies positions in time as past, present, or future, and thus assumes that the "present" has
some objective reality, as in presentism, the static interpretation, and the growing block universe.
B-series defines a given event as earlier or later than another event, but does not assume an objective
present, as in four-dimensionalism.
God, or some interpretations of ultimate reality in many religions and beliefs is posited as being
timeless, and seeing time from an eternalist view, not even with subjectively viewed ordering events,
but all at once and equally. Although this might seem to posit that eternalism as a whole is necessarily
the case, it can also coexist with the static interpretation of time. Where God would then see all the
aspects of the reel of film even though its being played through with an ontologically privileged
present. Although there have also been attempts to combine this possibility with presentism or the
growing block theories, those are harder to make a case for, since it seems at least on the surface to be a
contradiction. (In some of those beliefs, God's omniscience is instead of seeing the future posited as
seeing all possible futures.)
Note that a God seeing the future does not inherently imply fate or determinism, (nor does any form of
eternalism in general.) since the future can simply be seen as being made up of the free choices people
will have made. On the surface this seems counter-intuitive to people's perceptions, but there's nothing
that inherently indicates that it's not possible.

Endurantism and perdurantism

Endurantism versus perdurantism relates to objects as they exist throughout time. For instance, do
objects have extension in time the same way that they do in space? Or is there an objective present
which denies the need for this? Or at each specific time, is the item there a wholly separate item from
the one it is causally linked to in the future? Although it might seem like the distinction has little in
terms of practical applications outside of understanding the endurance of the mind (since indeed, some
might wonder what practical effect it has to question whether their fan tomorrow is the same one as
today) there is still a distinction.
Endurantism or endurance theory is a philosophical theory of persistence and identity. According to
the endurantist view material objects are persisting three-dimensional individuals wholly present at
every moment of their existence. In other words, it holds that the past and future are not necessarily
real or connected to the present, which exists independently. Some argue that this view is not well
supported by general relativity, although it is by quantum mechanics.
Perdurantism is the view is that an individual object has distinct temporal parts throughout its
existence. It has two sub-groups.
Worm theorists believe that a persisting object is composed of the various temporal parts that it has.
Thus, they believe that all persisting objects are four-dimensional "worms" that stretch across spacetime, and that you are mistaken in believing that objects or people are simply three-dimensional. Note
that at certain points, these worms can still undergo fission or fusion, and so entities can still be
connected to others in a branching lattice-like (or fence-like) pattern, and distinctions between
individual objects are merely describing how they are currently situated in three-dimensional space.
Stage theorists or exdurantists take an item or particle to be identical with a particular temporal part
at any given time. So, in a manner of speaking, a subject only exists for an instantaneous period of
time. However there are other temporal parts at other times which that subject is related to in a certain
way such that when someone says that they were a child, or that they will be an elderly person, these
things are still true, because they bear a special "identity-like" relation to these things.

Endurance of time
One of the more simple aspects of philosophy of time is simply the question of how much time there is.
There are various answers.
Temporal finitism is the idea that time is finite. Many early people, and some philosophers still today
posited that actual infinities are not possible, and by extension there could only be a certain amount of
time. Some others posit that although there could be infinite time overall, in the multiverse, that any
given universe could only have a specific amount.
Cyclical time, Oscillatory universe, cyclic model, or eternal return / eternal recurrence is the idea
that there is only a certain amount of time that loops back on itself and endlessly repeats. Although one
might at first glance assume that this means that each time it repeats would play out exactly the same,
some versions posit that this is not necessarily the case, and that it could play out differently each time.
Although the fact that each time could be different seems to make it confusing how this differs from an
eternal universe, it is postulated in order to prevent an actual infinity of time. Some versions however,
are merely eternalist outright, and use cyclical time merely to refer to some process which may
endlessly repeat. (Such as a big crunch and big bang cycle)

Eternal universe or infinite universe is the idea that time goes to infinity in both directions.
(Although since the creation of the big bang theory, it has been amended and some versions now posit
that time had a beginning, but goes to infinity in the future. It should be noted though that some
versions of the big bang posit it not as a true beginning of time, but merely a beginning of time for our
purposes.) Although this leads backwards infinitely in terms of cause and effect (in ones with an
infinite past) it should be noted that this does not alleviate the need for an explanation of why it exists
as a whole. Since an infinite series inside the system going backwards isn't an explanation for the
system as a whole existing.
Anti-realism being the group of theories that time does not exist has some which posit that all above
theories are technically incorrect, time itself being an illusion. However, the above models are not
necessarily all realist per say, since they could merely be describing relations rather than a tangible
background. As such, further forms of anti realism which deny all of them even as descriptive
devices are rather rare, although they do exist.

Multiverses
A multiverse is is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical
universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of
space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The
various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes. It should be noted that
although this is not generally brought up in the discussion, ideas of the supernatural, or at the very least
the preternatural are related to how one might see the properties of other higher ordered universes.
It should be noted that while we have no direct observation of a multiverse, (except arguably a type 1)
and that by their very nature they would seem to be not directly observable, or at least not by anything
resembling current technology, that in a very real sense it makes more sense to err on the side of their
existence than on the side of their non-existence. This is because we have no means with with to judge
the absolute scale of reality, or how wide it might be, and with an infinite amount of possible sizes,
erring on the side of assuming there are unlikely to be multiverses means that we are privileging the
smallest possible outcome merely because it matches most closely with our nave observations. But
these observations have no real metaphysical significance.
There are seen as being four main types or levels of multiverse.
A Level 1 multiverse is a multiverse which posits the existence of other regions of space which are
beyond our cosmological horizon, but which have the same physical laws and properties. This means
that the distance between them and us is so great that for all effective purposes they are not in our
universe.
A cosmological horizon is a measure of the distance from which one could possibly retrieve
information.
A level 2 multiverse is a multiverse which posits the existence of other universes which have different
laws. Although some posit that they have some form of direct connection with us, where the distance,
either through space, or some form of other connection is so great that the physical laws are different,
some other versions posit that these exist but may be totally unrelated to our universe whatsoever. This

also includes multiverse ideas which come from string theory and M theory which posit different
universes as taking place on different branes. (Note that due to the seeming order inherent in the
universe, it is assumed that if it was not designed deliberately, that we must live in at least a type 2.)
Simulated multiverse refers to a subset of type 2 where in any given universe where the technology
gets good enough to simulate universes with strong AI in them and this is done, it will result in a new
universe that for the inhabitants is as real as the one it comes from. And that the people in this universe
may make their own with strong AI in it, and that this can go down for several levels until the point
where data simply cannot be compressed any further. It should be noted that some theorists posit that if
this was possible, the simulated universes would so vastly outnumber the real ones that they come
from that it would make it almost a guarantee that we, or any observer who was questioning would in
fact be in a simulated universe rather than a non-simulated one.
Fictional realism is a more abstract version of a type 2 universe which is the idea that because fictions
exist, fictional characters exist in some sense as well. There are fictional entities, in the same sense in
which, setting aside philosophical disputes, there are people, Mondays, numbers and planets. Some
versions overlap with theories of mind, and posit that the individual self not being as concrete as one
likes to imagine it, when a mind interacts with a story, relating with the characters in it, that in some
sense inside of itself, parts of itself give some form of abstract life to those characters who then inhabit
their own universe as a subset of someone's mind. Although this idea may seem patently absurd on
the surface, it should be noted that it is based on a very possibly correct notion that the idea that the self
represents one single entity rather than a re-arrange-able network of no determinate number is more
of a construct than a necessarily evidenced reality. Nonetheless it is seen as more abstract rather than
true in a literal way, and is more of a thought experiment on the working of the mind than it is
commonly considered a description of anything like a multiverse.
A level 3 multiverse, or the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics comes from one
possible interpretation of quantum mechanics. This posits that since subatomic particles in
superpositions seem to have no actual physical rules guiding which position they end up in in some
circumstances, that it may be true that this is because they end up in all of them, and each superposition
splits off into its own equally real universe. This is grossly counter-intuitive to how most people see the
world, but at the current moment there seems to be no obvious answer to what guides quantum
mechanics, and this is very much a valid one.
Quantum immortality is one possible implication of a level 3 multiverse. Since every possible
outcome exists in at least one universe, this means that even the most improbable things happen in at
least one of them. Thus, no matter how unlikely the chance is, in at least one universe you may be
immortal, simply because anything that might deviate from this will split into another universe which
does not.
A level 4 multiverse, also known ultimate ensemble or mathematical universe hypothesis is the idea
that not only is mathematical platonism true, but that every universe is nothing but mathematics in a
well defined sense, and that by extension every possible universe actually exists. Some posit that this
idea seems unlikely, since if everything exists equally in infinite amounts, then in any given universe it
seems uncertain why things which are likely should happen any more than some which are unlikely.
Some posit that the nature of differently sized infinities accounts for this though.
Modal realism is another type of level 4 multiverse which posits that all possible worlds as used in
the field of logic are in fact real worlds. The distinction between this and the mathematical universe

hypothesis is merely that it posits logic as the primal driving force rather than math, positing one or the
other as the true primal fundamental essence.

Eschatology
Philosophy of space and time overlaps with theoretical physics in many areas, including Eschatology,
which is theories on what the final events of history will be. (although the word can also limit history to
human history, or be used in various other ways) This is important especially in philosophy of space
and time, since it involves questions such as whether there will always be entities in some sense, or
whether reality may permanently come to an end. Note that in beliefs in various forms of
supernaturalism, descriptions of universes coming to a final end are not a big deal, since they posit that
people will be preserved in some other fashion. Note also that some of these descriptions refer only to
single universes, and thus not to reality as a whole, so any multiverse theory inherently provides other
(though often not well conceivable or understood) options, and so worries about a permanent end to
reality are often seen as ill conceived.
Big crunch refers to a fate of the universe in which the expansion of space eventually slows and
reverses resulting in a singularity near identical to one which the big bang came from. The two options
for what happens there are either that this is the end of time, or that it results in a big bounce.
Closed universe refers to a universe with space that has elliptic (curved in, or spherical) geometry.
This elliptic geometry is seen as making it likely for it to end in a big crunch. (Though would not
inherently prove one to be the case.)
Big bounce refers to a cyclical model of the universe where after the big crunch this singularity being
identical to the one the big bang came from leads to another big bang. And that this may be what the
big bang we know of so far came from.
The heat death or big freeze of the universe refers to a point in the universe where all energy has
become dispersed so far from eachother that meaningful interactions can no longer occur in any sense.
It should note that this can only take place if the universe never begins contracting in space.
Open universe refers to a universe with space that is hyperbolic (curved out). This is the type of
universe that it would be said is likely to result in heat death.
Flat universe is a universe which has flat geometry that is not curved in either direction, and in which
the expansion of the universe would be seen as likely to perpetually slow down without ever fully
reaching the asymptote of zero. It is noted that the geometry of the universe appears to be very close to
flat, but it is not able to be determined which side it comes down on if either. It is also uncertain why it
is that the universe would happen to have nearly flat geometry.
Steady State theory refers to the idea that the universe does not expand or contract, but maintains
itself at a relatively identical state eternally. This theory has been more or less effectively rendered
obsolete by the confirmation of the big bang, but was very popular before then.
The Big Rip is the idea that the matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic
particles, will be progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the
future. According to the hypothesis, the scale factor of the universe and with it all distances in the
universe will become infinite at a finite time in the future.

Eternal Inflation or chaotic inflation theory is the idea that the inflationary phase of the universe's
expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the universe. Because these regions expand
exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. All models of
eternal inflation produce an infinite multiverse, typically a fractal. Note however that each individual
universe could still undergo heat death after a finite amount of time, but the multiverse would still have
infinite time overall.
The bubble universe model is a subset of eternal inflation that proposes that different regions of the
multiverse decayed to a true vacuum state at different times, with decaying regions corresponding to
"sub"- universes not in causal contact with each other and resulting in each of them having different
physical laws in different regions which are then subject to "selection", which determines each region's
components based upon (dependent on) the survivability of the quantum components within that
region. The end result will be a finite number of universes with physical laws consistent within each
region of spacetime.
The SteinhardtTurok model is a cyclic model of M theory in which, two parallel branes collide
periodically in a higher-dimensional space. The visible four-dimensional universe lies on one of these
branes. Since the branes themselves are without beginning or end, while any individual visual universe
ends, usually coming out of existence entirely, new ones will always be formed in a cyclical fashion.
The BaumFrampton model is a model in which right before a big rip a turnaround occurs and only
one causal patch is retained as our universe. The generic patch contains no quark, lepton or force
carrier; only dark energy and its entropy thereby vanishes, allowing the arising of a new universe.
This borrows ideas from M theory, but does not depend on it.
Conformal cyclic cosmology is a general relativity based theory in which the universe expands until
all the matter decays and is turned to light - so there is nothing in the universe that has any time or
distance scale associated with it. This permits it to become identical with the Big Bang, being a form of
singularity, and so starting the next cycle.
Loop quantum cosmology (LQC) is a finite, symmetry-reduced model of loop quantum gravity that
predicts a "quantum bridge" between contracting and expanding cosmological branches. In short, this
results in the big bang being replaced by a quantum bounce which begins a new universe.
The Poincar recurrence theorem states that certain systems will, after a sufficiently long but finite
time, return to a state very close to the initial state. Applied to the universe, this is seen as a possible
future in which something akin to a cyclical version of time is achieved.
Vacuum metastability event is a theory on a possible event in the far future which comes from the
fact that If the vacuum is not in its lowest energy state (a false vacuum), it could tunnel into a lower
energy state spontaneously. This has the potential to fundamentally alter our universe; in more
audacious scenarios even the various physical constants could have different values, severely affecting
the foundations of matter, energy, and spacetime. As such, we have no way to predict what this could
result in, and it could include any number of various beginnings of a new universe.
Cosmic uncertainty is an unofficial title for the realization that each possibility described so far is
based on a very simple form for the dark energy equation of state. But as the name is meant to imply,
very little is actually currently known about the real physics of the dark energy. If the dark energy
equation of state is incorrect in any fashion, which by its nature is very likely, the possibilities of what
futures there might be shift so wildly as to be beyond our current predictions.
Dyson's eternal intelligence concept (the Dyson Scenario) states that intelligent beings would be able

to think an infinite number of thoughts in an open universe. The intelligent beings would begin by
storing a finite amount of energy. They then use half (or any fraction) of this energy to power their
thought. When the energy gradient created by unleashing this fraction of the stored fuel was exhausted,
the beings would enter a state of zero-energy-consumption until the universe cooled. Once the universe
had cooled sufficiently, half of the remaining half (one quarter of the original energy) of the intelligent
beings' fuel reserves would once again be released, powering a brief period of thought once more. This
would continue, with smaller and smaller amounts of energy being released. As the universe cooled, the
thoughts would be slower and slower, but there would still be an infinite number of them.
If the progress of the universe was right, their energy use would match its changes making this a real
possibility. Note however that these particular conditions are quite rare, so this is more of a thought
experiment than a real description of a possible future. Indeed, since we have no way of knowing what
possible future abilities to manipulate things there may me, the existence of a single subjective
civilization indefinitely may happen under means we would have no current way of understanding.
Omega point theory or posthumanism posits that in the universe there may be no upper limit to the
complexity of structure that is able to be arranged, and that such in the far future intelligent life may be
able to go beyond the limitations of the ending universe in general. Specifically, if there is no upper
limit to complexity that things such as infinite time could even be simulated inside of a universe with
limited time, or a big crunch could result in a singularity which has its own simulated infinite time.
Theories on this are rather vague, by necessity, since it describes things which may be possible with
technology so far beyond human technology that we don't even have the means to comprehend its
arrangement. If this complexity changes shape enough, we may not even be able to recognize it as life.
Supernaturalism most simply is the idea that something (in context, referring to something
specifically conscious, although the word supernatural can also refer to non conscious things.) outside
of the rules of our universe may exist that, being not limited by it, may be in direct control of some
process which can make new ones, save entities from inside it, or other scenarios. Note that none of the
theories above necessarily inherently contradict supernaturalism, as even a universe with no beginning
would not erase the need for a description of why it exists. Some, however are seen as working better
in certain contexts. For instance, in a schema where only a single universe would ever exist, it seems
like it would have more closure for it to end in a big crunch, rather than having an open ended
existence in heat death. However, in a schema where it would allow infinite universes the second issue
is no problem, especially if it leads to other universes.

Dimensions
Dimensions refer to a single line of measurement, usually in space or time. For instance, we live
experiencing three spacial dimensions and one time dimension, and intuitively have a hard time
grasping the existence of more than that. (although it is not too difficult to grasp less spacial
dimensions) For instance, mathematically we have no means to prove any logic to the existence of
exactly three spacial dimensions. So an important question is whether dimensions are something that
actually exist independently, and are capable of existing in any number, or whether they are a mere
mathematical construct of ours which we mistake for a description of possible reality. And if they exist
independently, are there capable of being more time dimensions, or merely space?
Note that the terms three dimensionalism and four dimensionalism are used mainly in the context of
talking about timespace, and time as a fourth dimension, and so should not be mixed up haphazardly
with talking about other dimensional ideas. Note that in math there are many more hypothetical types
of space, but these are just a few basics to discuss the concept as it relates to the physical world.
Spacial dimensions refer to dimensions that extend in space. Note that when expressing three

dimensional space, we don't necessarily know that these extensions exist in any particular direction, nor
are they actually meaningfully numbered. They can be expressed in any direction, so long as the
directions are at right angles from eachother.
Temporal dimensions refer to dimensions that exist in time.
Euclidean space refers to a flat space of three spacial dimensions, and can sometimes be used as a
synonym for the idea that in reality the only possible space is one of exactly three spacial dimensions.
Note that for flat (or hyperbolic) space, the space seems to stretch on to infinity. As such, it may imply
even a specific universe that is infinite in size. (and there may be infinite of these to boot) Either that,
or at some point space may have to arbitrarily end, although we have no understanding of how or why
it would, or what it would be like to see the end of space. Whether space is infinite or not is another
important question.
Minkowski space refers to the three spacial dimensions and one time dimension taken together as a
four dimensional timespace. It however allows for the concept of curved space, since it is generally
used to describe general relativity which includes this.
Curved Space or Riemannian geometry refers to spaces which while they may be three dimensional,
(though not necessarily) are themselves curved dimensions, and so violate traditional intuitions about
the functioning of space. Curved spaces play an essential role in General Relativity where gravity is
often visualized as curved space, and so by modern intuitions the idea that space is necessarily
Euclidean is considered unlikely.
Hyperbolic space refers to space with geometry that is curved outwards.
Elliptic space refers to space with geometry that is curved inwards. As such, one could set off in one
direction and may end up where they started even though they were doing straight. Being curved
inwards, (spherical) it implies that a limited amount of space exists at any given time. (at least that is
theoretically directly connected to eachother.)
Rolled up dimension refers to an extra dimension that may exist in what we consider three
dimensional space by being rolled up or curved in a way that makes it invisible to us.
n-dimensional space refers to space of an arbitrary amount of dimensions. Sometimes used in relation
to the idea that a given universe is capable of having any arbitrary amount. Or alternately implying that
we don't know what the allowable upper limit might be.
Additional time dimensions are concepts used in some theories such as the many worlds interpretation
of quantum mechanics. An important question in philosophy of space and time is why there should be
only able to be one time dimension if there can be multiple of space. Is it simply because humans
interpret it in this way, or is it inherent in reality, or is it possible for there to be other dimensions of
time? If the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics is two temporal dimensions, is it possible
for there to be three or more? What form would that take?
Dimensions which are neither space nor time refer to hypothetical dimensions which may be
something other than time or space entirely, yet still exist. Little thought exists in this area, since there
is very little way to even comprehend what forms such dimensions would take.

Supertasks
A supertask is a countably infinite sequence of operations that occur sequentially within a finite
interval of time. Some question whether they are even theoretically able to be done at all, and others
say that it is a partially undefined idea, and the fact that laws of physics are not fully known make it

hard to categorize exactly what types of things are supertasks. They relate to philosophy of space and
time in that whether some of them are possible in any given universe seems to relate in some sense to
how space and time work in general. However, since they are often confusing as to how they would
work even in a situation we knew had infinitely divisible time and space, some see them as more of a
mathematical issue. (Since at any rate certain sets of physical laws might make them even theoretically
impossible to occur within them even if others allow them.) We'll give a few examples.
An equisupertask is a task where each step of a supertask must be completed in the same amount of
time. Since many rely on tasks which change time for each task, this gives different paramaters.
A hypertask is when the number of operations in a supertask becomes uncountably infinite.
Zeno's paradoxes are a set of paradoxes that were formulated in greek times, possibly by the
philosopher Zeno, which mostly focused on purporting to show that motion was an illusion. Although
there were an indeterminate number, mainly three are focused on. They are seen as the earliest time that
the concept of supertasks was addressed.
Achilles and the tortoise refers to a thought experiment where a tortoise and Achilles are in a race.
The tortoise being slower is give an 100 meter head start. The tortoise however can only move half as
fast as him. So by the time Achilles gets to 100 meters, the tortoise will be at 150. By the time Achilles
moves another 50, the tortoise will have moved another 25. And so on and on. On the surface, this
seemed to propose that each time they move all they are doing is merely halving the distance, and thus
an infinite number of tasks would have to be completed before Achilles gets out ahead. And so this
being seen as impossible was posited as showing that motion as we understand it could not exist.
The Dichotomy paradox is a more simple version of the above paradox. It stated that any object in
motion before getting to its goal must get half way. And before it gets there must get half way to half
way. And so on and on an infinite number of times.
The solutions to these paradoxes seem to rest on the assumption that time and space must then be
infinitely divisible. If so, then infinitely small movements would correspond to infinitely small times.
But at a rate which allows real movement. And thus there is nothing inherently impossible in
completing this type of supertask. There are more formal proofs which involve calculus, but many note
that pure math alone may not be enough to indicate possibility in the real world. And so there is
disagreement about whether it is a mathematical issue or also a metaphysical one. Some also posit that
the paradox arises from considering space and time as separate entities, and when considered as
spacetime it ceases to exist.
The arrow paradox is that if everything when it occupies a specific space is at rest, and if that which
is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, that a flying arrow is therefore
motionless. However, this is mainly answered with the argument that Instants are not parts of the flow
of time, as time is not made up of instants any more than a magnitude is made of points. Hence it does
not follow that a thing is not in motion in a given time, just because it is not (arguably) in motion in any
instant of that time. And that what appears to be a paradox is merely begging the question by
implicating that objects that occupy the same space as they do at rest must be at rest.
Thompson's lamp is an attempt to show that a specific supertask is impossible, which it purports
shows indirectly that all of them are. If you have a lightswitch which can only either be on or off, and it
is one minute to midnight. And each time half of the time between now and midnight arrives you
switch it, then what would its final state be? If you turn it on at 30 seconds to midnight, then off at 15,

then on at 7.5, back and forth, it seems to arrive at a contradiction by having neither step be a valid
final stage. (Thompson believed thus that regular motion itself was not a supertask.)
Nonetheless this is not seen as proving that supertasks are inherently impossible, and as a whole for
supertasks, the contradictions that they supposedly give rise to may be avoided if one rejects certain
unwarranted assumptions that are usually made. The main such assumption, responsible for the
apparent conceptual impossibility of supertasks, is that properties which are preserved after a finite
number of actions or operations will likewise be preserved after an infinite number of them. (Which
again is something shown as not necessarily correct by calculus.) Many supertask thought experiments
take a form similar to thompson's lamp by being based on sequences which get or begin infinitely
small.
RossLittlewood paradox is another paradox regarding supertasks. suppose there is a jar capable of
containing infinitely many marbles. At each time half of the amount of time between now and a minute
passes (30 sec, 45 sec, 52.5 sec, etc) marbles are put in in order. First, marbles numbers 1-10 are put in
and 1 is taken out. Then next 11-20 are put in and #2 is taken out. On and on through an infinite
number of steps. One argument states that there should be infinitely many marbles in the jar at the end,
because at each step before the end of the minute the number of marbles increases from the previous
step and does so unboundedly. A second argument, however, shows that the jar is empty. Because if the
jar is non-empty, then there must be a marble in the jar. Yet after infinite steps every single numbered
marble has been taken out.
The Ross-Littlewood paradox is that here we have two seemingly perfectly good arguments with
completely opposite conclusions. One obvious solution, then, is to simply say that supertasks are
impossible. If supertasks are impossible, then the very assumption that all of these scenarios had some
kind of 'end result' to them is mistaken, and thus there being no paradox.
Benardetes paradox is another. A man walks a mile from a beginning point. But there is an infinity of
gods, each of whom unknown to the others intends to obstruct him. One of them will raise a barrier to
stop his further advance if he reaches the half-mile point, a second if he reaches the quarter-mile point,
a third if he goes one-eighth of a mile, and so on ad infinitum. So he cannot even get started, because
however short a distance he travels he will already have been stopped by a barrier. But in that case no
barrier will rise, so that there is nothing to stop him setting off. He has been forced to stay where he is
by the mere unfulfilled intentions of the gods.