Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

B Theory Of Time...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    I thought that I made that clear, BP.Cognition in B-theory is no different than anything else. If the entirety of the universe, and everything in it, if all points of time, all points in space, like the markings on a ruler, have always been real and coextant, then how can actual agency fit into that system. In other words, in terms of the timeline, your entire life span, being that each point, or moment of it, if you will, are coextant, came into existence at once along with the entirety of the time dimension, the entirety of the whole universe. You may be experiencing your past, present and future, in some sense, but you're not creating it, it's always been there, like the entirety of time has always been there, the entirety of the universe.
    What if God played the entire universe through once, with free will, and now we are just a recording he is watching on his TV?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      I thought that I made that clear, BP.Cognition in B-theory is no different than anything else. If the entirety of the universe, and everything in it, if all points of time, all points in space, like the markings on a ruler, have always been real and coextant, then how can actual agency fit into that system.
      I'm still unclear what it is about agency that you think is in conflict with all points in time being coextant.

      In other words, in terms of the timeline, your entire life span, being that each point, or moment of it, if you will, are coextant, came into existence at once
      Well, here's a bit of an issue. It's not true that they came into existence all at once. Time never came into existence, at all. That would imply that there was a time in which Time didn't exist, which is obviously incoherent.

      You may be experiencing your past, present and future, in some sense, but you're not creating it, it's always been there, like the entirety of time has always been there, the entirety of the universe.
      I've never argued that you are creating it in the ontological sense. I have said that you are causally responsible for it. As I said earlier, it is this causal responsibility which I identify with agency. I see no need to invoke ontological becoming, at all.
      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        it's not a perfect analogy. Just using it to explain why your consciousness only remembers the past. I suppose you could imagine a film strip with an infinite number of projectors all watching the film pass by them at the same time. Each moment of your life believes it is in "now" and sees the past as gone and the future as ahead of them with no knowledge of it yet.

        The you who started reading this post thought he was in "now" and so does the you who is reading this word right now. Yet that Jim who started reading this post is now in the past. Same with the you of 5 minutes, or 5 years from now.
        But why would there be this stubborn sense of this one conscious self that is passing 'through' time somehow? If it's an illusion, an illusion perpetrated upon what or whom? It seems that the qualitative raw feel of consciousness and identity constitutes its own reality, regardless of the physical, causal underpinnings.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post


          As I mentioned in my own thread on the B-Theory, the only thing that is changeless on the B-Theory is the universe as a whole, because that necessarily implies looking at all of Time, as well. Change requires comparing one state of a thing to another state of that thing, but the universe as a whole doesn't have multiple states on a Block Universe model.
          Isn't it generally accepted that the universe has an age? Steady state would be more consistent with B-Theory.



          So are you saying that you WOULD claim that when God chooses to do something good he has not made a free-will choice?
          It's the difference between "cannot" and "need not." According to compatibilists, even if agents lack the ability to do otherwise, that is still compatible with a certain kind of freedom of action. If God is morally perfect, he does not lack the ability to do otherwise but lacks the need, because his actions will always track the best possible course. Otherwise, one seems forced to say that a perfection leads to an inability, which sounds strange. So God's lack of need to do otherwise does not preclude libertarian notions of free will.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Isn't it generally accepted that the universe has an age? Steady state would be more consistent with B-Theory.
            Even if the universe has a finite past, there was never a time in which Time did not exist. That's quite obviously incoherent, whether one is an A-Theorist or a B-Theorist.

            It's the difference between "cannot" and "need not." According to compatibilists, even if agents lack the ability to do otherwise, that is still compatible with a certain kind of freedom of action. If God is morally perfect, he does not lack the ability to do otherwise but lacks the need, because his actions will always track the best possible course. Otherwise, one seems forced to say that a perfection leads to an inability, which sounds strange. So God's lack of need to do otherwise does not preclude libertarian notions of free will.
            So are you saying that God can do evil?
            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
              I'm still unclear what it is about agency that you think is in conflict with all points in time being coextant.
              Well, as you made clear in the statement below, time didn't come into existence, but whether you consider time as having come into existence, or as having always been, in either case, according to B-theory, it exists in it's entirety. It doesnst't flow from t1 to t2, all points in time have been real for however long time itself has been real. Take your ruler example again. If the ruler were eternal, then all the measuring points along it's length would be just as eternal. Nothing actually changes, they are just eternal points or markers along the eternal whole. I would appreciate it if you could, perhaps using the ruler analogy, explain how actual change happens within that which has always been.
              Well, here's a bit of an issue. It's not true that they came into existence all at once. Time never came into existence, at all. That would imply that there was a time in which Time didn't exist, which is obviously incoherent.
              Well, I actually agree, but theist would argue with you about that, they would argue that time did come into existence. But that doesn't change the fact that whether you take time to be eternal or having come into existence, according to B-theory, time either came into existence, or has eternallly existed, in it's entirety.
              I've never argued that you are creating it in the ontological sense. I have said that you are causally responsible for it. As I said earlier, it is this causal responsibility which I identify with agency. I see no need to invoke ontological becoming, at all.
              Could you explain how that works in a universe in which all of time, each point in time, has always been real?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Well, as you made clear in the statement below, time didn't come into existence, but whether you consider time as having come into existence, or as having always been, in either case, according to B-theory, it exists in it's entirety. It doesnst't flow from t1 to t2, all points in time have been real for however long time itself has been real. Take your ruler example again. If the ruler were eternal, then all the measuring points along it's length would be just as eternal. Nothing actually changes, they are just eternal points or markers along the eternal whole. I would appreciate it if you could, perhaps using the ruler analogy, explain how actual change happens within that which has always been.
                I'm still not understanding your issue, here. We already agree that all points in time are coextant. We agree that no individual point in time is changing. I have stated that change over time is still a clearly cogent concept, as things have properties at one point in time which they do not have in other points in time. Do you at least agree that this is a cogent description of change over time?

                If you don't agree, we can delve into that further. If you do agree, then it seems that you are still caught up on the notion of temporal ontological becoming. I still see no reason to think that TOB is necessary for something to be causally responsible for an effect.

                Well, I actually agree, but theist would argue with you about that, they would argue that time did come into existence. But that doesn't change the fact that whether you take time to be eternal or having come into existence, according to B-theory, time either came into existence, or has eternallly existed, in it's entirety.
                There might be some people who do try to argue for something so obviously incoherent. I've actually interacted with a few, myself. However, when someone just insists on stubbornly holding to an incoherent position, I'll tend to ignore them. Ex falso quodlibet, so even if they are right, so am I.

                That said, even ardent A-Theorists like William Lane Craig recognize that it is completely incoherent to say that there was a time when Time did not exist. That's why he has painstakingly crafted a very strange and very particular definition for the phrase "begins to exist" which can apply even to things which were literally never non-existent.

                Could you explain how that works in a universe in which all of time, each point in time, has always been real?
                Much the same way as it works on the A-Theory, just without the notion of temporal ontological becoming. A soccer player's leg is in motion over time. It connects with a ball, imparting kinetic energy which imposes a force that sets the ball into motion over time. Nothing about that scenario requires temporal ontological becoming. Even if all of the moments of the whole event are entirely coextant, we still see the same pattern and come to precisely the same conclusions.
                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  I'm still not understanding your issue, here. We already agree that all points in time are coextant. We agree that no individual point in time is changing. I have stated that change over time is still a clearly cogent concept, as things have properties at one point in time which they do not have in other points in time. Do you at least agree that this is a cogent description of change over time?

                  If you don't agree, we can delve into that further. If you do agree, then it seems that you are still caught up on the notion of temporal ontological becoming. I still see no reason to think that TOB is necessary for something to be causally responsible for an effect.

                  There might be some people who do try to argue for something so obviously incoherent. I've actually interacted with a few, myself. However, when someone just insists on stubbornly holding to an incoherent position, I'll tend to ignore them. Ex falso quodlibet, so even if they are right, so am I.

                  That said, even ardent A-Theorists like William Lane Craig recognize that it is completely incoherent to say that there was a time when Time did not exist. That's why he has painstakingly crafted a very strange and very particular definition for the phrase "begins to exist" which can apply even to things which were literally never non-existent.

                  Much the same way as it works on the A-Theory, just without the notion of temporal ontological becoming. A soccer player's leg is in motion over time. It connects with a ball, imparting kinetic energy which imposes a force that sets the ball into motion over time. Nothing about that scenario requires temporal ontological becoming. Even if all of the moments of the whole event are entirely coextant, we still see the same pattern and come to precisely the same conclusions.
                  But, is it proper to say that the soccer players leg and the soccer ball, are actually in motion, or are they just in different positions dependent upon where they are in time? Your discription of that action would makes sense in A-theory, i.e. actual motion taking place, but in B-theory, there is no actual motion, there are just different positions of leg and ball within static time. The former I believe would be temporal ontological becoming, I don't think the same could be said of the latter because in the latter scenario there is no actual motion, there are just different positions in different points of time. It's like Sparko's roll of film, the frame clips are all there, each cell coextant, but there is no actual motion taking place in the film itself.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    But, is it proper to say that the soccer players leg and the soccer ball, are actually in motion, or are they just in different positions dependent upon where they are in time?
                    That's what it means to be in motion.
                    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                      That's what it means to be in motion.
                      That's what it would mean in A-theory, I don't think so with respect to B-theory. There is no motion between the clips in a static roll of film.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        That's what it would mean in A-theory, I don't think so with respect to B-theory. There is no motion between the clips in a static roll of film.
                        A thing being in different spatial positions at different moments in time is the very definition of locomotion, whether on the A-Theory or the B-Theory. I'm honestly unsure why you think temporal becoming has anything to do with it.
                        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                          A thing being in different spatial positions at different moments in time is the very definition of locomotion, whether on the A-Theory or the B-Theory. I'm honestly unsure why you think temporal becoming has anything to do with it.
                          Would you say that the cells on the static roll of film are in motion?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Would you say that the cells on the static roll of film are in motion?
                            Are those cells in different spatial positions at different points in time?
                            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                              Are those cells in different spatial positions at different points in time?
                              It's analogous, BP. If you were to unfurl the roll and lay out flat the length of film it's analogous to the Block universe in which the whole of spacetime is real. Each cell represents an event in time and a position in space, but the whole of the film represents the whole of spacetime. Nothing actually changes with repect to the whole of the film, even though each event, each cell, differs with respect to time.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                It's analogous, BP.
                                It's a false analogy. I said that motion is when a thing has a different spatial position at one moment in time than it does at another. You then tried to make an analogy to something which is in the same spatial position at different moments in time.
                                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X