B Theory Of Time...

[JimL]

No, Jim. I was explaining with my ruler post that you felt you had to comment on, that in A-theory, the ruler doesn't exist, just the line, which has to be created and destroyed every moment. Since the future doesn't exist (and neither does the past) then the future has to be created constantly and the past destroyed constantly in order for "time" to progress.

In our experience the future doesn't yet exist, the Universe, space, would be expanding into the future. In other words the ruler/the universe exists and moves/expands in time. Time, whatever it is, would not be a dimension in space in A-theory. B-theory says that perspective is an illusion. In B-theory the universe of space is not expanding, all of space and all of time is all there, every point in time and every location in space is real. The markings on the ruler don't come and go, they are coextant with the whole of the ruler. And so, like the markings on a ruler, and like locations in space, the points in time don't come and go in B-theory, they are coextant with the whole of time. And if that is the case, if B-theory is the reality, then every event in every point in time, in all of time, is real and unchanging. The future "you" already exists, and has always existed.

[Sparko]

In our experience the future doesn't yet exist, the Universe, space, would be expanding into the future. In other words the ruler/the universe exists and moves/expands in time. Time, whatever it is, would not be a dimension in space in A-theory. B-theory says that perspective is an illusion. In B-theory the universe of space is not expanding, all of space and all of time is all there, every point in time and every location in space is real. The markings on the ruler don't come and go, they are coextant with the whole of the ruler. And so, like the markings on a ruler, and like locations in space, the points in time don't come and go in B-theory, they are coextant with the whole of time. And if that is the case, if B-theory is the reality, then every event in every point in time, in all of time, is real and unchanging. The future "you" already exists, and has always existed.

So you believe a whole new universe, albeit slightly larger, is created all the time as the future becomes the present, and the old universe just ceases to exist? By what mechanism or power source does this creation take place?

[JonathanL]

The Michealson-Morley experiment proved that there is no aether. And yes, relativity has been proven. You use it every time you use your GPS.

GPSes would work even under a Lorentz interpretation of relativity. And the Michealson-Morley experiment just couldn't detect an aether, it did not disprove it's existence. The issue is not which interpretation has the most empirical support, the issue is on a philosophical level. You cannot differentiate between a Lorentzian interpretation of relativity and SR, because they are empirically identical.

[JonathanL]

Well, if God didn't KNOW the future and he didn't manipulate people, then prophesy can be wrong. God can be wrong. All it takes is for a person to choose to do something that God didn't know he would do. What you are describing is open theism. A God who is not omniscient. Just really smart.

Yes, I agree. IF God didn't know the future and didn't manipulate people, prophesy can be wrong and open theism is correct.


But you've yet to demonstrate that God knowing the future without manipulating people is impossible under A-theory. You would have to show that there couldn't possibly be a single way for God's knowledge about the future and man's free will to exist simultaneously under any sort of version of A-theory, which is quite the tall order.

[JimL]

So you believe a whole new universe, albeit slightly larger, is created all the time as the future becomes the present, and the old universe just ceases to exist? By what mechanism or power source does this creation take place?

I didn't say I believed in A-theory, and a whole new universe isn't created in A-theory. In A-theory, like an inflating balloon, the existing universe simply expands and its entropy increases. It's just that in A-theory time would not be a dimension in which all events in all of the time dimension would be coextant and real. In B-theory the balloon isn't expanding, it's fully inflated and time is a static dimension in which all things within it are real and have always been real. It doesn't change, even though we experience change as though it were A-theory. According to B-theory the future "you" is experiencing what you would consider to be your future coextantly with your experience of the present. In other words the future "you" is just as real as the present "you." Not to mention the past "you."

[seer]

So you believe a whole new universe, albeit slightly larger, is created all the time as the future becomes the present, and the old universe just ceases to exist? By what mechanism or power source does this creation take place?

Sparko, you seem to be all over the map. Let me ask you, I had a friend who died recently - is he still alive and conscious somewhere in the universe? And I'm not speaking of heaven or the afterlife.

[Sparko]

GPSes would work even under a Lorentz interpretation of relativity. And the Michealson-Morley experiment just couldn't detect an aether, it did not disprove it's existence. The issue is not which interpretation has the most empirical support, the issue is on a philosophical level. You cannot differentiate between a Lorentzian interpretation of relativity and SR, because they are empirically identical.

No, it showed that there was no aether.

[Sparko]

Yes, I agree. IF God didn't know the future and didn't manipulate people, prophesy can be wrong and open theism is correct.


But you've yet to demonstrate that God knowing the future without manipulating people is impossible under A-theory. You would have to show that there couldn't possibly be a single way for God's knowledge about the future and man's free will to exist simultaneously under any sort of version of A-theory, which is quite the tall order.

I already did. You just said, "nuh-uh" and provided no evidence or even theory how it could be otherwise.

If you want to claim there is free will and God knows the future in A-theory, then it is your burden to prove, not mine.

[Sparko]

I didn't say I believed in A-theory,

Um, you have been arguing for it the entire thread.

and a whole new universe isn't created in A-theory. In A-theory, like an inflating balloon, the existing universe simply expands and its entropy increases. It's just that in A-theory time would not be a dimension in which all events in all of the time dimension would be coextant and real. In B-theory the balloon isn't expanding, it's fully inflated and time is a static dimension in which all things within it are real and have always been real. It doesn't change, even though we experience change as though it were A-theory. According to B-theory the future "you" is experiencing what you would consider to be your future coextantly with your experience of the present. In other words the future "you" is just as real as the present "you." Not to mention the past "you."

nope. you just don't see it.

T1=Present - Universe exists!
T0=Past - doesn't exist
T2=Future - doesn't exist

Therefore when T1 becomes T2 and the present, then everything exists at T2! An entire universe was created out of nothing, and the old one ceased to exist!

[Sparko]

Sparko, you seem to be all over the map. Let me ask you, I had a friend who died recently - is he still alive and conscious somewhere in the universe? And I'm not speaking of heaven or the afterlife.

Was he alive a year ago? Then he was alive and conscious in 2019. This is a true statement in both A and B theory.

[seer]

Was he alive a year ago? Then he was alive and conscious in 2019. This is a true statement in both A and B theory.

Is he still alive and conscious in 2019 somewhere in the universe?

[JimL]

Um, you have been arguing for it the entire thread.

Not true, I've simply been explaining what B-theory, if true, would mean. And what it means is the block universe in which actual change is not real because all of time and therefore all events in all of time would be real. If you think I've been advocating for one theory or the other then you have been miscomprehending my posts.

nope. you just don't see it.

T1=Present - Universe exists!
T0=Past - doesn't exist
T2=Future - doesn't exist

Therefore when T1 becomes T2 and the present, then everything exists at T2! An entire universe was created out of nothing, and the old one ceased to exist!

As you can see the post you are responding to is not advocating for A-theory, it's just my interpretation of B-theory. As to the above, an entire universe isn't being created out of nothing at each moment in time, the universe fully exists whether it's A or B-theory, it's just that in A theory the universe is expanding whereas in B-theory it isn't, it just appears to be expanding from our perspective.

[JonathanL]

No, it showed that there was no aether.

It showed that certain conceptions about the aether were wrong. It did not disprove the existence of an aether in general. It did not disprove the kind of aether described in the Lorentz Ether Theory. The reason (or at least a reason) SR is preferred over LET is not because the aether has been disproved, but because SR is able to make the same mathematical predictions that LET does, but without the need for the kind of, as of yet, undetectable aether that LET postulates.

I already did. You just said, "nuh-uh" and provided no evidence or even theory how it could be otherwise.

If you want to claim there is free will and God knows the future in A-theory, then it is your burden to prove, not mine.

I must have missed where you made the actual argument. What I've seen you do is make the claim that God's foreknowledge and human free will cannot co-exist under A-theory, but if you made an argument supporting that claim I must have overlooked it.


And I disagree with you that it's my burden to prove. You're the one who made the claim that God's foreknowledge and free will cannot co-exist in A-theory, I'm simply saying that until I see a valid argument supporting that claim I'm under no obligation accept that claim. I'm not telling you to start believing foreknowledge and free-will can co-exist in A-theory, I'm saying nothing that you've written in this thread (that I've read so far) demonstrates the falsity of that belief.

[Sparko]

Is he still alive and conscious in 2019 somewhere in the universe?

from our current point in time we say "was" -- "is" indicated he is somehow alive in 2020. He isn't. Neither in A or B time.

If you could build a time machine and go back to 2019, you would see your friend alive and conscious.

[JimL]

It showed that certain conceptions about the aether were wrong. It did not disprove the existence of an aether in general. It did not disprove the kind of aether described in the Lorentz Ether Theory. The reason (or at least a reason) SR is preferred over LET is not because the aether has been disproved, but because SR is able to make the same mathematical predictions that LET does, but without the need for the kind of, as of yet, undetectable aether that LET postulates.



I must have missed where you made the actual argument. What I've seen you do is make the claim that God's foreknowledge and human free will cannot co-exist under A-theory, but if you made an argument supporting that claim I must have overlooked it.


And I disagree with you that it's my burden to prove. You're the one who made the claim that God's foreknowledge and free will cannot co-exist in A-theory, I'm simply saying that until I see a valid argument supporting that claim I'm under no obligation accept that claim. I'm not telling you to start believing foreknowledge and free-will can co-exist in A-theory, I'm saying nothing that you've written in this thread (that I've read so far) demonstrates the falsity of that belief.

I wouldn't say that a god could not have forknowledge under A-theory, but if he did it would negate free will. If he knew the future then it would have to be that he engineered it to unwind that way. Like an elaborate set up of dominos, they will fall in the future the way they were set up to, determined beforehand to, fall. Free will couldn't exist within either theory of time if god has foreknowledge