B Theory Of Time...

[JonathanL]

Time flows differently for objects moving at different speeds. How can that be if time is A-theory? Wouldn't all time have to change at the same rate everywhere? If I am moving near the speed of light, one second to me could be 1000 years on earth. How can my future only come into existence one second further while a 1000 years of your future have come into existence? If you were watching me and a clock on my shelf, why wouldn't you be seeing 1000 years into my future instead of only 1 second?

I don't think absolute simultaneity is a necessary facet of time under A-theory. If the "time" of a certain object or locale is simply it's total rate of change, then you moving close to lightspeed and only experiencing one second while 1000 years passed on the earth would simply mean that the "rate of change" for you would be 31,536,000,000 times (or whatever the correct ratio between 1 second and 1000 years is, the number is just based on a quick google conversion) slower than for the earth. I don't see any problem for A-theory under this assumption.

[seer]

In B-theory, it would be the 4th dimension of space-time: Length, width, height, and time.

That doesn't tell me what time is. Is it physical? What is it made of?

[Jim B.]

As I tried to explain to BP, that idea is a contradiction on its face. If time is fixed from any perspective, then it is fixed period. It time is fixed from gods perspective, then it is fixed whether we on the inside see it that way or not.

But my point was to try to imagine a reality that's outside of time altogether, that has no influence on what happens within time. It's conceivable that this reality would have no bearing on whether time was 'open' or 'closed.' The fact that there can be an 'outside' to time doesn't necessarily tell us what the external or internal nature of time is.

I'm not saying that B-theory is a reality, I'm just saying what it suggest. In B-theory all of spacetime exists, therefore everything in space at every point in time exists. The illusion is that we are moving through spacetime, wherein reality, if B-theory were true, we already exist at every point in time that coincides with our life spans. The illusions is that we move from point a to point b, from t1 to t2,. How the illusion would work is beyond me.

Yes, I get that part. There's a phenomenal aspect that the physics leaves out just like with consciousness. I don't see why we would automatically defer to physics in these matters, at least exclusively, without at least seriously considering that both approaches may be 'right' but that we don't understand the nexus, and that physics, like all human endeavors, probably has a blind spot.

Yes, it's very strange, the past you would be experiencing, would be in, his present, in his "now" just as the present you is in its "now". How else cuold it be if all of time, if each point in time, is coextant with with every other point in time? The whole thing is there which is why they call it the BLOCK UNIVERSE. Like I said, how the illusion is thought to work is beyond me.

But the past "me" would also have to be moving "through" time (as in an A-relation) in order to be experiencing anything at all. For a B-Theorist, it's either all an illusion or it's an infinite series of frozen snapshots.

Yes, it does. Not only that, but all the other you's, in there own "nows" of course, if they knew about B-theory, could be asking themselves the same question. Perhaps the future you has already figured it out.

I'm already the "future me" relative to when I started writing this post, and I still don't know!

[Jim B.]

Exactly, and in B-theory, time is a dimension, it doesn't flow into the future, just like spatial dimensions, it's all there, and everything in time and space is all there. That being the case, in B-theory nothing in the universe actually changes. The question then becomes, if B-theory is true, how is it that we experience change in a universe that itself is changeless?

But I thought the universe as a whole has changed, is changing and going through multiple states.

[Jim B.]

I don't think absolute simultaneity is a necessary facet of time under A-theory. If the "time" of a certain object or locale is simply it's total rate of change, then you moving close to lightspeed and only experiencing one second while 1000 years passed on the earth would simply mean that the "rate of change" for you would be 31,536,000,000 times (or whatever the correct ratio between 1 second and 1000 years is, the number is just based on a quick google conversion) slower than for the earth. I don't see any problem for A-theory under this assumption.

I think the assumption is that the future already exists for ppeople on earth that doesn't yet exist for the person traveling at close to light speed. The B-Theorists would say this supports their claim that time is like another dimension of space. I'm not sure it does.

[Jim B.]

That doesn't tell me what time is. Is it physical? What is it made of?

It doesn't have to be 'made of' anything to be physical. It just means it can be analyzed in a certain way.

[JimL]

But my point was to try to imagine a reality that's outside of time altogether, that has no influence on what happens within time. It's conceivable that this reality would have no bearing on whether time was 'open' or 'closed.' The fact that there can be an 'outside' to time doesn't necessarily tell us what the external or internal nature of time is.

That's true, time is whatever it is regardless of ones perpective. Whether time is open or closed, it is open or closed regardless of perspective. We certainly experience time as though the future were open, but according to physics, which posits that all of time exist, it would seem to be closed, afaics. Outside of time, would be "no time" or "timelessness" whatever that means. Personally it's as difficult for me to imagine timelessness as it is for me to imagine nothingness.

Yes, I get that part. There's a phenomenal aspect that the physics leaves out just like with consciousness. I don't see why we would automatically defer to physics in these matters, at least exclusively, without at least seriously considering that both approaches may be 'right' but that we don't understand the nexus, and that physics, like all human endeavors, probably has a blind spot.

The problem that I see in B-theory is that if it is the correct theory, then even the phenomenal aspect of experience would be determined. It would be like Sparko idea of the projector lighting up the pre-existing cells on the film. The cells, like the points in time, already exists, the projecter, like consciousness, merely lights them up. The difference being that when it comes to B-theory time, all the points are supposedly lit up coextantly (if thats a word) even though we only experience the present, which makes no sense to me.

But the past "me" would also have to be moving "through" time (as in an A-relation) in order to be experiencing anything at all. For a B-Theorist, it's either all an illusion or it's an infinite series of frozen snapshots.

Yep, that's my best understanding of it, which is the main sticking point to me. I can't make heads or tails of it. How is it that each event in time is just as real as every other event in time, but the only one that is real for us is the present?

I'm already the "future me" relative to when I started writing this post, and I still don't know!

I'm not a physicist, I'm just a GED grad. I was hoping BP could make sense of it for me.

[seer]

It doesn't have to be 'made of' anything to be physical. It just means it can be analyzed in a certain way.

So is it physical or not? And what exactly are we analyzing? I mean isn't time just an arbitrary measurement?

[Sparko]

That doesn't tell me what time is. Is it physical? What is it made of?

What is space? is it physical? It exists even when there is nothing in it.

[Sparko]

I think the assumption is that the future already exists for ppeople on earth that doesn't yet exist for the person traveling at close to light speed. The B-Theorists would say this supports their claim that time is like another dimension of space. I'm not sure it does.

A-theory assumes some universal time state, "the present," that everyone exists in. In my example, you might have experienced 1000 years, while someone else only experienced 1 second, yet the fact that you can still see them, begs the question that you are in the same "present", otherwise how can you see them?

[JonathanL]

A-theory assumes some universal time state, "the present," that everyone exists in. In my example, you might have experienced 1000 years, while someone else only experienced 1 second, yet the fact that you can still see them, begs the question that you are in the same "present", otherwise how can you see them?

As I said in my previous response, I don't think absolute simultaneity (what you call universal time state) is a necessary condition/facet of A-theories in general, even if most versions of A-theories do seem to incorporate an "universal time state".

[JimL]

What is space? is it physical? It exists even when there is nothing in it.

I would suggest that space is material, it bends and warps due to the mass of the objects within it, also known as gravity.

[seer]

What is space? is it physical? It exists even when there is nothing in it.

Space is just void, emptiness. Is time emptiness? Nothingness? And it is completely arbitrary. What is a year, a day?

[Leonhard]

I'm not a fatalist, but if I were there wouldn't be anything I could do about it.

[seer]

I'm not a fatalist, but if I were there wouldn't be anything I could do about it.