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 Jim B. View Post
    I'm not claiming that there was ever a "time" at which time did not exist. I was responding to your quote:
    "The only thing that is changeless on the B-theory is the universeas 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."
    Interesting. I missed this quote from BP. He seems to be making a distinction between the things that make up the universe, with the universe as a whole, in the sense that the universe as a whole doesn't change, but that the things within it do, that all of time does't change, but that the things within all of time do. But that is not change in our normal undertanding of the term. In B-theory T1 isn't flowing into t2, they are just two different points in time that like the universe as a whole, never change. The things in time that are different from t1 to t2 aren't actually changing, the thing at t1 continues to persit at t1, and the same thing at t2 continues to persist at t2. The thing itself doesn't change from t1 to t2, they each continue to persist at their particular points in time. So, if indeed B-theory were true, and all of time is real, if each point in time persists, then the things existing at each point in time continue to persist as well. And if the thing at t1 continues to persist at t1, then how can it also be said to have changed.
    AFAIK, the general consensus is that the universe as a whole has a history and has gone through multiple states and stages of development.
    To say "gone through multiple states" would imply A-theory." In B-theory, all of history, past, present, and future is just as real. The civil war continues to persist in its "now" which is in our past, and that Trump just lost the election in novembercontinues to persist in our future "nows."
    Last edited by JimL; 05-23-2020, 04:25 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Sure, that sounds logical enough. But my point is that the change is not an active change because time doesn't flow in B-theory
      What do you mean by "active change?" It seems that all you are saying is that change on the B-Theory does not entail temporal ontological becoming, which I've already agreed to countless times. If you are saying that the B-Theory does include a notion of change but that this is somehow not "real change" and that the only thing which counts as "real change" is a change coupled with TOB, then it seems you are simply begging the question and presuming that the A-Theory is true in order to invalidate the B-Theory.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      If we can not even define what time is how can General Relativity speak to it with any real confidence?
      Time is a well-defined notion on General Relativity. We simply know that it's not quite a complete description because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics, currently. And GR can speak to it with real confidence for the same reason that ANY scientific theory can speak to reality with any confidence. It has been thoroughly tested and agrees well with observed data.

      Apples and oranges, the earth is physical and time is what?
      Physical. Seriously, that's not even a point of contention between A-Theorists and B-Theorists. Nearly everyone is in agreement on that point.

      And we did figure out that the earth wasn't flat by experience.
      No, we figured out that the Earth wasn't flat by "speculative science." And then we confirmed that belief through first-hand experience over 2500 years later. In precisely the same way, we figured out that Time doesn't work the way A-Theorists predicted through "speculative science" and then confirmed it through first-hand experience over 50 years later.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      AFAIK, the general consensus is that the universe as a whole has a history and has gone through multiple states and stages of development.
      Space has gone through multiple stages of development over time. The "universe as a whole" includes both space and time. If you are looking at the universe as a whole, you are only looking at a single state: all of space for all of time. There is no other state with which to compare it.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Also, it seems to me that if B-Theory is correct, then the conditions for believing anything are seriously undermined.
      I certainly don't see how that follows.
      "[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
        Time is a well-defined notion on General Relativity. We simply know that it's not quite a complete description because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics, currently. And GR can speak to it with real confidence for the same reason that ANY scientific theory can speak to reality with any confidence. It has been thoroughly tested and agrees well with observed data.
        BP you just said we could not define time. And if time is relative as GR suggests then isn't that real change?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
          What do you mean by "active change?" It seems that all you are saying is that change on the B-Theory does not entail temporal ontological becoming, which I've already agreed to countless times. If you are saying that the B-Theory does include a notion of change but that this is somehow not "real change" and that the only thing which counts as "real change" is a change coupled with TOB, then it seems you are simply begging the question and presuming that the A-Theory is true in order to invalidate the B-Theory.
          By active change I mean to say motion, an actual move from one point in time to the next, not just a consciousness of being in each point in time. If as you say we continue to persist at each point in time, then if you continue to persist at t1 how can it also be said that your t1 self changed to become your t2 self. The t1 you continues to persist, the t1 you didn't change. The t1, t2, t3, t4, you continues to persist in each of their "nows" so in what sense can you say they've changed?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            BP you just said we could not define time.
            No, I said that I am not personally able to define Time in a manner which is both clear and unambiguous. I could certainly offer a definition of Time which matches well with our empirical data, but it wouldn't likely be a very clear definition to you.

            And if time is relative as GR suggests then isn't that real change?
            As I've said before, "real change" is perfectly cogent on the B-Theory. However, are you suggesting that GR entails temporal ontological becoming? If so, I don't think you actually understand General Relativity.
            "[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 JimL View Post
              By active change I mean to say motion, an actual move from one point in time to the next, not just a consciousness of being in each point in time. If as you say we continue to persist at each point in time, then if you continue to persist at t1 how can it also be said that your t1 self changed to become your t2 self. The t1 you continues to persist, the t1 you didn't change. The t1, t2, t3, t4, you continues to persist in each of their "nows" so in what sense can you say they've changed?
              This makes as little sense as trying to talk about the Fingertip you, the Big Toe you, the Stomach you, and the Eyeball you. You persist across multiple points in space. In exactly the same way, on the B-Theory, you persist across multiple points in time. The t1, t2, t3, and t4 states of you are not the whole of you anymore than your fingertip is the whole of you. It's not that the t1 state becomes the t2 state. It's that you consist of a progression of states 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
                No, I said that I am not personally able to define Time in a manner which is both clear and unambiguous. I could certainly offer a definition of Time which matches well with our empirical data, but it wouldn't likely be a very clear definition to you.
                OK then let's start here - is time a physical thing?

                As I've said before, "real change" is perfectly cogent on the B-Theory. However, are you suggesting that GR entails temporal ontological becoming? If so, I don't think you actually understand General Relativity.
                If time changes speed then how is that not becoming slower or faster depending?
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  This makes as little sense as trying to talk about the Fingertip you, the Big Toe you, the Stomach you, and the Eyeball you. You persist across multiple points in space. In exactly the same way, on the B-Theory, you persist across multiple points in time. The t1, t2, t3, and t4 states of you are not the whole of you anymore than your fingertip is the whole of you. It's not that the t1 state becomes the t2 state. It's that you consist of a progression of states in time.
                  Exactly, there is no becoming, we persist through multiple points in time and in multiple locations in space. The you at t1 continues to persist at t1, correct? And the future you continues to persist as well correct? They didn't arrive in that time or in that space. So why are you only experiencing the present if you persistently exist throughout space and time. Another way to put it is that each of your "nows" are coextant, they're just different locations within a changeless spacetime.
                  Last edited by JimL; 05-23-2020, 07:11 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post

                    No, we figured out that the Earth wasn't flat by "speculative science." And then we confirmed that belief through first-hand experience over 2500 years later. In precisely the same way, we figured out that Time doesn't work the way A-Theorists predicted through "speculative science" and then confirmed it through first-hand experience over 50 years later.
                    But it's not a simple matter of empirically coercive fact like the flat earth analogy. There isn't even a non-controversial, non-circular definition of time. In fact, the whole question hinges on the abstract nature of time, not just on observation and causation.

                    Space has gone through multiple stages of development over time. The "universe as a whole" includes both space and time. If you are looking at the universe as a whole, you are only looking at a single state: all of space for all of time. There is no other state with which to compare it.
                    if you accept the four-dimensional manifold, then space is implicated in time and the universe as a whole. Even if you don't, space is still an ineliminable aspect of the universe as a whole, and so the changing states of space would seem to mean changing states of the universe as a whole.

                    I certainly don't see how that follows.
                    Why would the "me" that holds a belief B be given any priority over the infinite me's who co-exist holding non- or contra-B's? What is it about B that picks it out as a coherent identifiable propositional state? What is it about "me" that perdures as this conscious being in an illusory "now" in contradistinction to the infinite "me's" co-extant wit the "me" "now"? There's nothing about B or about "me" that seems ontologically durable enough to be the subject or the state they are alleged to be in folk psychology. And why is it that there is a "me" at all phenomenally confined to a "now"?; why am "I" not smeared all over the chunk of space-time that is my life, or would it be across the entire timeline of the universe?
                    Last edited by Jim B.; 05-23-2020, 07:01 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      But it's not a simple matter of empirically coercive fact like the flat earth analogy. There isn't even a non-controversial, non-circular definition of time. In fact, the whole question hinges on the abstract nature of time, not just on observation and causation.
                      I think we can all agree that there is only two underlying possibilities concerning time and that is that the future is either open, or time is fixed, or it is closed to actual change. In other words the future either doesn't exist, or it already, has always, existed. The former would be A-theory, the latter, B-theory.


                      If you accept the four-dimensional manifold, then space is implicated in time and the universe as a whole. Even if you don't, space is still an ineliminable aspect of the universe as a whole, and so the changing states of space would seem to mean changing states of the universe as a whole.
                      And in B-theory the change we see is space and time woul be an illusion. The universe of space and time is not expanding or changing in B-theory, in B-theory, it's all there in its entirety.


                      Why would the "me" that holds a belief B be given any priority over the infinite me's who co-exist holding non- or contra-B's? What is it about B that picks it out as a coherent identifiable propositional state?
                      Good question. It's like Sparko's idea of a film being projected on a screen. The projector lights up on cell at a time, yet the whole film exists. What lights up our present, or what lights up all the "nows"in B-theory. Perhaps consciousness? But then what is consciousness?

                      What is it about "me" that perdures as this conscious being in an illusory "now" in contradistinction to the infinite "me's" co-extant wit the "me" "now"? There's nothing about B or about "me" that seems ontologically durable enough to be the subject or the state they are alleged to be in folk psychology. And why is it that there is a "me" at all phenomenally confined to a "now"?; why am "I" not smeared all over the chunk of space-time that is my life, or would it be across the entire timeline of the universe?
                      I believe that B-theory posits that the you, at each point along the time line, each of your "nows" continue to persist in the same way as the present you, your present "now". In other words, Caesar is crossing the rubicon in his "now" which point in time is coextant with your present "now."
                      Last edited by JimL; 05-25-2020, 11:03 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        I think we can all agree that there is only two underlying possibilities concerning time and that is that the future is either open, or time is fixed, or it is closed to actual change. In other words the future either doesn't exist, or it already, has always, existed. The former would be A-theory, the latter, B-theory.
                        No, I don't agree with that. It's conceivable that there is a reality 'outside of' or 'beyond' time. I call that reality "God." I don't see why this reality would necessitate the nature of the events happening within time. Those events could be 'closed' or 'open.' God could timelessly know every event without influencing any event. That is the position of Augustine and Boethius. So sub specie aeternitas, from God's perspective, the future 'exists' or is real, but is not necessarily fixed. So God would be in a B-relation to time and the creatures within time would be in an A-relation.



                        And in B-theory the change we see is space and time woul be an illusion. The universe of space and time is not expanding or changing in B-theory, in B-theory, it's all there in its entirety.
                        But the word 'illusion' suggests an identifiable subject upon whom the illusion is being perpetrated. What is the nature of this 'illusion.' What generates it and on what or who is it being played? If this illusion constitutes what I am in an existential sense (think Heidegger), then what am I left to think with without it?



                        Good question. It's like Sparko's idea of a film being projected on a screen. The projector lights up on cell at a time, yet the whole film exists. What lights up our present, or what lights up all the "nows"in B-theory. Perhaps consciousness? But then what is consciousness?
                        That analogy still depends on a presentist assumption of a light presently illuminating a single frame. And BTW, what is the frame size for B-Theory? How long is a 'moment'? How many "Me's" are there in a minute? A second? A nanosecond?


                        I believe that B-theory posits that the you, at each point along the time line, each of your "nows" continue to persist in the same way as the present you, your present "now". In other words, Caesar is crossing the rubicon in his "now" which point in time is coextant with your present "now."
                        But that leaves unanswered why there's this mysterious "Me" that keeps flickering across all of the underlying, coextant "me's"?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          No, I don't agree with that. It's conceivable that there is a reality 'outside of' or 'beyond' time. I call that reality "God." I don't see why this reality would necessitate the nature of the events happening within time. Those events could be 'closed' or 'open.' God could timelessly know every event without influencing any event. That is the position of Augustine and Boethius. So sub specie aeternitas, from God's perspective, the future 'exists' or is real, but is not necessarily fixed. So God would be in a B-relation to time and the creatures within time would be in an A-relation.
                          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 the word 'illusion' suggests an identifiable subject upon whom the illusion is being perpetrated. What is the nature of this 'illusion.' What generates it and on what or who is it being played? If this illusion constitutes what I am in an existential sense (think Heidegger), then what am I left to think with without it?
                          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.




                          That analogy still depends on a presentist assumption of a light presently illuminating a single frame. And BTW, what is the frame size for B-Theory? How long is a 'moment'? How many "Me's" are there in a minute? A second? A nanosecond?
                          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 that leaves unanswered why there's this mysterious "Me" that keeps flickering across all of the underlying, coextant "me's"?
                          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.
                          Last edited by JimL; 05-25-2020, 04:34 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            BP, I have been following this interchange and it occurs to me, no one has clearly and unambiguously defined "time." Can you?
                            In B-theory, it would be the 4th dimension of space-time: Length, width, height, and time.
                            Last edited by Sparko; 05-26-2020, 02:07 PM.

                            Comment


                            • 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?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                In B-theory, it would be the 4th dimension of space-time: Length, width, height, and time.
                                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?

                                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