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 Chrawnus View Post
    The only "mechanism" or explanation I can think of that would explain the illusion of the passage of time if B-theory is true would be that the mind exists in a second A-theory version as a disembodied entity (a soul) that travels through each moment of time sequentially and experiences each B-moment of time in chronological order, from the beginning of it's conception to the time of it's death. As far as I'm concerned, basically only two alternatives are plausible to me, at least for now, either the passage of time is a real facet of material reality, in which case A-theory is true, or the passage of time in the physical universe is just an illusion, in which case something like the above is the only available explanation we has so far for how this illusion can arise, which would mean that there is actually a second "meta-time" in which non-physical entities like the mind exist.
    There do seem to be two kinds of "time", the one of physics and the one of experience, Bergson's 'duration'. This seems to be the same kind of puzzle as consciousness, in which physics has a hard time making a place for qualia, the thing that our conscious lives are made up of. Even if your theory of "meta-time" is right, I suspect that this "meta-time" is a part of fundamental reality since it would be an integral aspect of the identity of these non-material minds or souls.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      But that is all premised, again, on the assumption that your perceptions accurately correspond to an objective reality.
      Empirical testing can confirm objective reality to a very large degree. There is no other way to confirm “objective reality” than by empirical testing.

      You cannot step outside of your perceptual/empirical experience to confirm or disconfirm its validity.
      But we CAN recognize in others that they are delusional when their perceptual experiences do NOT conform to objective reality.

      Such an assumption of an objective reality corresponding to your perceptual experience is an assumption that results from a very long, complex causal/inferential chain. It can never be nearly as certain of a datum as that I am conscious or that I am a certain kind of conscious being.
      The datum that you are "conscious" or "a certain kind of conscious being" is purely subjective and not necessarily accurate according to the accumulated evidence of objective reality.

      You're confusing the certainty or reliability of some given conscious experience or other with the fact that there are conscious experiences at all. I am talking about the latter. The former are always uncertain. The latter are not.
      A man who is convinced that he was Jesus or Napoleon may well “always be certain” but he’d be wrong. Whereas "the theory of special relativity, as well as all scientific theories" can be multiply tested and form the basis of technological advances.

      And that's the confusion I just referred to above. If I were a brain in a vat or in a sim world, I'd have to live AS IF it were real, in a way corresponding to a methodological, not a metaphysical, commitment to its 'reality.'
      And how, exactly, would you live “corresponding to a metaphysical commitment to reality” in ANY world including one subject to the B-Theory of time?

      You're confusing the two meanings. It is an 'objective' fact, ie it is a fact that doesn't depend for its truth on the stance, attitude or opinion of any observer, that the world contains 'subjective' points of view.
      We are well aware that the world “contains 'subjective' points of view” and we are equally aware that very often they can be wrong.

      Who or what is being deceived and how is that illusion being created? That would be like saying that the illusion of another kind of dimension were possible, that the people of "Flatland" could be 'deceived' that there was a 3-D world.
      If the “people of Flatland” erroneously believed that their 2-dimensional universe was actually a 3-dimensional universe then they too would be subject an illusion.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Empirical testing can confirm objective reality to a very large degree. There is no other way to confirm “objective reality” than by empirical testing.
        You have a consistent habit of not responding to the point that I actually made but to the point that you assume that I made. This habit makes conversation very difficult. Once again, there is no way to assess the objective reality of empirical data, if by objective is meant the correspondence of that data to a reality independent of the sense data.



        But we CAN recognize in others that they are delusional when their perceptual experiences do NOT conform to objective reality.
        We cannot step outside of our sense data to check its 'objectivity.' We can only check its internal coherence and then assume, based on inference to the best explanation, a sense-independent world causing the data.



        The datum that you are "conscious" or "a certain kind of conscious being" is purely subjective and not necessarily accurate according to the accumulated evidence of objective reality.
        No, you're confusing the different meanings of the word "subjective" again. I can be wrong about the contents of my subjective awareness -- I may think you're angry with me when you're really not, etc. But the fact that I am conscious does not depend on any attitude, feeling, etc of any subject. It is the most certain possible datum that I can have. If "I" were to be wrong about it, then there would be no "I" there to be wrong. How can I possibly be mistaken about it when the conditions of 'wrongness' assume it? It's not something I infer causally, as with empirical inferences, but a datum given directly.



        A man who is convinced that he was Jesus or Napoleon may well “always be certain” but he’d be wrong. Whereas "the theory of special relativity, as well as all scientific theories" can be multiply tested and form the basis of technological advances.
        That's exactly the confusion I was referring to directly above.



        And how, exactly, would you live “corresponding to a metaphysical commitment to reality” in ANY world including one subject to the B-Theory of time?
        I'm not sure what you mean by "live corresponding to a metaphysical commitment." We "live corresponding to a methodological commitment," although some of us also profess a metaphysical commitment, vis a vis metaphysical naturalism.



        We are well aware that the world “contains 'subjective' points of view” and we are equally aware that very often they can be wrong.
        The contents of my subjective states can be wrong, but the fact that I am conscious cannot be.



        If the “people of Flatland” erroneously believed that their 2-dimensional universe was actually a 3-dimensional universe then they too would be subject an illusion.
        Of course if they erroneously believed something, then they would be wrong, by definition! My point is that there has to be a subject of an illusion, a mechanism, and an underlying reality, all three of which satisfactorily explain the existence and generation of the 'illusion.' Just restricting ourselves to the first term, if "I" am the subject of the illusion, then the question becomes "What am I"? How can I be defined in such a way as to still retain my identity as "me"?

        Comment


        • I already explained all this to you guys next year!


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            I already explained all this to you guys next year!

            And the future you is just as wrong about it as the past you is.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              And the future you is just as wrong about it as the past you is.
              You just can't grasp the futility of your argument, but you were destined to make it anyway.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                You just can't grasp the futility of your argument, but you were destined to make it anyway.
                That's what's called irony, Sparko. Perhaps the future you knows better,

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  That's what's called irony, Sparko. Perhaps the future you knows better,
                  He says you are still/always full of crap.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    He says you are still/always full of crap.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Once again, there is no way to assess the objective reality of empirical data, if by objective is meant the correspondence of that data to a reality independent of the sense data.
                      There is no way to assess the reality of subjective “independent sense data”. Whereas empirical data can be successfully acted upon as if it was “objectively real” - as indicated by ever growing body of scientific knowledge and technology.

                      We cannot step outside of our sense data to check its 'objectivity.' We can only check its internal coherence and then assume, based on inference to the best explanation, a sense-independent world causing the data.
                      Practical judgement in perceiving and understanding others is shared by most people. Those that do not conform to what the majority perceive can reasonably be assumed to be delusional.

                      the fact that I am conscious does not depend on any attitude, feeling, etc of any subject. It is the most certain possible datum that I can have. If "I" were to be wrong about it, then there would be no "I" there to be wrong. How can I possibly be mistaken about it when the conditions of 'wrongness' assume it? It's not something I infer causally, as with empirical inferences, but a datum given directly.
                      A man’s belief that he is Napoleon is based upon subjective “datum given directly” to him. He can’t believe he can “possibly be mistaken about it”. Similarly, those refuting the well attested B-Theory of time et al.

                      I'm not sure what you mean by "live corresponding to a metaphysical commitment." We "live corresponding to a methodological commitment," although some of us also profess a metaphysical commitment, vis a vis metaphysical naturalism.
                      You raised the term, not I. So, what “corresponding methodological commitment” do YOU live by if not metaphysical naturalism?

                      The contents of my subjective states can be wrong, but the fact that I am conscious cannot be.
                      The “contents of your subjective states” are merely who and what you believe yourself to be.

                      My point is that there has to be a subject of an illusion, a mechanism, and an underlying reality, all three of which satisfactorily explain the existence and generation of the 'illusion.' Just restricting ourselves to the first term, if "I" am the subject of the illusion, then the question becomes "What am I"? How can I be defined in such a way as to still retain my identity as "me"?
                      So, how will you answer the question “What am I", if the “underlying reality” is the B-Theory of time - as seems more likely than not according to physicists and many philosophers?
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        There is no way to assess the reality of subjective “independent sense data”. Whereas empirical data can be successfully acted upon as if it was “objectively real” - as indicated by ever growing body of scientific knowledge and technology.
                        The judgement that "I am conscious" cannot possibly be disproven under any scenario, unlike any empirical judgement. I don't act on it "as if" it was objectively real. It's objective reality CONSTITUTES my knowledge that I am conscious. The "growing body of scientific knowledge and technology" begs the question,of course, because that body is still part of the assumed reality under discussion.



                        Practical judgement in perceiving and understanding others is shared by most people. Those that do not conform to what the majority perceive can reasonably be assumed to be delusional.
                        This begs the question again for the same reason as just mentioned.



                        A man’s belief that he is Napoleon is based upon subjective “datum given directly” to him. He can’t believe he can “possibly be mistaken about it”. Similarly, those refuting the well attested B-Theory of time et al.
                        I'm talking about objective criteria for belief. The delusional man may subjectively believe that the datum is given directly to him, just as he may believe that there are 9 days in a week. What I'm referring to are objective criteria for believing in subjectivity itself, not in the particular contents of some subjective state or other.



                        You raised the term, not I. So, what “corresponding methodological commitment” do YOU live by if not metaphysical naturalism?
                        You're getting terms mixed up. Metaphysical naturalism wouldn't be a kind of methodological commitment. It depends on the context.



                        The “contents of your subjective states” are merely who and what you believe yourself to be.
                        Right. I'm talking about the fact that you are conscious at all, which is an objectively real fact about you, even if it can only be accessed directly by you.



                        So, how will you answer the question “What am I", if the “underlying reality” is the B-Theory of time - as seems more likely than not according to physicists and many philosophers?
                        If "I" am the kind of being who is temporally constituted in a certain way, then I'm not sure that I could know that fact.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          The judgement that "I am conscious" cannot possibly be disproven under any scenario, unlike any empirical judgement. I don't act on it "as if" it was objectively real. It's objective reality CONSTITUTES my knowledge that I am conscious.
                          The fact that you are aware of being “conscious” is not the argument. The man who believes he is Napoleon is conscious. But is he really Napoleon is the question? He thinks he is.

                          The "growing body of scientific knowledge and technology" begs the question,of course, because that body is still part of the assumed reality under discussion.
                          Yet, unlike “Napoleon”, scientific empirical knowledge can be and is productively acted upon as if it is objectively real. Our technological civilization is built on it.

                          This begs the question again for the same reason as just mentioned.
                          Except that demonstrably, those that do not conform to what the majority perceive can reasonably be assumed to be delusional.

                          I'm talking about objective criteria for belief. The delusional man may subjectively believe that the datum is given directly to him, just as he may believe that there are 9 days in a week. What I'm referring to are objective criteria for believing in subjectivity itself, not in the particular contents of some subjective state or other.
                          You referred to “subjective “datum given directly to him.” So how, in your opinion, does such a person obtain “objective criteria for believing in subjectivity itself” other than merely being aware of his own subjectivity.

                          Right. I'm talking about the fact that you are conscious at all, which is an objectively real fact about you, even if it can only be accessed directly by you.
                          Trivially true. But unless the contents of one’s consciousness can be determined to be “objectively real” it is a meaningless exercise.

                          If "I" am the kind of being who is temporally constituted in a certain way, then I'm not sure that I could know that fact.
                          What you would know is that in a B-Theory universe you have the illusion of time passing when in fact, if the theory is correct, that it is not passing in actuality. B-theory says that your entire life span, every point in time from your birth to your death, already exists in its entirety. It can’t be changed because it always is what it is.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            If the B Theory of time is correct, why would we have access (by memory) to past events but not to future events? And if our experience of the passing of time is an illusion how or why does that illusion arise in the first place?
                            We have memorial access because of the asymmetry of causation, and we don't have access to future events because of the properties our temporal parts have statically to subsequent parts, the parts that are tenselessly after any other part of your space-time worm. My 'present' temporal part wouldn't have the property of being able to access future events. I wouldn't have that property because that property's truth-maker statically grounds the accessibility property in later temporal parts relative to past temporal parts due to the asymmetry of causality.

                            B-theorists explain the illusion of passage the same way science has dispelled past illusions: rotation of sun around the earth, the insubstantiality of material substance as implied by quantum physics, etc. They just think the weight of the theory explains the illusion.

                            Don't get me wrong. I disagree with all of this. But that's typically what they say.
                            Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                            George Horne

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              We have memorial access because of the asymmetry of causation, and we don't have access to future events because of the properties our temporal parts have statically to subsequent parts, the parts that are tenselessly after any other part of your space-time worm. My 'present' temporal part wouldn't have the property of being able to access future events. I wouldn't have that property because that property's truth-maker statically grounds the accessibility property in later temporal parts relative to past temporal parts due to the asymmetry of causality.

                              B-theorists explain the illusion of passage the same way science has dispelled past illusions: rotation of sun around the earth, the insubstantiality of material substance as implied by quantum physics, etc. They just think the weight of the theory explains the illusion.

                              Don't get me wrong. I disagree with all of this. But that's typically what they say.
                              Good to see you Matt...
                              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

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              507 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              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