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

Nothingness

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    But Jim, there is no actual arrow of time in B-Theory, there are no distinct time frames, time is actually static. And I still have no idea why entropy would play any part in what we know or could know. Except for an arbitrary distinction.
    Okay, I think you at least understand the concept now, But I don't buy it any more than you do. I don't believe that the theory has in it an explanation for experience. Why if we exist as a sequence of co-existent mental states within static time do we only experience what we call the present? The answer seems to be that we don't only experience the present, that each of our mental states is just as real as any other and that they are all experiencing their own present in their own location in time. In other words there is a me, a mental state, that is experiencing last Monday-past, and there is a me, a mental state, experiencing next Monday-future, and then there is a me, a mental state, experiencing this very moment-present. That doesn't make sense to me, if those experiential mental states all exist, co-exist, in static time, then why do I only have an actual experience of this very present moment? After all, if time is static, then each of our mental states are static as well, so if it is not myself passing through time or flowing with time, then something else has to be moving through static time, from one mental state to the next, in order to bring about the experiential aspect of time.
    Maybe someone has an explanation for that?
    Last edited by JimL; 12-07-2015, 02:50 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      From a philosophical perspective, which I think is the least interesting perspective from which to approach the question:

      Here's a link to the full article:
      Dean W. Zimmerman. The A-Theory of Time, The B-Theory of Time, and ‘Taking Tense Seriously’. dialectica Vol. 59, N° 4 (2005), pp. 401–457.
      I'll give it a read.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        From a philosophical perspective, which I think is the least interesting perspective from which to approach the question:

        Source: http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/A-Theory.B-Theory.Tense.pdf


        Although presentism appears to be the most popular version of the A-theory, presentism also faces serious objections, brought on by its extremely sparse ontology. Given my presentist inclinations, I should like to think all the outstanding problems will one day be resolved. (Perhaps if enough younger philosophers come to see the light and commit themselves to the lifelong defense of presentism ...) But there is no denying that the problems for presentism are deep and difficult, and that presentists have a great deal of work ahead of them. ... Presentism is an extreme form of the A-theory. Analogous to actualism in modal metaphysics, it is the doctrine that all reality is confined to the present – that past and future things simply do not exist, and that all quantified statements that seem to carry commitment to past or future things are either false or susceptible of paraphrase into statements that avoid the implication. Some have alleged that there is no real difference between the metaphysics of presentists and that of B-theorists; ...

        In this paper, I am mainly interested in would-be A-theorists who reject presentism, the Growing Block theory, and any other proposed A-theory that draws the metaphysical line between past, present, and future in terms of what exists. The A-theorist I wish to consider is (what I shall call) an ‘eternalist’, someone who maintains that every event, time, and individual exists, whether past, present, or future.

        One might well ask: Are there any eternalist A-theorists? And if the answer is ‘No’, or ‘Not many’, then what is the point of this exercise? ‘Not many’ seems to be the right answer to the first question. But there are a few philosophers who, by my lights, are eternalist A-theorists. Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig are both card-carrying A-theorists; Timothy Williamson certainly seems to be drawing a deep and important distinction between present things and past or future things (and he does not say, or even slyly hint, that it is, ultimately, a merely relative distinction). ... Eternalist A-theorists may be few in number, but their position is important because it is very hard to be an A-theorist and a non-eternalist. ... The view can become hard to distinguish from a certain version of the B-theory: namely, one that ‘takes tense seriously’ in a way I shall explain in the first half of this paper. ...

        © Copyright Original Source



        Here's a link to the full article:
        Dean W. Zimmerman. The A-Theory of Time, The B-Theory of Time, and ‘Taking Tense Seriously’. dialectica Vol. 59, N° 4 (2005), pp. 401–457.
        Good reference, but it takes some thought and reflection to understand.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          From a philosophical perspective, which I think is the least interesting perspective from which to approach the question:
          Bite your tongue!
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            Bite your tongue!
            My assumption from the start was that we were discussing scientific models of time that would have some utility for theoretical physics. So I would see some value to the philosophy of science, but I'm much more interested in the scientific merits. Sorry.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment

            Related Threads

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
            161 responses
            513 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