Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay, analogies aren't exact, but I can't come up with a better one at the moment. The only point I'm trying to make, and it seems we won't agree on this, is that a solid block spacetime is an object in which nothing actually changes, because the entirety of it has always been. I guess you don't agree with that, and you haven't convinced me otherwise either. I honestly wish you could have, but I'm not just not seeing it in your explanations.
Change is the gain or loss of a property in a persistent entity.
Do you agree with that definition? If so, do you agree that on the B-Theory an entity at time t may have different properties than that entity does at time t+1?
Btw, Einstein, the man who recognized time to be a dimension, did say "I recognize that it's not the fault of the axe murderer, that he is an axe murderer, but I wouldn't want to sit at tea with him." Einstein didn't believe in free will, and neither did his idol, Spinoza.Last edited by Boxing Pythagoras; 05-23-2020, 05:07 AM."[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 PostI've already defined change in a manner in which I thought we agreed-- in fact, I deliberately chose a definition for change which was given by a professed A-Theorist, Ed Feser. I'll offer it again, just to be sure that we are on the same page:
Change is the gain or loss of a property in a persistent entity.
Do you agree with that definition? If so, do you agree that on the B-Theory an entity at time t may have different properties than that entity does at time t+1?
I'm not saying that he never said such a thing. However, I've never actually read that quote in any of his work and a quick Google search didn't turn up anything on it. If you have a reference for it, I'd be much appreciative! I'll always welcome new insights into the man.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 seer View PostBP, I have been following this interchange and it occurs to me, no one has clearly and unambiguously defined "time." Can you?
I for example, tend to view "time" as the totality of change across all existence, so for me, "time" is not a real thing in and of itself, but simply change, and time going slower or faster would simply be the processes of change slowing down or speeding up. So for me, time is not a dimension in which change is made possible, but is that very change itself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBP, I have been following this interchange and it occurs to me, no one has clearly and unambiguously defined "time." Can you?
More modern understandings of Time become a bit more difficult to lay out, as at the very least they have to account for Relativity. Even that, however, is known to be lacking since Relativity is known to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. So far, the best ideas for defining space-time seem to be related to quantum mechanics, particularly as regards entanglement and decoherence.
TL;DR-- Clearly and unambiguously? No, I don't think I can."[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 PostNot easily, no. Unfortunately, whether one is an A-Theorist or a B-Theorist it is notoriously difficult to come up with a clear and cogent definition for Time. Classically, especially in the Aristotelian line, people have tried to define time as a relational measure of change; unfortunately, that then requires defining "change," which usually leads to circularity since it is rather difficult to define change without appealing to Time or notions of temporality.
More modern understandings of Time become a bit more difficult to lay out, as at the very least they have to account for Relativity. Even that, however, is known to be lacking since Relativity is known to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. So far, the best ideas for defining space-time seem to be related to quantum mechanics, particularly as regards entanglement and decoherence.
TL;DR-- Clearly and unambiguously? No, I don't think I can.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostWell, obviously "time" will be defined differently depending on whether you believe the A or B series properly represents reality, so I'm not sure if "time" can be "clearly and unambiguously defined in such a way that people on both sides agree.
I for example, tend to view "time" as the totality of change across all existence, so for me, "time" is not a real thing in and of itself, but simply change, and time going slower or faster would simply be the processes of change slowing down or speeding up. So for me, time is not a dimension in which change is made possible, but is that very change itself.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 PostNot easily, no. Unfortunately, whether one is an A-Theorist or a B-Theorist it is notoriously difficult to come up with a clear and cogent definition for Time. Classically, especially in the Aristotelian line, people have tried to define time as a relational measure of change; unfortunately, that then requires defining "change," which usually leads to circularity since it is rather difficult to define change without appealing to Time or notions of temporality.
More modern understandings of Time become a bit more difficult to lay out, as at the very least they have to account for Relativity. Even that, however, is known to be lacking since Relativity is known to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. So far, the best ideas for defining space-time seem to be related to quantum mechanics, particularly as regards entanglement and decoherence.
TL;DR-- Clearly and unambiguously? No, I don't think I can.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 Chrawnus View PostIt seems that way to me, yes. But a B Theorist would probably disagree with my definition of time.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 seer View PostTo me A theory comports to our actual experience where B theory seems more philosophical or based on speculative scientific theories.
And since we can not even define time I don't see why the A theory is not privileged. Why speculation overrides experience."[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 PostI've already defined change in a manner in which I thought we agreed-- in fact, I deliberately chose a definition for change which was given by a professed A-Theorist, Ed Feser. I'll offer it again, just to be sure that we are on the same page:
Change is the gain or loss of a property in a persistent entity.
Do you agree with that definition? If so, do you agree that on the B-Theory an entity at time t may have different properties than that entity does at time t+1?
And btw, I'm not arguing for B-theory, I'm just arguing my understanding of it.
I'm not saying that he never said such a thing. However, I've never actually read that quote in any of his work and a quick Google search didn't turn up anything on it. If you have a reference for it, I'd be much appreciative! I'll always welcome new insights into the man.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostOnly if you consider General Relativity to be a "speculative scientific theory."
For the same reason we don't prize our experience of living on a relatively flat plane over the "speculative science" which tells us that our planet is round.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 PostEven if the universe has a finite past, there was never a time in which Time did not exist. That's quite obviously incoherent, whether one is an A-Theorist or a B-Theorist.
(T)he only thing that is changeless on the B-Theory is the Universe as 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.
So are you saying that God can do evil?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIf we can not even define what time is how can General Relativity speak to it with any real confidence?
Apples and oranges, the earth is physical and time is what? And we did figure out that the earth wasn't flat by experience.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
595 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment