Miracles

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It would seem that holding to the B-theory and naturalism at the same time is kind of hard, because the fact that we perceive temporal change means that temporal change must be true in some aspects, and therefore the B-theory can be only partially true, at best. If temporal change is not a real part of anything in the natural world, then it follows from the fact that we perceive temporal change that whatever part of us that experiences temporal change cannot be anything natural, but must be supernatural.

That doesn't follow, at all. First of all, once again, the B-Theory does not deny that things change over time. Rather, it denies that time is an actor which actualizes potentialities, as it is on the A-Theory; and it asserts that time is a dimension of measure whose entire span is co-extant.

Secondly, our perception does not inform reality. We perceive objects as having colors. However, this is an illusion created by the reflection of certain wavelengths of light off of objects interacting with the chemicals in our eyes, which in turn interact electrochemically with our brains. This does not imply that colors are supernatural.

In exactly the same way, even if our brains perceive a temporal progression, that does not imply that the temporal progression is an actual property of reality, whether naturally or supernaturally (whatever that may mean).

Saying that temporal change is simply an illusion doesn't work, given that all points in time in B-theory are equally real and none of them have any privileged position that can be singled out as being the present. If naturalism and B-theory were both true it would become unexplainable why we don't experience every single moment of our life at the same time. There is nothing in the worldview of the naturalism that can account for the perception of temporal change given the assumption of the B-theory of time. [/soapbox]

This is not true, in the slightest. I gave my particular hypothesis regarding the perception of time on the B-Theory earlier in this very thread.

[JimL]

Boxing are you just making things up as you go along? Why wouldn't these other realities have or reflect light? Certainly the reality where my dead mom is still alive has just as much light as this present time. When she was alive in 1968 that world had just as much light as this world. So what prevents us from seeing these realities? Perhaps because they don't really exist?



Again Boxing where does 2054 exist in the universe? And talk about different locations. We as humans change from moment to moment - how many millions of copies of me are there in the universe. I must be in a different location for every moment I ever lived.



Really how does the B-Theory prove that the universe won't end? That there is s future?

B-theory seer corresponds to the block universe hypotheses where all of existence exists in the NOW like all of a movie exists on the film. Time in such a case would be an illusion. Einstein himself was a proponent of the the Block universe and the illusory nature of time. The problem I have with it, is the same problem I think that you are having, i.e. if the universe is all there in the NOW and time is an illusion, then who or what is it that is experiencing the passage of time? The physical you, the you whose life span, past, present and future, is all there in the NOW could not be the experiencer of time and change, because the physical you does not move or change.
So if it is not the physical you that is moving and experiencing motion and the passage of time, then what is moving from moment to moment and experiencing your pre-determined existence? Not even B-time proponents have an answer for that, which leads me to believe that the theory is false.

[JonathanL]

B-theory seer corresponds to the block universe hypotheses where all of existence exists in the NOW like all of a movie exists on the film. Time in such a case would be an illusion. Einstein himself was a proponent of the the Block universe and the illusory nature of time. The problem I have with it, is the same problem I think that you are having, i.e. if the universe is all there in the NOW and time is an illusion, then who or what is it that is experiencing the passage of time? The physical you, the you whose life span, past, present and future, is all there in the NOW could not be the experiencer of time and change, because the physical you does not move or change.
So if it is not the physical you that is moving and experiencing motion and the passage of time, then what is moving from moment to moment and experiencing your pre-determined existence? Not even B-time proponents have an answer for that, which leads me to believe that the theory is false.

It's your supernatural soul that is moving from moment to moment and experiencing time.

[JimL]

It's your supernatural soul that is moving from moment to moment and experiencing time.

If that be the case then your supernatural soul is experiencing a pre-determined existence in which you have no free will.

[JonathanL]

If that be the case then your supernatural soul is experiencing a pre-determined existence in which you have no free will.

I'm just giving you an explanation of how we could experience temporal becoming under the B-theory of time, I'm not saying that I necessarily hold to this view.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

B-theory seer corresponds to the block universe hypotheses where all of existence exists in the NOW like all of a movie exists on the film.

"Now" is not a concept which can be applied to the block universe as a whole. Saying "all of existence exists in the NOW" is like saying "the whole surface of the Earth exists in the NORTH POLE." It's patently absurd.

Not even B-time proponents have an answer for that, which leads me to believe that the theory is false.

First of all, even if it were true that no one has an answer to your question, it is a distinct Argument from Ignorance fallacy to think that means the theory is false. Secondly, I offered you an explanation earlier in the thread, but rather than actually respond to what I wrote you seemed to simply assume that I was referring to some sort of mind-body dualism.

[JimL]

I'm just giving you an explanation of how we could experience temporal becoming under the B-theory of time, I'm not saying that I necessarily hold to this view.

Thats good, I don't hold to the view of supernatural souls either.

[JonathanL]

Thats good, I don't hold to the view of supernatural souls either.

Hahaha, very funny.

I'm saying that I don't hold to the B-theory of time.

[JimL]

"Now" is not a concept which can be applied to the block universe as a whole. Saying "all of existence exists in the NOW" is like saying "the whole surface of the Earth exists in the NORTH POLE." It's patently absurd.

If all of time exists, then all of time exists in the Now. It is the experience of time, not time itself, that does not all exist in the Now according to B-theory.

First of all, even if it were true that no one has an answer to your question, it is a distinct Argument from Ignorance fallacy to think that means the theory is false.

If I provide a flaw in the theory that the proponents have no answer for, then the ignorance that brings me to disbelief is theirs.

Secondly, I offered you an explanation earlier in the thread, but rather than actually respond to what I wrote you seemed to simply assume that I was referring to some sort of mind-body dualism.

As far as I recall, the response you gave was that my question was nonsensical. You said that of course, the person who is having the experience is the one who is having the experience, or something to that effect. If you further elaborated in the thread then sorry but I did not see it.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

If all of time exists, then all of time exists in the Now. It is the experience of time, not time itself, that does not all exist in the Now according to B-theory.

No, this is entirely nonsensical. "Now" is a temporal descriptor. It is entirely incoherent to try to apply that term to the whole of time. Again, it is exactly as absurd as saying that the whole surface of the Earth exists in the North Pole.

If I provide a flaw in the theory that the proponents have no answer for, then the ignorance that brings me to disbelief is theirs.

You didn't "provide a flaw in the theory." You asked a question because you don't understand the implications of the theory. Your misunderstandings of the B-Theory of Time do not invalidate it any more than a Young Earth Creationist's misunderstandings of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection invalidate biological science.

As far as I recall, the response you gave was that my question was nonsensical. You said that of course, the person who is having the experience is the one who is having the experience, or something to that effect. If you further elaborated in the thread then sorry but I did not see it.

That was a response to a later question, in which you had asked who was having the experience. My response to the question regarding perception was:

It seems to me that the passage of time is an illusion caused by the accumulation of memory. Each moment seems like a succession from the previous because we have memory of the previous moments but not the next.

This is a consequence of entropy defining an apparent direction by which we have come to view time as ordered. As I am decidedly not a mind-body dualist, I believe that memories are an emergent property of the electrochemical activity of the brain. Those processes are governed by physical mechanisms, including-- of course-- those which describe entropy. The matter in our brains becomes aligned with the direction of time carved out by entropy, which leads to accumulation of memory along that direction, which leads to the illusion that time passes.

[JonathanL]

That doesn't follow, at all. First of all, once again, the B-Theory does not deny that things change over time. Rather, it denies that time is an actor which actualizes potentialities, as it is on the A-Theory; and it asserts that time is a dimension of measure whose entire span is co-extant.

Secondly, our perception does not inform reality. We perceive objects as having colors. However, this is an illusion created by the reflection of certain wavelengths of light off of objects interacting with the chemicals in our eyes, which in turn interact electrochemically with our brains. This does not imply that colors are supernatural.

I'm not saying time is supernatural, as your reply seems to imply that you think. I'm saying that the perception of temporal change (or maybe temporal becoming would be less misleading) can not be accounted for under naturalism. And your comparison with the perception of color fails, as I will elaborate on below.

In exactly the same way, even if our brains perceive a temporal progression, that does not imply that the temporal progression is an actual property of reality, whether naturally or supernaturally (whatever that may mean).

It means that whatever part of us that perceives temporal change cannot be any thing natural. Let me elaborate:

Under naturalism, the part of us that perceives/experiences things is the brain, or the mind supervening on the brain. There are of course variations on these options, but fundamentally, all theories of mind on naturalism can be divided into these two camps. This means that on naturalism, whatever we perceive at one moment of time is determined by our brain state configuration at that very moment of time. So if we have a perception of say, the color green at time X, it would be because the part of our brain that handles color perception is in a state that is sufficient to cause us to have the perception of the color green at time X.

However, our perception of temporal becoming is fundamentally different from our perception of color. Our perception of temporal becoming on naturalism + B-theory of time (N+B) cannot be the effect of whatever configuration our brain state happens to be in at a certain position in time since that brain state is bound to whatever position in time it is located in. Instead, our perception of temporal change must be the result of the change from one brain state to the next. But under N+B all moments of time are equally real and therefore it follows that no brain state can be privileged as the brain state that can be singled out as the one that is perceiving the everchanging present.

In other words, for our mind to perceive the progression of time it follows that the mind must exist at a single moment of time, and move from one moment to the next, with the brain state at the current moment of time determining what the mind is perceiving at that very moment. IOW, it seems to me that not only is the N+B unable to account for the perception of temporal becoming, to give any sort of reasonable account for the perception of time you have to postulate the existence of a non-physical entity that operates not under the B-theory of time, but under the A-theory of time.

In other words, under the B-theory of time the physical universe would exist as a block of spacetime with all positions in time equally real, and the entity that perceives temporal becoming would be our non-physical soul/mind that moves from one position of time to the next, and therefore under goes real temporal change.

This is not true, in the slightest. I gave my particular hypothesis regarding the perception of time on the B-Theory earlier in this very thread.

Are you referring to this post?

It seems to me that the passage of time is an illusion caused by the accumulation of memory. Each moment seems like a succession from the previous because we have memory of the previous moments but not the next.

If that is your theory of why we perceive the illusion of the passage of time I have to say that I'm utterly unconvinced. It simply doesn't solve the dilemma at all. Your explanation/hypothesis (whatever you want to call it), fails for the reason that it doesn't explain why it is the case that we perceive a single moment of time as the present moment, instead of perceiving all moments at once. At best your explanation succeeds in explaining why we perceive the progression of time as being in a particular direction (past -> future), but that is not where the problem lies. To successfully explain the perception of temporal becoming you have to explain why it is the case that we perceive ourselves as moving from one moment in time to the next, and your explanation fails to do that, it only explains the direction of the progression of time.

Your explanation is like explaining the velocity of a soccer ball flying through the air by giving an account of the angle from which the foot approached the ball, instead of explaining that at the moment of contact kinetic energy was transferred from the foot to the ball, which resulted in a change of velocity in the ball.

[JimL]

No, this is entirely nonsensical. "Now" is a temporal descriptor. It is entirely incoherent to try to apply that term to the whole of time. Again, it is exactly as absurd as saying that the whole surface of the Earth exists in the North Pole.

No it is not absurd. If all of time itself exists, and all of time does not change, then all of time exist now, whether we experience it all now or not. If the future and the past are just as real as the present, then the past and the future are happening in the now just as is the present. The only difference is that you are in and so are experiencing the present now. To Socrates, he is in the present now as well, but to you he is in the past. Your explanation is contradictory, all of time exists, but not really!

You didn't "provide a flaw in the theory." You asked a question because you don't understand the implications of the theory. Your misunderstandings of the B-Theory of Time do not invalidate it any more than a Young Earth Creationist's misunderstandings of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection invalidate biological science.

Thats true, my not having the answer does not invalidate it, but its proponents not having the answer is good reason not to accept it.

That was a response to a later question, in which you had asked who was having the experience. My response to the question regarding perception was:

It seems to me that the passage of time is an illusion caused by the accumulation of memory. Each moment seems like a succession from the previous because we have memory of the previous moments but not the next.

This is a consequence of entropy defining an apparent direction by which we have come to view time as ordered. As I am decidedly not a mind-body dualist, I believe that memories are an emergent property of the electrochemical activity of the brain. Those processes are governed by physical mechanisms, including-- of course-- those which describe entropy. The matter in our brains becomes aligned with the direction of time carved out by entropy, which leads to accumulation of memory along that direction, which leads to the illusion that time passes.

You keep talking about a process of activity, physical mechanisms, becoming, but insist that time and change are illusions. Your right, I don't get it.

[seer]

These aren't "other realities." They are other locations in space. I'm not even talking about spacetime, as a whole, at this point. I'm limiting my discussion to the space which we both agree exists. The central core of Jupiter occupies a real location in space, despite the fact that we cannot see it because it is occluded by an immensely thick atmosphere. Black Holes occupy real locations in space, despite the fact that we cannot see them because any light which reaches their event horizons is absorbed into a deep gravity well and never reflected. The empty space three parsecs distant from the Earth directly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane of the solar system is a real location, despite the fact that we can't see it because it is empty space, and therefore neither generates nor reflects light.

The fact that we cannot see a thing has absolutely no bearing on its reality.

By Odin's right eye, I think you're starting to get it.

But that is the point Boxing. Why am I not experiencing all those past events at once. Why isn't 1968 just as present as 2015? Where did 1968 go? I mean I'm under the same sun, on the same earth, I even live in the same town. Why can't I see all my loved ones that passed? Where are they hiding?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm not saying time is supernatural, as your reply seems to imply that you think.

I understood your meaning. I apologize that my response wasn't clear in this regard.

Under naturalism, the part of us that perceives/experiences things is the brain, or the mind supervening on the brain. There are of course variations on these options, but fundamentally, all theories of mind on naturalism can be divided into these two camps. This means that on naturalism, whatever we perceive at one moment of time is determined by our brain state configuration at that very moment of time. So if we have a perception of say, the color green at time X, it would be because the part of our brain that handles color perception is in a state that is sufficient to cause us to have the perception of the color green at time X.

I agree with all of this.

However, our perception of temporal becoming is fundamentally different from our perception of color. Our perception of temporal becoming on naturalism + B-theory of time (N+B) cannot be the effect of whatever configuration our brain state happens to be in at a certain position in time since that brain state is bound to whatever position in time it is located in.

I don't see how the fact that a brain state is bound to its temporal position precludes the notion of temporal becoming from being an effect of the brain's configuration. In fact, I find that to be the primary reason for the illusion.

I agree that we cannot pinpoint any privileged moment in time as being the "actual" present, on the B-Theory, and that such a notion is absurd. All perception of the present is necessarily subjective. Each particular brain state at each particular moment in time perceives itself to be in the present. That brain state contains data which describes moments previous to its temporal location along the arrow of time defined by entropy, but not subsequent moments along that direction-- a phenomenon we have labeled "memory." At any particular moment, the brain state bears the illusion of having arrived at that moment because that state has a contiguous chain of memory describing previous moments in time. Since each brain state is locked into its own temporal position, it can only actively perceive outside stimuli at that particular temporal location, which gives the illusion of a "now." All such brain states believe themselves to be in the "now," and each is distinctly unable to perceive the outside stimuli from other temporal locations, which explains why we do not seem to perceive all moments of time at each particular moment of time. Indeed, it seems entirely unreasonable to suppose that a brain state which is bound to a particular temporal location would perceive outside stimuli from other temporal locations.

Again, the illusion of temporal becoming does not require any sort of supernatural explanation on the B-Theory. Nothing needs to traverse spacetime in an A-Theory sort of way in order to account for this perception.

No it is not absurd. If all of time itself exists, and all of time does not change, then all of time exist now, whether we experience it all now or not.

I agree that all of time exists now-- and yesterday, and tomorrow, and at any given point in time. My disagreement is with your claim that all of time exists "in the now." "In the now" is indicative of temporal location. That is why it is just as absurd as claiming that the whole surface of the Earth exists in the North Pole. Yes, the whole surface of the Earth exists if you occupy the North Pole. However, the whole surface of the Earth is not located at the North Pole. Similarly, the whole of time exists if you occupy "the now." But the whole of time is not located at "the now."

Thats true, my not having the answer does not invalidate it, but its proponents not having the answer is good reason not to accept it.

Again, it's really not. You wouldn't tolerate such reasoning from a Young Earth Creationist who claims that science's inability to adequately answer the question of abiogenesis is a good reason to reject biological evolution. Your argumentum ad ignorantium is no different.

[JimL]

I understood your meaning. I apologize that my response wasn't clear in this regard.

I agree with all of this.

I don't see how the fact that a brain state is bound to its temporal position precludes the notion of temporal becoming from being an effect of the brain's configuration. In fact, I find that to be the primary reason for the illusion.

But there is change involved there, from one brain state to the other, from one temporal state to the another, so from the viewpoint of B-theory, if both increments of time and brain states are bound to there temporal positions then what is bringing to light each succesive moment, each succesive brain state? Times direction itself can't be an answer, since as the theory posits, time itself, not to mention everything within time, though it has a direction, it doesn't move, and times direction itself can't be the cause of the experiential change of brain states.

I agree that we cannot pinpoint any privileged moment in time as being the "actual" present, on the B-Theory, and that such a notion is absurd. All perception of the present is necessarily subjective. Each particular brain state at each particular moment in time perceives itself to be in the present. That brain state contains data which describes moments previous to its temporal location along the arrow of time defined by entropy, but not subsequent moments along that direction-- a phenomenon we have labeled "memory." At any particular moment, the brain state bears the illusion of having arrived at that moment because that state has a contiguous chain of memory describing previous moments in time. Since each brain state is locked into its own temporal position, it can only actively perceive outside stimuli at that particular temporal location, which gives the illusion of a "now." All such brain states believe themselves to be in the "now," and each is distinctly unable to perceive the outside stimuli from other temporal locations, which explains why we do not seem to perceive all moments of time at each particular moment of time. Indeed, it seems entirely unreasonable to suppose that a brain state which is bound to a particular temporal location would perceive outside stimuli from other temporal locations.

So does Socrates still subjectively feel himself to be in the present, or does Socrates and the time of Socrates no longer exist?

Again, the illusion of temporal becoming does not require any sort of supernatural explanation on the B-Theory. Nothing needs to traverse spacetime in an A-Theory sort of way in order to account for this perception.

Then what is bringing each moment along the time line to light?

I agree that all of time exists now-- and yesterday, and tomorrow, and at any given point in time. My disagreement is with your claim that all of time exists "in the now." "In the now" is indicative of temporal location. That is why it is just as absurd as claiming that the whole surface of the Earth exists in the North Pole. Yes, the whole surface of the Earth exists if you occupy the North Pole. However, the whole surface of the Earth is not located at the North Pole. Similarly, the whole of time exists if you occupy "the now." But the whole of time is not located at "the now."

So it seems as though you are saying that the temporal past, and all of the people therein, exist, like frozen statues, and that the temporal future exists in the same way, but that time somehow illuminates and gives the illusion of animation to the present. But doesn't that mean that those who are in our past and those who are in our future are also experiencing their own present at the same time that we are experiencing our present?

Again, it's really not. You wouldn't tolerate such reasoning from a Young Earth Creationist who claims that science's inability to adequately answer the question of abiogenesis is a good reason to reject biological evolution. Your argumentum ad ignorantium is no different.

I said that not having the answer does not invalidate it, you could be right, I don't know, just like abiogenesis could be right, I don't know, but if someone comes up with an explanation for abiogenesis as you have done for the B-theory of time, then I will base my belief on the coherency of the explanation.