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

Is time physical?

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

  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    If you were outside the block universe, looking in, wouldn't your view necessarily be omnipresent? I would imagine that your view would be a synthesis of not just every single slice, but even within each 3D diorama (slice), your view would be in every single place down to the planck length. The view would be everywhere and everywhen. It's like the total reality of the block universe itself would become your view, should you ever transcend this plane of time and look back at the block. You wouldn't really be looking at it... rather, you would have essentially, in a sense become it... or at least your view of it would become the totality of the the spacetime that makes up the block.

    I think I have abandoned the mental image of some 3D dude standing outside this thing looking at it. It's something dimensionally different. Now how we fit movement in there can still be debated I suppose. My point in all this is, if you are outside the block universe looking at it, you won't really be looking at it. Rather, you would necessarily be in all places at all times. I can't really think of what movement would look like considering this.

    Could I get some feedback on this? Am I even close to making sense here?
    The only thing I would say is that in B Theory it would not matter whether we could view it from the outside or not. In a tenseless universe motion can not exist, motion requires the flow of time. That is one reason why Stoic won't answer my question about the Big bang.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    OK, just link the post where you answered this...
    No. Better if you just reread all of my posts in this thread. And stoic's. He answered your questions too. It was pointless because you just ignore anything we said and repeated your incorrect ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Machinist
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Sparko, instead of throwing up your arms, tell me exactly where I'm wrong, lets start here:

    In the Block universe is both time and motion static? Frozen?
    I think I may have an answer to this. The answer is yes and no. Yes, everything is static in each slice (even thought). Go figure.

    Anyway, when looked at it like frames of a movie, and these slices are flipped together, movement is created.

    So this movement is the result of each frame being seen (by some outside sentience) in sequence.

    The total block universe, as a Whole, is greater than the sum of it's parts (each individual slice).

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    How about this, you go back and reread all of the times I have answered your questions and objections over and over in this thread instead of me wasting more of my time? Mmm'kay? Thanks.
    OK, just link the post where you answered this...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Sparko, instead of throwing up your arms, tell me exactly where I'm wrong, lets start here:

    In the Block universe is both time and motion static? Frozen?
    How about this, you go back and reread all of the times I have answered your questions and objections over and over in this thread instead of me wasting more of my time? Mmm'kay? Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Machinist
    replied
    If you were outside the block universe, looking in, wouldn't your view necessarily be omnipresent? I would imagine that your view would be a synthesis of not just every single slice, but even within each 3D diorama (slice), your view would be in every single place down to the planck length. The view would be everywhere and everywhen. It's like the total reality of the block universe itself would become your view, should you ever transcend this plane of time and look back at the block. You wouldn't really be looking at it... rather, you would have essentially, in a sense become it... or at least your view of it would become the totality of the the spacetime that makes up the block.

    I think I have abandoned the mental image of some 3D dude standing outside this thing looking at it. It's something dimensionally different. Now how we fit movement in there can still be debated I suppose. My point in all this is, if you are outside the block universe looking at it, you won't really be looking at it. Rather, you would necessarily be in all places at all times. I can't really think of what movement would look like considering this.

    Could I get some feedback on this? Am I even close to making sense here?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    I am done with this arguing. You are wrong. You can't defeat a theory you don't even understand.
    Sparko, instead of throwing up your arms, tell me exactly where I'm wrong, lets start here:

    In the Block universe is both time and motion static? Frozen?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    I'm speaking of the flow of time, without which everything is static. And viewing the universe from the outside is the reality in B Theory - all is static. Our inside view is false.



    Obviously you don't understand that in B Theory everything is static, frozen. There is no motion, nor can there be - and that means there is no thought since thought relies on the movement of brain chemicals. And movement depends on the flow of time - no flow no motion. You can't have it both ways...
    I am done with this arguing. You are wrong. You can't defeat a theory you don't even understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    from the outside. and there IS time. You keep saying "without time" while we are discussing time.
    I'm speaking of the flow of time, without which everything is static. And viewing the universe from the outside is the reality in B Theory - all is static. Our inside view is false.

    I am tired of going over the same thing with you over and over. You don't understand B-theory. You think you do but you obviously don't. And I am not going to waste my time (no pun intended) trying to explain it to you yet again. Take that as you wish.
    Obviously you don't understand that in B Theory everything is static, frozen. There is no motion, nor can there be - and that means there is no thought since thought relies on the movement of brain chemicals. And movement depends on the flow of time - no flow no motion. You can't have it both ways...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Sparko, there is no motion in B theory - why don't you know that? Everything is as static as time. That is why they say time flow is an illusion, flow is necessary for movement. You like to use the frames of a film, each frame is static, there is no motion until you run through it - but that motion is an illusion.

    "Without time, movement cannot take place, without time there is no velocity or acceleration, no change, just eternal stasis."
    from the outside. and there IS time. You keep saying "without time" while we are discussing time.

    I am tired of going over the same thing with you over and over. You don't understand B-theory. You think you do but you obviously don't. And I am not going to waste my time (no pun intended) trying to explain it to you yet again. Take that as you wish.
    Last edited by Sparko; 09-14-2022, 02:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    See if you can reconcile this quote with your idea that there is no change in B-theory:

    B-theorists think all change can be described in before-after terms. They typically portray spacetime as a spread-out manifold with events occurring at different locations in the manifold (often assuming a substantivalist picture). Living in a world of change means living in a world with variation in this manifold. To say that a certain autumn leaf changed color is just to say that the leaf is green in an earlier location of the manifold and red in a later location. The locations, in these cases, are specific times in the manifold. And all of the metaphysically important facts about change can be captured by tenseless propositions like “The leaf is red at October 7, 2019”. “The leaf is not red at September 7, 2019”.

    source
    Again, none of this is change! Sheesh! Sure the autumn leaf is different from the green leaf and they may be at different locations, But one never changed into the other - but have been eternally fixed. I never changed from a child to an adult, I am still both (somewhere). That is why your quote uses tenseless language. They spoke of location not motion. There is no motion, nor would there be thoughts since thoughts depend on motion.

    And that is why you didn't answer this: Did the universe start small and expand to the size we see today? Is it still expanding? That is Big Bang cosmology.

    Because in B theory the universe did not expand, all parts are frozen in their various locations. Just as our thoughts are frozen.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Because whatever he has in his mind doesn't exist yet and if we have free will then we can change it. The fact that the bible has prophesies and speaks of God knowing the future supports the B-theory of time that the future exists and can be known.
    But you have no free will under B theory...

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    That there is no motion. Just like you keep saying there is no time. It's wrong. I have tried to explain it to you over and over. I am not going down that rabbit hole again.
    Sparko, there is no motion in B theory - why don't you know that? Everything is as static as time. That is why they say time flow is an illusion, flow is necessary for movement. You like to use the frames of a film, each frame is static, there is no motion until you run through it - but that motion is an illusion.

    "Without time, movement cannot take place, without time there is no velocity or acceleration, no change, just eternal stasis."

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    Perhaps the simplest way to understand the difference between A and B theory is that A says time is not a spatial dimension, and B says time is a spatial dimension. Is this an accurate way to simplify the difference?
    I wouldn't say that's wrong, but it might be a little oversimplified.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Machinist View Post

    Why is it necessary for the future to have ontological being for God to have knowledge of it? Why can't it simply exist in His Mind only? It says in the Bible that God knew us before we were even conceived.
    Because whatever he has in his mind doesn't exist yet and if we have free will then we can change it. The fact that the bible has prophesies and speaks of God knowing the future supports the B-theory of time that the future exists and can be known.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X