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

  • Machinist
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post



    If you will always do something but the decision is your free will decision, then what's the problem?


    I didn't say I had a problem with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Machinist View Post

    If you were to peer into the past or future, and see yourself, then wouldn't that in itself be a violation of the Law of Identity? Which one would be you? Because in B theory, the past and future are as ontologically grounded as the present. Or are you just using that for illustration, analogy?
    it was a thought experiment Seer. and both would be "you" - one just an earlier version of yourself. Why do you always have to try to deflect and pick apart an example rather than just answer the dang thing?

    If you will always do something but the decision is your free will decision, then what's the problem?

    If you were standing on a cliff and your wife slipped and you reached out and caught her of your own free will, wouldn't you ALWAYS choose to do that? Does that mean you had no free will? Would you complain that you had no free will because you would never let her fall?

    Leave a comment:


  • Machinist
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    I don't know. I do believe that my future decisions will be my free will decisions even if I can't change them.

    Look, I tried to explain it to you before:

    You know what you ate for breakfast yesterday. Let's say it was your free will decision to eat a breakfast burrito. You know that and since it is in the past you can't change it. Now imagine you could go back in time and watch yourself make that decision. You would see yourself decide to eat a breakfast burrito. You will not choose to eat anything else. Because you remember yourself eating that breakfast burrito. It can't be changed, and yet it is a free will decision. IF you had chosen something else, say Cheerios, then that is what you would remember eating and what you would see yourself choosing if you could go back in time and see it.

    Just extend that into the future. Let's say that you in the future on Friday, know that tomorrow morning you will choose to eat a muffin for breakfast. That means tomorrow you will freely choose to eat a muffin for breakfast. If you were going to eat something else, that is what the Seer on Friday would know. So no matter what free will decision you make tomorrow, your future self of Friday remembers that, and that is what you will do tomorrow. Freely.
    If you were to peer into the past or future, and see yourself, then wouldn't that in itself be a violation of the Law of Identity? Which one would be you? Because in B theory, the past and future are as ontologically grounded as the present. Or are you just using that for illustration, analogy?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Sparko, can you change any future act or thought? Can you ever do otherwise? Can you change what is already settled, and has been for the life of the universe?
    I don't know. I do believe that my future decisions will be my free will decisions even if I can't change them.

    Look, I tried to explain it to you before:

    You know what you ate for breakfast yesterday. Let's say it was your free will decision to eat a breakfast burrito. You know that and since it is in the past you can't change it. Now imagine you could go back in time and watch yourself make that decision. You would see yourself decide to eat a breakfast burrito. You will not choose to eat anything else. Because you remember yourself eating that breakfast burrito. It can't be changed, and yet it is a free will decision. IF you had chosen something else, say Cheerios, then that is what you would remember eating and what you would see yourself choosing if you could go back in time and see it.

    Just extend that into the future. Let's say that you in the future on Friday, know that tomorrow morning you will choose to eat a muffin for breakfast. That means tomorrow you will freely choose to eat a muffin for breakfast. If you were going to eat something else, that is what the Seer on Friday would know. So no matter what free will decision you make tomorrow, your future self of Friday remembers that, and that is what you will do tomorrow. Freely.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    I just went over that while discussing the growing block universe theory a few posts ago too. Do you not even read my posts? That would explain a lot of this thread.
    Sparko, can you change any future act or thought? Can you ever do otherwise? Can you change what is already settled, and has been for the life of the universe?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    For human freedom to be genuine we must be able to chose otherwise. Yet in B theory that is not possible. Every future act or thought or act is already set in stone. If the future is settled you can not chose otherwise. How could you?
    I just went over that while discussing the growing block universe theory a few posts ago too. Do you not even read my posts? That would explain a lot of this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Just went over this in my last few posts to you.
    For human freedom to be genuine we must be able to chose otherwise. Yet in B theory that is not possible. Every future act or thought or act is already set in stone. If the future is settled you can not chose otherwise. How could you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Err, no. There is no volition in block theory nor can there be. My thoughts or choices ten minutes from now are already set in stone in B theory. They have always existed. You will not think or do anything that isn't already written. And remember in B theory our experience of flow is false. And flow is necessary for both rationality and free will.
    Just went over this in my last few posts to you.

    That is because philosophers and scientists often like to entertain nonsense. Static is static. There is no motion in the universe Sparko, and that has logical ramifications for physics and rationality.
    No, it's because as I keep telling you, you don't understand the B-theory of time. If it were as simple as "in B-theory you can't think" there would be no debate. These people aren't stupid Seer.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    What causes your thoughts to change? You do. I maintain that you have free will under either theory, A, B or Growing B. And all thoughts take time to complete. You don't magically have an entire thought instantly. It takes time to have a thought. You experience time "flowing" the same under either theory, Seer. I keep telling you that.
    Err, no. There is no volition in block theory nor can there be. My thoughts or choices ten minutes from now are already set in stone in B theory. They have always existed. You will not think or do anything that isn't already written. And remember in B theory our experience of flow is false. And flow is necessary for both rationality and free will.

    If it were as easy to disprove the B-theory as saying "well if we were in the B-theory we wouldn't be able to think" then there would be no discussion among philosophers and scientists as to which theory is true, would there?
    That is because philosophers and scientists often like to entertain nonsense. Static is static. There is no motion in the universe Sparko, and that has logical ramifications for physics and rationality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    I have no idea what I would experience in static time. All I (or you) know is motion. We only experience the flow of time Then there is a deeper problem. At frame (or slice) A I have a particular thought. At slice B I have a different thought. Both thoughts are static and have existed side by side (in different slices) for the life of the Bock universe. So what cause my thought to change?
    What causes your thoughts to change? You do. I maintain that you have free will under either theory, A, B or Growing B. And all thoughts take time to complete. You don't magically have an entire thought instantly. It takes time to have a thought. You experience time "flowing" the same under either theory, Seer. I keep telling you that.

    If it were as easy to disprove the B-theory as saying "well if we were in the B-theory we wouldn't be able to think" then there would be no discussion among philosophers and scientists as to which theory is true, would there?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    No, if you went back you would be stuck in the universe just like you are now and would experience time flowing just like you do now. It is only "static" if you are some 5 dimensional being that could observe the universe as a 4 dimensional object. You would be in the same "illusion" of time flow as you keep saying everyone in the block universe is in.
    I have no idea what I would experience in static time. All I (or you) know is motion. We only experience the flow of time Then there is a deeper problem. At frame (or slice) A I have a particular thought. At slice B I have a different thought. Both thoughts are static and have existed side by side (in different slices) for the life of the Bock universe. So what cause my thought to change?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    But if I could go back, I would not be thinking, you may find a frozen thought in my mind. Just as you may find me frozen in mid jump. But I am not moving, my mind is not progressing from thought to thought as it is presently. There is no motion, everything, including our thoughts are static. Even if my thoughts from two minutes are static, they are not now, nor will they be as we move forward.

    No, if you went back you would be stuck in the universe just like you are now and would experience time flowing just like you do now. It is only "static" if you are some 5 dimensional being that could observe the universe as a 4 dimensional object. You would be in the same "illusion" of time flow as you keep saying everyone in the block universe is in.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Your thoughts are recorded in the past. So what you were thinking at that time is exactly what is 'recorded' meaning that if you could look back at yourself in the past, you would see yourself doing and thinking exactly what you did and thought in the past. In a growing block universe the past actually exists, right? Meaning if you had a time machine you could go back and visit it. It is as real as anything else in the universe. That is what the block universe is.
    But if I could go back, I would not be thinking, you may find a frozen thought in my mind. Just as you may find me frozen in mid jump. But I am not moving, my mind is not progressing from thought to thought as it is presently. There is no motion, everything, including our thoughts are static. Even if my thoughts from two minutes are static, they are not now, nor will they be as we move forward.


    The static interpretation of time is a view of time which arose in the early years of the 20th century from Albert Einstein's special relativity and Hermann Minkowski's extension of special relativity in which time and space were famously united in physicists' thinking as spacetime.

    Essentially the universe is regarded as akin to a reel of film – which is a wholly static physical object – but which when played through a movie projector conjures a world of movement, color, light and change. In the static view our whole universe – our past, present, and future are fixed parts of that reel of film, and the projector is our consciousness. But the 'happenings' of our consciousness have no objective significance – the objective universe does not happen, it simply exists in its entirety, albeit perceived from within as a world of changes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    I don't believe you or I do any thinking once we are frozen in the past, how could we? There is no motion. We are as static and rock like as one of the frames on your film. There is only thinking in the present. Thinking requires 'becoming' or 'progression' one thought to the next, the next and so on. All such progression requires the flow of time. And it is not that I hold to the growing Block theory, just just makes more sense than the Block theory. And allows for rationality and fee will.
    Your thoughts are recorded in the past. So what you were thinking at that time is exactly what is 'recorded' meaning that if you could look back at yourself in the past, you would see yourself doing and thinking exactly what you did and thought in the past. In a growing block universe the past actually exists, right? Meaning if you had a time machine you could go back and visit it. It is as real as anything else in the universe. That is what the block universe is.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Then what would be the point of a growing block universe? How do you know your thoughts are not "frozen" in time right now and you are just rethinking the same thoughts that have been frozen in time when the growing front of the block universe passed this point in time?
    I don't believe you or I do any thinking once we are frozen in the past, how could we? There is no motion. We are as static and rock like as one of the frames on your film. There is only thinking in the present. Thinking requires 'becoming' or 'progression' one thought to the next, the next and so on. All such progression requires the flow of time. And it is not that I hold to the growing Block theory, just just makes more sense than the Block theory. And allows for rationality and fee will.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
160 responses
508 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