B Theory Of Time...

[JimL]

Again, that would be the B-theory. If God can see the actual future, then it exists for him to see it in some manner. That is the B-theory. We can't see it because we are inside and don't have any way to perceive it. It would be like a two dimensional creature trying to imagine a 3-dimensional world.

And again, if your future exists in some manner that god can see it, then your future your future exists whether you can perceive it or not. When are you going to give explanation for that?

[Sparko]

I'm not arguing that B-theory is real, I'm arguing what it entails. As to how it got that way, if that's the reality, ask Albert Einstein. Or ask BP who agrees with me that in B-theory it's all there, that the you in the future is coextant with the you in the present. But if you have a logical explanation as to how free will works within that concept, I love to hear it. So far you haven't come up with one.

If you are going to insist how B-theory "really" works when I bring it up, then you need to be able to explain how it ends up showing a progression of connected actions and choices if they don't really exist. All you are doing now is admitting you don't really understand it at all and when called out on it, you just close your eyes.

Right, B-theory=determined. But the physics, even in A-theory entails determinism. If the big bang happened, that set of the atoms on their determined paths and we are those determined atoms. Perhaps the physics are missing something but whatever it is free will isn't in those 2 theories as they are understood.

But if there are no choices or connected actions in B-theory as you claim then who supposedly "determines" the fact that they are connected and related? If I throw a ball, in the subsequent time frames, the ball leaves my hand and travels in a path and distance determined by the speed of my throw. Your claim is that there is no connection between time frames in B-theory so the ball should just as likely disappear in the next time frame or hit me in the back of the head. Obviously, your idea of what B-theory "is" is incorrect.

[JimL]

If you are going to insist how B-theory "really" works when I bring it up, then you need to be able to explain how it ends up showing a progression of connected actions and choices if they don't really exist. All you are doing now is admitting you don't really understand it at all and when called out on it, you just close your eyes.

You're thae one that isn't giving explanation as to how you are fitting free will into B-theory. I wish you would. I've explained the progression, time is static, events in time are coextant and static along with the entirety of time. You agree that all of time exists, right, that time is a dimension. You also agree that in B-theory, all events in time exists so that and outside of time observer can see them. You tell me how you;re fitting free will into that?

But if there are no choices or connected actions in B-theory as you claim then who supposedly "determines" the fact that they are connected and related? If I throw a ball, in the subsequent time frames, the ball leaves my hand and travels in a path and distance determined by the speed of my throw. Your claim is that there is no connection between time frames in B-theory so the ball should just as likely disappear in the next time frame or hit me in the back of the head. Obviously, your idea of what B-theory "is" is incorrect.

The connection in B-theory is like your own example of the reel of film and the connected cels therein, how that is experienced as a passage of time, of motion, is for you to explain.

[Sparko]

You're thae one that isn't giving explanation as to how you are fitting free will into B-theory. I wish you would. I've explained the progression, time is static, events in time are coextant and static along with the entirety of time. You agree that all of time exists, right, that time is a dimension. You also agree that in B-theory, all events in time exists so that and outside of time observer can see them. You tell me how you;re fitting free will into that?

Your idea of B-theory isn't correct. That is why you keep getting everything wrong. Then you ask me to explain how your incorrect version works? LOL.

I already told you that at we both have been here at this point of the debate in multiple threads. When your understanding of B-theory breaks down and I am unable to explain it to you because of your preconceptions and refusal to listen, then we are at an impasse and it would be a further waste of my time (pun intended) to continue to discuss it with you.


I will try one last time.

You know how if you have a book on top of another book, the top book's position depends on the lower book's position? That the book can't just exist floating in air for no reason? It is the same with time, actions in one time frame are dependent on prior actions in past times. So if in T100 you are eating a steak, then in the previous times (say T80) you decided to eat a steak. Then in T90 you cooked the steak, T91 you put it on a plate, etc, etc. Actions and choices always depend on prior actions, choices and events.

If at T100 you are eating a piece of chicken then at T80, you would have decided to eat chicken.

Your decision at T80 can only happen once, at T80. So you will make a choice and that is the choice that exists in the time frame and always has. If you had chosen differently then that would have been what was 'always' your decision.

[JimL]

Your idea of B-theory isn't correct. That is why you keep getting everything wrong. Then you ask me to explain how your incorrect version works? LOL.

I already told you that at we both have been here at this point of the debate in multiple threads. When your understanding of B-theory breaks down and I am unable to explain it to you because of your preconceptions and refusal to listen, then we are at an impasse and it would be a further waste of my time (pun intended) to continue to discuss it with you.


I will try one last time.

You know how if you have a book on top of another book, the top book's position depends on the lower book's position? That the book can't just exist floating in air for no reason? It is the same with time, actions in one time frame are dependent on prior actions in past times. So if in T100 you are eating a steak, then in the previous times (say T80) you decided to eat a steak. Then in T90 you cooked the steak, T91 you put it on a plate, etc, etc. Actions and choices always depend on prior actions, choices and events.

If at T100 you are eating a piece of chicken then at T80, you would have decided to eat chicken.

Your decision at T80 can only happen once, at T80. So you will make a choice and that is the choice that exists in the time frame and always has. If you had chosen differently then that would have been what was 'always' your decision.

But, as I have pointed out to you when making that argument, it doesn't explain B-theory, it only asserts that present events need be prior in order to future events. That much is a given, Sparko, whether it's B-theory or A-theory. But what you need to make clear is what you mean when you say that the future choices that you've made exist, and have always existed? In what sense have they always existed? If you are eating a steak in the year 2021, how has that event always been? Having always existed complies with B-theory, but if actions in time have always existed, then how is it that they are freely chosen actions?

[Sparko]

But, as I have pointed out to you when making that argument, it doesn't explain B-theory, it only asserts that present events need be prior in order to future events. That much is a given, Sparko, whether it's B-theory or A-theory. But what you need to make clear is what you mean when you say that the future choices that you've made exist, and have always existed? In what sense have they always existed? If you are eating a steak in the year 2021, how has that event always been? Having always existed complies with B-theory, but if actions in time have always existed, then how is it that they are freely chosen actions?

I literally just explained it to you JimL.

[JimL]

I literally just explained it to you JimL.

No, actually you didn't. You made assertions that past and present actions in time are prior to future actions in time, which is a given in either theory of time, but you have yet to explain how all actions in time could both have always been and be feely chosen. Perhaps always have been was a poor choice of words on your part. Can you explain that please?

[Jim B.]

Again, that would be the B-theory. If God can see the actual future, then it exists for him to see it in some manner. That is the B-theory. We can't see it because we are inside and don't have any way to perceive it. It would be like a two dimensional creature trying to imagine a 3-dimensional world.

You may be right but what I'm suggesting is to think of my relation to my actions yesterday. I am in a 'B-relation' to my actions yesterday because my actions yesterday are now closed and fixed. But none of that means that B-Theory is correct or that the future existed for me yesterday! If God is in the same relation to every event as I am to my actions yesterday, that fact alone would not mean that B-Theory is right or that the future 'exists' in a fixed B-sense. It may only be a linguistic problem and a problem of perspective.

[JimL]

You may be right but what I'm suggesting is to think of my relation to my actions yesterday. I am in a 'B-relation' to my actions yesterday because my actions yesterday are now closed and fixed. But none of that means that B-Theory is correct or that the future existed for me yesterday!

Except that B-theory, if true, does mean just that, i.e. that the future is closed. B-theory doesn't state that only the past is closed, B-theory states that all of time, past, present, and future, exists, meaning that all events in time also exist. In B-theory, time is a dimension. In A-theory we move through time, in B-theory, every moment of our entire life span exists in time.

If God is in the same relation to every event as I am to my actions yesterday, that fact alone would not mean that B-Theory is right or that the future 'exists' in a fixed B-sense. It may only be a linguistic problem and a problem of perspective.

But that wouldn't be god knowing the future. That wouldn't be B-theory. That would basically be A-theory. In that scenario, god could only see the past and the present, excepting the fact that god couldn't actually see the past, because in A-theory, the past doesn'r exist anymore than the future does. A-theory is not a "Block Universe." In A theory god could have seen, and therefore know, the past, but he can't see the past.

[Jim B.]

Except that B-theory, if true, does mean just that, i.e. that the future is closed. B-theory doesn't state that only the past is closed, B-theory states that all of time, past, present, and future, exists, meaning that all events in time also exist. In B-theory, time is a dimension. In A-theory we move through time, in B-theory, every moment of our entire life span exists in time.


But that wouldn't be god knowing the future. That wouldn't be B-theory. That would basically be A-theory. In that scenario, god could only see the past and the present, excepting the fact that god couldn't actually see the past, because in A-theory, the past doesn'r exist anymore than the future does. A-theory is not a "Block Universe." In A theory god could have seen, and therefore know, the past, but he can't see the past.

Of course. I was only trying to 'square the circle,' to reconcile the, perhaps, irreconcilable, that is, to fit a certain notion of divine timelessness into a notion of A-Theory. Maybe it can't be done, probably can't be done by me. I don't really believe in that version of divine timelessness anyway. I was curious, however, if it could be done.

You asked earlier why it is we have this sense of a "Now" and of tensed facts if B-Theory is correct. One possible answer is that it's the same psychological tug that causes us to psychologically privilege our own conscious states over anyone else's and to privilege 'here' over anyplace else. But are those things really analogous?

[Jim B.]

Here's a passage from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on God and Time. It's discussing God's timeless knowledge as being compatible with free actions. So in a sense some events can be 'open' even if God timelessly knows all events.

[Sparko]

You may be right but what I'm suggesting is to think of my relation to my actions yesterday. I am in a 'B-relation' to my actions yesterday because my actions yesterday are now closed and fixed. But none of that means that B-Theory is correct or that the future existed for me yesterday! If God is in the same relation to every event as I am to my actions yesterday, that fact alone would not mean that B-Theory is right or that the future 'exists' in a fixed B-sense. It may only be a linguistic problem and a problem of perspective.

I think I understand what you are saying. It is as if God's perspective was from the far, far, future and everything we are experiencing now is in his past.

But that is still the B-theory. If God's perspective is from the far future, then that future has to exist for him to know it. Just like you remembering the past means it had to have existed. If you remember eating a sandwich two days ago, then you actually ate a sandwich two days ago (unless you are delusional, but we won't go there ) - so if God "remembers" you eating a sandwich a week from now, then it had to have happened somehow for God to remember it. Which means that you will eat a sandwich two days from now.

You can describe it differently, but the result is the same thing as B-theory.

[Sparko]

Here's a passage from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on God and Time. It's discussing God's timeless knowledge as being compatible with free actions. So in a sense some events can be 'open' even if God timelessly knows all events.

That explanation is what I was saying a few pages ago. If you choose A, then God has always known you chose A. If you choose A1, then that is what God always knew. You can only make the choice once at T1. You can't choose A, then go back and choose A2. So whatever choice you make at T1, that is your free will action and what God knew you would do. But that is still B-theory.

[JimL]

That explanation is what I was saying a few pages ago. If you choose A, then God has always known you chose A. If you choose A1, then that is what God always knew. You can only make the choice once at T1. You can't choose A, then go back and choose A2. So whatever choice you make at T1, that is your free will action and what God knew you would do. But that is still B-theory.

And if god has always known that you are eating a sandwich a year from now, in the future, then you are already and have always been there eating a sandwich a year from now, in the future. If you are here in the present, how then are you also eating a sandwich a year from now in the future? I will reiterate once again, that even if it is so that from a timeless perspective, a god could see all of time, and all events in all of time, then all of time, and all events in all of time, have always existed. I've yet to see a logical explanation as to how free will can be the reality when all of time, and all events in all of time, have always existed.

[Sparko]

And if god has always known that you are eating a sandwich a year from now, in the future, then you are already and have always been there eating a sandwich a year from now, in the future. If you are here in the present, how then are you also eating a sandwich a year from now in the future? I will reiterate once again, that even if it is so that from a timeless perspective, a god could see all of time, and all events in all of time, then all of time, and all events in all of time, have always existed. I've yet to see a logical explanation as to how free will can be the reality when all of time, and all events in all of time, have always existed.

You were "always" eating it because you always freely chose to do it. If you had freely chosen something else, then that would be what you have "always" eaten at that point in time. Same as the past.

Yesterday you ate something for lunch most likely. It was your free will choice. It always will be your choice and nothing can change it. Doesn't mean it wasn't because of free will. If you ate a banana on 6/1/2020 at 3PM, then you will always have done so. You can't change it. You can't suddenly have eaten an apple instead. You ate a banana because that is what you chose to eat at that moment.