Originally posted by Sparko
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo dimension is a substance out of which spacetime is made?
For example, using latitude and longitude, along with altitude, I can describe your location on earth. But I would also have to include the time, in order to pinpoint where you are exactly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThere are 4 of them. Length, width, depth, and time. We can use them with a coordinate system to pinpoint any object in the universe.
For example, using latitude and longitude, along with altitude, I can describe your location on earth. But I would also have to include the time, in order to pinpoint where you are exactly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo is it physical or not? And what exactly are we analyzing? I mean isn't time just an arbitrary measurement?
Like Chrawnus was saying, I think that time may be a basic property, like consciousness, that cannot be understood in terms of anything else, and isn't measured arbitrarily but conventionally.Last edited by Jim B.; 05-28-2020, 02:27 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostExcept everything we know about time relates to successive events, if those events did not exist we could not know about time. Some say that in B Theory time is static, what the hell does mean?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBut I still don't have a grasp on what B-Theory really means on a practical level. And how it would differentiate time from the three dimensions of space at all without some prior experiential evidence.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
-
Sorry I've been away for a bit, gentlemen. I've perused back through the last few pages, and I saw that Sparko was doing a good job of answering a number of questions, but I figured I would come back in where I left off as this still seems to be a bit of a sticking point, from what I can see.
Originally posted by seer View PostOK then let's start here - is time a physical thing?
If time changes speed then how is that not becoming slower or faster depending?"[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 PostSorry I've been away for a bit, gentlemen. I've perused back through the last few pages, and I saw that Sparko was doing a good job of answering a number of questions, but I figured I would come back in where I left off as this still seems to be a bit of a sticking point, from what I can see.
Yes. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Time is almost universally recognized by philosophers, theologians, and physicists alike to be a physical thing.
Time doesn't change speed. Time doesn't have a speed. Time doesn't move. In General Relativity, the amount of time which an entity passes through is dependent upon the path which it carves out through space-time as measured from a particular point of perspective.Last edited by JimL; 05-29-2020, 09:14 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo, What does actually move?
If one had an outside perspective of the Block Universe, would they see actual motion going on?"[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 PostAnything which is in different spatial positions at different moments in time. Again, that is the very definition of locomotion.
If you are asking if the universe as a whole is in motion, that's obviously nonsensical. Motion means occupying different positions at different moments. The universe doesn't occupy space-time. The universe is space-time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI know, but that time is a dimension doesn't answer seers question. Dimensions aren't things in themselves. Space is 3 dimensional, but it is a 3 dimensional substance. seer is asking what, if anything, time, in and of itself, is made of. You say that time, like space, reacts to the mass thats's in it. Dimensions are not things in themselves that react to mass.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut how can the things in tme, the things that are coextant with every other thing at every point in time, be said to be in motion.
No, I'm asking if viewing the things in the universe from an outside perspective, would you see change actually taking place, motion, or would you just see everything at each point in time in a static state, like each point in time itself is in a static state?.
But you still don't seem to be understanding that an object in motion is not a different object at each moment in time, any more than you are a different person at your Big Toe than you are at your Stomach or Eye."[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 literally just defined how they can be said to be in motion. When a thing is in different spatial positions at different moments in time, that is exactly what we mean by motion. That particular thing would be in motion over that interval of time. I honestly don't know of any other way to define motion, whether on the A-Theory or the B-Theory.
You're asking about "looking" at an entire, 4-Dimensional, possibly infinite state space from "outside" of it and asking what you would see. It's not even clear that this is coherent, let alone a possible thing which anyone could do. Certainly, even if it was possible, what you would "see" wouldn't be at all similar to what you see in your everyday experience.
But you still don't seem to be understanding that an object in motion is not a different object at each moment in time, any more than you are a different person at your Big Toe than you are at your Stomach or Eye.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI don't mean to be disrespectful BP, just trying to understand.
But I understand how you literally defind what motion is, but what you haven't explained, or what I am not getting, is how can you call it motion if like with a reel of film, in which each cell is just there, the images on the reel are not moving, even though they are in differnt positions along the roll of static film, they are not moving. Isn't time static in the same way, where the position of each thing, at each point along the timeline, is just there, unmoving. In A-theory the future positions of things wouldn't exist as they are said to exist in B-theory. So if as in B-theory, it's all already there, what's actually moving?
There are several reasons why I don't like the film strip analogy. For one, it is completely inadequate and misleading for models in which Time is continuous rather than discrete. For another, even assuming a discrete theory of Time, people latch on to the idea of the film strip moving in Time rather than thinking of it as a depiction of Time, meaning that it is rather useless for actually illustrating the differences in the models for people already having difficulty wrapping their head around it.
What would we see differently?
Well, it would have to be different in a certain respect if the same object exists at every point in time. If for instance an object existed a t1, and it also exists at t2 and exist at every point in time coextantly (if that's a word) then how could they be the same object? If ther object is at all point in time coextantly, how are they the same object? I think it's the coextant idea that has me flustered."[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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
604 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment