Nothingness

[seer]

Why do you say, "No"? I certainly do not disagree that the B-theory of time is indeed an abstract idea. We may disagree, however, in that I see it as an intellectual theory or model that attempts to get beyond the temporal constraints of the space-time frame of reference in which we live. Perhaps it comes down to how you conceive of time and eternity. Do you think God always existed within a temporal frame reference in which there was a before and after? One day there was just God existing in eternity but also existing within time. Then the next day God decided to create the universe. Then the next day, he actually began to create, which he then did for six days. So time itself was uncreated. Others might say that God created time. There was no previous day before the first day. Likewise, I see theoretical physicists employing the B-theory of time as trying to intellectually conceive of reality independent of the temporal frame of reference that began with the the spatial temporal frame of reference of this universe. Space and time originated along with everything else. In the A-theory of time, one prioritizes time and understands the rest of reality within that framework. In the B-theory of time, one prioritizes space and understand the rest of reality within that framework. This is why I see both theories as genuinely complementary but completely incompatible.

I have no idea how God relates to time, but if A+B theory are completely incompatible, then one or both are wrong. I bet that B-Theory is wrong for the reasons I gave.

[robertb]

Both things are equally true at the same moment IN THE SAME UNIVERSE.

The two words in bold are why you continue to fail to understand. Both things are absolutely NOT true in the same moment.

[JimL]

The two words in bold are why you continue to fail to understand. Both things are absolutely NOT true in the same moment.

Well in B-theory, they really could be said to be the same moment, because in B-theory there aren't really any distinct moments, since all of the moments in what we call time exists in conjuntion with each other.

[robertb]

Why do you say, "No"? I certainly do not disagree that the B-theory of time is indeed an abstract idea. We may disagree, however, in that I see it as an intellectual theory or model that attempts to get beyond the temporal constraints of the space-time frame of reference in which we live. Perhaps it comes down to how you conceive of time and eternity. Do you think God always existed within a temporal frame reference in which there was a before and after? One day there was just God existing in eternity but also existing within time. Then the next day God decided to create the universe. Then the next day, he actually began to create, which he then did for six days. So time itself was uncreated. Others might say that God created time. There was no previous day before the first day. Likewise, I see theoretical physicists employing the B-theory of time as trying to intellectually conceive of reality independent of the temporal frame of reference that began with the the spatial temporal frame of reference of this universe. Space and time originated along with everything else. In the A-theory of time, one prioritizes time and understands the rest of reality within that framework. In the B-theory of time, one prioritizes space and understand the rest of reality within that framework. This is why I see both theories as genuinely complementary but completely incompatible.

I think that B-theory follows directly as a consequence of Special and General Relativity. It may not be intuitive, but it is definitely not abstract.

[robertb]

Well in B-theory, they really could be said to be the same moment, because in B-theory there aren't really any distinct moments, since all of the moments in what we call time exists in conjuntion with each other.

If a moment is the fourth dimension of a spacetime coordinate, then they would absolutely not be the same moment.

[robrecht]

I think that B-theory follows directly as a consequence of Special and General Relativity. It may not be intuitive, but it is definitely not abstract.

Why do you think the B-theory (necessarily?) follows from Special and General Relativity? Because, for some anyway, relativity leads to the idea of space and time being in some sense 'created' in some sort of Big Bang? Or some other reason perhaps? Also, don't you think of the theory of relativity as abstract? If not, why not?

[robrecht]

I have no idea how God relates to time, but if A+B theory are completely incompatible, then one or both are wrong. I bet that B-Theory is wrong for the reasons I gave.

Or both are incomplete in the sense of not comprehensive.

[robertb]

Why do you think the B-theory (necessarily?) follows from Special and General Relativity? Because, for some anyway, relativity leads to the idea of space and time being in some sense 'created' in some sort of Big Bang? Or some other reason perhaps? Also, don't you think of the theory of relativity as abstract? If not, why not?

I think it most straightforwardly follows due to the relativity of simultaneity. Whether or not spacetime begins at the Big Bang really has no bearing on this issue, since on this view, whatever happened eternally happens. The theory of relativity is empirically verified to be a fairly accurate model of reality, so not abstract, unless I am missing your usage of this word.

[robertb]

Or both are incomplete in the sense of not comprehensive.

Incomplete is always a good bet.

[robrecht]

I think it most straightforwardly follows due to the relativity of simultaneity. Whether or not spacetime begins at the Big Bang really has no bearing on this issue, since on this view, whatever happened eternally happens. The theory of relativity is empirically verified to be a fairly accurate model of reality, so not abstract, unless I am missing your usage of this word.

By speaking of the theory of relativity as abstract, I certainly did not mean to question its accuracy or verified status. I would still think the B-theory/model of time might have some utility for theoretical physics when trying to untie the knot of a singularity like the Big Bang. No?

[Carrikature]

Or both are incomplete in the sense of not comprehensive.

Or lacking some grand unification theory? I don't find either theory sufficient, tbh.

[seer]

The two words in bold are why you continue to fail to understand. Both things are absolutely NOT true in the same moment.

But they are because in B-Theory the past exists with the future. Time is static, the future and the past exist together. As we speak the universe IS in low entropy and the universe IS in high entropy.

[seer]

Or both are incomplete in the sense of not comprehensive.

Incomplete is different than incompatible. Though I suspect that they are incompatible.

[Carrikature]

But they are because in B-Theory the past exists with the future. Time is static, the future and the past exist together. As we speak the universe IS in low entropy and the universe IS in high entropy.

You can't speak of past and future in B-theory. That's part of your hang-up. Another big part is that you can't speak of the universe as a whole being in one state or another. You can only speak of local characteristics.

[robrecht]

Incomplete is different than incompatible.

But it is nonetheless for them both to be both incomplete and incompatible at the same time.

Though I suspect that they are incompatible.

You have proven definitively in every one of your posts on this subject that they are presently incompatible.