Nothingness

[robrecht]

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

Yes, 'though I would not want to imply that I know much about actual grand unification theories.

[robertb]

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.

I have no idea how else to explain this. Oh well.

[robertb]

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?

Definitely.

[robertb]

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

What do you think lacks on B Theory?

[JimL]

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

Yes of course, but the difference isn't a difference that we usually associate with our intuitive notion of time, it is more of a difference in location. In B-theory, time doesn't pass, all moments, past, present, and future moments, are conjoined together in time.

[robertb]

Yes of course, but the difference isn't a difference that we usually associate with our intuitive notion of time, it is more of a difference in location. In B-theory, time doesn't pass, all moments, past, present, and future moments, are conjoined together in time.

I do not understand "time doesn't pass"... "conjoined together in time"

You should really be using spacetime and coordinates within spacetime. Keeps the semantics clear. But I think I get what you are saying.

[seer]

I have no idea how else to explain this. Oh well.

As we speak the universe IS in low entropy and the universe IS in high entropy. I that true or not?

[Carrikature]

What do you think lacks on B Theory?

An explanation for our perception of time. Our perceptions might not be correct, but a viable theory should at least be able to account for them in some manner. "Perceptions are often wrong" isn't good enough.

[robertb]

As we speak the universe IS in low entropy and the universe IS in high entropy. I that true or not?

Was and will be, the present is relative.

[robertb]

An explanation for our perception of time. Our perceptions might not be correct, but a viable theory should at least be able to account for them in some manner. "Perceptions are often wrong" isn't good enough.

Your perception of now is the result of your before and not of your after, which seems to be the result of the general increase in entropy from before to after - the "arrow of time".

[Carrikature]

Your perception of now is the result of your before and not of your after, which seems to be the result of the general increase in entropy from before to after - the "arrow of time".

There is no 'before' and 'after' in B-theory. If anything, the general increase in entropy following the so-called arrow of time complicates things even further.

Space-time as a set of coordinates (x,y,z,t), right? That's straightforward enough, but you can use it for both A-theory and B-theory. It's also pretty straightforward to say that entropy at (x,y,z,t1) is different than at (x,y,z,t2). What you can't explain is why entropy always increases at every new value of t that we experience. What you can't explain is why, if the a person at t3 is a kid and the person at t30 is an adult, no one ever claims to experience t30 without having first experienced t3.

[robertb]

There is no 'before' and 'after' in B-theory. If anything, the general increase in entropy following the so-called arrow of time complicates things even further.

Space-time as a set of coordinates (x,y,z,t), right? That's straightforward enough, but you can use it for both A-theory and B-theory. It's also pretty straightforward to say that entropy at (x,y,z,t1) is different than at (x,y,z,t2). What you can't explain is why entropy always increases at every new value of t that we experience. What you can't explain is why, if the a person at t3 is a kid and the person at t30 is an adult, no one ever claims to experience t30 without having first experienced t3.

Your initial statement is incorrect. There is before and after in B theory and the increase of entropy is not an issue since entropy is generally lower before and higher after. Maybe you are using A theorist understanding while trying to evaluate B theory.

[Carrikature]

Your initial statement is incorrect. There is before and after in B theory and the increase of entropy is not an issue since entropy is generally lower before and higher after. Maybe you are using A theorist understanding while trying to evaluate B theory.

All time coordinates are co-existent in B-theory. In what sense is there a 'before' or 'after' outside of our perceived arrow of time?

[robertb]

All time coordinates are co-existent in B-theory. In what sense is there a 'before' or 'after' outside of our perceived arrow of time?

Because of entropy. Lower entropy is before and higher entropy is after, a physical reality. Don't conflate co-existent with co-location.

[robrecht]

What I find most difficult to understand about the B-Theory/model/spatial metaphor that it would seem that each point in time is thought of as 'containing' the the entirety of space matter and energy. Representing time spatially seems to degrade our ability meaningfully represent space spatially. Conceiving of the universe as infinite minimizes this difficulty conceptually but it feels like a cheap fix, sort of like a god of the gaps.