Nothingness

[seer]

Because the direction in which entropy increases is the direction in which information increases, which is what we call the direction of times arrow. Obviously if a distinct you, a mental state, is located in time somewhere in the midst of that entropy/information increase, that mental state would only have access to the information located in time prior to its own location in time.

But Jim, there is no actual arrow of time in B-Theory, there are no distinct time frames, time is actually static. And I still have no idea why entropy would play any part in what we know or could know. Except for an arbitrary distinction.

[robertb]

However, our experience and observation is 100% that of moving only in a single direction along the t-axis and that all objects move in the same direction. Time-symmetry is not observed. Even if we allowed that we do all move in the same direction under B-theory, we could conceivably observe a constant decrease in entropy. Instead, we observe that entropy always increases. Proponents of B-theory need to explain why it is that 1) all things move together, and 2) we only observe an increase in entropy.

I do not reject B-theory outright. Rather, I think that proponents of B-theory need to explain why we observe what we observe when it is not necessary under the system they've proposed.

We exist within spacetime, so it is unsurprising that our experience reflects that fact.

Unless I misunderstand your objection, you are asking the B-theorist to explain why an observer "inside" of spacetime doesn't observe what an observer "outside" of spacetime might observe.

[robertb]

I'm so glad you brought this up.


Brain State (BS_n) = Current Experience (C_n) + Total Memories (Tm_n), where each memory (m_n) is identical to C_n-1

SO:

BS₀ = C₀+Tm₀; Tm₀ = 0 (no memories yet).

BS₁ = C₁+Tm₁; Tm₁= C₀

BS₂ = C₂+Tm₂; Tm₂= C₀+C₁

BS₃ = C₃+Tm₃; Tm₃= C₀+C₁+C₂

...


Tm is ever increasing. I think this is a pretty good reason to believe time is asymmetric.

It is a good reason to believe that we are the sum total of past experiences.

[robertb]

My limited understanding of the B-theory of time is that it is static. Time does not flow from the past through the present into the future. Or rather we do not flow through time from our past selves into our future selves. Whereas, in the A-theory of time, our normal experience of time, change, and movement through time is simply considered to reflect reality more or less objectively. Is that not the case?

You may be thinking that consciousness is like a continuous spotlight.

I would say that such might not be the case.

Rather, consciousness may be granular (I also think that all linear motion may be as well) - though at such a fine level that we are not aware of it.

Consider - an electron when emitting, or absorbing a photon. It "moves" from one energy level to another, but not through any intervening space - it just is at one level then it is at another.

I suppose you could say that spacetime itself may be quantized.

[robrecht]

We exist within spacetime, so it is unsurprising that our experience reflects that fact.

Unless I misunderstand your objection, you are asking the B-theorist to explain why an observer "inside" of spacetime doesn't observe what an observer "outside" of spacetime might observe.

This makes perfect sense to me, which is why I consider both theories to be complementary but incompatible (within the same spacetime frame of reference). A previous defender of B-Theory here used to claim that the A-theory was illusory. You seem to be saying, however, that it is 'true' within a given spacetime frame of reference. Is that your view?

[robrecht]

You may be thinking that consciousness is like a continuous spotlight.

I would say that such might not be the case.

Rather, consciousness may be granular (I also think that all linear motion may be as well) - though at such a fine level that we are not aware of it.

Consider - an electron when emitting, or absorbing a photon. It "moves" from one energy level to another, but not through any intervening space - it just is at one level then it is at another.

I suppose you could say that spacetime itself may be quantized.

I'm fine (no pun intended) with the granular Planck unit approach, but we still need to move from one instant to the next. The real issue is outlined above in my previous post.

[robertb]

This makes perfect sense to me, which is why I consider both theories to be complementary but incompatible (within the same spacetime frame of reference). A previous defender of B-Theory here used to claim that the A-theory was illusory. You seem to be saying, however, that it is 'true' within a given spacetime frame of reference. Is that your view?

It is my understanding that A-theory claims that only the present is real?

Am I correct in this understanding?

If I do understand it correctly, then I would also say that A-theory is illusory, since a consequence of the, empirically verified, relativity of simultaneity is that the present is not real.

[robertb]

I'm fine (no pun intended) with the granular Planck unit approach, but we still need to move from one instant to the next. The real issue is outlined above in my previous post.

That's just it though, we don't actually "move" from one instant to the next, just as the electron does not actually "move" -in the sense of traversing the distance between point A and point B- from one energy level to another. Freaky, I know.

[shunyadragon]

I think it's premature to say B-theory is disproved. A-theory has its own mountain to climb: why is it the case that we experience a one-directional flow of time? As I understand it, there's no particular reason we don't observe time-symmetry. It might actually be the case that something particular about humans or life on earth is responsible for the apparent time-asymmetry while the universe as a whole is symmetric. A lot of people (myself included) are going to lean towards the science/math that suggest things really are symmetric despite our experience. Science and math have a pretty good track record in that regard.

I consider A and B theory of time as models that each explain aspects of time. A theory is based on how we experience time. B-theory is based on some theoretical aspects of time. I do not believe either offers an adequate explanation of time. I personally go with the straight physics of time/space and gravity relationships of time we can experimentally and objectively observe.

I do not believe time is truly static.

[seer]

I do not believe time is truly static.

Then you do not believe in B-theory, since static time that is fundamental to that theory. But I agree, I don't think we really understand time.

[shunyadragon]

Then you do not believe in B-theory, since static time that is fundamental to that theory. But I agree, I don't think we really understand time.

I believe I was clear. I do not accept either as an adequate explanation of time. A-Theory is too mechanistic and Newtonian. B theory is an attempt to explain some theoretical aspects of time that A theory cannot, but this model is also flawed.

I consider A and B theory of time as models that each explain aspects of time. A theory is based on how we experience time. B-theory is based on some theoretical aspects of time. I do not believe either offers an adequate explanation of time. I personally go with the straight physics of time/space and gravity relationships of time we can experimentally and objectively observe.

I do not believe time is truly static.

Through physics we can understand certain aspects of time.

[seer]

I believe I was clear. I do not accept either as an adequate explanation of time. A-Theory is too mechanistic and Newtonian. B theory is an attempt to explain some theoretical aspects of time that A theory cannot, but this model is also flawed.

I consider A and B theory of time as models that each explain aspects of time. A theory is based on how we experience time. B-theory is based on some theoretical aspects of time. I do not believe either offers an adequate explanation of time. I personally go with the straight physics of time/space and gravity relationships of time we can experimentally and objectively observe.

I do not believe time is truly static.

But that does not make sense, B-Theory requires time to be static, and if time is not static then B-theory is fundamentally flawed and should not even be considered.

[shunyadragon]

But that does not make sense, B-Theory requires time to be static, and if time is not static then B-theory is fundamentally flawed and should not even be considered.

Again and again, I do not consider either A nor B theory and adequate explanation of time.

[robrecht]

It is my understanding that A-theory claims that only the present is real?

Am I correct in this understanding?

If I do understand it correctly, then I would also say that A-theory is illusory, since a consequence of the, empirically verified, relativity of simultaneity is that the present is not real.

That is not my understanding of the A-theory, but I have no expertise in this area.

[seer]

That is not my understanding of the A-theory, but I have no expertise in this area.

This is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNLKcq6JjYk