The takeaway here is that B-theorists deny that time genuinely passes, so if you think it does, then you might not be one. — Luke

I've read the things you referred to, and my question is still the same, what do you mean with genuinely passage of time and genuine change? I can't answer the question if I don't know what it means.

Again, to me it seems that the only difference between the theories is what you consider to be real or existing. In 4d spacetime an object exists temporally extended, "wormlike" over time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't change, or that time doesn't pass... it does, per definition. And that is not merely 'apparent change', change is part of the existing temporally extended object and just as real as change is in A-theory it seems to me.

It's the B-series. But look, if you don't engage the ideas themselves, I don't think we will get anywhere.

I don't think characterization as A-series or B-series explains anything by itself. It seems to be merely about the language we use to describe things, and so not about the nature of things. From the stanford Encyclopedia :

McTaggart begins his argument by distinguishing two ways in which positions in time can be ordered. First, he says, positions in time can be ordered according to their possession of properties like being two days future, being one day future, being present, being one day past, etc. (These properties are often referred to now as “A properties.”) McTaggart calls the series of times ordered by these properties “the A series.” But he says that positions in time can also be ordered by two-place relations like two days earlier than, one day earlier than, simultaneous with, etc. (These relations are now often called “B relations.”) McTaggart calls the series of times ordered by these relations “the B series.”

And then it goes on to say this, which I agree with :

(An odd but seldom noticed consequence of McTaggart's characterization of the A series and the B series is that, on that characterization, the A series is identical to the B series. For the items that make up the B series (namely, moments of time) are the same items that make up the A series, and the order of the items in the B series is the same as the order of the items in the A series; but there is nothing more to a series than some specific items in a particular order.)

What comes next in the article, and what you seem to be getting at, is what I think doesn't follow from merely ordering in A or B-series :

In any case, McTaggart argues that the B series alone does not constitute a proper time series. I.e., McTaggart says that the A series is essential to time. His reason for this is that change (he says) is essential to time, and the B series without the A series does not involve genuine change (since B series positions are forever “fixed,” whereas A series positions are constantly changing).

Why? What is "genuine change" as opposed to change that is merely things being different at different moments in time? What is this "temporal passage" that is supposedly absent from the B-series and essential to time? I've raised the same questions earlier, but you keep just referencing back to same ill-defined notions, as if that explain anything. If you want to discuss this topic, engage with the ideas.

Okay, thanks for your responses. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an account by the Eternalists of how we experience time the way we do. Except for those who simply assume (Presentist/A-theory) temporal passage within what is supposed to be a static block universe. — Luke

The temporal passage thing is not the problem, the block is only static viewed from the outside. Within the blockuniverse time is one of the dimensions, like I said earlier. So things change and we interpret that as time passing, though we never actually see a thing like time passing.

What does need to be explained is the unequality between past and future, because in principle the laws of physics go in either direction just the same. There the low entropy of the early universe and the second law of thermodynamics can do some explaining.

It's a pressing concern to 'appear' to conform to the facts, otherwise people won't buy into it anymore. But it doesn't actually have to conform with the facts because generally people also don't care that much about truth that all the details have to be correct.

No technically the answer is, no.... if only a yes or no answer will do :-). They need to "appear" to conform to facts... not they have to conform to facts.

The question is, are some worldviews so out of step with facts that they're doomed to go out of fashion as people gather more and more information? Alternatively, is it a must that worldviews always have to conform to facts? I mean religion these days has the reputation of being out of touch with reality and to that extent undesirable but that doesn't detract from its history as the most popular worldview for over two thousand years now. Isn't this proof that worldviews needn't always be fact-based? — TheMadFool

It was easier to say the universe was created in 7 days in a time where we had no clue how the world came to be.

They need to be facts based insofar that makes them convincing enough for people to belief in, I suppose.

That's why some religious people go through all the trouble of reworking the creation story into intelligent design. That at least has some semblance of being in accordance with scientific findings.

Why are there more atheists in this day and age than in the past? What makes people give up a religious worldview, if not that it's about being grounded (in facts/truths)? — TheMadFool

Because Chistianity had Truth as one of its core values and ate its own tail... in short :-).

So, you think the scientific worldview is, to say the least, closer to the truth than other worldviews? — TheMadFool

Yes I do, but I want to say that other worldviews don't necessarily have a whole lot to do with truth. That's not their primary function, I don't think. They're usually more metaphorical than literal.

I'm only concerned with those scientific claims that are well-established - having run the gauntlet of tests and retests consisting of both experiments of verification and falsification. These are, in my humble opinion, regarded as facts as opposed to opinion.

If science was always right, then the SpaceX manned mission wouldn't be considered a test flight. Every space mission is a test of our current scientific knowledge. One common saying among scientists is that "You only get the right answer after making all possible mistakes".
— Harry Hindu

In the last statement, the quote, there's the indication that when science gets it right it does get it right and there can be no dissent unless you want to be called a lunkhead. — TheMadFool

Well yeah, if it has been tested countless of times over years, than maybe they have a point in calling dissenters lunkheads. It's like running your head into a wall over and over again, that IMHO qualifies as lunkhead behaviour.

Isn't that part of the scientific method? — Harry Hindu

Yes it is.

I think what we're getting at is that the scientific method is open-minded. It accepts that present scientific explanations might not always be the best, and that there might be a better explanation. This explains why science is the default method - because it simply accepts any testable hypothesis that has been tested numerous times and still has predictive power. Every time you use your smartphone you are testing the science that the technology is based on. — Harry Hindu

I don't disagree, but I think what OP is getting at is not so much the scientific method itself, but how it is received and use more widely in our societies.

So the only qualifier is that the hypothesis is testable by every human being. If it isn't, how can we say that what we know is useful for other human beings? — Harry Hindu

I wouldn't say every human being, because testing a theory can become very technical and expensive, but you need to be able to verify it with empirical data, yes.

This state of affairs in re the scientific worldview begs an explanation and the one that comes to mind is that scientific claims are considered incontrovertible truths, very unlike claims made by other worldviews. — TheMadFool

Yeah, no it's the opposite, some scientific theories are only considered 'the best theory we currently have' so long as there is no data to the contrary... and people are constantly and actively looking for data that might not fit those theories.

Over the years a number of theories have passed that test so many times, that people have come to consider them 'incontrovertible truths'. Which is why they currently have the authority they do. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, I'd say.

What maybe is a problem, to be charitable to your post, is that because of these succes, science has gotten an aura that might be abused and a bit overused at times. Abused for example in political discourse or pseudo-sciences, and overused maybe in cases like morality where it's isn't entirely clear that the scientific method necessarily would be a good method for it.

I think you are not wrong in your analysis, there doesn't seem to be a good solution to that dilemma.

Either you opt out entirely and ostracize the social part of yourself which makes for a poor life indeed, or you go with it and deny some of your other ideals in doing so, which will possibly lead you to burn out somewhere along the road. Going against your core values does come with a price.

What's left then is finding ways to deal with it.

Philosophy maybe can help a bit to form a better understanding of why things are the way they are, which can lead to some acceptance of the inevitable and re-evaluation of values. If your values are only attuned to a world that doesn't exist, then chances are they need some tuning.

Meditation and exercise could probably help in keeping you mentally and physically sane.

Another way of dealing with the disconnect is finding ways of to express yourself in some creative endeavor i.e. music, writing etc...

Oh yeah, and finding some people you can relate to probably goes a long way.

Yeah, let's leave that one for another thread.

What we mean is "how do things (like perspectives and knowledge) exist"? — Harry Hindu

Could you clarify that question, because I don't get it as it is formulated... How do perspectives and knowledge exist seems like an odd question to ask, because they don't, if we take existence to mean what it generally means, material or physical existence.

So there isn't a how things are when it comes to knowledge and perspectives? Then what on Earth have we been talking about all this time when saying or writing those words? — Harry Hindu

Don't know why you ask me that question. I thought my point was clear from the first post I made addressing one of yours :

What do we mean with 'how things are'?

:-) — ChatteringMonkey

A perspectivist would probably say that 'natures' and 'essences' are also incoherent notions, like 'how thing really are' is.

So then, if it's a question about natures, then that is your answer.

I asked "what about perspectives?" - meaning, is there a how things are for perspectives? If there is, then how things are isn't an incoherent notion. How things are for your perspective relative to my perspective is a real difference, unless you are actually part of me when I read your posts (solipsism). If all that exists are perspectives, then we need to redefine "perspectives", as we commonly understand today that perspectives are of other things. If you are saying that they aren't, rather that perspectives are the only real feature of the universe - the only thing that there is a "how things are", then it really isn't a perspective that we are talking about are we?

Where is your perspective relative to mine? In answering this question would you not be describing "how things are" between our two perspectives?

So, are you and Marchesk and Jamalrob parts of me when I read your(my) posts? Are we now understanding why the "you" needs to be defined in order to proceed forward on this topic? — Harry Hindu

I alluded to this in an earlier post, but I don't think this is so much about 'what exist' as it is about 'how things are'... It's a question about knowledge rather then existence. Everything is viewed from a perspective, not everything "is" a perspective. So then there is no need for an infinite regress, right?

There is no 'how things (really) are' if everything is viewed from a perspective, because the word perspective implies that we don't have a view on 'the whole thing', whatever that would mean.

I don't understand how someone could be wrong or right about anything if all there are are perspectives. — Harry Hindu

Yes, again the misunderstanding is probably due to it not being about perspectives being all there is, but about viewing things from a certain perspective.

Just to give an example where it could matter, creationists could use that to dismiss evolution as merely an appearance. The underlying reality was created by God 6K years ago. Why God made it look like evolution occurred? Mysterious ways and testing the faithful. Or Satan did it. I don't know. They will think of something. — Marchesk

Yes sure, and that is usually the point of positing an underlying reality beyond the senses. Not that they really care about the truth... but that they want a justification for holding onto their preconceived beliefs and moral views.

I understand the reasons for thinking that, but it does undermine evolution, cosmology, geology as explanations for how the world as it appears to us now came to be that way.

We can still do the science, but it becomes an appearance as well. It appears to us that we evolved, but the reality could be something else entirely. It would be like if God created the universe six thousands years ago to appear as though it was old, evolution occurred and what not. Or the simulation was programmed to make it appear that way. In that case, dinosaurs never existed. Their fossils are an appearance to us.

Scientific explanations become part of the appearance, but they don't say anything about the underlying reality. So we have no confidence that we actually evolved. It only looks like that empirically. — Marchesk

I think, and this is most probably a move you won't like, ultimately that I don't really care about the underlying reality. Truth serves a function, or at least it should in my view, to better inform us about how to live our lives.

The example I tend to give, is that generally we are not even remotely interested in knowing how much individual straws there are in a heap of straws. It's just not something that could help us in attaining any of our goals.... Likewise, what purpose other than truth for truth sake, does the positing of this underlying reality serve? If that reality would have an effect on our actions, then we would find out, and adjust our views accordingly, because it matters in that case. But an underlying reality that we can't sense, that has no effect whatsoever our action or goals, that we have no way of knowing more about and that is not even a coherent notion to begin with... what's the point?

Okay fair enough, I'm a presentist (that maybe is thinking of changing his mind) defending a theory I don't adhere to (yet), so excuse my (lingering) presentist use of words :-).

Okay, and I am pointing out some problems with it. — Luke

That's fine, and i'm just saying I don't think they are really problems for the eternalist.

With 'experience of passage' or with 'passage that is real'?

The eternalist view doesn't start from the point of view of human experience, it's derived from special relativity... and explains human experience after the fact.

What do you mean by 'special metaphysical status'? Is it any different to what you mean when you say "we are beings that only experience one moment in time"? When else can we experience things except in the present moment? — Luke

'Special metaphysical status', or preferred moment as noAxioms put it... that is what exist, what is real. The eternalist says that every point in time is equally real.... but we are only privy to one moment and so experience it as passage of time.

Existence only. — Luke

Yeah but existence in the block-universe is defined in four dimensions, that is probably what you are not realising?

Do you consider Eternalism and the Moving Spotlight theory to be equivalent? — Luke

No, the moving spotlight theory gives a special metaphysical status to the present whereas eternalism does not, I guess, i'm not exactly an expect on that.

How can it be, when B-theorist eternalists reject the reality of temporal passage? — Luke

I don't get how you would interpret it that way, since time is literally one of the dimensions in the block-universe. What do you think that dimension signifies otherwise?

But that passage is not real, right? Eternalist's don't believe that time really passes, right? So, I want to know how motion is supposedly accounted for under Eternalism (by those who believe that Eternalism admits of motion). — Luke

But the block-universe incorporates motion, in space and time? Isn't it a given that things change in space and time in a 4-dimensional block-universe?

Yes I get that, what is the point?

If B-theorist eternalist are right, and we are beings that only experience one moment in time, then we would experience the block-universe as passage of time. I just don't see what the argument is that is presented against that?

See the OP section on The Passage of Time. — Luke

Yes it still isn't entirely clear what your mean with it, does it mean that time is an independent metaphysical thing acting on the universe, or do things just change and we measure that change in units of time for our convenience (we invented the concept basically)?

Either way, I don't see anything that couldn't fit into an eternalist view, other than the disagreement about what is real.

Presentism is not just about existence; it also entails the A-Theory and the reality of temporal passage. — Luke

What do you mean with the reality of temporal passage?

Problem is that if it's an incoherent notion, then science is undermined when it comes to things like evolution and our origins. How did we come to exist if there is no way the world is? It didn't begin with us. — Marchesk

It's not a question of ontology, I don't think, but of epistemology. The world exists without me, you or anybody observing it. But the notion of finding out how things really are outside any perspective is unintelligible I think.

What about the perspective itself? From where is it viewed to say that there is a "how things are" for a perspective? It creates an infinite regress of needing perspectives as the structure for the subsequent perspectives. — Harry Hindu

I don't quite understand how get to the that infinite regress. But yes, you can be correct or wrong from a giving perspective, i'd say... which is to say, it doesn't have to lead to something like epistemological nihilism or relativism, or something like that.

Well, that was what I was saying when it comes to viewing the same thing with different senses. How something tastes as to how it appears is different, but is the difference a result of the difference in the senses, or different properties of the object? When we disagree, is our disagreement about the nature of the the thing, or the nature of our view of it? — Harry Hindu

It depends obviously, sometimes a difference will be due to having a different view on it, and you can be both 'correct' from a given perspective... but you can also, like I said, definitely be wrong about something.

This is what is often misunderstood about perspectivism. It's not the same as relativism or subjectivism, in the sense that every point of view is subjective and therefor equally valid or as correct as the next. It's just the acknowledgement that things are viewed from a certain perspective and that different perspectives are possible. And eventhough knowledge is allways partial in that sense, it nevertheless is 'objective' or 'about the nature of the thing', for lack of better words.

I have no idea what you are getting at. What transcends language, what do you mean? Lots of things transcend language, it's just a tool we use to communicate and describe the world.

It only applies to language because you need statements in the form of say X = Y and X does not = Y to be able to speak of a contradiction... the universe itself is not made up out of statements that can contradict eachother, so it doesn't make sense to say that contradictions or paradoxes are build into the universe.

Is "how things are" always a view from somewhere? What about a view from everywhere? — Harry Hindu

Yeah that is at least the conclusion that Nietzsche for example drew from it... that if the true world, or how things really are, is an incoherent notion, what you are left with is perspectives. Everything is a allways viewed from a perspective.

Because what would a view from everywhere mean? That you view all perspectives at once maybe, i.e. a table from all sides, the molecules it is made out of, the protons and electrons and the wavefunction etc etc. ?

It think we see at least parts of the only world we have access to with our senses. And maybe you can learn more about it by looking at it from different perspectives. But the fact that there are other possible perspectives still, doesn't render the perspective we do have false or obsolete.... certainly not for our purposes.

To the point of the OP...

The first thing one needs to understand that the universe or reality or whatever... cannot contradictory by itself, or rather it doesn't make sense to say that it is or not. Only the things we say about it can be. Contradictions are a language thing only.

What do we mean with 'how things are'?

:-)

You seem to be implying that temporal passage is possible under Eternalism? How so? — Luke

The whole spacetime-block is 'static' viewed from the outside, but with-in the model, time and change are part of how things are situated in that space-time block. You have things at postion X1 en time T2, and then at position X2 en T2. This is change.

The difference with presentism is mostly that an eternalist wants to say that the past and future are equally real as the now, whereas for a presentist only the now exists.

The problem is with the word 'real' really. A presentist wants to start from the more or less intuitive and practical view that what is real is what we experience, and that is only the now. An eternalist bases the notion of real more on science, and Einsteins theory of special relativity, where the concept of a now doesn't really make sense.

You never eat the same soup twice. — jamalrob

Yes Heraclitus...

I think ultimately the point is to collapse the whole real world/apparent world distinction. Since the 'real world' or the thing in-itself is an unintelligible concept, the concept of an apparent (that is there only in contrast to that real world) also becomes meaningless... and you left only with the one world we perceive.

Kant -> (Schopenhauer) -> Nietzsche

I'm a generally a sceptic (not of the absolute kind), not because I don't trust the senses, but because I generally don't trust what people make of them... because of biases, preconceptions, dogma's and generally because there is no guarantee that the world is knowable, in the sense that we always should be able to derive general abstract principles from particulars. I think the reliability of sensory information is the least of the worries of a sceptic, but maybe that's just me.

Which does raise the possibility of being wrong. And humans have been plenty wrong about the world over time. — Marchesk

Yeah, but we were not wrong because we trusted our senses... but because we inferred things from them, that we had no real justification to infer.

There's no need for example to assume flat earth from the surface we see being mostly flat... because a circle with a big radius also looks flat from the perspective of a smaller being. Both flat earth and spherical earth fit that observational data, but we just assumed that it had to be flat for a time (for understandable reasons, but that is not the fault of the senses).

There is no way to verify what we perceive, with some other real world data... like I said earlier in the thread, we only started to make scientific progress when we started to take observations seriously.