All Biden has to do is just not be horrible and despised like Clinton was in 2016. The democrats are prepared to vote for a paper bag if that means Trump doesn't get re-elected. The election will largely be decided by how much the left is willing to turnout to vote for the democrat.

It's a rerun from 4 years ago: choosing between two evils. — Benkei

To a certain extent, but I don't think that the democrats could've run a more reviled candidate than Hillary Clinton in 2016. She was unpopular among republicans and democrats and though I much prefer Bernie than Joe, I can't say I hate him on a personal level like Clinton.

Or more likely said, if the responses to corona-virus crash the Global economy. — ssu

Yep. But it seems as though world leaders are caught between a rock and a hard place here in responding to the epidemic. On the one hand you have China and now Italy quarantining entire cities which is obviously gonna cause damage to their economies, and then you have Trump downplaying and lying about the situation to save his reelection bid, leading people to distrust their leaders to do anything and causing widespread panic, which is also bad for the markets. And I imagine that panic and distrust will only get worse once the actual testing kits gets put in place and people in the US realize that there are far more cases than they were able to find before.

The threat of the virus itself on actual people is overblown as far as we're concerned, but the threat to the economy is very real.

Not unless the Coronavirus crashes the economy first. 2020 is gonna be a crazy year.

He seems pretty sharp to me. Blew up the Republican party then blew up the Democratic party, confounding the experts and beating the "inevitable" Hillary. Survived three years of everything the "#resistance" could throw against him. Unleashed the most vibrant economy in the world. Stood up to China. Didn't start any new wars.

You call that senile. That makes you look like you have your hands over your eyes while you shout insults at a guy you don't like and whose achievements you won't recognize. Or as it's called, Trump Derangement Syndrome. You got it bad. — fishfry

I don't see how any of that requires a sharp mind. Beating an incredibly unpopular politician, having a cult following and a congress that's willing to put party over country to protect your ass, and inheriting a great economy that's already been growing for years doesn't require a very stable genius.

It shouldn't be controversial to say this: Trump is a f***in corrupt moron.

It's also because young people didn't show up. I'm sorry, but as much as young people on here may complain about the way things are, they're to blame for Bernie's loss more than anything. They just didn't show up on Tuesday when they had a progressive option, and the moderates did turn out in big numbers, which says alot about the state of things.

One interesting take I read is that the Dems might have been wrong to coalesce around Biden. The GOPs failed to coalesce to stop Trump, but Trump won the general election. There's something to be said for that. Getting behind senile and corrupt old Joe will be a disaster. — fishfry

To be fair, if senile and corrupt were things that would disqualify someone, then Trump wouldn't be president right now.

I doubt that Warren dropping out would help Bernie much at this point. It could've helped in Super Tuesday if she dropped out and endorsed him like Pete and Amy did but that ship has sailed.

Anyways, I think we have to hand it to Warren for ending her campaign the way she did. She ended up abandoning her friend when he needed her most, going back on the values she claimed to be fighting for by kneecapping the progressive movement and taking superPAC money from an oil lobbyist that clearly only had an interest in her role as a spoiler, in a delusional and selfish attempt to win the presidency via. stealing the nomination on a second ballot and potentially fracturing the democratic party in doing so, and what did she get from all that? Losing in her home state and coming in third. I can't think of a more worse and embarrassing way for someone to end their political career and I consider her to be the biggest loser of the night, second being the billionaire who spent $500 million just to turn himself into a national laughing stock.

It's often said that Relativity entails the block universe, or eternalism, or the B-theory of time (whatever you call it), but that's a common misconception, as much as the idea that Quantum Mechanics entails indeterminism.

In the latter case, indeterminism only holds for the most widely adopted interpretation of QM, the Copenhagen interpretation, but there are others. For instance, one can preserve determinism by incorporating some form of non-locality, as in Bohmian mechanics. One can also introduce multiple parallel universe as in Many Worlds as well. They're all equally valid ways of understanding QM as far as the scientific theory goes.

Though less well known (perhaps on account of the fact that Relativity isn't notorious for having 100 different interpretations unlike QM) the same goes for both SR and GR. One can introduce a preferred frame (or foliation) to designate an absolute sense of time, and that'd be compatible with the scientific theory so much as it doesn't make any differing empirical predictions. In fact, one of the predecessors to SR was an empirically equivalent model that included an absolute frame called the Lorentz Ether Theory. With respect to GR, there are also alternative formulations like Shape Dyanamics which incorporate an absolute time in exchange for absolute scale.

Of course there are questions about whether we should introduce such additional structure in the first place to account for our traditional sense of time, but that's a question of metaphysics, not physics.

Increased temperatures, increased flooding, mass migration from sea level rise, increased droughts, more extreme weather events, water shortages, etc. You know, the things that scientists have been warning about for years but older generations couldn't be bothered to care about.

If global warming is a fact and I suspect much of the research on it is done in the west, specifically the US, why has dear ol' Uncle Sam not taking the lead on the issue? If I recall correctly the US as recently as a few years ago pulled out of a climate accord. If the most well-informed of all nations behaves in such a callous manner what can we expect from other countries whose economic engines run on fossil fuel? — TheMadFool

Just because the US is the country that produces alot of significant scientific breakthroughs doesn't mean that the US population, and the elected officials chosen by that population, are the most well informed.

As a young millennial I'd have to say that the problem of climate change terrifies me greatly, but I do try to be optimistic about it (cause honestly I feel like we all have to be).

At this point, I have no faith in the abilities of government bodies alone to be able to tackle the issue properly. They've had decades to address the problem and very little to show for it, and when we currently have psychopaths like Trump, Bolsonaro, and Morrison in office, I don't feel like that's gonna change anytime soon.

So much as there will be positive developments I think it'll come primarily from technological breakthroughs in green energy and other technologies like carbon capture which will provide an economic reason for people to get off of fossil fuels or at the very least cut their emissions, cause apparently that's all that matters to people. We're not gonna see any real changes until that happens, and thankfully there have been some promising steps toward that direction. My only hope is that by the time we do adopt solar and wind as our primary energy sources that it won't be too late to stop the worst of climate change.

Yeah and those economic incentives likely will have to come in the form of taxes, at least in part. That could work, one problem with that route though, is that those taxations often hurt the poor the most. — ChatteringMonkey

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to the fact that technological developments will help give companies and countries more of a reason to switch to renewables over relying on traditional fuels since they will be cheaper and less costly overall on a financial level. Like I said before, these technologies are becoming competitive and will take over in the coming years. My only hope is that it will be sooner rather than later given the limited time frame we have to act on the environment.

One reason why I liked the vanilla Green New Deal was that it can be argued both on an economic and environmental level. Even if you have people on the right that don't care/believe in climate change, they can still be persuaded on the economic opportunities of green technology. So much as governments are involved, I think they should in part be investing and subsidizing R&D on renewables and EVs, especially if it moves funds away from fossil fuel subsidies.

Anyways, since we're on the topic of taxation, it really depends on what the taxation is. If it's gonna be regressive like the ones in France, then of course that's a backwards way of going about it since it disproportionately hurts the poor over the rich. A carbon tax that is rebated back to the people like in Canada would be more palatable IMO. In addition, there are also tax credits that incentivize people to switch to EVs and renewables that should be considered as well.

I'm not a huge fan of public shaming. Psychopaths typically don't feel shame. And more generally, I don't think shaming changes the behaviour of people for the better usually. You give an incentive to people to hide their behaviour yes, and then another layer of bad gets pilled on top of it. — ChatteringMonkey

Shaming of public officials may not sway their hearts on a personal level, but if it hurts their public standing so as to hurt their businesses or reelection chances then they'll be obligated to act whether they want to or not. Bolsonaro clearly doesn't give a damn about the Amazon burning, but the global outcry of the Amazon's destruction led to organizations like the EU to reconsider their trade deals with Brazil which convinced him to finally send in the military to put them out. Of course this isn't gonna stop him completely but it helps limit the damage he is doing.

One of the problems on the policy half of the question is that it's a bureaucratic and political mess to get something done. — ChatteringMonkey

Indeed, it sucks to get consensus on any issue, especially this one. That's sort of the reason why I have less faith in government bodies to change things given how democratic systems can simply elect psychopaths like Trump or Bolsonaro at any point and turn it's back on the whole climate fight. It wasn't that long ago that the US and Brazil were seen as leaders of the environment and now things have turned around. They've had a chance to do things for decades now and we're still figuring it out.

Likely we won't be seeing massive change until an economic incentive comes in to push people to switch to renewables, cause apparently that's all that people care about. Thankfully renewables have become competitive and electric vehicles are catching on so there's hope on that front. I just hope that people start adopting it en masse like they did smartphones.

And then what does it help really, to keep shouting and blaming everybody? — ChatteringMonkey

Public shaming for one. Protests have been effective more or less historically. And it's not like she's wrong in blaming world leaders, cause they're supposed to be the people who look out for the best interests of the people, and they're failing at it.

Greta Thunberg is essentially akin to a fundamentalist, she only sees this one problem (that of climate change) and doesn't have the knowledge nor life-experience to be able to properly assess the complexity of the policy question.

The fact that someone has it right on the first question doesn't mean their opinion is worth anything on the second question. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think Thunberg is trying to be an expert at all on the subject if her message is simply to "listen to the scientists". So much as she's asking people to listen to her, it's to take the actual experts on the matter seriously, people who are older, have degrees, and a lifetime of experience studying the issue.

It would be fantastic if we can all agree that climate change is happening, urgent action needs to be done, and we simply disagree as to the specifics of what approach to take. However, as seen in the recent COP25 our world leaders are not even at that stage yet and that's the problem.

So, if I felt Greta's words deserved a hearty "fuck off" had they been spoken by an old shrew, she gets it too. — Hanover

Well, if Greta's message were spoken by an old shrew, would there have been the same negative backlash from people on the other side? To be honest I'm not really sure. The situation really reminds me of the bashing of AOC by the right back when she became relevant.

The idea of time travel is that someone (or something) is moving in time (at a different than normal rate), while everyone and everything else goes on as if nothing happened. — SophistiCat

If that is the case, then the standard conception of backwards time travel of simply going back to the past is strictly impossible, because your actions from there on out will inevitably affect the present, and everything from the time you have left will not go on "as if nothing happened".

However, I don't think there is any specific definition of what time travel is, apart it being some mechanism that can get you to a world which is in "2000 AD". There are many different ways which one can conceivably do just that in fiction, some of which involve divergence (like multiverse theory) and others which don't (like simply rewinding the universe).

Suppose that the metaphysics behind the A theory of time is correct, is it possible to travel to the year 2024 (or the "future") or the year 2000 (or the "past") or does time travel require the B theory of time to be correct? — Walter Pound

Travel to 2024 is simple. Just wait 5 years or less and the passage of time will take you there. Of course, it's past travel is where things get tricky. If one assumes presentism, then there is no time that exists apart from the one that we are in in 2019. Because there exists no year 2000 destination to travel to, then it's impossible to really "travel" to 2000 like you would "travel" to France for vacation. But that doesn't mean you can't create your destination. Just think of the universe as if it were a movie playing on a VHS, and hit the rewind button. Give it 19 years and soon you'll find youself in the year 2000. Simple as that. No extra times or 3D universes required and everything is kept in the present.

Best I can explain the general stance is that eternalism gives equal ontological status to all events. What that status is isn't necessarily part of the view. My opinion on that is certainly not typical of eternalists. — noAxioms

Suppose I am an ontological nihilist who believes that nothing exists, including events. In that sense, all events have the same ontological status, that of not existing. Would that count as "eternalism" then under your view?

I thought I was pretty explicit in my comment there, so you either have no understanding, or you refuse to accept the way I am using the word. — noAxioms

Of course I have no understanding of the way you are using the word, and I have tried to make it explicit why in my analysis, which you have declined to comment on. If you have a disagreement with the way I have analyzed your definition, then please point out where that disagreement is.

The reason why I have been using "currently" is because that is the only way I can make sense of your claims, but I very much welcome an alternative conception, so long as it makes sense. Indeed, that is the very reason why I am having this discussion with you.

I have given some points where we may differ and what I find lacking in each of them but if you don't want to engage with them, then I would assume that either you don't have an actual response, in which I suggest you reevaluate your views, or you're just not willing to respond for whatever reason.

So you're not trying to drive it to self-inconsistency, but merely decline to accept it, which is fine. — noAxioms

It's neither. Like I just said, it's that I don't understand it. My acceptance of eternalism isn't really relevant here since my main goal is to try to understand what "tenseless existence" amounts to.

And again I must add that this isn't really just a problem exclusive to me. There is actually an entire debate centered around what eternalism even means, and I think it's this idea that there is some form of non-temporal existence that leads people to draw mistaken or confused ideas about these views about time, which includes questioning whether the eternalism vs. presentism debate is merely semantical, which it obviously isn't. I would suggest you look at the link I gave you earlier to the triviality problem, but if you don't know where that is, then here's the link again here. If you don't want to respond to my points, then feel free to respond to theirs. Or not, it's up to you.

I'm asking you to explain it for me since that's much more faster than asking me to read a 42 page paper. I assume you read the link yourself. Or maybe you never did in which case it's probably a good idea to not chime into discussions all arrogant when you have no clue what you're talking about.

No one is claiming that space flows. If they did, then you can rest assured that that flow would need to be with respect to something. — Inis

Of course no one isn't. All physical objects exist in a backdrop, called space. What backdrop does space exist in? Perhaps we need a hyperspace to contain space. But what backdrop does hyperspace exist in? And so on and so forth.

Claiming that space and time are merely the setting for events is B-theory. — Inis

Nope.

That everything at all times exists (some say exists "simpliciter"); i.e. the block universe theory. — Luke

And what does "exists simpliciter" mean here? This is just replacing one word with another. It could mean "existed, exists, or will exist", but that doesn't really get us anywhere new. Don't know what else it could possibly mean though so if you have something then now is a good a time as any.

Couldn't it equally be said that the tensed version of existence is reducible to the tenseless version? — Luke

What is the tenseless version of existence then? That is what I am trying to get at here. I have no clue what the notion of saying something exists means other than saying that it either was, is, or will be.

Presentism is the view that only present objects exist. — A Defense of Presentism, Ned Markosian

Some people would suggest that that definition is trivial. "Of course everything that exists is present, that is what 'exists' means!", they'd claim, and in a sense they'd be right. I believe that in all views about time wouldn't disagree with the notion that what exists is present at heart, but where they differ is in really the extent of what exists (that and whether there is this thing called the passage of time). Markosian brings up the idea of listing "existing" things, which is a good place to start. The presentist's list would be much smaller than the growing block theorists, and the growing block theorist's list would be smaller than the eternalist.

If time flows, as A-theory claims, what does it flow with respect to? — Inis

This is like asking "what contains space?". It's a confused question that I think is based upon the mistake of treating the background as part of the foreground. Space and time are the setting for objects to exist and events to take place, but they are not objects and events themselves.

The fact that 'exist' appears on both sides. 'Exist' means 'presently existing'. 'Hot' means has a hot temperature. Those are useless circular definitions. — noAxioms

Fine then I can substitute those terms with "is", "was" and "will be". Doesn't really change my point that those are the only senses in which I can understand something existing. There shouldn't be any problem in understanding what they mean which was what I am concerned about here.

If I say a T-Rex exists, I mean it is a member of the set of objects contained in the universe. I don't mean it is a member of the set of objects currently contained in the universe. — noAxioms

I still do not see how you're using the term "is" in a manner that isn't present tensed though. Also what exactly is in the "set of objects contained in the universe"? I assume that it is going to contain the set of objects that are currently contained in the universe. In addition, I imagine that you're also going to say that the set of objects contained in the universe also includes the set of objects that once existed in the universe, of which your T-Rex is a member of. Finally, you will probably also say that it includes the set of objects that will be contained in the universe as well, so as to include things like the 2024 Olympic Stadium, which you will say "exist" as well under the B-theory.

The problem as I see it, though, is that these are the only sets that I can think of. I do not know of any other sets that could or should be included in your set and from my point of view, those three sets mentioned above are exhaustive. And if these three sets are all that exhaust what you mean by the "set of objects contained in the universe" then to say that something "exists" under your use of the term is just another way of saying that it either "was, is, or will be", all of which are temporal forms of existence. So this doesn't really offer up a new form of existence at all, one that isn't reducible to a tensed version of existence.

Of course, you may want to say that there are actually other sets that could be included in the "set of objects contained in the universe", but this just leads us back to the original problem. Just like you want to find a fourth sense of "existence" you need to find a set of existing objects that is distinct from the ones that I've just described.

I dislike calling it B-theory since that name includes growing block view, which is still presentism. — noAxioms

:brow:

All three of those are circular definitions, and thus not really definitions. — noAxioms

How so? What's so circular about them?

I did my best to describe how I use the word in the tail of my prior post. You didn't comment on it. — noAxioms

It means 'is a member of' [the universe], and not just 'is a current member of'. — noAxioms

What does "is" mean here? I take it that "is" means that it currently is, but then again, I'd think you would have a problem with that so if you have an alternative conception then please take this opportunity to offer one. I still have yet to understand what other sense of "exists" there is if there is one.

But as for the run of the mill B-theorist, they'd not ever say that the universe exists now, or it once existed, or will exist. — noAxioms

I'd imagine that alot of them would try to say that, but that leads to an incoherent view which in turn leads to confusion and mistakes. Confusion to the point where people even question whether or not there is an actual disagreement between the A and B-theories of time. And when you have people questioning the substance of a core issue in a field of philosophy, you know that something's gone wrong.

I think a lot of people see the universe as an object like that, coming into being somehow from non-being, just like every actual object in the universe. I don't. I think it contradicts what a universe should be. — noAxioms

I don't think a creation event or beginning to time exists either, but that is irrelevant to the B-theory or the A-theory since an eternal universe is compatible with both.

Are you saying you don't understand the view or you simply disagree with it? It's hard to tell from you posts. — noAxioms

I have an understanding of the B-theory and the A-theory of time which I believe captures the essence what most people understand the view to be. That version of the B-theory I also happen to disagree with but that is not something I will go into here.

The problem that I have is how A-theorists and B-theorists describe their views, which I honestly find baffling given how confusing it can be. I feel like the reason why some people (don't know if Terrapin Station is a part of that group) say that the B-theory is nonsensical is because they hear phrases such as "all times exist, but by 'exist' I don't mean it in the way we traditionally mean it". Well what does it even mean then? Given the lack of a satisfactory response on some fourth "tenseless" version of existence, then one may conclude that the view makes no sense at all.

You seem to want a different word since you disapprove of it being said that those events 'exist' in the same way that I exist. Then I would still balk at that same word being used to say that the universe exists, since it doesn't seem to be an event or a created object or anything. — noAxioms

It's not that I disapprove of the word being used. I gave a number of different ideas of what the B-theorist idea of "all times exist" could mean, and all of them are A-series terms, which you have denied. My question is what other meaning of "exists" could there be if it doesn't refer to "presently existing", "did exist" or "will exist". Feel free to use the term, but just be clear on what it means.

There is no 'the present' or 'now' in the view, so I'm not sure what is being referred to with that comment. — noAxioms

What I am saying is that first part of your sentence, that there is no "present" or "now" doesn't make sense. There is no meaning to the idea that the "block universe exists" without stating that it either exists now, did exist, or will exist.

We cannot eliminate the present from our discussion, especially if we are talking about what exists (which is by the way, a present tense term). Just look at our conversation right now, for instance which is embedded in the now.

As a result, I believe that all views about time are "presentist" to the extent that everything that is said to "exist" is presently existing. It is sort of trivial, but that is what "exists" technically means (as again, it is a present tense term). Of course, this is not to say that we cannot distinguish the views about time in a substantive way, as I do believe that there is a deep disagreement between them, but such a difference shouldn't be based upon a rejection of the above statement.

A-series terms which leads to nonsense when discussing a B-series view. So "could have done otherwise" is an example of an A version of the definition. — noAxioms

Well, what sort of non A-series terms are there? I actually think the attempt to remove A-series terms from a description of the B-series is what leads to nonsense (such as this whole "triviality problem" that people are currently discussing about the A vs. B theories of time). Just take what you said later as an example:

The block view just is (my emphasis). — noAxioms

What could the "is" mean other than that it is present, or that it exists now (both being A-series terms)? Of course, I imagine you don't want to say that you mean that by your use of the term, but what else could it possibly be? A tenseless use of the term? What could that possibly mean?

Now as for my own views on the matter, I think that the B-theory of time does make alot of A-series terms irrelevant, but does not eliminate them altogether. The idea that things "will happen" or "did happen" make no sense in a world where time doesn't pass.

Problem is that means a second and a year would have the same information content which does not seem right. Clearly more information in a year - the continuum seems paradoxical. Maybe it's one of those concepts that we can conceive of in our minds but never occurs in reality? Reality seems deeply logical and free of paradoxes. — Devans99

Thing is, you're arguing against the opposite of my position. I never advocated for the point continuum where everything is made up of an infinite number of points (which would lead to your criticism), but instead a gunky continuum that doesn't contain any such fundamental units at all. Personally, I find the point continuum to be a useful tool that doesn't describe reality, but that does not mean I take reality to be discrete, which is a concept I also consider to be problematic in other ways.

What structure does time have if it's not a series of instants? — Devans99

Just a series of events without any smallest units. Similarly space without points would simply be space without any fundamental composition. There is no need for time to be a series of instants or fundamental units any more than there is a need for space to be composed of fundamental units or points.

But if an event has no duration it would not exist. 'Now' could not exist if it had zero duration. Think about filming someone for zero seconds - you'd have no film right? — Devans99

I never said that there are events that are instantaneous nor that time is composed of them. Quite the opposite really.

I have a couple of arguments for time being discrete rather than continuous (actually similar arguments can be used for discrete space too). Thanks in advance for any feedback.

1. A point in space cannot have size=0 because it would only exist in our minds and not reality (no width; insubstantial)
2. Similarly, the point in time ’now’ cannot have length=0 (if it exists for 0 seconds, it does not exist)
3. Or if a ‘now’ had length=0, then a second would contain 1/0=UNDEFINED ‘nows’
4. So ‘now’ has length >0
5. Can’t be length = 1/∞ because ∞ does not exist (∞ + 1 > ∞ making a nonsense of ∞. Or if you define ∞ + 1 = ∞, implies 1 = 0)
6. So a ‘now’ has a finite, non-zero length. Time is composed of a chain of ’nows’ so time must be discrete

Or

a) Imagine a second and a year
b) By the definition of continuous, both time period are graduated identically (to infinite precision).
c) So there must be the same information content in both (same number of time frames: ∞)
d) But a year should contain more information than a second
e) Reductio ad absurdum, time must be discrete — Devans99

Who says the temporal continuum needs to contain instants? Likewise who says that the spatial continuum needs to be pointy? Perhaps the continuum has no fundamental level at all, no unit with which all other quantities are multiples of.

If that is the case, then the idea of "now" as a snapshot moment in time is mistaken and the passage of time as a succession of said moments (not unlike a succession of strips on a piece of film) is also confused. This is what you seem to implicitly assume in the your argument. Just as objects may be distant from one another without any fundamental length, events simply come and go continuously without any fundamental duration.

It's continuous, as opposed to discrete? "Gunky" seems to imply a mixture of both. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't define the terms. I would've liked to refer to it as continuous, but there are also continuums that contain fundamental units in the form of dimensionless points/instants which should be contrasted with that of gunk.

In any case, this discussion is getting off-topic.

Gunky? — Metaphysician Undercover

Means it doesn't have instants, no fundamental units. Gunky space has no points either if you're wondering.

If that is how we must view time then the LNC is meaningless because it requires the notion of an instant of time. Nothing happens in an instant/moment/single point of time. — TheMadFool

The LNC can be expressed without instants of time just fine. Take the statement "I am happy during the interval of 1pm - 2pm". This statement is incompatible with the statement that "I am sad during the interval of 1pm - 2pm" as that would imply that "I am not happy during the interval of 1pm - 2pm". A clear contradiction as both statements overlap one another and require inconsistent ideas to hold during the same period of time. This can all be stated even in a world where time is gunky.

So far as I understand it, scientific theories consist solely of models which are used to make predictions about the world. These predictions are then tested in experiments which would either confirm or falsify them. However, none of these models are, strictly speaking, tied to any particular sort of ontological view of the world in and of themselves. A good example of this would be with Quantum Mechanics and the many, many, different ontological interpretations that are often attached to the theory (though you'll also find the same sort of situation in other theories like Relativity to a lesser extent), some of which treat the world as indeterministic, and others as a multiverse, to name a couple. In that sense, they have no relevance to matters of ontology or epistemology. Any attempt to attach an ontological view to a scientific theory would thus be going beyond the model itself and into the realm of philosophy.

That's why I wonder about before-before, which blatantly puts cause well after effect, and in any reference frame. Or at least it does in non-local interpretations. — noAxioms

Again, the paper suggests otherwise. Given that my expertise on the matter is not that deep, that your knowledge level on the issue appears to be similar to mine, and the fact that the source that I have referenced appears to know much more about the before-before experiment then either you and me, I can only take his word on the matter that the before-before experiment does not violate causality under non-local interpretations, contrary to your own claims..

The thing about the before-before experiment is that there isn't that much literature on it. The only person who seems to be writing about it extensively is the author of the source that I have referenced, Antoine Suarez. At least this is what I've gotten from google searches into the matter.

I assume that you would probably make the same statements about causality violation for other attempts at proving retrocausality in QM. The delayed choice quantum eraser comes to mind here. With respect to experiments like those, I can certainly say that the apparent retrocausal effects found in those experiments are merely that and that different interpretations, including that of Bohmian Mechanics, can accomodate it without giving up causality. There is alot more literature on the matter that would demonstrate that.

It has that. Is this something different than Lorentz Ether Theory, because I found no mention of flow in any description of it. Maybe Neo-Lorentz adds that on top of LET.

LET and the Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation are one and the same. In other words, LET was simply the scientific theory of SR with the Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation. I don't know if there is any explicit mention of the flow of time in it's description, but it would be hard to deny that it included one given that it preserves the traditional view of absolute time.

How could CMB possibly suggest a preferred moment??? A preferred frame, sure, but not preferred moment. The A-Theorists similarly do not base their definition of the preferred moment on the CMB. Their moment is simply 'now'. Easy-peasy.

So do you think that the preferred moment should be equated with the set of moments picked out by the CMB? It seems like one moment you think that it should (like in your previous response to me), then the next you think it shouldn't (like you are here).

I do not understand these paragraphs. I think you meant to say preferred frame. What is 'physically distinguished'?

We've just gone over how the CMB frame was not physically distinguished in the sense given by the postulates of relativity.

Since there is no difference between the CMB frame and any other in that sense, then that should give us reason to not take the former to represent the preferred moment that the A-theorists want. At least, this is part of the reason why I feel hesitant to call the CMB frame anything more than one that has some interesting properties.

It would be a different matter if that wasn't the case though. If the laws of physics do single out a particular foliation of events then it seems to be more of a stretch to deny that the present moment picked out by such a foliation is not the same as that of the metaphysical present, at least in my opinion.

All causes seem to be effects of prior causes, but barring an infinite past, there must be a first cause, uncaused. Surely you've heard of that. Block theory has one, but it is just a (perhaps blank) initial condition. Not sure how becoming is expected to fit into that.

I suppose I don't find anything wrong with an infinite past, or infinities in general really, but I don't want to argue that here. There's also the possibility of cyclical time as well, if one doesn't want a first cause or an infinite past.

The block universe, as I understand it, is compatible with a first cause or none at all. It doesn't necessarily have one or none.

A model is considered time ordered when it proposes that a cause event tomorrow can effect a measurement taken yesterday in the same place? Perhaps I don't know what 'time ordered' means, as used in that article. The one picture in there showed non-local influence arrow in a spooky-action setup, and without a preferred frame, the direction of the arrow would be ambiguous. So maybe that's what they mean by time-ordered: Not that the arrow always points forward, just that it doesn't point either way. In the before-before, it doesn't point in an ambiguous direction. It is consistently pointing backwards. — noAxioms

I feel like you're being obtuse at this point. I see no ambiguity in the use of "time-ordered". It means that causes always precede their effects in time. The author has been pretty clear in referring to time-order in that sense. Here are a few examples:

Section 2 considers time-ordered Leggett models assuming thatone event can be considered the cause (occurring before in time), and the other the effect (occurring later in time). — Antoine Suarez

“Nonlocal realism” (as defined in [1, 5]) fails if experiment proves wrong that one of two non-locally correlated events occurs before and is the cause of the other.

Models assuming that the “realistic” mechanism happens in a single preferred frame even in relativistic experiments with devices in motion, are not refuted by the before-before experiment, but such models bear a fundamental oddity: since they assume that each event has a cause preceding it in time, they actually dispose of the freedom of the experimenter.

My emphasis on all except for the second. The last is more relevant to the discussion than the others. The reason why, to my understanding, that the experiment does not undermine causality is because models such as that of the Bohm interpretation restrict the freedom of the experimenters. The experiment is already predetermined, which is to be expected of a deterministic theory.

Thus, if one wishes to save time-ordered causality one is forced to assume that the outcomes are determined at the beam splitters (like De Broglie and Bohm did). — Antoine Suarez

Any "retrocausality" observed would only be apparent.

Only SR says it is undetectable. GR does not, since it isn't just a local theory. There are non-local tests for an isomorphic foliation, which isn't an inertial frame, but seems to be the most viable candidate for some kind of preferred ordering of all events anywhere. — noAxioms

As far as I can tell, the CMB frame is not a physically distinguished frame in the sense that a preferred frame in SR is physically distinguished (as in the laws of physics are observed to be different in that frame). In that sense, so much as it is preferred, such a fact would be undetectable.

For that matter, I don't understand what possible problem is solved by growing block as opposed to presentism. I looked up the wiki page, and it defined it, but went no further in pointing out a single benefit of it. —

It solves the problem of truthmakers for the past. In saying that the past exists and is real, the Growing Block Theorist has the resources to talk about it unlike the Presentist. Personally I think the truthmaker argument begs the question against Presentism in assuming that truthmakers all must currently exist, but I won't go into that here.

The Minkowski model is one specifically of a block scenario. It is a straight metaphysical interpretation of time, making no empirical predictions distinct from the flowing model. Einstein drew on the mathematics of this model and Lorentz's work in producing his theory of relativity. But yes, the theory of relativity does not itself assert those metaphysics. It just uses the mathematics of spacetime, and refers regularly to spacetime as a unified whole.

Sorry, I thought you were just referring to QM interpretations, and missed the "relativistic". In that case, the alternative interpretations to the Minkowski Spacetime such as the Neo-Lorentz interpretation of SR do include a flow of time as it is supposed to preserve the traditional view of time as a dynamic succession of events in a 3D universe. Such an evolution refers to what people often understand as becoming.

Really?? Do any of them suggest another, like the frame of the solar system perhaps? That would suit the purpose of some people that would seem to have a requirement for A-theory.

It's not really the A-theorists who are making that claim, but the B-theorists who are objecting to the CMB as a means of defining a preferred moment because it appears to be arbitrary to do so. According to them there is no clear link between the CMB and the preferred moment in metaphysics that should lead us to equate one with the other. In a sense, I can see where they're coming from since, as noted above, the CMB is not physically distinguished like we would want it to be. In that regard, we have just as much reason to prefer it over any other alternative foliation of events.

Of course, if the CMB were to be physically distinguished and people are making the same objections then that'd be another story altogether, for one could very well have made such an objection prior to relativity in the 1800s with respect to the absolute time of Newtonian physics. At that point it would be unreasonable to require that there needs to be a neon light sign that says "This is a preferred moment of metaphysics" over the preferred moment picked out by physics in order to say that they are both equivalent.

It does? I wasn't there at the time. Couldn't say.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The entire thread is based around that specific argument.

I find becoming to be difficult to explain, with all the uncaused-cause contradictions.

This is confusing to me. Becoming conceptually requires no uncaused causation, and even I see nothing contradictory about an uncaused cause.

No frame, preferred or otherwise puts cause before effect in the Bohmian interpretation of before-before results. So I guess I don't understand where the article addresses that. The two events are separated time-like, so there is no ambiguity to their ordering that can be disambiguated with a preferred frame. — noAxioms

This just sounds like a bald assertion on my end. The issue of a preferred frame model is clearly addressed in the section that is titled as such. Again, the author refers to the preferred frame model of Bohmian Mechanics explicitly as one that is time ordered, and admits that it's empirical predictions are compatible with the correlations found in the before-before experiment. Take no offense, but at this point, I am more willing to side with his view over yours.

From what I read, A-theory includes growing block and presentism, which differ in the ontological status of past events, but both posit the flow of a preferred moment, so all my comments about presentism so far also can be applied to growing block. Perhaps you can explain the distinction if it is more than that.

There's also the moving spotlight view of time as well, which says that all events in the universe's history exist but that there is a dynamic spotlight that shines on the set of events that represents the present. This is what I have told you at my first reply.

I'm saying that no QM or relativistic interpretation seems to propose flowing time. I'm probably wrong, but I'm just unaware of one. Some assert a preferred frame, but that isn't flow.

No interpretation says anything about the existence of the block universe either. None of them have any direct say on the matters of the metaphysics of time. The only thing that I can say is that, in including a preferred frame, some interpretations are more compatible with the idea of a flow of time than others.

Relativity just says it isn't locally detectable. Non-locally, one does suggest itself, and GR very much acknowledges it. It is the foliation where spatial expansion is symmetric/isomorphic.

Yeah, the direct implication of Relativity's postulates is that if there were such a preferred frame, it would not be empirically detectable, which some have taken to be evidence of it's nonexistence. The CMB is taken by some to be a preferred foliation of the universe in a sense, but it is debatable whether it is good enough for the A-theorist's purposes.

The concept of becoming seems required only for the flowing model, but doesn't fit well at all with the block model. That's a good deal of the appeal of the block model is it doesn't need to explain the becoming.

I would actually argue that, in rejecting the idea of becoming, the block model has more trouble accounting for why the universe appears to become in time (given its structure), and that this is a weakness of the view relative to its alternative. This is the argument that I have been trying to push here in this thread.

I don't see a description of before/before. I see it named, but not described. — noAxioms

Not sure why you feel the need to say that. If you're concerned about whether the author understands the before-before experiment or is knowledgeable of it, than he is one of the two people who proposed the very idea in the first place and one of the main authors of papers about the experiment from what I can see.

Unfortunately, the before-before experiment (which I didn't see described) very much violates time-ordering since the effect measurement events by Alice and Bob are separated from the cause decision event by Victor in a time-like separation, not a space-like separation.

The article very explicitly addresses the before-before experiment and clearly states that preferred frame models such as that of Bohmian mechanics do not violate time-ordering. You're free to disagree with that but that is what the article states.

I'm not sure how Bohmian mechanics describes the before-before experiment. I thought it explained spooky-action through hidden variables, not through time ordered non-local influence, but I don't see how hidden variables can explain before-before.

It's both. Bohmian Mechanics is a deterministic non-local hidden variable interpretation.

BTW, none of this directly relates to presentism, or A-theory as you call it.

Presentism is not equal to the A-theory. It is a subset of it. What the argument in the OP tries to support are the set of views that include a passage of time, Presentism being one of them.

A preferred frame is not a preferred moment, even if a preferred moment seems to require a preferred foliation if not a frame.

A preferred frame/foliation allows us to define an absolute order of events, and in turn the preferred moment. The reason why Relativity undermines the idea of a preferred moment is because it states that there is no way to choose one frame or foliation of events, and that therefore there isn't any preferred frame/foliation. Without it, we would not be able to make sense of the passage of time, as least that is how it is commonly viewed. Now there appear to be some who dispute this, who claim that a concept of becoming can exist without a global now but for the most part I am just going off of the traditional opinion on the matter.