Have you worked out yet how to account for eternalism's lack of motion, or are you still ignoring that eternalism has this problem? — Luke
There is no "lack of motion" in eternalism, so yes I ignore fictitious problems. — Inis
Why do you think there is no motion under eternalism, particularly if that were the case, no one would advocate it? — Inis
There is no "lack of motion" in eternalism, so yes I ignore fictitious problems. — Inis
The article never says that there is no motion under anything. The word in fact never appears.I think that there is "no motion under eternalism" from everything I've read about it. It also states the same in the article I linked to in my previous post. Eternalism is synonymous with the block universe. — Luke
The resulting timeless cosmos is sometimes called a “block universe” — a static block of space-time in which any flow of time, or passage through it, must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion.
The block has both those states, separated by 2 seconds. — noAxioms
Yes. That quote does not say there is no motion or no time. It just says time doesn't flow in that model.Did you not see the quote I posted on the previous page of this discussion:
The resulting timeless cosmos is sometimes called a “block universe” — a static block of space-time in which any flow of time, or passage through it, must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion.
It seems quite clear to me. — Luke
Ditto with presentism, which also has states in between, else it is a series of discreet jumps.Aristotle demonstrated, that if you describe such changes in terms of states, you'll always need an intermediate state between the two states, to account for the change. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. That quote does not say there is no motion or no time. It just says time doesn't flow in that model. — noAxioms
Time travel may not be possible, or we may not have discovered how to do it yet, but I think we can entertain the possibility for this discussion at least — Luke
Ditto with presentism, which also has states in between, else it is a series of discreet jumps. — noAxioms
Getting down to the quantum level, neither case is infinite regress. There comes a point where no measurements are taken and there are no intermediate states. This comes from me, who has thrown his lot in with the principle of locality rather than the principle of counterfactual definiteness. Can't have both.... — noAxioms
The question of whether closed time-like curves exist in our universe is still open, — Inis
So, physicists are really studying time-travel into the past. A-theory says they are wasting their time. They aren't. — Inis
That would have to involve reifying time in an odd way (that's completely without justification in my view). — Terrapin Station
Why does the article say that the flow of time, or passage through space-time, "must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion"? — Luke
Because it is talking about "the flow of time, or passage through space-time," rather than motion. There is no difference in dynamics between eternalism and presentism. In fact, there is no physical difference, period. The difference is entirely metaphysical and has to do with metaphysical notions, such as the objective present, the passage of time, the existence of past and future, etc. — SophistiCat
Because it is talking about "the flow of time, or passage through space-time," rather than motion. There is no difference in dynamics between eternalism and presentism. In fact, there is no physical difference, period. The difference is entirely metaphysical and has to do with metaphysical notions, such as the objective present, the passage of time, the existence of past and future, etc. — SophistiCat
Nope. Presentism is falsified by several well known experiments, including time-dilation, twin paradox, and the fact that your GPS actually works. — Inis
We all have our metaphysical preferences when it comes to time (eternalism, presentism, possibilism). What we should not be doing is claiming that our preferences have been verified by the only possible interpretation of physics (either general relativity or quantum mechanics). — prothero
Nope. Presentism is falsified by several well known experiments, including time-dilation, twin paradox, and the fact that your GPS actually works. — Inis
You seem to be interpreting presentism as a denial of relativity. But I haven't seen anyone claim that. I certainly don't. — Andrew M
Because it is talking about "the flow of time, or passage through space-time," rather than motion. There is no difference in dynamics between eternalism and presentism. In fact, there is no physical difference, period. The difference is entirely metaphysical and has to do with metaphysical notions, such as the objective present, the passage of time, the existence of past and future, etc. — SophistiCat
Your present is not necessarily 'the present'. In fact, quite unlikely to be. Presentism is safe from this sort of argument in my opinion.If this person is real, and independent of you and your present, relativity tells you that she also has her own present, which is as real to her as your present is to you. Your presents are not the same. Presentism is false. — Inis
Your present is not necessarily 'the present'. In fact, quite unlikely to be. Presentism is safe from this sort of argument in my opinion. — noAxioms
I still don't understand. If presentism posits a passage of time while eternalism does not, then how is motion possible according to eternalism? — Luke
Why is it referred to as a static block universe? — Luke
When presentists posit a passage of time, what they mean (or at least what some of them mean) is that the present time is an objective fact. Time flows by way of the present time constantly progressing forward - and that too is an objective fact of the world. This present time, which is like a moving index on every timeline, is not implied or required by any physical law. As far as physics is concerned, positing such an index is unjustified. And that is what moves (at least some) eternalists to deny the objective existence of such an index. — SophistiCat
This present time, which is like a moving index on every timeline, is not implied or required by any physical law. As far as physics is concerned, positing such an index is unjustified. — SophistiCat
The existence of the one and only time dimension is acknowledged by both presentists and eternalists - with all that that implies: where there is time, there is motion. — SophistiCat
eternalists still need to account for the appearance or illusion of passage. How can time appear to pass if no time actually passes? — Luke
However, whether presentism is indeed ruled out by relativity depends on exactly what claims are made in the name of presentism. Lots of arguments have been put forward for and against compatibility - go and look for them, if you are interested. (But who am I kidding...) — SophistiCat
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.