You say there is nothing you can say about things as they are. — hypericin

Not really. I'm saying that he notion that there is a world seperate from the world we talk about, and about which we cannot talk, is a bit of a non-starter.

To be sure,

Since we cannot discern the goings on in this world as it is in itself, we cannot make statements about it, let alone true statements. On this view, there is precious little that we can say that is true. — Banno

...is an expression of the view with which I am disagreeing. I do think we can make true statements.

So I'm not sure we disagree.

Think we might leave this here. You've lost me. The point I'm making is a simple one, and one with which you appeared to agree.

Edit:

"in the block universe model, time doesn't flow" — Luke

That's not right. For someone inside the block universe, time does flow.

On this, we agree, no?

I do not agree with you that "time appearing to flow and time flowing are exactly the same", nor that time actually flows in a block universe.

I do not agree with you that " time appearing to flow and time flowing are exactly the same", nor that time actually flows in a block universe. — Luke

...then what is the difference between time flowing and time just appearing to flow?

The appearance of time flowing could be an illusion. Time actually flowing cannot be an illusion.

But the information processing component of machines can be abstract as you like and comprise of many layers of symbolization. — hypericin

I kind of see your point, and sorry for my earlier snide remark.

Again, how would you go about distinguishing one from the other?

It's just a misuse of the notion of illusion. It's not an illusion in a way not dissimilar to one not being able to have the illusion of pain.

Right, so you are logically excluding the possibility that time passing is an illusion. In other words, you are saying that time must actually pass. If, as the news article states, time does not actually pass in a block universe, then you are also logically excluding the possibility of a block universe.

If, as the news article states, time does not actually flow in a block universe, — Luke

But that's not right. Time does not flow relative to an observer who can see the whole block. Time does flow from the point of view of an observer within the block.

Time does not flow relative to an observer who can see the whole block. — Banno

Do you have any supporting evidence for this assertion?

Read the description of the block universe you provided. That's what it implies happens.

Fuck. The only difference is that I object to the word "illusion" - it's not an illusion.

End of posts on this topic.

Read the description of the block universe you provided. That's what it implies happens. — Banno

I've repeated it several times: "in the block universe model, time doesn't flow."

Fuck. The only difference is that I object to the word "illusion" - it's not an illusion. — Banno

Then time does flow.

End of posts on this topic. — Banno

Huh?

That's not right. For someone inside the block universe, time does flow. — Banno

It appears to flow, but it does not actually flow. This is not because of the physics of the block universe, since time does not flow. Rather, it's an illusion created by our nervous system.

The context of this is that the world is different from how it appears to us. Time does not flow, despite appearances, if the block universe is true.

It appears to flow, but it does not actually flow. This is not because of the physics of the block universe, since time does not flow. Rather, it's illusion created by our nervous system. — Marchesk

@Banno doesn't recognise a distinction between the appearance of flow and actual flow, so he ends up logically excluding the possibility that the appearance of flow could be an illusion. He's not willing to accept that time does not flow in a block universe, and he offers no support for his assertion that "Time does not flow in the block universe" actually means "Time does not flow relative to an observer who can see the whole block."

The fact that we cannot arrange the universe like a single orderly sequence of times does not mean that nothing changes. It means that changes are not arranged in a single orderly succession: the temporal structure of the world is more complex than a simple single linear succession of instants. This does not mean that it is non-existent or illusory.
The distinction between past, present and future is not an illusion. It is the temporal structure of the world. But the temporal structure of the world is not that of presentism. The temporal relations between events are more complex than we previously thought, but they do not cease to exist on account of this. The relations of filiation do not establish a global order, but this does not make them illusory. If we are not all in single file, it does not follow that there are no relations between us. Change, what happens - this is not an illusion. What we have discovered is that it does not follow a global order...
What confuses us when we seek to make sense of the discovery that no objective universal present exists is only the fact that our grammar is organised around an absolute distinction - ‘past/present/future’ - that is only partially apt, here in our immediate vicinity. The structure of reality is not the one that this grammar presupposes. We say that an event ‘is, or ‘has been’, or ‘will be’. We do not have a grammar adapted to say that an event ‘has been’ in relation to me but ‘is’ in relation to you...
In the world, there is change, there is a temporal structure of relations between events that is anything but illusory. It is not a global happening. It is a local and complex one which is not amenable to being described in terms of a single global order. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

@Luke @Banno - enjoying your discussion, by the way.

:up:

or forget this world-as-it-is talk and just get on with stuff. — Banno

Philosophy is a pastime for the leisure class.

Once you notice that some knowledge is apriori, it's natural to wonder how that kind of knowledge relates to the world.

On the one hand, we could be a type of organism that lives in a semi-detached dreamworld.

Or we could know things about this universe because it lives through us (as someone put it).

Oh. Ok, then......

, the block-verse model doesn't specify the indexical here-now, you have to plug it in.
Call it a feature or incomplete if you like; the model has use.
(e.g. Time and such)

That's not right. For someone inside the block universe, time does flow. — Banno

Because they are part of the flow, or one of the things that flows (changes), relative to the flow of the other things inside the block. It's not time that flows, rather it is the objects inside the block that flows. Time flowing isn't the illusion. Time itself is the illusion.

Does it even make sense to ponder the existence of an observer outside the "flow of time"? Observing itself is a "flow" (change). It's "flow" all the way down.

the block-verse model doesn't specify the indexical here-now, you have to plug it in. Call it a feature or incomplete if you like; the model has use. — jorndoe

Sure, the model may have a use, but some people think it matters whether or not time actually flows when discussing the nature of time. Does the block universe accurately describe the nature of time if it does not include temporal flow? J.M.E. McTaggart, who introduced the A- and B-theory discussion, was of the view that temporal flow (including a changing present moment) was required for time:

Without the A series then, there would be no change, and consequently the B series by itself is not sufficient for time, since time involves change.

The B series, however, cannot exist except as temporal, since earlier and later, which are the distinctions of which it consists, are clearly time-determinations. So it follows that there can be no B series where there is no A series, since where there is no A series there is no time. — J. M. E. McTaggart

Sometimes there’s a (possibly subtle) misunderstanding of eternalism, or a block universe, in that the universe is said to be frozen, static, something like that. This is inaccurate, however, since change already is modeled along the temporal axis. On eternalism, or the block universe, there “is” still time (— by the way, notice the present tense “is” here — it’s misleading due to our language). Claiming that the past exists now is incoherent. Should a future come to pass, then that’s what the block model is supposed to have (thereby also separating ontology and epistemology). — jorndoe

You might think that the future coming to pass is "what the block model is supposed to have", but it doesn't have this - unless you "plug it in". The impetus that involuntarily propels us from one moment in time to another is what many consider to be time's most essential element. This impetus comes for free with Presentism, because it's what a present moment does. You might be able to insert or imagine or "plug" this impetus into Eternalism or a block universe, but it does not belong to Eternalism or a block universe, by definition.

Does it even make sense to ponder the existence of an observer outside the "flow of time"? Observing itself is a "flow" (change). It's "flow" all the way down. — Harry Hindu

Every time we predict or anticipate events, we posit a perspective outside the ‘flow of time’. And every time we test those predictions, we edit and refine a relational structure that perceives the block universe in potentiality. Time isn’t an illusion - it’s just structured differently in the block universe.

Or we could know things about this universe because it lives through us (as someone put it). — frank

:up:

"see the world as it is" is inherently contradictory. "See" is a stand in for perceive. "Perceive" as we know it means to transform signals into a symbolic domain — hypericin

I agree. The phrase is self-contradictory. To « see » is to extract, to translate, to interpret, and therefore it implies a certain disturbance and interpretation.

Every time we predict or anticipate events, we posit a perspective outside the ‘flow of time’. And every time we test those predictions, we edit and refine a relational structure that perceives the block universe in potentiality. Time isn’t an illusion - it’s just structured differently in the block universe. — Possibility

I don't understand what this means. It takes time to make predictions and they are all happening in your brain, not "outside" the flow of time. At best, you are talking about imagining that you are outside the flow of time, not some ontologically real view somewhere outside of your own head, and "outside of time".

Potential is just another type of imagining, akin to predictions (they may just be the same thing). To say that something that hasn't happened has the potential to happen just means that you predict it could happen, but there would have to be some other pre-existing conditions. A ball on the table has the potential to fall off of it, but only if it's pushed, pulled, or acted on in some way, and until it is acted on in some way, it will stay on the table and the potential remains an imaginary construct.

I don't understand what this means. It takes time to make predictions and they are all happening in your brain, not "outside" the flow of time. At best, you are talking about imagining that you are outside the flow of time, not some ontologically real view somewhere outside of your own head, and "outside of time".

Potential is just another type of imagining, akin to predictions (they may just be the same thing). To say that something that hasn't happened has the potential to happen just means that you predict it could happen, but there would have to be some other pre-existing conditions. A ball on the table has the potential to fall off of it, but only if it's pushed, pulled, or acted on in some way, and until it is acted on in some way, it will stay on the table and the potential remains an imaginary construct. — Harry Hindu

I wouldn’t dismiss imagining so quickly. Potential in physics refers to a relational structure inclusive of the event and its pre-existing conditions, and is as real as a ball on the table. What I’m talking about is similar to how people imagined the structure of our solar system, and then tested, refined and even relied on those predictions, all before they could even leave Earth’s atmosphere. You can’t tell me that wasn’t some ontologically real view somewhere outside of their ‘known’ universe.

So I think potential refers to the relational structure of conditions under which an action/event is determined. It doesn’t require a defined temporal location to exist as such, and can sometimes more accurately determine an event without it. When we say that something that hasn’t happened has the potential to happen, it means that this relational structure of conditions is perceivable in the variability of existing conditions. A ball stationary at the edge of a table has a very real potential to fall off of it - this potential is not an imaginary construct.

But the way I see it, predictions don’t need to be ‘made’ into conscious thoughts happening in the brain. Consciousness is an ongoing interpretation of effort and attention that aligns interoception with conceptual reality. All three of these consist of predictions.

I don't think so. This depends, to a large, extent if you agree with Kant, although others before him have also denied that we have access to reality "in itself". What we see and experience is a product of the interpretation of the mind/brain on occasion of experience. We interpret certain events in a human specific manner, which in most cases will be entirely irrelevant to other creatures, like ants or birds. This doesn't mean that what we experience is illusory in any way, what we see is what exists.

But it doesn't follow that all that exists is available for us to experience. We'll lack innate capacities other creatures have as a matter of fact. There's then the question of what is the cause of appearances? Some may say science and speak of physics, for example. But physics also conforms to our way of interpreting the world and is also an appearance. It just so happens that this appearance might hold true of certain aspects of the mind-independent world. But at bottom, I don't think we know what causes physics to behave the way it does. So the nature of the world is a mystery, on this view.

Though I suspect ideas concerning "things in themselves" could be developed that do not focus on Kant. It's one thing to talk about what Kant said that about this topic, but it needn't stay under his exact terms, nor is reference to him essential, however much he has done to popularize and develop these ideas.