What do you think is needed in order to prove the reality of time — Gregory

A clock.

What right had Einstein to put time into his equations? What do they even stand for if his B theory is correct?

Location in a fourth dimension.

What right had Einstein to put time into his equations? What do they even stand for if his B theory is correct? — Gregory

It sounds like you're confused. "B theory" is not Einstein's; it's McTaggart's, introduced in McTaggart's work "The Unreality of Time". In McTaggart's work, he also introduced "A theory" and the lesser discussed "C theory". Time in Einstein's relativity theories is just a coordinate; one with an observer-dependent "orientation" (analogous to how "down" has an observer dependent orientation for those on earth). Time as in the thing McTaggart argues is unreal has nothing to do with time as in the thing in Einstein's relativity equations.

Heidegger would say location IS the fourth dimension

So, if something comes from nothing, there must have been an action. I don't know if this means there must have been an agent (personal or impersonal), but it doesn't seem to me that nothingness can have infinite power. There is an infinite distance between something and nothing, so an infinite power is needed. I am going back to my quasi-materialist paradigm however. In my thought, there is no "origin". It never existed. There is simply the first motions, the second, third, and on until now. There was nothing before the first motion (or pull or material force). The idea of time itself, then, needs to be thrown out for my position to stand.

What do you think is needed in order to prove the reality of time — Gregory

An understanding of this reality, for starters. Read Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’. He effectively dismantles and then restructures our notion of time, and I think goes some way towards supporting your position.

But consider, too, that ‘nothingness’ IS infinite potentiality prior to any action...

An understanding of this reality, for starters. Read Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’. He effectively dismantles and then restructures our notion of time, and I think goes some way towards supporting your position. — Possibility

Thanks! I've been wondering, in a very Wittgensteinian way, what time adds to the concept of motion

Space and truth are nothing, but I can conceptualize them still. I can abstract from their non-existence something to ponder on. Wittgenstein is too Zen for me in general because I think if you can think about something, why not try to see how far you can run with the idea? Instead of closing off the road before the race..

Time however.. what is it? I can't abstract any idea of it out of nothing or something. So the idea must be empty

What do you think is needed in order to prove the reality of time — Gregory

Well, it's been a whole since you asked this.


And there is your answer.

@Gregory

You might reconsider the approach your are taking to philosophical issues. Could it be that the words you use are misleading you, antigonish-ly?

Perhaps the man who wasn't there shows how we might treat "nothing leading to something"?

Common words tend to fail when dealt metaphysically. Could your perplexity be little more than crossed words?

I suspect so.

Could your perplexity be little more than a crossed words? — Banno

The thought about time being before the "origin" is not a word game. There are substantial thoughts involved. Truth may be insubstantial, but thoughts are real

To give more analogy, the disagreement between Christians and Mormoms is partially substantial, partially not. Whether we call the world a creation or an emmanation of God, whether we say God has a spiritual body of not, whether we say the world is contingent or full of God just to a lesser degree than He has,.. all these questions are subjective. I agree to that. But the Mormoms also say God the Son is inferior to God the Father. I think that is a substantial thought, and one among many issues religious people think are true questions, IF one of their religions turns out to be true

The thought about time being before the "origin" — Gregory

You will be aware of answers of the sort proposed by Hawking, in which infinite causes proceed asymptoticly within a limited time. You don't have to accept that explanation to see how divergent explanations of the origon of the universe may be from our regular experiences.

Just as the man who wasn't there misleads one into wishing he would go away.

Perhaps you feel a need to ask these questions in order to compound your religious beliefs? One can imagine a cult worshiping the sublime mystery of the Man Who Wasn't There...

Quite a bit of thinking has taken place since Aquinas.

Anyway, at least now you know that time is real.

at least now you know that time is real. — Banno

"According to the C-theory of time, it is not possible for this Universe to have run in the opposite direction of time, for there is no such thing as ‘the direction of time’ that could be reversed."

That's what I was proposing. B theory is just Einstein's theory, with eternity ruling time. A theory is the time ruling over eternity (Bergson). All these positivists on this forum are voicing Hume's doubt over what force, power, and energy even mean. Physics leads to philosophy

Positivists?

Thanks! I've been wondering, in a very Wittgensteinian way, what time adds to the concept of motion — Gregory

It adds a dimensional aspect of awareness.

B theory is just Einstein's theory — Gregory

Why do you keep saying that? What has Einstein's theories to do with B theory?

You will be aware of answers of the sort proposed by Hawking, in which infinite causes proceed asymptoticly within a limited time. You don't have to accept that explanation to see how divergent explanations of the origon of the universe may be from our regular experiences. — Banno

Right, some, like Hawking's are illogical.

However, we can narrow the field by rejecting such unsound proposals.

"B theory" is not Einstein's; it's McTaggart's, introduced in McTaggart's work "The Unreality of Time". In McTaggart's work, he also introduced "A theory" and the lesser discussed "C theory". — InPitzotl

Actually, McTaggart's landmark 1908 paper did not say anything about the A/B/C theories, only the A/B/C series:

• The A series is "the series of positions running from the far past through the near past to the present, and then from the present to the near future and the far future."
• The B series is "[t]he series of positions which runs from earlier to later."
• The C series is "a series of the permanent relations to one another of those realities which in time are events."

The A series and B series are both temporal, consisting of individual "moments," but the C series is not; "it involves no change, but only an order" of individual events--the "contents" of moments--and "while it determines the order, [it] does not determine the direction." The B series also involves no change, because the relations of earlier and later between different moments and events are permanent, "and consequently the B series by itself is not sufficient for time, since time involves change." On the other hand, "the A series, together with the C series, is sufficient to give us time."

I make my case for the reality of time, contra McTaggart, in this recent thread.

What has Einstein's theories to do with B theory? — InPitzotl

Einstein posited a "block universe" in which time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, such that all "positions" in time are fixed along with all positions in space--consistent with McTaggart's B series (and C series). In other words, the past, the present, and the future all exist, a view also known as eternalism. The main alternatives are presentism, in which only the present exists, and the so-called "growing block" theory--it really needs a more respectable name--in which the past and present exist, but not the future.

Action relies on the existence of time that has beginnings and ends, but the overarching dimension of time is eternal.

Presentism is A Theory. Eternalism is B Theory. It is easier to reconcile some type of spirituality with the latter. I struggle to reconcile my materialist C theory thoughts with Hegelian idealism. I have to posit two souls in me, one subjective and the other objective

It adds a dimensional aspect of awareness. — Possibility

Exactly. Like Heidegger said. From a purely materialistic perspective time doesn't mean anything. Descartes knew this. He believed in C theory it appears

Positivists? — Banno

A lot of people say on here that language studies can fix philosophical problems. I don't think language studies go far in discovering anything, and certainly nothing about philosophical questions. It's a hoax

There is no conceivable way of truly understanding language. It is too dynamic of a thing. To get to its roots would consist almost entirely of conjecture.

There is no conceivable way of truly understanding language. It is too dynamic of a thing. To get to its roots would consist almost entirely of conjecture. — neonspectraltoast

I agree. Can anyone state two definite items of thought that has been proven by language theory? Nothing philosophical certainly. I feel like its a jacuzzi of haze

"The sense of the world must lie outside the world." -wittgenstein

Heidegger and Kant were capable of writing whole books about this. Sartre maybe too. Not so much Wittgenstein

When two people "feel pain", their experiences must be analogies but possibly very different. Same for joy, sorrow, hatred, and humility. We've know this long before language theory and it really is all that theory is trying (so hard) so analyze

I get the question. So it's about power then, think, at the time of nothing, there is nothing, but also no time.

It's a question of what was there, not what is.

It's a question of what was there, not what is. — ztaziz

Life, as in it's reality, starts with motion. The world is life. There was nothing before the first motions. There was no origin

in which infinite causes proceed asymptoticly within a limited time. — Banno

Beautiful phrase, but it's still propounds a supertask, which has difficulties

A lot of people say on here that language studies can fix philosophical problems. I don't think language studies go far in discovering anything, and certainly nothing about philosophical questions. It's a hoax — Gregory

And yet there it is in your OP. Oh well.

That's not positivism, by the way.

The thought about time being before the "origin" is not a word game. — Gregory

So... time before time is not a word game...?

And yet there it is in your OP. Oh well. — Banno

Where?

So... time before time is not a word game...? — Banno

Nope

Again, name one thing the language studies have proven about philosophy..