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.

Eternalism with passage (i.e. with the A-Theory) is the Moving Spotlight theory. Eternalism proper (i.e. with the B-Theory) does not include temporal passage.

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.

Great thread. Exactly what I came here for. Meaning I don't meticulously understand it. :grin:

Hate to butt in, however, these are all unproven theories? No supporter of eternalism can show any proof of past or destroyed objects existing just as no supporter of presentism can definitively prove they don't? How oddly religious.

If you perhaps fancy and have the time, could you explain in layman's terms. What differentiates eternalism from the moving spotlight theory? Both have past, present, future. Does the eternalist believe all things exist in some other... realm? Spotlight theory seems like simple chronology to me. Things are set in motion, predetermined, etc. How does that different from eternalism? Thanks in advance either way. I'm sure others may appreciate it as well.

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

If passage is not real, then the experience of passage needs to be accounted for by Eternalists. It could be an illusion, but then illusions would need to be explained where there is no passage.

it's derived from special relativity... and explains human experience after the fact. — ChatteringMonkey

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

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.

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

Maybe you should read up on the Moving Spotlight theory then. Tell me how it is different from your view of B-theory Eternalism.

If B-theorist eternalist are right, and we are beings that only experience one moment in time — ChatteringMonkey

we are only privy to one moment and so experience it as passage of time. — ChatteringMonkey

Ouch. Under eternalism, we beings are worldlines, and experience every moment along that worldline. So iff I define 'me' to be my worldline, then I am present at some event in 1995 and also 2021, and I experience those events and all others. There is none of this 'privy to one moment', which again smacks of a preferred moment.

The eternalist says that every point in time is equally real — ChatteringMonkey

I'd say 'has equal ontological status'. There's a difference to us non-realists.

Hate to butt in, however, these are all unproven theories? — Outlander

They're interpretations actually, despite all the literature referring to them as theories. No, neither interpretation can be falsified since they do not make distinct empirical predictions. All attempts to discredit one or the other proceed along logical grounds, not scientific ones.

If you perhaps fancy and have the time, could you explain in layman's terms. What differentiates eternalism from the moving spotlight theory?

The spotlight defines a present (preferred) moment, which makes it presentism, just like all the other variants described in the OP. Eternalism asserts the lack of a present,and doesn't seem to have so many variants.

Both have past, present, future.

Under eternalism, such words are only relations, like Earth, 1927 is in the future of Earth, 1925.

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 :-).

Under eternalism, we beings are worldlines, and experience every moment along that worldline. — noAxioms

Or as, Hermann Weyl puts it:

The objective world simply is, it does not happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the life line of my body, does a section of this world come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time. — Hermann Weyl, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (1949)

All that is left to account for is the motion of one's consciousness crawling upward along the worldline.

I notice that Wiki has also mentioned a similar criticism of the "spotlight/growing block" theory from the perspective of indexical tenses. In fact its the only criticism wiki documents against the growing block theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe


Can a growing block enthusiast explain to me what explanatory value their theory of time adds to a present observation of a physically growing block? What is the nature of the "meta-time" that this growing block of time must have in order to grow time? and what about the meta-meta-time needed for that and so on?

I disagree that presentism entails the reality of passage — sime

If Presentism does not entail the reality of passage (i.e. the A-Theory), then are you arguing for the position of Presentism + B-Theory, i.e. that only present objects exist and that temporal passage is not real? I have never heard of this before. This is like the converse of the Moving Spotlight theory (Eternalism + A-Theory). I can only note this is at odds with the definition of Presentism given in most places, including the SEP article on Presentism:

presentism can be understood as the following conjunction:

(PC) (i) Only present things exist,
&
(ii) What’s present changes.

Ouch. Under eternalism, we beings are worldlines, and experience every moment along that worldline. — noAxioms

Or alternatively we are stages which are located at a single instant and experience only that one instant of time while other counterparts experience the others. You know, cause experiencing every moment has the whole obviously wrong thing going on with us experiencing only one moment.

If Presentism does not entail the reality of passage (i.e. the A-Theory), then are you arguing for the position of Presentism + B-Theory, i.e. that only present objects exist and that temporal passage is not real? I have never heard of this before. This is like the converse of the Moving Spotlight theory (Eternalism + A-Theory). I can only note this is at odds with the definition of Presentism given in most places, including the SEP article on Presentism:

presentism can be understood as the following conjunction:

(PC) (i) Only present things exist,
& — Luke

Yes, in my view the logic of presentism, or at least what I call presentism, leads to a reduction of the so-called "A series" into a perspectival interpretation of the B series, that is fully coherent with the best scientific theories, including special relativity for all empirical and practical purposes. The reason why I call a perspectival interpretation of the B series "presentism", is due to the fact that tenses are treated as indexicals, where an indexical can be considered to be an act of pointing to something, where the "something" is empirically undefined up until something actual and specific is pointed at.

In fact, i'd consider presentism to be the temporal logic of perspectivalism. From wiki

Perspectivism (also perspectivalism; German: Perspektivismus) is the view that perception, experience, and reason change according to the viewer's relative perspective and interpretation. It rejects both the idea of "one unchanging and essential world accessible to neutral representation by a disembodied subject."

I also consider the entire work of Wittgenstein to be a commentary of the logic of presentism, starting from the Tractatus that reduced every proposition including tensed propositions to observable empirical relationships among present atomic elements. See Hintikka for more on Wittgenstein's implicit philosophy of Time. The philosophical investigations is also useful for explaining the conflicting intutitions between presentists and growing block enthusiasts; presentists point out that "past" and "future" are actually used as empirically undefined indexicals, as opposed to growing block enthusiasts who think of the meaning of "past" and "future" in terms of mental imagery they assign to those notions, mental imagery which they overlook is part of the very present.

The reason why I call a perspectival interpretation of the B series "presentism", is due to the fact that tenses are treated as indexicals, where an indexical can be considered to be an act of pointing to something — sime

Sorry, I don't understand this. The A-series is indexical; the B-series is not. See A series and B series.

As noted in the OP: 'According to The B Theory, time is very much like the dimensions of space. Just as there are no genuine spatial properties (like being north), but, rather, only two-place, spatial relations (like north of), so too, according to the B Theorist, there are no genuine A properties.'

Again, unless we are talking about the Moving Spotlight theory (i.e. the combination of Eternalism and the A-theory), then Eternalism naturally defaults to the B-theory and eschews the passage of time.

But for those who maintain that Eternalism allows for temporal passage and motion, perhaps they will argue along the lines of the spatial analogy mentioned above. They might say that there is no special present moment or "now" such as the one we currently find ourselves in, but instead it's all relative; people at 3000 BC consider their time to be now, just like we consider our time to be now, just like people at 3000 AD consider their time to be now. It's simply an indexical usage, like saying that it's "here" for me wherever I am and it's that it's "here" for you wherever you are.

All well and good, but how does that work exactly? The present moment for us involves temporal passage through, e.g., the year 2020 AD. What's happening at other times during our temporal passage in our present? Are things in 3000 BC frozen in time from our point of view, or are people at those times living out their lives just as equally as we are here now? Does what happened yesterday replay over and over again? Are all events on eternal replay, and if so, when are their start and end points, or at what scale do events recur? I mean it's possible, I suppose, but it strikes me as absurd and I doubt William of Ockham would be too pleased. But maybe that's not how it works. Hopefully someone can help to explain how motion works in (B-theory) Eternalism.

All that is left to account for is the motion of one's consciousness crawling upward along the worldline. — Luke

If that's how it works, it is still a form of presentism, with the consciousness (not part of the block) acting as the spotlight and defining a present. Dualism doesn't fit well at all with eternalism under which the entire worldline of a person is conscious. It would be rather absurd to say that the 1997 portion
of me is not conscious of the events of 1997.

Or alternatively we are stages which are located at a single instant and experience only that one instant of time while other counterparts experience the others. You know, cause experiencing every moment has the whole obviously wrong thing going on with us experiencing only one moment. — Mr Bee

Eternalism does not suggest that every state of a person along his worldline experiences every time in the worldline. That would be empirically quite different, wouldn't it?

If that's how it works, it is still a form of presentism, with the consciousness (not part of the block) acting as the spotlight and defining a present. — noAxioms

Yes, that's my criticism.

It would be rather absurd to say that the 1997 portion of me is not conscious of the events of 1997. — noAxioms

How does that work if your consciousness is not crawling up a worldline?

How does that work if your consciousness is not crawling up a worldline? — Luke

The same way my thermostat turns on the heat in the winter despite the fact that it's warm in mid-May. No need for a 'measurment' spotlight to crawl up the thermostat's worldline in order to allow it to function.

The same way my thermostat turns on the heat in the winter despite the fact that it's warm in mid-May. No need for a 'measurment' spotlight to crawl up the thermostat's worldline in order to allow it to function. — noAxioms

Sorry, I don't understand the analogy. A "measurement spotlight"?

OK, then it works the same way that my thermostat turns on the heat in the winter despite the fact that it's warm in mid-May.

I'm very sorry that you seem totally incapable of understanding an alternate point of view. I cannot help you with that. Not asking you to change your beliefs, but you have no argument for or against one side or the other of any philosophical issue if you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of both points of view.

Eternalism does not suggest that every state of a person along his worldline experiences every time in the worldline. That would be empirically quite different, wouldn't it? — noAxioms

Well I just gave an alternative idea for eternalists in the stage theory. Though apart from that, I wasn't suggesting you were saying that I am experiencing every moment of my life at every part of myself. You were suggesting that I as a whole am experiencing every moment of my life, which is obviously false cause I am not experiencing every moment of my life.

I think I read your post wrong, because upon re-reading it, I agree.

OK, then it works the same way that my thermostat turns on the heat in the winter despite the fact that it's warm in mid-May.

I'm very sorry that you seem totally incapable of understanding an alternate point of view. I cannot help you with that. Not asking you to change your beliefs, but you have no argument for or against one side or the other of any philosophical issue if you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of both points of view. — noAxioms

I'm afraid your ad hominem attack does not help me to understand your position.

Please help me to understand where you disagree with my argument.

Do you disagree with the definitions of the A- and B-theory given in the OP; that time passes according to the A-theory, and that time does not pass according to the B-theory? I quoted from the SEP and Wikipedia articles. Do you disagree with these and, if so, do you have any supporting evidence for your views?

Do you disagree that the Moving Spotlight theory is a combination of Eternalism + the A-Theory?

Do you disagree that the block universe/four dimensionalism/plain old Eternalism is a combination of Eternalism + the B-theory?

Do you know of some other version of Eternalism + A-theory, besides the Moving Spotlight theory, which would allow for motion under Eternalism? Can you reference any literature about your view?

Or maybe you believe that motion does not require temporal passage. If that is the case, then please explain.

Or something else? Thermostats?

Ouch. Under eternalism, we beings are worldlines, and experience every moment along that worldline. — noAxioms

Or alternatively we are stages which are located at a single instant and experience only that one instant of time while other counterparts experience the others. — Mr Bee

Does this imply that there's a stage of you, e.g. tomorrow, that is having its experience now (from our perspective here today)? Or do we need to wait until tomorrow for that stage of you to 'light up', i.e. to have its experience?

Does this imply that there's a stage of you, e.g. tomorrow, that is having its experience now (from our perspective here today)? Or do we need to wait until tomorrow for that stage of you to 'light up', i.e. to have its experience? — Luke

You can think of stages like counterparts of yourself who experience their own moment parallel to yours. Since there are infinite instants in your life, then there are infinite versions of "you" so to speak.The stages don't light up, nor will you become those other stages via. the passage of time, for obvious reasons.

You can think of stages like counterparts of yourself who experience their own moment parallel to yours. Since there are infinite instants in your life, then there are infinite versions of "you" so to speak.The stages don't light up, nor will you become those other stages via. the passage of time, for obvious reasons. — Mr Bee

It's unclear why the stages are parallel to me. Aren't they stages of me?

Also, does this imply that each individual stage is on eternal repeat, replaying over and over again?

Is there an account of why we experience time sequentially instead?

It's unclear why the stages are parallel to me. Aren't they stages of me? — Luke

Because they are different versions of "you" in the same way that different parallel reality versions of you are different versions of "you". Eternalism is a view that treats the fourth dimension of time functionally like space. It isn't hard to consider the block universe as essentially a multiverse of sorts, one that has a bit more organization and structure than your usual multiverse of cosmology.

Also, does this imply that each individual stage is on eternal repeat, replaying over and over again?

Or alternatively that they just stay where they are. We are talking about a static view after all.

Is there an account of why we experience time sequentially instead?

For the record, I only brought up the stage view as a way to account for the limited contents in our experience. Less accounting for what we do experience, but more about what we don't. I'll leave it to the eternalists in general to address that question.

Or alternatively that they just stay where they are. We are talking about a static view after all. — Mr Bee

What do you mean "stay where they are"? You suggested that there are infiinite stage counterparts of yourself "who experience their own moment". I'm just trying to make sense of this. Why do you imply that they may not "stay where they are"? Does their having experience require them to move? Also, you didn't answer the question: is their experience on eternal repeat?

For the record, I only brought up the stage view as a way to account for the limited contents in our experience. Less accounting for what we do experience, but more about what we don't. I'll leave it to the eternalists in general to address that question. — Mr Bee

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.

A-Theory: Time passes; the passage of time is real
B-Theory: Time doesn't pass; the passage of time is not real — Luke

Imagine a transparent ball rolling along a table. People live in the ball and look out at the surface of the table (time) going by. But all of the table is there all of the 'time'. Just a thought...

If time is real and the future did not happen yet then the earth of tomorrow (or the earth in one second from now) does not exist. Likewise with the past. The earth of one second ago does not exist. This means the earth, and everything else, must be recreated every nanosecond???