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. — 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... — EnPassant
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??? — EnPassant
The temporal passage thing is not the problem, the block is only static viewed from the outside. — ChatteringMonkey
So things change and we interpret that as time passing, though we never actually see a thing like time passing. — ChatteringMonkey
I don't think characterization as A-series or B-series explains anything by itself. It seems to be merely about the language we use to describe things, and so not about the nature of things. — ChatteringMonkey
(It is worth noting that some discussions of these issues employ terminology that is different from the A series/B series terminology used here. For example, some discussions frame the issue in terms of a question about the reality of tense (roughly, the irreducible possession by times, events, and things of genuine A properties), with A Theorists characterized as those who affirm the reality of tense and B Theorists characterized as those who deny the reality of tense.)
According to The B Theory, there are no genuine, unanalyzable A properties, and all talk that appears to be about A properties is really reducible to talk about B relations. For example, when we say that the year 1900 has the property of being past, all we really mean is that 1900 is earlier than the time at which we are speaking. On this view, there is no sense in which it is true to say that time really passes, and any appearance to the contrary is merely a result of the way we humans happen to perceive the world.
The opponents of The B Theory accept the view (often referred to as “The A Theory”) that there are genuine properties such as being two days past, being present, etc.; that facts about these A properties are not in any way reducible to facts about B relations; and that times and events are constantly changing with respect to their A properties (first becoming less and less future, then becoming present, and subsequently becoming more and more past). According to The A Theory, the passage of time is a very real and inexorable feature of the world, and not merely some mind-dependent phenomenon.
What is "genuine change" as opposed to change that is merely things being different at different moments in time? What is this "temporal passage" that is supposedly absent from the B-series and essential to time? — ChatteringMonkey
The takeaway here is that B-theorists deny that time genuinely passes, so if you think it does, then you might not be one. — Luke
In 4d spacetime an object exists temporally extended, "wormlike" over time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't change, or that time doesn't pass... it does, per definition. — ChatteringMonkey
And that is not merely 'apparent change', change is part of the existing temporally extended object and just as real as change is in A-theory it seems to me. — ChatteringMonkey
I've read the things you referred to, and my question is still the same, what do you mean with genuinely passage of time and genuine change? I can't answer the question if I don't know what it means. — ChatteringMonkey
The passage of time is an intrinsic asymmetry in the temporal structure of the world, an asymmetry that has no spatial counterpart. It is the asymmetry that grounds the distinction between sequences which run from past to future and sequences which run from future to past. Consider, for example, the sequence of events that makes up an asteroid traveling from the vicinity of Mars to the vicinity of the Earth, as opposed to the sequence that makes up an asteroid moving from the vicinity of Earth to that of Mars. These sequences might be ‘matched’, in the sense that to every event in the one there corresponds an event in the other which has the same bodies in the same spatial arrangement. The topological structure of the matched states would also be matched: if state B is between states A and C in one sequence, then the corresponding state B* would be between A* and C* in the other. Still, going from Mars to Earth is not the same as going from Earth to Mars. The difference, if you will, is how these sequences of states are oriented with respect to the passage of time. If the asteroid gets closer to Earth as time passes, then the asteroid is going in one direction, if it gets further it is going in the other direction. So the passage of time provides an innate asymmetry to temporal structure. — Tim Maudlin
Per what definition? — Luke
You've introduced this talk of "change" rather than temporal passage. What changes about a space-time worm? Obviously, it has different parts at different times, but nothing about it changes. — Luke
As the SEP article notes, it's taking tense seriously, which means "the irreducible possession by times, events, and things of genuine A properties", which simply means that future events become present and then past. Genuinely! But I'm sure you already knew that. — Luke
The passage of time is an intrinsic asymmetry in the temporal structure of the world, an asymmetry that has no spatial counterpart. It is the asymmetry that grounds the distinction between sequences which run from past to future and sequences which run from future to past. Consider, for example, the sequence of events that makes up an asteroid traveling from the vicinity of Mars to the vicinity of the Earth, as opposed to the sequence that makes up an asteroid moving from the vicinity of Earth to that of Mars. These sequences might be ‘matched’, in the sense that to every event in the one there corresponds an event in the other which has the same bodies in the same spatial arrangement. The topological structure of the matched states would also be matched: if state B is between states A and C in one sequence, then the corresponding state B* would be between A* and C* in the other. Still, going from Mars to Earth is not the same as going from Earth to Mars. The difference, if you will, is how these sequences of states are oriented with respect to the passage of time. If the asteroid gets closer to Earth as time passes, then the asteroid is going in one direction, if it gets further it is going in the other direction. So the passage of time provides an innate asymmetry to temporal structure. — Tim Maudlin
This is the temporal passage that B-theorists reject. — Luke
Per what definition?
— Luke
The 4th axis of 4d spacetime. — ChatteringMonkey
The parts at different times are different right? Well, that simply is change. I don't know how to put it any other way really. Change is part of the thing that exists temporally extended. — ChatteringMonkey
You cannot expect the whole temporally extended object to change in yet another 5th dimension. — ChatteringMonkey
I get that if you think only the present exist, the future and past are ontologically different... And so yes you would take tense seriously. But that is just a question of what exist, which I agree is different in the two theories. I'm just not sure what the word "genuinely" is supposed to add to all of this. — ChatteringMonkey
I agree that the eternalist need to give an explanation for the apparent asymmetry of time, which unlike space, seems to move only in one direction. But, as I alluded to in an earlier post, I think they probably can with the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy only increases, and so that gives time an apparent direction, only one way. — ChatteringMonkey
As I keep repeating, what it adds is the difference between the A-theory and the B-theory, which is temporal passage. A-theorists think it's real; B-theorists do not. It is not "just a question of what exists" if temporal passage is something over and above everything that exists. If it's not, then there's no distinction between B-theory Eternalism and the Moving Spotlight theory, which would imply there's no distinction between the B-theory and the A-theory. — Luke
Now now. — Luke
Is that a definition? — Luke
My concern, as presented in the OP, is with temporal passage and motion. I'm not sure whether "change" is really the same thing. Your use of this term seems to be a way for you to try and have both the A-theory and the B-theory. — Luke
I don't. I deny that "the whole temporally extended object" changes at all. However, this might depend on your definition of "change". I'm not all that interested in change unless it means the same as temporal passage or motion. — Luke
As I keep repeating, what it adds is the difference between the A-theory and the B-theory, which is temporal passage. A-theorists think it's real; B-theorists do not. It is not "just a question of what exists" if temporal passage is something over and above everything that exists. If it's not, then there's no distinction between B-theory Eternalism and the Moving Spotlight theory, which would imply there's no distinction between the B-theory and the A-theory. — Luke
I do not mean by it "that time is an independent metaphysical thing acting on the universe." — Luke
A direction to time assumes temporal passage, which B-theorists reject. Entropy won't help you. To provide an account of why temporal passage has a direction is to concede that temporal passage is real. The Eternalist doesn't need to account for the direction of apparent temporal passage, but for apparent temporal passage itself (i.e. for how and why apparent temporal passage is not real). — Luke
None of this implies the ontological truth of one theory or the other. In fact, it doesn't even imply that time has an ontological nature. It might just be an ordering principle in our minds. — Echarmion
In the case at hand, all you're doing if you move from the A-theory to the B-theory is abstracting from the individual observer to a hypothetical universal observer. — Echarmion
Because the universal observer has no individual position in time and space (physics being assumed to be uniform across both) "A-properties" necessarily disappear in the process, being replaced by "B-properties". — Echarmion
You at time x1 and you at time x2 are at different locations, so you move. — ChatteringMonkey
It doesn't make sense to say that 'the whole temporally extended object" doesn't move as a whole. — ChatteringMonkey
Now you say temporal passage is something that exists over and above everything else? — ChatteringMonkey
Temporal passage again eh, — ChatteringMonkey
But I give up, like noAxioms said, you seem to be incapable of entertaining another perspective — ChatteringMonkey
The Eternalist needs to account for how one moves from t1 to t2 if temporal passage is not real. — Luke
Look, you said that "In 4d spacetime an object exists temporally extended, "wormlike" over time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't change, or that time doesn't pass... it does, per definition". I've shown you that this is incorrect. B-theorists assert that time does not pass. You can always opt for the Moving Spotlight theory if you want to retain temporal passage. — Luke
It's a different type of existence compared to all other things which exist at a time. — Luke
You want me to entertain a perspective which is not the topic of this discussion? — Luke
You seem to think that there is something fundamentally different about an object existing over all the intervals of time (t1, t2, t3, etc) and the passage of time, I don't. Time passes just the same — ChatteringMonkey
As I understand it, there is a genuine dispute between A-theorists and B-theorists as to the nature of time, with the former affirming that temporal passage is real and the latter denying it. — Luke
I don't know of any B-theorists who claim that time actually passes and that temporal passage only "disappears" (or is not real) due to it being a more objective perspective. This seems contrary to the definitions I've posted and to what I've read on the subject. I'd welcome any information you have that says otherwise. — Luke
Do you believe that future events become present and then past? That's the passage of time; the thing you seem to have trouble to comprehend. If you believe in this, then you believe in temporal passage. This is what B-theorists do not believe. It's that simple. — Luke
Like I said I don't subscribe to any metaphysical theory of time. — ChatteringMonkey
In that case, my question is: when does motion occur according to Eternalism?
Somewhere between noon and 1 obviously (in my example). Every moment of it in fact, since at no time is any object actually stationary, what with Earth spinning and accelearting and all. — noAxioms
The fact that I don't subscribe to it, is evidence that I don't understand it? — ChatteringMonkey
The temporal passage thing is not the problem, the block is only static viewed from the outside.
What is this "temporal passage" that is supposedly absent from the B-series and essential to time?
In 4d spacetime an object exists temporally extended, "wormlike" over time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't change, or that time doesn't pass... it does
Honestly, I have no idea whatsoever what you mean with temporal passage.
Temporal passage again eh, if only I knew what it meant
You seem to think that there is something fundamentally different about an object existing over all the intervals of time (t1, t2, t3, etc) and the passage of time, I don't. Time passes just the same — Chattering Monkey
Time doesn't pass according to the B-theory. That's it's defining aspect. Temporal passage was the first thing I defined in the OP and the thing I have had to keep repeating to you throughout this discussion. It also marks the difference between Eternalism and the Moving Spotlight theory, which was the intended topic of this discussion. But you seem to have wanted to talk about something else. — Luke
Please enlighten me as to the difference between Eternalism and the Moving Spotlight theory. — Luke
Moving spotlight (and pretty much the rest of your list) has a preferred moment. Eternalism does not.
You seem to be implying that temporal passage is possible under Eternalism? How so?. - Luke
I implied no such thing. I said there is movement. I made no reference to temporal passage, which again is a term only meaningful to views that posit a preferred moment. — noAxioms
Time doesn't pass according to the B-theory. That's it's defining aspect.
— Luke
That's not its defining aspect, it's the lack of preferred moment, or a question of what exists. — ChatteringMonkey
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.