A-Theory versus B-theory of Time

[Eudaimonist]

Do you subscribe to a form of A-Theory or to a form of B-Theory?

Here's a lecture by Lee Smolin that I find interesting:

I personally subscribe to a form of A-Theory, but I realize that this contradicts what many physicists think about Time.

What do you think, and why?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

I tend towards A-Theory, but I haven't really read too much about it.

Doesn't evolution (and life) make more sense if there is a forwards? If you looked at it backwards, wouldn't life seem much more random and senseless? We have forwards reasons for things, but I doubt those reasons would make sense felt backwards.

 

[elopez]

Do you subscribe to a form of A-Theory or to a form of B-Theory?

The difference seems to be in that the A - theory implies a tensed view of how we talk about events in time while B - theory implies a tenseless way of how we describe events.

I think each view has it's weak points, however, the concept of time cannot be abandoned all together. On common sense, I would say the A - theory is correct as "x is present" seems to be the normal and accepted way of talking about events. B - theory seems more alinged with physics, specifically regarding relativity, though.

I personally subscribe to a form of A-Theory, but I realize that this contradicts what many physicists think about Time.

A - theory generally has two forms associated with it, one presentism and the other and the growing block universe idea. Which of the those do you subscribe to?

It is within those two specific forms of A - theory that I think there is fault. Mainly in the presentism view. To that the question is, "Does only the present exist?" Presentism is the view that only the present exists and that non present objects do not exist. Thus the past and future do not really exist. The issue with this is what then do we make of aspects of the past, such as when we speak of Socrates. Presentists would say that Socrates wouldn't be on the list of things that exist. I am not entirely sure of this, and of course it is true that Socrates does not presently exist, yet it seems like Socrates perhaps exists in some 'ontological' sense. What do you think?

Also, are you talking about the issue of absolute simultaneity for the A - theory and the theory of relativity when you refer to the contradiction? Do you have any response to this?

 

[anonymous person]

Put me down for "A" theory.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A - theory generally has two forms associated with it, one presentism and the other and the growing block universe idea. Which of the those do you subscribe to?

Thanks for the question. I'm still trying to figure out which one is more applicable. Let me put it this way:

The past does not exist in the same way as the present. It did exist just like the present, because it once was the present. It is therefore the case that there are facts about the past, even though the past doesn't exist right now. This is more than just the epistemological claim that the present contains evidence of the past, and that I am just reading the past in the same way as someone might look at fossils to deduce that dinosaurs had once roamed the Earth. It is a permanent metaphysical fact that the past had once existed as what it was.

To put that another way, let's say that I have been captured by the Ministry of Love as a thoughtcriminal, and I am told that the past is whatever Big Brother says that it is, because the past does not actually exist (except in "defective" memory), and is therefore open to whatever political narratives are convenient to the collective. For as long as I hold out under torture, I would maintain that even though the past does not "exist" in the same way that the present exists, it is nevertheless the case that one remembers the past correctly or incorrectly. The past really does "exist" in one form, and not others.

So, if I were to say that the past "exists", I'm clearly talking about a special ontological category -- to have existed. I'm not certain if this puts me in the growing block universe theory of time, because I'm not quite sure in what ontological sense they view the past as existing.

This sort of view does have relevance to what I identify as my spirituality. I have said here before that it doesn't fundamentally matter to the worth of my life if I die and cease to exist in the present, it nevertheless will always be the case that I have existed, and that this is a permanent and unalterable condition. To have existed in the past is not the same thing as existing in the present; however, it is very different than not existing in the sense of never having existed at all.

Also, are you talking about the issue of absolute simultaneity for the A - theory and the theory of relativity when you refer to the contradiction? Do you have any response to this?

I'm still working on that. I have seen a youtube video (see below) that specifically argues that Einstein has proven that B-theory must be correct, but I do know of physicists such as Lee Smolin (and at least one philosopher of science, I forget his name) who challenge that idea.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

None of the above. Maybe. Not sure where I fit in...

I am like a presentist, but the so called present is temporal, and therefore made from, or only exists in relation to other parts.

So we have a surface of the present, like the expanding balloon analogy of the cosmologists. But the surface is like paper, with 3 sheets, rather than an ineffable film of zero dimensions.

I say this because of entropy and the arrow of time. If there is time there is entropy. If there is entropy there is change. And if there is change there is an arrow. For there to be an arrow of time there needs to be at least two sheets, i.e. to the surface of the "past" and "present" or to the surface (or booklet) of time. A single sheet book would be atemporal. We need more then one sheet, three in fact for the book we know.


Imagine tapping a balloon surface, as if it were the a surface made from a film of water maybe, and a imagine a ripple waving out across and aroung the balloon as it expands. That ripple is both what is sent forth and left behind. The ripple is past and future at once. (see koran 36:12 below).

Just as we see the Sun as it was 8.3 minites ago, so that image is both sent forth (into the future, our persent) and left behind (it is a historical trace of what was, as it was). The light from the sun is a ripple on the balloon surface. The balloon is the "book" or "clear register", or at least they are analogous, like origami is analogous to a sheet of paper....

When I wave "hello" to you that is both a travelling into the future (an issuing forth) and a historical record (a trace of what was).

Likewise CBMR (cosmic background miicrowave radiation) is also a trace and a issuing forth. The present somehow contains the past and the future. It is a focal point in time - unto man.

Humanly, therefore, the presentish only exists - but this is a relational statement. It exist for someone. This is the temporal take on thinks, the human side.

But with God (I imagine), the knows the whole book - or the waving, rippling, expanding sphere - in its entirity.

So for God and man time exists in different ways.


Koran 20:52 (more ccontext)

[Moses] said, "The knowledge thereof is with my Lord in a record. My Lord neither errs nor forgets."

Koeran 36:12 (link)
Indeed, it is We who bring the dead to life and record what they have put forth and what they left behind, and all things We have enumerated in a clear register.

 

[Colter]

Time is a still shot of eternity, of infinity. It is my belief that evolution contains a motive in it's forward advance, a purposive potential in relation to the creator, the initiator. In religion that motive is for the benefit of experience, which is the only reality of the existence of the past that is real in the present.

This record of the past is not in the past, it is in the eternal present unless disturbed. However it is in our conscious experience of the past, it's in the experience of Neil Armstrong, but past is only a conceptual experience of our time bound finite minds.

 

[elopez]

Thanks for the question. I'm still trying to figure out which one is more applicable. Let me put it this way:

So, if I were to say that the past "exists", I'm clearly talking about a special ontological category -- to have existed. I'm not certain if this puts me in the growing block universe theory of time, because I'm not quite sure in what ontological sense they view the past as existing.

This sort of view does have relevance to what I identify as my spirituality. I have said here before that it doesn't fundamentally matter to the worth of my life if I die and cease to exist in the present, it nevertheless will always be the case that I have existed, and that this is a permanent and unalterable condition. To have existed in the past is not the same thing as existing in the present; however, it is very different than not existing in the sense of never having existed at all.

Honestly I am in the same boat as you. Though I agree with much of what you're saying here. The past does exist, but not in any "exists now" sense, rather an ontological sense in that Socrates should be on a list of things that is real or have had existed. I guess the point here would be that there seems to be non - present objects that could be said to exist. That leaves no room for one form of A - theory, presentism. The growing block form would then be our only choice of an A - theory of time.

Another important note here in relation to the growing block model is that it denies the existence of the future, to which we would have to answer if there is any ontology of. If there isn't, a growing block form of A-Theory would be more proper. If there is, a much deeper problem resides as that entails the B - theory.

Interestingly, I just found a paper (I'll have to dig for it) that advocates a mix of the two, which I am not even sure is consistent. It is basically an A - theory of time but under an eternalist premise. What do you make of that?

I'm still working on that. I have seen a youtube video (see below) that specifically argues that Einstein has proven that B-theory must be correct, but I do know of physicists such as Lee Smolin (and at least one philosopher of science, I forget his name) who challenge that idea.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Doesn't Lee Smolin disregard the idea of time completely? I thought his conclusion is that time just does not exist and is an illusion. It is interesting how he relates time to mathematics and since mathematics is timteless there is no time. Or something like that.

Absolute simultaneity, which an A - theory suggests as to have these objective facts in the form of "x is present", seems to contradict the special theory of relativity. Since we cannot deny special relativity, our only other option is to entertain that it may not mean there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. How we go about doing that I am unsure of, and would be really interesting of an idea to build on. Though that road seems unlikely as so much work has gone into the idea that special relativity does indeed conclude there is no absolute simultaneity (Savitt 2000; Skow 2009).

Though I am curious as to whether or not an A - theory needs to rely so heavily on absolute simultaneity?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Interestingly, I just found a paper (I'll have to dig for it) that advocates a mix of the two, which I am not even sure is consistent. It is basically an A - theory of time but under an eternalist premise. What do you make of that?

I'm not sure what to make of that. I'd have to read the paper.

Doesn't Lee Smolin disregard the idea of time completely? I thought his conclusion is that time just does not exist and is an illusion. It is interesting how he relates time to mathematics and since mathematics is timteless there is no time. Or something like that.

IIRC, he currently takes the opposite position.

Absolute simultaneity, which an A - theory suggests as to have these objective facts in the form of "x is present", seems to contradict the special theory of relativity. Since we cannot deny special relativity, our only other option is to entertain that it may not mean there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. How we go about doing that I am unsure of, and would be really interesting of an idea to build on. Though that road seems unlikely as so much work has gone into the idea that special relativity does indeed conclude there is no absolute simultaneity (Savitt 2000; Skow 2009).

Though I am curious as to whether or not an A - theory needs to rely so heavily on absolute simultaneity?

Yeah, the idea that A-theory depends on absolute simultaneity smells fishy to me. There is a philosopher who attempts to reconcile A-theory with Einstein. I've found his name -- it's Tim Maudlin. He talks a bit about his theory in the following video. He is one of four interesting guests.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

time is irreducible?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

a novel property of interacting wavicles... like a conversation, not a solilequey.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

unpinpointable?

 

[elopez]

I'm not sure what to make of that. I'd have to read the paper.

It's callled, The A-Theory of Time, The B-Theory of Time, and ‘Taking Tense Seriously’ by Dean W. Zimmerman. I don't have a link to it.

Yeah, the idea that A-theory depends on absolutely simultaneity smells fishy to me. There is a philosopher who attempts to reconcile A-theory with Einstein. I've found his name -- it's Tim Maudlin. He talks a bit about his theory in the following video. He is one of four interesting guests.

eudaimonia,

Mark

What does A - theory 'lose' when we rid it of the concept of absolute simultaneity? From what I can tell it has to do with tensed facts in reality, and that if we were to rid of said cinceot we couldn't say things like "x is present." Is that true?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What does A - theory 'lose' when we rid it of the concept of absolute simultaneity?

Unless I am missing something, what is lost when the concept of absolute simultaneity is lost is only the idea that time and space are independent of one another. That doesn't strike me as such a big loss that A-theory must be discarded, though perhaps the Newtonian version of A-theory must be discarded.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elopez]

Do you think the future has any ontology? Enough to say that it may exist in a way similar to that of the past?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you think the future has any ontology? Enough to say that it may exist in a way similar to that of the past?

I think that we may speak of a future, but there is a dramatic difference between past and future - the past has been present (it has existed), while the future has never been present (it has never existed).

The future, as I see it, is a way of speaking about the implications of change. We understand that there will be a future, but we can't say that it "exists" in any sense other than a mental projection of what might be. The past is different in that respect, since the past is no mere mental projection.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elopez]

I think that we may speak of a future, but there is a dramatic difference between past and future - the past has been present (it has existed), while the future has never been present (it has never existed).

The future, as I see it, is a way of speaking about the implications of change. We understand that there will be a future, but we can't say that it "exists" in any sense other than a mental projection of what might be. The past is different in that respect, since the past is no mere mental projection.m


eudaimonia,

Mark

Couldn't it be said that, according to SR, one's past may be another's future and the other way around? Then, all aspects of time would be real, and the order just depends on the observer.

Another issue that SR seems to bring up for an A - theory of time is the idea of the passage of time. A - theory advocates that there is a passage of time, from the past, to present, and into the future. Do you find the passage of time is objective?

Back to absolute simultaneity, just to put this idea to rest. It seems that SR only discredits the presentism view, as it is that view that suggests only the present exists in some universal way, that two events in the present (or rather all events) exist simultaneously. If we accept that the past has an ontological existence, I see no reason or that it would be necessary to accept a concept such as absolute simultaneity. Even to maintain an A - theory of time. As I said earlier that leaves us with the growing block universe form, which seems to be compatible with SR.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Couldn't it be said that, according to SR, one's past may be another's future and the other way around? Then, all aspects of time would be real, and the order just depends on the observer.

I'm not sure that SR says precisely that. Do you have an example in mind?

Another issue that SR seems to bring up for an A - theory of time is the idea of the passage of time. A - theory advocates that there is a passage of time, from the past, to present, and into the future. Do you find the passage of time is objective?

I think that change is objective.

Entities change, and that is what we conceptualize as time. The process of change implies that something had existed, which is not precisely what does exist, which is not precisely what might exist as change continues. So, I don't think that time is an entity unto itself, but is instead an implication of change. I do think that time is an aspect of the universe, rather than an ocean in which the universe swims, which seems in harmony with SR. I think it is reasonable to say that "time passes", by which I mean, more or less, that "change happens".

Back to absolute simultaneity, just to put this idea to rest. It seems that SR only discredits the presentism view, as it is that view that suggests only the present exists in some universal way, that two events in the present (or rather all events) exist simultaneously. If we accept that the past has an ontological existence, I see no reason or that it would be necessary to accept a concept such as absolute simultaneity. Even to maintain an A - theory of time. As I said earlier that leaves us with the growing block universe form, which seems to be compatible with SR.

I tend to agree. At least, that's what my rational intuition is telling me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well I am liking this thread.

I did a bit of religion-ing and my conclusion is that change is a transformation of spacial object, into a new space.

Each action, each day etc is a rule bound manouvre, and also thereby also a return to the progressing present. So it is advancement (progression) and return.

"If we had willed we could have transformed them in their places so that they could not advance or return". Ya Sin (36:67)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

MAybetype 1 and 2 are two ways of defining the same reality, and are not only not imcompatible, but mutually implied....

Like a ordinary surface, it seems eternal because there is no fourth dimension, but from another perspective because it has differing parts there is change, and therefore also time?