A-Theory versus B-theory of Time

[elopez]

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

Maybe I'm not understanding SR correctly or maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. It was my understanding that on SR that two moving observers both see the other person moving through time slower. If both were to ask who's concept of time is correct, we would say that both are correct as there is no absolute time. Observer A might see an event before Observer B. A's past would be B's future.

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".

eudaimonia,

Mark

I agree with this. Change is objective, and in a way we can "link" change with past, present, and future. What might exist would be the potential future. What exactly do we mean, though, that time is a feature of the universe? I've heard of SR describe spacetime as four dimensional, with space as three dimensions and time one dimension. Is that what you mean here? Is that correct regardless?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Subjective (phenomenal) time, how much is shared with objective time, such that we can apply the character of one to the other?

Edmund Husserl talked about "the living present" where time is stretched from the past, through the present, into the future. Rather than lived atomically as units without relation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It was my understanding that on SR that two moving observers both see the other person moving through time slower.

AFAIK, the first would see the second moving slower, and the second would see the first moving faster.

Observer A might see an event before Observer B. A's past would be B's future.

Oh, I see where you are going with this.

I'm not certain that it makes sense to compare subjective perceptions of past and future in this way. It's not like A can communicate the future to B in such a way that B would know of B's own future before it happens for B, at least not without tachyon communication. It's just that A is travelling into the future at a faster rate than B.

For instance, if Jack were to fall towards a black hole, and somehow survive for a while, he might see the universe changing before his eyes, where millions of years would change in a matter of seconds. Stars might zip around and age before his eyes. He wouldn't experience himself moving slowly, of course. This would all be horribly -- and mercifully -- fast for him.

Janet, OTOH, is on the starship, outside the worst of the gravity well. Janet would experience none of that. She would see John move more slowly. From her perspective, the stars would be still and age at their usual slow rate.

So, Jack's subjective experience of the universe would be different from Janet's. If one were to track their subjective experience of change, for instance, one second per subjective second, they experience what is around them in different ways. In a subjective second for Jack, Janet might already have left Jack for dead, and have already died and had his great, great, great grandchildren. You could say that Jack "sees the future" of Janet, but not in any way that suggests Jack's past is Janet's future. Rather, Jack's future after the time of entry into the gravity well (one subjective second) is Janet's future (many centuries).

I don't quite know how to get someone's past to be someone's future out of this, but I could be missing something.

I agree with this. Change is objective, and in a way we can "link" change with past, present, and future. What might exist would be the potential future. What exactly do we mean, though, that time is a feature of the universe? I've heard of SR describe spacetime as four dimensional, with space as three dimensions and time one dimension. Is that what you mean here? Is that correct regardless?

I think that time is a property of the universe in the sense that change is a property of the universe. Yes, one could say that spacetime (what is described by that 4D model of space and time) means that time is not something external to the universe, surrounding it and transcending it, but is a part of what the universe actually is. Time does not act on us, we simply have it in our natural power to change and to interact with other changing entities.

I think that Einstein's model is correct, or at least the mathematics works out to very tiny decimal places. One shouldn't confuse the abstract model for the reality, but it is clear that time is not something that one can reasonably consider apart from space. The two are intimately intertwined, and cannot reasonably be viewed separately.

So, yeah, "time" is a feature of the universe, and Einstein's spacetime model clearly supports this view.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

IMO it is both.

 

[Eudaimonist]

IMO it is both.

The two are mutually exclusive. How do you combine them into one model?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elopez]

AFAIK, the first would see the second moving slower, and the second would see the first moving faster.

That's right.

Oh, I see where you are going with this.

I'm not certain that it makes sense to compare subjective perceptions of past and future in this way. It's not like A can communicate the future to B in such a way that B would know of B's own future before it happens for B, at least not without tachyon communication. It's just that A is travelling into the future at a faster rate than B.

For instance, if Jack were to fall towards a black hole, and somehow survive for a while, he might see the universe changing before his eyes, where millions of years would change in a matter of seconds. Stars might zip around and age before his eyes. He wouldn't experience himself moving slowly, of course. This would all be horribly -- and mercifully -- fast for him.

Janet, OTOH, is on the starship, outside the worst of the gravity well. Janet would experience none of that. She would see John move more slowly. From her perspective, the stars would be still and age at their usual slow rate.

So, Jack's subjective experience of the universe would be different from Janet's. If one were to track their subjective experience of change, for instance, one second per subjective second, they experience what is around them in different ways. In a subjective second for Jack, Janet might already have left Jack for dead, and have already died and had his great, great, great grandchildren. You could say that Jack "sees the future" of Janet, but not in any way that suggests Jack's past is Janet's future. Rather, Jack's future after the time of entry into the gravity well (one subjective second) is Janet's future (many centuries).

I don't quite know how to get someone's past to be someone's future out of this, but I could be missing something.

Right, A is traveling at a faster rate into the future than B. That means A and B's 'now' are different. And so while there is no past to be one's future, could it be said that really there is no distinction of pas, present, and future?

I think that time is a property of the universe in the sense that change is a property of the universe. Yes, one could say that spacetime (what is described by that 4D model of space and time) means that time is not something external to the universe, surrounding it and transcending it, but is a part of what the universe actually is. Time does not act on us, we simply have it in our natural power to change and to interact with other changing entities.

I think that Einstein's model is correct, or at least the mathematics works out to very tiny decimal places. One shouldn't confuse the abstract model for the reality, but it is clear that time is not something that one can reasonably consider apart from space. The two are intimately intertwined, and cannot reasonably be viewed separately.

So, yeah, "time" is a feature of the universe, and Einstein's spacetime model clearly supports this view.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Here is a paper I started reading on this subject that has turned out pretty good so far https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...R40xNi44aWRWbj9Zw&sig2=zHQtWQprOQ8TgA14t4MKig. In it the author defines change as "simply a matter of exemplifying different properties at different locations in spacetime." Is that an accurate way to describe "change"? And that, if it could be considered that spacetime is 4 dimensional, that suggests more of a B - theory of time. Specifically, four dimensionalism.

It just seems like certain aspects of both A and B theory are true. Doesn't it seem like we use both a tensed and tenseless way to describe events?

 

[ananda]

The two are mutually exclusive. How do you combine them into one model?


eudaimonia,

Mark

From an individualistic perspective, the A model applies. From the All's (aka God, Creator, Nirvana, Buddha, etc.) perspective, the B model applies.

We are beings traveling along an infinite variety of courses (each course we, as unique individuals, take are determined by individual decisions); however, all of these potentialities (potential courses) are simutaneously in existence in the very being of the All.

 

[Eudaimonist]

From an individualistic perspective, the A model applies. From the All's (aka God, Creator, Nirvana, Buddha, etc.) perspective, the B model applies.

We are beings traveling along an infinite variety of courses (each course we, as unique individuals, take are determined by individual decisions); however, all of these potentialities (potential courses) are simutaneously in existence in the very being of the All.

Then you support A-theory. If the courses only exist as potentialities right now, not as actualities that are happening right "now" (from the perspective of God), then the future isn't fixed and has yet to be actualized into one specific form, and A-theory is true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

And so while there is no past to be one's future, could it be said that really there is no distinction of pas, present, and future?

No, I would not say that. It is sensible for both Jack and Janet to make that distinction. "Time" travels for them at different rates, but it still travels. They both have a past, present, and a future.

Here is a paper I started reading on this subject that has turned out pretty good so far https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www3.nd.edu/~mrea/papers/Four%20Dimensionalism.pdf&ved=0CEAQFjAGahUKEwiBwd_el53HAhXCjg0KHXMdAZY&usg=AFQjCNHhfGMwEOf9pR40xNi44aWRWbj9Zw&sig2=zHQtWQprOQ8TgA14t4MKig. In it the author defines change as "simply a matter of exemplifying different properties at different locations in spacetime." Is that an accurate way to describe "change"?

That begs the question of how "location" is defined. It sounds like he is plotting "location" with four dimensions instead of three (or only relative to something else).

And that, if it could be considered that spacetime is 4 dimensional, that suggests more of a B - theory of time. Specifically, four dimensionalism.

I haven't read the article, but it sounds he's simply trying to define change to the point where it is compatible with B-theory. It's the usual Platonist shuffle, where mathematics is confused with reality. Even if the universe can be modeled mathematically in a four-dimensional way, that doesn't mean that the "future" already exists except representationally in those mathematical models. You can plot it on a computer screen, but that doesn't mean that the universe literally exists in that fashion.

It just seems like certain aspects of both A and B theory are true.

Not to me.

Doesn't it seem like we use both a tensed and tenseless way to describe events?

Yes, but that doesn't say anything other than that we human beings are abstract thinkers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elopez]

No, I would not say that. It is sensible for both Jack and Janet to make that distinction. "Time" travels for them at different rates, but it still travels. They both have a past, present, and a future.

So it is just that each's present and future are relative?

That begs the question of how "location" is defined. It sounds like he is plotting "location" with four dimensions instead of three (or only relative to something else).

I haven't read the article, but it sounds he's simply trying to define change to the point where it is compatible with B-theory. It's the usual Platonist shuffle, where mathematics is confused with reality. Even if the universe can be modeled mathematically in a four-dimensional way, that doesn't mean that the "future" already exists except representationally in those mathematical models. You can plot it on a computer screen, but that doesn't mean that the universe literally exists in that fashion.

That makes sense.

Not to me.

Yes, but that doesn't say anything other than that we human beings are abstract thinkers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This is where it is interesting though. If we use both tensed and tenseless ways, we are using both an A and B theory way of describing events. This is also what McTaggart thought was contradictory, that both an A and B theory of time must complement one another, and that by doing so time itself becomes contradictory.

 

[ananda]

Then you support A-theory. If the courses only exist as potentialities right now, not as actualities that are happening right "now" (from the perspective of God), then the future isn't fixed and has yet to be actualized into one specific form, and A-theory is true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, perhaps I should have made it clearer ...

Courses exist as potentialities for us as distinct individuals on our particular path within space-time. To my current "I", the other courses are potentialities.

However, during each moment of space-time, we have open to us an infinite number of diverse choices we could possibly make. Basically, I believe that my "I" splits off into infinite selves at every moment of infinite space-time, each "I" believing that they are the one and only "I". From the perspective of the All, all courses are simultaneously actualized. From the perspective of my specific "I", I am perceiving this process unfolding as the A model.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, perhaps I should have made it clearer ...

Courses exist as potentialities for us as distinct individuals on our particular path within space-time. To my current "I", the other courses are potentialities.

However, during each moment of space-time, we have open to us an infinite number of diverse choices we could possibly make. Basically, I believe that my "I" splits off into infinite selves at every moment of infinite space-time, each "I" believing that they are the one and only "I". From the perspective of the All, all courses are simultaneously actualized. From the perspective of my specific "I", I am perceiving this process unfolding as the A model.

B-theorists admit that our personal perspective is about perceiving something unfolding. They insist, however, that the future is fixed and already exists. Since you believe that there is some sort of timeless "All" that is capable of seeing our future(s), it looks like you are siding with B-theory.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So are there truths about the future?

If truth is correspndence to fact then maybe all truths about the future are inductive, therefore probablistic.
___________

If the universe is like a delta, or a branching river, what causes the "direction of flow"?

In a river situation, it - the direction of the rivers flowing path - is the waters fluid dynamics and the lay of the land.

__________

We imagine the land is already there, already ahead, but in A-theory it seems thats an illusion. The river bed and valley unfold just as much as the flowing stream does...

We think form a helicopter view we can see in some way the futures course. But thats an illsion. The basin we see, even miles in advance,is entirely present in the "living present" of conscious life.

___________

Man is the water, invisible spirit, the universe is the land. Something like that.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there ever a chance that this stuff will bear any practical relevance? Ok we can have advances in philosophy, but a lot of it is remote and lifeless.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is there ever a chance that this stuff will bear any practical relevance? Ok we can have advances in philosophy, but a lot of it is remote and lifeless.

Does it matter if the future is fixed, or if it may be influenced by genuine choice?

I'd say that matters quite a bit. It's not remote or lifeless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Trakk]

There are more possibilities than the A theory and the B theory. I will show that by classifying theories of time by what they consider real:

(Is the past real?) (Is the present real?) (Is the future real?)
Yes = X, no = -

--- = time is unreal, McTaggart's theory
--X
-X- = presentism, the A theory
-XX
X--
X-X
XX- = growing block universe
XXX = block universe, eternalism, the B theory

Four of those eight possibilities have no names, and they don't seem to have had many advocates.

Let's see how they stack up relative to common sense and the theories of modern science.

Common sense seems to support the A theory, because we experience only one time instead of several times at once. Newtonian mechanics also agrees with the A theory, since it features a universal time. However, common sense can be fit into the B theory by supposing the A-like behavior to be some sort of artifact. Newtonian mechanics can also fit into the B theory without much trouble.

But then comes special relativity and its successor general relativity. There is no universal time there, though objects have their individual "proper times". That is VERY difficult for the A theory, and a proposed way of rescuing it is the "Lorentz ether theory". However, that theory requires something totally unobservable and physically meaningless. However, SR and GR fit into the B theory very nicely.

So if I had to choose, I'd choose the B theory.

 

[pshun2404]

There are two kinds of time in our experience of the Universe...chronological time is seen but then there is "NOW" which always IS...We always and only view the chronological in the moment...we are in the moment NOW but chronos effects only the physical...if one concludes erroneously that there can only be "the physical" then now bows to entropy over time but for me the physical merely comes and goes but I, NOW, am still here....I shall ever be NOW

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I like truth trees. The metaphysical kind.

http://www.shamaniccircles.org/2002oraclefolder/worldtree.html
^^ from link:

"The universe of the shaman can be broadly divided into three zones - the Upper, Middle and Lower worlds, or heaven, earth and the underworld. The World Tree is the bridge that connects these three worlds; it is the axis mundi about which the universe of the shaman extends. And it is on the Tree that the spirits pass from one world to another. "

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Gods Kingdom arrived (the darkness has been invaded) but not in its fullness. We live in a world between the full absence and the full presence of the healing, light etc. of Gods Kingdome to come.
So temporal ontology is infused with Biblical eschatology. According to Nouen (in "The Wounded Healer") man is historically dislocated in the modern age.

So the secularisation of history takes from the sacrality and sacredness, the sui generics religosity, apprehended through faith (fideism) rather than the challengor: Enlightenment rationality (human reason). Deism takes the place of theistic intervention, God is forced from the world by science. The veil of the temple is being re-stitched by Satan and his minions, the image of man becomes behavioristic, clockwork. Such that the Kingdom revelation of mans witness of and to the holy is being shielded from view, displaced by secular fundamentalism. In the place of faith we have the worldly "man triumphant over superstition".

And thus the transformation of salvation history into a mere-academic topic, rather than a relationship to God. The insiders and the outsiders views cannot be made commensurable. Theres profession of knowledge, and possession of (true) faith. A theological Mary's Room scenario that cannot be overcome.... even in the age of the "most accurate science known to man".

So, after the kingdom entered into the world, is the world not trying to muscle its way back to the top? If the presence of god is spiritual, what is left for human reason but a "Deity" and a machine? Actually, for most nowadays, the machine is the answer to all our woes.

You may wound the faithful, but never the machine.

Science is not dislocation, but relocation into a different concept of future, present and past. Science waves goodbye to God, but does that mean God waves goodbye to man? Or does man merely wave goodbye to himself? As the imago Dei (image of God) ... and become "homo sapiens" instead?