Jump to content

Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)/Archive 2) (bot
 
(205 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|1=
Confused physicist says:
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Low |metaphysics=yes}}
I don't understand what this entry is about. It seems like a really botched version of relativity. Yes time is a dimension which is as real as the spatial dimensions, but no, this does not mean we have a 4D block. Instead all physical dimensions form a so-called (smooth) manifold. Blocks are not the only manifolds, but for example in 2 dimensions we have: sphere, torus(donut) and multitori (donuts with more than one hole). So if you want to understand time, study relativity. Block time does not capture the essence of relativity.
{{WikiProject Time |importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index= }}


== Translations ==
:If you want to study relativity, go read the relativity articles. This article is not specifically about relativity, "botched" or otherwise, it's about a philosophical perspective on how to conceptualize the passage of time. "Block" probably isn't being used in the same technical sense as you're thinking in this case. Perhaps you could suggest some concepts in relativity that would be relevant for linking to here? There's already links to special relativity, simultinaity, and reference frames. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 16:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
=== Greek ===
* eternalism: (ο) αιωνισμός [masculine noun]
* block universe: Σύμπαν στατικού τετραδιάστατου χωροχρόνου


== Wikipedia has a mistake (in physics the difference is of core importance) ==
I love the entry on Block time. However, it brings up (I think) an interesting question, and the question should (I believe) be noted on the page:
* Universe: the name of our own universe
* universe: any spatiotemporal-like connectome of mathematically procedural (mechanistic) interactions


Physics doesn't have the same criteria with literature. Some Wikipedia users don't know it. Modern science accepts '''both''' rigorous observational empiricism '''and''' mathematical foundational descriptions. Hard or strong empiricists deviate from mainstream science and claim that mere rigorous empiricism is enough to mathematically describe the ontological mechanisms of substantiality, thus the universe for them is identical/tautological to the Universe and vice versa. They don’t care about the field of study: "foundations of substantiality" like David Deutsch’s constructor theory and Max Tegmark’s struogony (the term mathematical universe hypothesis is very general; [[mathematical structure]]s are more specific).
Why is it ''now''? Rather than some other time?


== Origin of theory ==
:All times are "the present", according to an observer who is located at that particular time. Imagine a magic door with one side right in front of you here in 2004 and the other side right in front of Henry Ford in 1908. If you ask Henry Ford whether he's in the past, present, or future, he will of course say "the present." It doesn't matter if the door's open or closed, as far as Henry Ford is concerned 1908 is the present because that's where he is. Perhaps in 2039 someone will be browsing old Wikipedia talk: pages and see this conversation; from his or her perspective 2039 is "the present", but that doesn't affect our own perceptions here in 2004.


Who first postulated this theory this theory? [[User:Cleverfellow|Cleverfellow]] ([[User talk:Cleverfellow|talk]]) 02:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
:In fact, as you read this response, think back to when you first asked the question; at that point in time you were convinced that it was "the present". Now, however, you think that you asked the question in the past and now "the present" is right now (yikes). But that doesn't change the fact that you thought it was "the present" back then, just as you think it's "the present" right now even though that guy in 2039 thinks this all happened in the past.


== “In Fiction” ==
:As for why we all percieve our location in time to be "the present", I think that's probably due to the fact that we can remember events that occurred prior to any given location in time but not events subsequent to that location in time. Perhaps the thermodynamic [[arrow of time]] is responsible for that. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 07:35, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


The “In Fiction” section refers to “a clause of eternalism” and “the rules of eternalism” when referring to things that, as far as I can see, do not form a necessary part of eternalism, and are referenced as if there were some “eternalism” text that lays them out.
----


Is it that these fictional works have their own things that they call “eternalism”, of which they say these are clauses or rules? Or are Wikipedians just getting over-excited talking about things they like?
Regarding this statement:
: For example, relativity has shown that the concept of simultaneity is not universal, with different frames of reference having different perceptions of which events are in the future and which are in the past; there is no way to definitively identify a particlar point in univeral time as "the present".


Either way, we possibly do not need what looks suspiciously like the old “in popular culture” section.
As a layman, I'm having trouble getting this, and the entry on relativity isn't helping any. I can see how frame of reference can influence how I perceive the passage of time and how far in the past something happened, but I don't see how it affects my perception of which events are in the past. The article goes on to mention that people aren't able to observe future events, so there seems to be a contradiction here.


[[Special:Contributions/90.242.137.43|90.242.137.43]] ([[User talk:90.242.137.43|talk]]) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I've read nothing on the topic besides this article, and some introductions to relativity many years ago, and watching Cosmos.. so.. grain of salt :) ''--[[User:Mjb|mjb]]''


== Add mention of Arrival (2016)? ==
:Simultenaity makes my head hurt too, when I pay attention to the details. :) Basically, it is my understanding that if there are two events "A" and "B" that occur some distance apart, there are some frames of reference in which an observer will see that event A happened before event B and some frames of reference in which an observer will see that event B happened before event A. The observer isn't observing anything in his ''own'' future, just observing two distant events that happened in his past and determining which one happened first. Since no frame of reference is more important than any other frame of reference, this isn't just an optical illusion.


I'm thinking that the movie Arrival might belong in the section on popular culture, as the movie is well known for featuring extraterrestrial beings that "remember" the future and enable the protagonist to do the same. They omit chronology in their linguistic rules and conceptualize time in an arguably eternalist perspective. Further, the structure of the film signals that the past and future are on equal grounds, given the non-chronological interpolation of scenes and ambiguity about the order of events. [[User:Quesoteric|Quesoteric]] ([[User talk:Quesoteric|talk]]) 09:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:I can't say why this works the way it does, offhand, I'd have to read up on it some more before I'd feel confident about writing anything over at [[special relativity]]. It does need to be explained more clearly, though, so if nobody with more physics knowlege than I gets to it before me I'll see if I can write something that I can understand. :) [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]]

::Your confusion is understandable as it doesn't confirm to our common sense understanding of the world around us. The light clock thought experiment is an excellent way to refine your understanding of it. So here goes:

::Empirical evidence supports the proposition that a given lightwave / photon particle will travel at a constant velocity irrespective of your interial reference frame; that means if you're going at c/2 (c equals the speed of light in a vacuum) relative to another frame of reference in the same direction as the lightwave, the lightwave will still be measured as going at c by parties in both reference frames.

::Let's put a light clock in the frame moving at c/2. What happens when someone in the other reference frame looks at the light clock? He sees a ball of light moving along a diagonal path bouncing up and down between the two mirrors of the light clock. What does the person in the clock's reference frame see? He sees a ball of light moving straight up and down between the two mirrors. The ball of light that moved along the diagonal path had to travel further, and given that additive velocities only works in Newtonian mechanics, i.e. the ball of light is moving at the same speed relative to parties in both reference frames, that means the ball of light will take longer to bounce between the two mirrors for observers in the outside reference frame of the clock than observers inside the reference frame.

::So time as measured by this light clock is moving slower in that reference frame relative to the other reference frame. (If parties in both reference frames had light clocks, both parties would see the other as moving slower. But this all gets reconciled, although it's a little tricky and beyond the scope of this reply.)

::For a more tangible example of different parties seeing a different order of events happen, let me go over a train example:

::A train is moving along in direction x. There are two laser sensors situated at opposite ends in one of its compartments. At the center of the compartment there is a laser that will fire beams at both sensors when turned on. When the sensors detect a laser beam, they light up. What happens when a person on the train in the compartment watches this process unfold? Both sensors light up at the same time. But what happens when someone on the ground, looking at the train go by, watches this process unfold? Since the train is moving in direction x, the laser beam moving in direction x towards the sensor nearer the front of the train must traverse a longer distance to reach the sensor than the laser beam that is moving towards the sensor at the back of the train. In Newtoniam mechanics, both observers would see the same thing as additive/substractive velocities would add to the velocity of the laser moving in the same direction as the train is and substract from the other laser, but we don't apparently live in a Newtonian world.

::All sorts of interesting thought experiments can be done with this. What happens if the spaceship with the light clock moved at c? The ball of light in the light clock would use up all its velocity just to keep up and time would be completely still. And since we could use the light clock as a way to measure distance, space / distance itself is just as relativistic as time. If you were in a ship traveling at c, the whole Universe would be the size of a singularity.

::Not only light travels at the speed of light; *everything* does. That is, everything moves through space-time at the speed of light. That means, the faster you move through space the slower you must move through time.

::: Can someone please provide links to validate this. I've never heard this before, and I find it interesting. -- [[User:Olathe|Olathe]] November 17, 2003

:::: That is the implication of special relativity, which follows from the finite speed of light. However, that is all relative to a detector, and assumes points in spacetime do not have a timestamp. The temperature of the microwave background seems to provide such an absolute timestamp, but I have seen no discussion of that. I guess the accelerating detector sees the universe expanding faster. Does that have any implications for our observations of the Hubble "constant"? ----

::Anyway, hope that clarified some things for you. Relativity is fairly logical once you accept the premise of the constancy of the speed of light. It's light reading compared to quantum mechanics! No one understands it! :) --[[User:Spinoza|Spinoza]]

== Block time/Eternalism - merge? ==

What is the difference between block time and eternalism? --[[User:Max David|Max]] 07:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is no difference. - LegendLength 10:07 22 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Block timers are coming from the physics direction, eternalists form the philosophy
direction, but they may be meeting in the middle.

Anyway: should the articles be merged?[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

==Unsourced==
The one source cited does not support the phrase "block time". This article is pretentious twaddle. The notion of "block time" is the same notion that [[Dimension#Time|time can be modelled as a dimension]] -- which is universally accepted amongst physicists. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:Untrue. The ''Scientific American'' article in external links uses "block time", and the PhilSci article uses the similar "block universe" [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 04:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::The reference quote does not support the phrase "block time", nor the word "block" (note the word "not" in it!). Paul Davies is describing the universally accepted model of time as a dimension, similar to the other spatial dimensions. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 09:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Okay, I think I see the source of this problem. The footnote in question is not actually a reference, citation or source of any kind. It's just a footnote, a bit of extra explanatory text that doesn't otherwise fit into the flow of the article. What it's saying is basically "don't be confused into thinking that the name 'block time' means that the universe literally has the ''shape'' of a block." It doesn't invalidate the use of the term "block time" in general, it's just trying to make sure that the term isn't misinterpreted. For external sources see the [[Block time#External links]] section, those include the two I mention above. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:No. Block time is the belief that time is literally a dimension that is no different from the 3 space dimensions around us. - LegendLength, 10:20 22 Jan 2007 <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/121.44.242.92|121.44.242.92]] ([[User talk:121.44.242.92|talk]]) 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::If so it is false since time has a different sign from the spatial dimensions in the metric.--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The sign of the time dimension only deals with the way matter is distributed within that dimension. The sign does not show that the time dimension is dynamic and undecided to an outside observer. It only specifies the pattern that is 'sewn' into the 4D block for that direction. My original statement that the time dimension is no different from the other 3 was meant in the context that all 4 dimensions are static and unchanging (for Eternalism), unlike the normal view that the time dimension is undecided to a god-like observer who exists outside the universe (i.e. Presentism).

:::As for why the time dimension obeys the laws of conservation etc., I believe that is a separate discussion from Eternalism. For instance, I could hypothetically create a 3D block that contains long strands that go from one end to the other. Each strand would be an 2D atom that exists at each timeslice along the block. Just because the distribution of matter is dissimilar for the 'time' dimension doesn't mean that the block is moving.

:::For Eternalists, whatever force/god created the block universe is unknown, and a different question as to whether the universe is static or dynamic (eternalism vs presentism). [[User:121.44.245.31|121.44.245.31]] 06:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

== 'Philosophilcal Objections' section ==

I think some of these objections have problems:

''But if the block universe view is correct, death is just one of our temporal borders, and should be no more worrisome than birth.''

This is mixing up the hypothetical god-view with the subjective human view. Humans *should* be scared of death, even in a block universe. All of the reasons that we are afraid of death are the same for people living subjectively within a block universe as they are for people within a free-will/presentist universe.

:Are they? The article goes on to suggest that we fear future events in order to do something about them, in order to experience a different future than we would have experienced had we not been afraid. That relies on indeterminism.[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::The original text says that death should be no more worrisome than birth. But many of the reasons we fear death for presentism (e.g. not able to provide for family, regret about wasting parts of our lives, fear of pain just before death) are all valid for eternalism. Therefore it is incorrect to say that death is not to be feared.

::To answer you question in particular, I agree that there is a change in how eternalists view death, because it there is nothing we can do about future events. But subjects within a block universe effectively have free will because they are still unable to predict the future with full accuracy. Therefore we should still be careful about crossing the read etc., where fear of death is a useful thing. But again, I agree that there may be ''less'' fear of death for eternalists (although some may argue that religous promises of heaven make worshippers less fearful of it, for example). [[User:121.44.245.31|121.44.245.31]] 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

The reason is that those of us living within a block universe cannot see the future with any certainty, so it is the same as living in a dynamic universe. Only a god-like, external observer would be able to see when someone will die, for instance (with 100% accuracy). That fact that we can never know the future for certain means that there is no difference between eternalism and presentism for humans.

:But is the fact that we don't know the future a sufficient reason for being apprehensive about it.
:If it has(in effect) already happened, why not reign oneself, as fatalists advise? [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not sure what you mean by 'reign yourself' here.

::Fear & apprehension are both valid and useful feelings for eternalists. Even knowing that there is no free will doesn't necessarily make those feelings obselete. Same goes for morality.

::Eternalism is about how a god-like viewer would see the universe (either pre-created or still dynamically being created as time goes by). For subjects within the universe, there is no functional difference for their lives, except that they might know that the universe is a static 4d block (eternalism) or they know that it is dynamic and only exists in the now (moving 3d block). Knowing these things would surely make a difference in how we view things, but morality, fear and other related philosophies are effectively the same for both eternalism & presentism.

::For instance, as an believer in eternalism, I would see it as immoral to harm other people without a reason, and I also am scared of my own death or pain that may be caused to me. I see both of these feelings as functionaly useful, and justifiable for my personal goals of living in a society free of pain and suffering. If I looked at the 'big picture' then maybe I would feel differently, but as a subject I cannot look at the 'big picture' fully, because I cannot see the future with 100% accuracy for a start (nor can I see the other 3 dimensions in their entirety). [[User:121.44.245.31|121.44.245.31]] 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength


''If indeterminism can be removed from flow-of-time theories, can it be added to Block theories? Surprisingly, the answer is a qualified "yes" in the form of multiverse theories...''

I object to this one too. Either the universe is static (to an outside observer) or it is dynamic (i.e. presentism). This theory tries to create a block universe where we can choose which 'block' we will take. It says there are multiple blocks (multiverse).

:The article does not say that multiverses are dynamic, and they are not. Nor does it suggest that observers can choose their branch, only that they cannot '''predict''' their branch, leading to '''subjective''' indeterminism, as some term it.[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::I agree I mis-read this part of the article. I take back my arguments for this part. [[User:121.44.245.31|121.44.245.31]] 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

'Block universe' is not about the shape, it is really just a phrase to say that the entire universe is static. Even if it is shaped like a tree with blocks at each branch/junction, then it is still a block universe. Either matter is created all at the start, or it is created dynamically. This theory falls into the 'half-pregnant' fallacy.

:The article does not suggest that any 'dynamism' at all attaches to multiversal theories.


''It can be argued that the uncertainty principle, interpreted as disturbance or observer effect, should not exist in a block universe...''

This sits fine with block universe theory. It has trouble with determinism which is a different concept. That is, the block universe does not necessarily need to obey determinism, it can be a block universe with random matter scattered throughout all 4 dimensions (obviously it would need to obey determinism at least for our local area as we have observed).

:It would still obey '''fatalism'''. Determinism implies fatalism but not vice-versa.[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::Yes but if you read the original article text, it is saying something different. It is saying that the uncertainty principle should not belong in a block universe, but it can. Determinism really has nothing to do with block universe as you point out, whereas the original text tries to shoot down block theory by pointing out the observed indeterminism in quantum mechanics. [[User:121.44.245.31|121.44.245.31]] 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

That does not mean it will always be the case though. [[User:121.44.245.31|121.44.245.31]] 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

Latest revision as of 12:26, 14 February 2024

Translations

[edit]

Greek

[edit]
  • eternalism: (ο) αιωνισμός [masculine noun]
  • block universe: Σύμπαν στατικού τετραδιάστατου χωροχρόνου

Wikipedia has a mistake (in physics the difference is of core importance)

[edit]
  • Universe: the name of our own universe
  • universe: any spatiotemporal-like connectome of mathematically procedural (mechanistic) interactions

Physics doesn't have the same criteria with literature. Some Wikipedia users don't know it. Modern science accepts both rigorous observational empiricism and mathematical foundational descriptions. Hard or strong empiricists deviate from mainstream science and claim that mere rigorous empiricism is enough to mathematically describe the ontological mechanisms of substantiality, thus the universe for them is identical/tautological to the Universe and vice versa. They don’t care about the field of study: "foundations of substantiality" like David Deutsch’s constructor theory and Max Tegmark’s struogony (the term mathematical universe hypothesis is very general; mathematical structures are more specific).

Origin of theory

[edit]

Who first postulated this theory this theory? Cleverfellow (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“In Fiction”

[edit]

The “In Fiction” section refers to “a clause of eternalism” and “the rules of eternalism” when referring to things that, as far as I can see, do not form a necessary part of eternalism, and are referenced as if there were some “eternalism” text that lays them out.

Is it that these fictional works have their own things that they call “eternalism”, of which they say these are clauses or rules? Or are Wikipedians just getting over-excited talking about things they like?

Either way, we possibly do not need what looks suspiciously like the old “in popular culture” section.

90.242.137.43 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add mention of Arrival (2016)?

[edit]

I'm thinking that the movie Arrival might belong in the section on popular culture, as the movie is well known for featuring extraterrestrial beings that "remember" the future and enable the protagonist to do the same. They omit chronology in their linguistic rules and conceptualize time in an arguably eternalist perspective. Further, the structure of the film signals that the past and future are on equal grounds, given the non-chronological interpolation of scenes and ambiguity about the order of events. Quesoteric (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&oldid=1207287171"