Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time): Difference between revisions
→In Popular Culture: new section |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)/Archive 2) (bot |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell |1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Philosophy |
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Low |metaphysics=yes}} |
||
{{WikiProject Time |
{{WikiProject Time |importance=High}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index= }} |
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index= }} |
||
== Changes == |
|||
Could do with some discussion of [[Julian Barbour]]s theories, and relation to multiverses. |
|||
Note that there is a logical independence between the claims: |
|||
# All moments of time exist on the same footing |
|||
# Time is a space-like dimension, and there is a single unambiguous past and present for each moment |
|||
within it. |
|||
Barbour accepts the first but not the second. This in turn illustrates a shade of difference between |
|||
older (eg paremidean) philosophical eternalism (1) and block theory (1 & 2). |
|||
18:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Could you expand on what you mean by the 'same footing'? I had a glance at Barbour's wiki page but it didn't seem to describe any coherent mechanism for time. He seems to deny change exists yet he claims there are different 'nows' that we experience. How could that possible be? [[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] ([[User talk:LegendLength|talk]]) 04:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Also, these illustrations fall short of their intentions. Could be replaced [[User:Leodiamondwiki|Leodiamondwiki]] ([[User talk:Leodiamondwiki|talk]]) 04:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Translations == |
== Translations == |
||
| Line 40: | Line 25: | ||
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). |
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). |
||
== |
== Origin of theory == |
||
Who first postulated this theory this theory? [[User:Cleverfellow|Cleverfellow]] ([[User talk:Cleverfellow|talk]]) 02:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== “In Fiction” == |
|||
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? |
|||
Is there a good reason why this is illustrated as "Time progresses through the series of snapshots from the bottom of the page to the top", rather than the more usual top to bottom? Is the unintuitive ordering meant to help the reader think about time as instances which can be considered in other ways? --[[User:Lord Belbury|Lord Belbury]] ([[User talk:Lord Belbury|talk]]) 11:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Either way, we possibly do not need what looks suspiciously like the old “in popular culture” section. |
|||
== Objection section == |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/90.242.137.43|90.242.137.43]] ([[User talk:90.242.137.43|talk]]) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I suspect at least the last paragraph (about Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti view) to refer to pseudoscience. Can a expert have a look at it and correct if necessary? [[Special:Contributions/2001:660:5301:17:FCD4:C219:374E:E481|2001:660:5301:17:FCD4:C219:374E:E481]] ([[User talk:2001:660:5301:17:FCD4:C219:374E:E481|talk]]) 07:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Add mention of Arrival (2016)? == |
||
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) |
|||
Hi! I believe that this article should include a few references to Eternalism as it is most commonly described in popular culture. A good place to begin would be this website http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29, which references the depiction of Eternalism by authors such as Kurt Vonnegut and Robert Heinlein. I intend to add an In Popular Culture section shortly, and appreciate any and all feedback! [[User:Atomic putty? Rien!|Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) ]] ([[User talk:Atomic putty? Rien!|talk]]) 15:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:26, 14 February 2024
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
“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)
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)