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
 
(45 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|1=
{{Philosophy|class=start|importance=low|metaphysics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Time|class=start}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Low |metaphysics=yes}}
{{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 ==
==Need for Theories?==
=== Greek ===
Okay from what I've read, the passage of time is the decay of a system from a lower entropy to a higher entropy state (since probabilistically higher entropy configurations are more likely). The 'movement' through the time dimension is movement of the elements (in whatever arbitrary direction) of the system that comprise this decay. Hence a system with absolutely no change can be equivalent to a system where no time passes. While a system which changes quickly, slowly, or somehow reverts back to a previous state (if the rules were reversed) can be equivalent to a system where time passes 'quickly','slowly',or goes in the opposite direction respectively.
* eternalism: (ο) αιωνισμός [masculine noun]
* block universe: Σύμπαν στατικού τετραδιάστατου χωροχρόνου


== Wikipedia has a mistake (in physics the difference is of core importance) ==
With regard to relativity, a distorted area of space will obviously affect the way particles/parts of a system move. Time appears to pass by differently for certain objects because from an observer's perspective they're looking at change occurring in a frame which is spatially distorted in regards to their own reference. The same principle applies to why time appears to pass differently depending on your location in a gravitational well. The twin who stays on earth find that his returning brother aged less because the change which occurred in the 'distorted' rocket counted for less than the equivalent change on earth once they share the same frame of reference. If time is change (ie action), should we still postulate a whole fourth dimension? [[User:Jarwulf|Jarwulf]] ([[User talk:Jarwulf|talk]]) 09:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
* 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).


== Origin of theory ==


Who first postulated this theory this theory? [[User:Cleverfellow|Cleverfellow]] ([[User talk:Cleverfellow|talk]]) 02:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
== All combinations of matter and energy ==
I think that eternalism/block time theory is explained in an incomplete manner. One could assume, just from the information in the article, that this theory suggests that there is a proper "course" of events.
:That is essentially the idea behind eternalism. There is only one course of events (strictly only one).


== “In Fiction” ==
I think it should be stressed or at least proposed that there are enough "blocks" to realize every single possible combination of matter and energy in the universe.
:It's not necessary. A universe could just be a set of events that are only a small fraction of possibile arrangements of events. And when you think about it there are an infinite number of arrangements anyway.


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.
:For example in a universe with only two events, EventA and EventB, there are infinite ways to arrange them throughout time: A, B, A, A, B, A, B, B, B etc.. (given a long enough time axis).


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?
The mere existence of these blocks would allow for the illusion of flowing time, multiple universes, and even the breakdown of "sensical physics" at subatomic levels. I should stress... that block time theory is more philosophy and a way of thinking rather than a scientific theory.
:I like to look at eternalism as a blooming scientific theory rather than straight out philosophy. For instance, it would be possible in theory to build a 3d block out of some material and encode a bunch of 2d 'animals' living within it (a static / non-moving block of course). You could then go on to argue the difference between the block and a normal 2d creature (say a highly advanced artificial intelligence creature on a screen). [[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] ([[User talk:LegendLength|talk]]) 23:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Either way, we possibly do not need what looks suspiciously like the old “in popular culture” section.
Anyways... if no one rewrites this article I will do so myself, and see if the results are approved by the community. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.130.134.134|72.130.134.134]] ([[User talk:72.130.134.134|talk]]) 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


[[Special:Contributions/90.242.137.43|90.242.137.43]] ([[User talk:90.242.137.43|talk]]) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
:Eternalism is a ''philosophical'' doctrine, not a scientific one. Some people believe it follows from relativity theory, but it has been around since the pre-Socratics (e.g. Parmenides). The "block" metaphor simply refers to the contention that all of time co-exists on a temporal manifold, and is not meant as a literal description of the shape of the universe or anything else. There cannot be multiple blocks under this theory, properly understood. [[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] ([[User talk:Postmodern Beatnik|talk]]) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


== Add mention of Arrival (2016)? ==
::I disagree. Eternalism is about describing the physical structure of space-time. People may have talked about the subject for many years but if it doesn't include the central idea of a static 4d block then there needs to be a clear distinction made between the subjects (in my opinion).


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)
::The block doesn't have to have flat sides but it is certainly not a metaphor, it is a fully physical theory. It may or may not be provable and if it does turn out to be 100% unprovable then I would be happy to call it a non-scientific theory / conjecture. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] ([[User talk:LegendLength|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LegendLength|contribs]]) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::Eternalism is about the ontology of the universe, not the physical structure of the universe ''per se''. The "block universe" refers to the Eternalists' contention that said ontology is static, with all times co-existing on a temporal manifold. I think we are saying similar things, but it is important to note that Eternalism/block universe is a philosophical issue that has both influenced and been influenced by modern science. (And by the way, philosophy is just as involved with provable theories as science.) [[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] ([[User talk:Postmodern Beatnik|talk]]) 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

==Confused physicist says:==
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.
<small><font color=gray> — [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan Derksen]] {{#if:16:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)| (16:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)</font></small><!--Template:Interrupted -->
: "Block time" isn't intended to capture any particular 4D geometry. You are reading too much into the word "block".[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] ([[User talk:Peterdjones|talk]]) 17:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
:: As distinct from "block universe"? which historically has been... though not exclusively.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 20:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

: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)

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:

Why is it ''now''? Rather than some other time?

: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.

: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.

: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)

----

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".

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.

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]]''

: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 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)

:No, it is not the case block time is the same as modelling time as a dimension or parameter. Prima facie a time parameter could represent a moving "now", as in Presentism. [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] ([[User talk:Peterdjones|talk]]) 17:49, 4 August 2012 (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

:::If subjects are unable to predict the future, they may be under an ignorance-based illusion of FW, but that can hardly be called "effective", since it cannot ''do'' anything.[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

::::Inability to predict the future is a necessary precondition for free will, no matter whether you belive it to be predetermined or not. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/84.187.5.196|84.187.5.196]] ([[User talk:84.187.5.196|talk]]) 04:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

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.

::All off the issues being discussed in this talk section are hotly debated in the professional literature at present. The Eternalism/Determinism debate has been going on at least since a 1968 article by Prior, and the injection of philosophy of time into the debate over Epicureanism in regards to death has been going on at least since Feldman joined the fray two decades ago and is currently part of the debate between Ben Bradley and his critics. When I do my overhaul of the Eternalism pages (see the talk page for [[Eternalism]] for details), I'll address the possible slanting of this article in favor of certain controversial theses over other (equally controversial) theses, as well.

[[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== Uncertainty Principle ==
''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

:::Well, I amended the text to point out that the UP is not an argument against the BU. (But note that the UP is not the same things as causal indeterminism).[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

what I meant by this is that if all of the past, present and future exist, then observing it should have no effect on the content... if block universe is like a film strip, my watching the film should not change the film...etc.
there would be some need to explain how an observer who is part of the film can watch and if there are multiple films, how he can change which one he is watching.

[[User:Jiohdi|Jiohdi]] 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:A BU can "imitate" causal laws, inasmuch a s there is a predictable pattern to the transition from one moment to the next. As such, it can "imitate" observer effect, since that is just another casual law. But note that Observer effect is not the same as the UP.[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:You are right that observing should have no effect if it all exists statically, but only for an external observer. Subjective observers are also part of the static structure, allowing the block universe to imitate quantum observer effect as IZ mentioned.

:This same concept can be seen (if you accept block universe theory) by considering that subjects within the block universe can seemingly affect their surroundings, by throwing a ball around for example. For an external observer they just see the static trajectory of the ball, but for someone within the universe it appears to be moving. [[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] 00:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

::to me that is the greatest flaw in the BU theory...you say to the observer it appears to be moving...what is moving? there is no explanation for anything to be moving at all...its a static 4-d block. an external observer would have to exist in a moving universe to watch anything moving in ours...we would have to be greater than 4-d beings as we notice movements...and something seems quite un-scientific about such a thought. --my read of einstein is that rather than time being a static 4-d block of events, there is really only a 3-d energy system moving in a 4th direction...hyperspacially, but only existing at one actual moment of reality, NOW. that each observer can argue over who's now is the real now is not relevant...but that from the god point of view, if you will, there is only one reality existing and it can be charted in a 4th direction as a steady evolving of changing relationships, but does not actually exist in all of the chart at the same hyper now.[[User:Jiohdi|Jiohdi]] 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Ummm... regardless of whether or not the objection goes through, it has been <I>argued</I> that UP and BU are in tension. That alone justifies the statement "it has been argued that (etc.)," don't you think? Anyway, there are bigger problems with this entry.

:::[[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:::To be fair Jiohdi, I was responding to your argument against quantum-like effects being able to exist within an eternalistic universe. I agree that the greatest flaw of it is to make the claim that our universe is actually static, which goes against our everyday perception of time and movement. But at the same time this is the core claim of eternalism. That is, it attempts to explain movement away by arguing that the universe is fully static.

::::which again is their biggest flaw as they provide no means of removing the necessity for motion[[User:Jiohdi|Jiohdi]] 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::I agreed it was a flaw. Eternalists do not argue that it is a water-tight, proven theory. It is still very much in development. For a more complete discussion of the claims Eternalism makes and how it tries to prove them I welcome you to join me in one of the more popular philosphy forums ( http://forums.philosophyforums.com/metaphysics-and-epistemology/ ), as I don't think this talk page is the right place for such a large discussion.[[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:::That core argument is the most important one to be fleshed out for Eternalism.[[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Maybe there is a tie in here with
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Proposed_solutions_to_the_arrow_paradox Zeno's arrow paradox, Uncertainty Principle]
[[User:24.68.170.164|24.68.170.164]] 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

--I think most here are missing the point. Vonnegut nailed it in ''Slaughterhouse-Five'': “The moment is structured that way.” The question raised is: “How did it get structured that way?” Moments include the HUP. As I note in my recent entry under “The physics part…,” the block universe cannot account for causality…''from within''.[[User:HistoryBuff14|HistoryBuff14]] ([[User talk:HistoryBuff14|talk]]) 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

==Summary of Changes==
*Moved [[Block time]] to [[Eternalism (philosophy of time)]].
*[[Block time]] redirects here, and I have fixed double redirects.
*Changed the words "block time" to "Eternalism" in the main article for consistency, with exceptions where appropriate.
*Added a sentence explaining the relation between the two terms to the introductory paragraph.
*Made some minor grammatical changes.

This article still needs some work, so I'm leaving the clean-up tag at the top. I'll probably get to it Monday if no one else does it by then.

[[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

==The "physics" part of this article is pure speculation==

When there are established theories such as relativity that deal with time why are all the references in the physics part of this article to speculative theories? I will go back through the history to see if this is a recent change. [[User:Geometer|Geometer]] 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:It's because this is a philosophy article. Scientists typically ignore the philosophical baggage that they unwittingly attach to their theories. That's where philosophers of science come in. [[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] 16:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

::I don't understand this whole article either - if "block time/eternalism" is a religious view, ok. But how relativity implies that future human actions are somehow "fixed" is beyond me. Einstein apparently referred to this concept upon the death of a friend (source: BBC Horizon 1999, "The Flow of Time"), so the article might benefit from a good explanation in his words. [[Special:Contributions/88.217.62.228|88.217.62.228]] ([[User talk:88.217.62.228|talk]]) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:::It's not a religious view, it's a ''philosophical'' theory. Relativity doesn't imply determinism, ''Eternalism'' does (according to some&mdash;this is a matter of debate, of course). Einstein was an Eternalist because Minkowski convinced him that was the best philosophical reaction to relativity. [[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] ([[User talk:Postmodern Beatnik|talk]]) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I think the problem is the subject is a philosophy that aims to be a scientific theory. This is in contrast to other types of philosophy which are rooted in purely non-scientific or metaphysical concepts. On top of that there is the whole history of Eternalism that did not have the luxury of 21st century science along-side it.

:::I don't know what is to become of the wiki article and I wish I had more time to discuss and edit the subject because I am very passionate about it. I can only suggest that it be split into two pages that describe the philosophical and scientific claims of the subject. But it still doesn't seem like the most elegant way of doing it.[[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] ([[User talk:LegendLength|talk]]) 13:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::::The Twins Paradox illustrates how the block universe fits with relativity. One twin stays at home while the other travels away and back, reaching the reunion point in less time than the twin who stayed put. As time has only one rate of travel, the moving twin arrives at the reunion point before the stay-at-home twin can do so, and yet they both appear to arrive there at the same time. This is only possible if the future of the stay-at-home twin already exists so that the travelling twin can meet up with it.

::::Alternatively, there could be a mechanism which controls the rate of the flow of time for different paths to allow the twins to arrive together at the reunion point such that there would be no need of the block universe interpretation, but it appears that this can only be done by introducing an external time dimension and a preferred frame. However, without such a mechanism, you are stuck with the fatal defect of a block universe which is that it can never be created in cause and effect order with a flow of construction from beginning to end. It can only be created as a complete block by magic (or God). This is where Einstein's theory appears to have a significant problem. [[User:Djvyd|Djvyd]] ([[User talk:Djvyd|talk]]) 06:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Good observation, but time, unlike the other dimensions, incorporates atrophy. Atrophy is at the basis of what we refer to as cause and effect (a glass of water can be broken into pieces, but the pieces can never become a whole, intact glass again). This is why a block universe can indeed incorporate all the events that are brought about by time (future developments). Of course, who put it there and for what purpose is a different question altogether and not one I presume to be able to answer. I can only say that this question would remain valid whether or not Eternalism is correct. [[User:Ron g|Ron g]] ([[User talk:Ron g|talk]]) 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::::That doesn't address the problem. If you try to simulate the creation of a block universe in a computer, all you can do is calculate everything up front and then produce the entire result at one go along with the assertion that it wasn't built up over time with a rolling construction front, even though such a construction front did exist during the calculation phase. During that calculation phase, which is effectively the real construction phase, the traveling twin reaches the reunion point before the stay-at-home twin gets there, even though they should arrive there simultaneously. This can only be avoided by having an external time to control the growth rates of different paths in order to ensure that things that are supposed to arrive at particular points in space and time actually do so. The only way a block universe can exist is if it is eternal to the point of never being created, and that also means that none of the causes in it ever really caused any of their effects: all the cause-and-effect relationships written through the block would have to be generated by magic. I've written a computer program to help teach relativity for an education project, but what my simulations actually show is that Einstein's theory doesn't work because the generation phase is simply impossible by his rules.[[User:Djvyd|Djvyd]] ([[User talk:Djvyd|talk]]) 06:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

::::: It would seem impossible if you imagine that time is external to the universe and therefore a block universe would have to be created all at once as if by magic. But this is an illusion: time is a dimension and the movement of time is an illusion brought about by our awareness (or you’d have to experience everything happening at once, which would make it somewhat hard to function for a living being). In other words, the calculation phase is inseparable from the production phase. This is why you can’t simulate it on a computer – you can only experience time one slice at a time, and so the simulation you create would always be missing a crucial element: because you are bound by the passage of time, you'd have to make an artificial distinction between the calculation phase and the production phase. This is like trying to fit a 3-D structure into a flat surface without destroying it. A block universe simply incorporates the laws of physics (including atrophy), to arrive at the shape it is in. If you think about it, from a standpoint of pure physics it does not matter whether this exists all at once or is broken down into smaller slices of time. Both are different views of the same thing. It depends on the observer. [[User:Ron g|Ron g]] ([[User talk:Ron g|talk]]) 14:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

::::If you don't have time flowing, you don't have real cause and effect relationships. Event 1 causes result 1; result 1 = event 2; event 2 causes result 2; result 2 = event 3; etc. Each event in the chain has to occur after the one before, and the only way to hide this flow of time is to make it instant such that the problem is hidden in an infinity. This isn't the place for an extended discussion so I'm not going to push the argument any further, but a block universe is static and cannot be generated in any rational way.[[User:Djvyd|Djvyd]] ([[User talk:Djvyd|talk]]) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::That is more of a statement than a reply, isn’t it? I agree with you though that this is not the place for an extended discussion of the subject. A lot has been written about this by people far smarter than me. Stephen Hawking’s books are a good place to start. [[User:Ron g|Ron g]] ([[User talk:Ron g|talk]]) 13:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

--I unfortunately just stumbled upon this ''Wikipedia'' article and its attendant discussion page recently; unfortunately, because I have been intensely interested in this subject for years now. I find the level of discourse here to be elevating and most illuminating.

I have written a philosophical proof of a creator that is based upon Einstein’s STR and eternalism. I agree that the implied block universe of relativity, as first discerned by Minkowski and eventually accepted by Einstein (albeit after a period of reluctance over what I suppose to have been philosophical grounds), raises interesting philosophical and physical questions and considerations. Please note that my proof is ''philosophical'' in nature and not religious. It only purports to prove, using logic based upon physics, the existence of a creator (of some kind) of our block universe and not God per se. The nature of the creator is beyond the scope of the paper.

Basically, the proof is derived from what I perceive to be the inability of the block universe to accommodate causality. Since causality obviously exists as attested to upon empirical grounds, then causality must have come from somewhere. I maintain that it had to have come ''from without''. I make many of the same points discussed in this section, particularly the train of thought put forward by Djvyd regarding an attempted computer simulation.

Please note that my proof contains one factual error that is, however, not integral to the points I make and does nothing to discredit them. I state that Einstein had been an atheist, a contention I derived from an indignant letter he had written to a Jesuit in response to the priest’s claim that he had converted Einstein to, if not Catholicism, at least theism. It appears as if I took the matter out of context, and I am now uncertain what Einstein’s ontological beliefs had actually been as there seems to be so much contradictory evidence on the point. Perhaps the term “agnostic” would be best used to describe him, at least in the common (and erroneous) understanding of the term.

Within my proof I offer what I believe to be a very interesting thought experiment concerning a scenario where characters within a novel could somehow achieve sentience and intelligence. In that hypothetical scenario, how would the characters interpret their universe? I believe much as we do in our block universe.

If anyone is interested due to its closely related subject matter, here is the link to my proof on my personal website:

http://wwwdnschneidercom.xbuild.com/#/miscellaneous-7/4526495432

Perhaps I flatter myself, but I don’t belief my proof can be refuted other than by rejecting the notion of the block universe and, in tandem, eternalism. Nevertheless, I have always prided myself on being educable. I would be only too glad to endure constructive criticism from what I perceive to be the erudite minds who have joined in the discourse here.Don Schneider[[User:HistoryBuff14|HistoryBuff14]] ([[User talk:HistoryBuff14|talk]]) 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

== "Builds on" v. "based on" ==

I have just reverted a recent edit by [[User:MichaelCPrice|MichaelCPrice]] regarding wording in the lead paragraph. The reason I find the old wording to be superior is that (a) Eternalism, as a metaphysical position, goes back to the ancient Greeks and is thus older than both modern physics and relativity theory (and, therefore, can't really be based on either of them) and (b) even in the context of relativity (which Eternalists suppose supports their position over Presentism), Eternalists go ''further'' than physicists and assert that four-dimensional models are ''literal'' and ''accurate'' representations of the world as it is. And while it is true that Minkowski held such philosophical beliefs (and eventually convinced Einstein as well) the two are, in principle, seperable. That is, space-time models could remain popular and useful scientific tools even if Eternalism is false, and Eternalism could be true even if no scientific theories made use of 4D models. So while the two have become strongly linked in recent times, they neither rise nor fall together. All this said, perhaps there is a still superior way of wording the opening sentence(s), but for now I maintain that "builds on" is superior to "based on." [[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
:No matter which came first the article needs to be clearer that this is an entirely mainstream physics concept.--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 05:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
::This article is about the ''philosophy'' of time. The notion that time can be modeled as a dimension is a mainstream physics concept, and one which Presentists (the main opponents of Eternalism) can agree with. The question, to put it briefly, is over how literally to take the model. This is a question of metaphysics. Yes, many scientists were convinced by Minkowski to take the model literally, but this is to unwittingly import philosophical baggage into a scientific theory (see Ned Markosian's ''A Defense of Presentism''). I admit that a great deal of science rests on unstated metaphysical premises, but Eternalism can be usefully and coherently separated from the essential idea of modeling time. Conflating philosophy with science in this article works against the encyclopedic purpose of clarification. -- [[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] ([[User talk:Postmodern Beatnik|talk]]) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

== ″Popular fiction section?" ==
I can think of a few books that seem to exemplify this belief. Kurt Vonnegut's [[Slaughterhouse Five]] and its alien creatures believe in a ≥ 3 dimmensional world, with time as one of those dimmensions. It seems to fit here. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/204.87.70.194|204.87.70.194]] ([[User talk:204.87.70.194|talk]]) 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:''Slaughterhouse Five'' is an excellent example of eternalism in pop culture, as is Alan Moore's ''The Watchmen''. I worry, though, that a popular fiction section here could become as bad as the situation over at [[Fatalism]]. But perhaps not. Eternalism is probably not nearly as common of a literary device as fatalism. [[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] ([[User talk:Postmodern Beatnik|talk]]) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

== humans flow thru time? ==

the argument about if time flows thru us, or if it is we that flow thru time kind seems to conflict with what the concept of "block time" seems to mean to me, it is like discussing whether a rolling ball on a flipbook animation flows thru the pages, or if the pages flow thru the ball, neither is true, the ball exists in all pages at the same time, neither the ball nor the pages are moving relative to each other... --[[User:TiagoTiago|TiagoTiago]] ([[User talk:TiagoTiago|talk]]) 23:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:The article talks about 'flow' and then shows why eternalism thinks the flow doesn't even exist. So there's no conflict between block theory and flow because the fundamental pillar of block theory is that there's no flow, just a large non-moving block with 4 dimensions.

:But your question still stands as to whether we flow through time or whether time flows through us (or neither as you point out). It is a interesting question but I would say probably out of the scope of the article. It might be best to link to an article about the flow of time (or conciousness if there isn't one). [[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] ([[User talk:LegendLength|talk]]) 06:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

::Are you sure? Why is it fundamental to Eternalism/Block Theory that there is no - or not in any sense - a flow? I always understood Eternalism just so, that the whole underlying "basis" (i.e. 4-d spacetime) is taken to be, well, eternal, and from the very beginning eternally laid out in its entirety. But that alone doesn't say anything concerning ''any one single'' "patch" of spacetime being '''phenomenologically''' realized, or actualized (for a '''conscious''' observer) at any moment of time whatsoever. What I mean by phenomenologically realized is nothing else than what we know by ''the present'', this '''now'''. Take the analogy of a movie tape! Let's say the whole of spacetime is a kind of movie tape. So indeed, it is all ''there''. The entire "movie" is already captured and at any time in existence, materialized, all the information making it up given -- but almost all the way ''static''. Now enter we, the conscious observers (still of only '''one''' present per one observer), witnessing this movie tape, which is being projected (like a film we're curiously part of ourselves) and because it naturally cannot be projected ''all at once''.. we're bound to watch it step by step. The exact part of the movie, we're always watching at one time, then simply is what we call the present, or ''now'', and it's also what provides us the illusion of a "time flow". When in fact, the tape is all there, has been there, always. What I'm just driving at is that Eternalism does not (necessarily?) entail, that there -- by this very moment -- is some (other) ''conscious me'' already '''experiencing''' the following hour. Or tomorrow. Or my future death. Sure, according to Eternalism, it ''is'' there, placed in spacetime, yet no conscious observer present, to actually experience it. Why not? Well, because as it seems I'm still here! At this part of the "movie". At no other.

::This would not be Presentism. As to my understanding, this ''is'' Eternalism, since Presentism of course denies the very existence of the "movie tape". Yet, when you take Eternalism to entail that there ''actually'' exist a countless number of '''conscious''' observers, scattered throughout spacetime, even of the selfsame respective persons, who keep experiencing any moment of time, again and again, then of course you'd run into all kinds of very tricky problems; just think about the question of personal identity. Which me then ''is'' me? That, which is ''currently'' experiencing yesterday noon? Or that of my, of ''this'' very present? Or is it all me?! Or, another question: Where, exactly, would be the "next (conscious) me"? I mean, "ahead" of me (in time) as well "behind"? In a "distance" of 2 seconds? Or a nanosecond? Or a Planck time?? All this seems by no means clear! At least I don't understand it. That's why I believe, it overcomplicates Eternalism on the one hand, and on the other it draws a scenario which Eternalism proper does not entail by necessity. [[User:Zero Thrust|Zero Thrust]] ([[User talk:Zero Thrust|talk]]) 16:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Which me then ''is'' me? That, which is ''currently'' experiencing yesterday noon? Or that of my, of ''this'' very present? Or is it all me?! Or, another question: Where, exactly, would be the "next (conscious) me"? I mean, "ahead" of me (in time) as well "behind"? In a "distance" of 2 seconds? Or a nanosecond? Or a Planck time??

:::There's a lot of good questions there but I think what you're really probing at is the central 'mechanism' of eternalism. That is, the reasoning that explains why we feel the flow of time. That mechanism still needs to hammered out and made more clear by supporters of the theory. Unfortunately it's a deep / tricky area and doesn't get much attention from philosophers.

:::I think I have a reasonable model in my own mind but it's not formal enough for my liking. To try and describe it in a paragraph:

:::Consider a 2 dimensional creature at a single point in time. Its mind contains memories from 1 second ago, 1 minute ago, hours ago etc.. Would you say the creature feels the flow of time at that very instant? Or does it require a length of time to 'feel' anything? If it does feel the flow then it would go a long way in explaining how time flow could exist within a block universe. If it requires a length of time (say 10 seconds) then you are claiming the creature feels the flow over those 10 seconds yet it never feels the flow at any instant within those 10 seconds.

:::That seems contradictory, at least on the surface, and perhaps points to an area of discussion that needs to take place between eternalists and presentists. [[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] ([[User talk:LegendLength|talk]]) 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ZT, your example would be something like the moving spotlight view, or the dynamic block universe. Perhaps it would not be necessarily right to say that time flows per say, but rather that our minds flow, through this block universe as you state, so it may be vaible concept for eternalism. But how this relates to the article is unclear at the moment, but I have not had any time to read it over. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.34.165.149|173.34.165.149]] ([[User talk:173.34.165.149|talk]]) 23:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Eternalism only restricted to B-series theorists? ==

Is it possible to reconcile Eternalism with an objective flow of time? I have heard that there are some people such as Quentin smith who reportedly adhere to Eternalism while at the same time the A-theory of time. Though I don't find Mctaggart's argument to be wholly convincing, it is not my main contention. Perhaps a mention should be made about the possible compatibility of the A-series and the theory of eternalism (at least in the fact that some people attempt to do so like Smith)? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.234.246.112|99.234.246.112]] ([[User talk:99.234.246.112|talk]]) 23:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Quentin Smith does favor the A-theory of time (see [http://www.qsmithwmu.com/phenomenology_of_a-time.htm here], especially the last sentence), but where are you getting the claim that he favors eternalism over presentism? [http://books.google.com/books?id=hgjiNFPhYZUC&lpg=PA8&dq=quentin%20smith%20eternalism&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q=quentin%20smith%20eternalism&f=false This book] seems to identify him as one who argues against eternalism, saying "For many years, eternalism seemed to be as philosophically secure as a position can be, but increasingly, presentists have developed new arguments and strategies. The most sustained defense of tenseless approaches to time may be found in Mellor 1981 and Mellor 1998, '''whereas the most sustained defense of tensed theory thus far is Smith 1993'''".

:But Quentin Smith aside, my googling did turn up some arguments in favor of your suggestion that some philosophers advocate both eternalism and the A-theory--see [http://www.nd.edu/~mrea/papers/Four%20Dimensionalism.pdf this paper], in the section 'Understanding the debate' on pp. 5-10. If anyone wants to take a stab at summarizing how the A-theory is different from presentism so that it might be possible to be both an A-theory advocate and an eternalist, perhaps using that paper as a reference, I think it'd be a good addition to the article. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 23:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

::I read the paper you referenced by Michael Rea (and thank you for a very informative and interesting link!). He does not appear to maintain that one may adhere to eternalism and the A-series of time. Rather, he is lumping eternalism and variations—with the most popular being the growing block theory—into what he refers to as “four-dimensionalism.” He seems to maintain that one may be an adherent of both four-dimensionalism and of the A-series in regard to the growing block theory and less popular variations of eternalism, but not of eternalism itself.[[User:HistoryBuff14|HistoryBuff14]] ([[User talk:HistoryBuff14|talk]]) 12:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the comment, I hadn't realized that Michael Rea was talking about the [[growing block universe]], an interesting variation which falls into the category of the "A-theory" but is non-presentist since it says the past is just as real as the present (and it's also non-eternalist, since it says the future is ''not'' real). So while the A-theory doesn't necessarily imply presentism, it seems as if the B-theory always implies eternalism. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

== Eternalism and Idealism ==

Although I wrote a philosophical proof of a creator based upon eternalism as implied by STR, I am not completely convinced of the theory. The reason is that I cannot comprehend how even an illusion of motion can be generated by a static material realty. My proof and Western scientific eternalism assumes a material paradigm. Therefore, I was wondering if the Eastern metaphysical view that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness (“Brahman”) rather than visa versa as in the Western scientific and religious view might be compatible with what we deduce as eternalism from the apparent validity of STR. Could such a paradigm account for an illusion of material eternalism?

My favorite Zen anecdote is: “Two Zen students were arguing about a flag blowing in the wind. One argued the flag was moving while the other the wind. The master happened along and settled the matter with: ‘Mind Moves’” [Mind = Brahman (consciousness) in Zen terms.]

By way of analogy, consider consciousness (in this view) to be as a Rubik’s cube constantly moving and changing its faces and resulting patterns (yet retaining its structural integrity as one.) From the vantage point of humans who only (except perhaps through mysticism) perceive the illusion of material realty would this seem to us to be compatible with material eternalism? Does anyone know of any works regarding this consideration?[[User:HistoryBuff14|HistoryBuff14]] ([[User talk:HistoryBuff14|talk]]) 19:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

:There may well be philosophers who argue this way, though I don't know much about the subject (the book [http://www.amazon.com/Time-Mind-History-Philosophical-Intellectual/dp/9004141529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343402400&sr=8-1&keywords=mooij+time+and+mind Time and Mind] might have relevant information, though it's an expensive academic book so you'd probably have to order it through an interlibrary loan). I know there are also some idealist philosophers who accept eternalism though, see [http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/mchenry.htm this article on Timothy Sprigge], particular the section towards the end with a paragraph that starts "For Sprigge, time is unreal." And the eternalism article also has a brief section on ideas in Buddhism that seem to suggest eternalism, see [[Eternalism (philosophy of time)#Relation to Eastern body of thought]]. Also see [http://books.google.com/books?id=y8jLZ2nPgkYC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false p. 68] of "What is Zen" by Alan Watts, about Dogen and Kumarajiva and the idea that "contrary to appearance, events in time are eternal, and that each event 'stays' in its own place.' [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 15:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

::Hypno, thanks much for your response. It’s most appreciated. I shall investigate your suggestions presently. I answered your last message on the conflict board, though perhaps not in an entirely satisfactory manner for you. I put it just after your last posting. Thanks again![[User:HistoryBuff14|HistoryBuff14]] ([[User talk:HistoryBuff14|talk]]) 23:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Also perhaps worth looking into on how Buddhism can contain at least some aspects of the B-theory is [http://web.archive.org/web/20101206055549/http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/dirck.htm this essay] about Dogen's philosophy of time, [http://books.google.com/books?id=83gsjo3WvaIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT56#v=onepage&q&f=false this page] of the book "Nonduality" by David Lowe which also discusses Dogen (and says his view is not the same as the totally static "block universe", though Lowe's explanation of an eternal present which is in continual flux seems more mystically paradoxical than rationally comprehensible), and [http://books.google.com/books?id=al_Wlh2mwWIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT125#v=onepage&q&f=false this page] of the book "Foundations of Buddhism" which says "One of the most intellectually creative explanations of these related sets of questions is expounded by the Sarvastivadins. Their theories are in the first place based on a radical understanding of the nature of time, the view that all three times—present, past, and future—exist (sarvasti-vada). According to this view, to say of dharmas that they are future or past is not to say that they do not exist; they exist, but they happen to exist in the past or the future, just as other dharmas happen, for a moment, to exist in the present. Time is thus conceived as a kind of dimension through which dharmas travel. Four different ways of understanding this are associated with the names of four Sarvastivadin theorists of the early centuries CE. From the perspective of modern philosophy Buddhadeva's suggestion that a dharma can be said to be 'present', relative to simultaneous dharmas, 'past' relative to dharmas that come after and 'future' relative to dharmas that come before—like a woman who is daughter and mother—is perhaps the most philosophically subtle." The reference after that comment about Buddhadeva is to the paper "Buddhadeva and Temporality" by Paul Williams which appears in the volume reviewed [http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/essays-on-time-in-buddhism-IHL432/ here]. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 07:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

::::Found two more sources relating to your question about consciousness and time. The first is "Time and Reality of Phenomenal Becoming" by Sergio Galvan which argues that our experience should lead us to favor the A-theory, you can read it on google books [http://books.google.com/books?id=fBdNzAtwsBMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false here] (it's fairly technical, involving a lot of logical notation). The second is "The Phenomenology of B-Time" by Clifford Williams which argues that are experience is consistent with the B theory, you can read the first two pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=-Wv59xyNDjsC&lpg=PA361&dq=%22b%20theory%22%20consciousness&pg=PA361#v=onepage&q=%22b%20theory%22%20consciousness&f=false here]. Also might be worth looking at the "metaphysics" section of [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/#7 The Experience and Perception of Time] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 22:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

:"[...] I cannot comprehend how even an illusion of motion can be generated by a static material realty."

:Is movement necessary for the illusion of movement though? I think that is the question everyone misses.

:For example does a person feel like there's movement during an instant of time? Or do they require a period of time. If you say they need a period of time then you are saying they feel nothing during each instant yet when all those instants are put together they do feel movement.

:Eternalism says the 'illusion' is there for an instant or a series of instants, it doesn't matter. The illusion is created purely by the person's memory at an instant. i.e. the person's memory contains a collection of images from the previous timeslices. So at any given time their brainstate is set up with the illusion fully in progress. [[User:LegendLength|LegendLength]] ([[User talk:LegendLength|talk]]) 04:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

== Debate over whether any philosophers define "block universe" to mean something different than "eternalism" ==
[comment summarizing debate as part of a [[Wikipedia:Request for comment|request for comment]] removed because Machine Elf has said I have misrepresented his position in the debate, so I want to try to get that cleared up first]<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hypnosifl|contribs]]) 16:56, 1 August 2012</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Correction, Hypnosifl keeps removing it despite my objections.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=505229962&oldid=505225728][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=505273434&oldid=505268368][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=505275946&oldid=505274490][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=505285815&oldid=505280606] I've had to restore it three times.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 17:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::The rationale for not removing your own comments at [[WP:REDACT]] is entirely about the possibility that others will have responded to it so their responses will no longer make sense; in the case of my newly-posted RfC summary, no one had responded at the time I removed it, so this issue doesn't apply (and the reason I removed it was because Machine Elf elsewhere called my characterization of his/her position a "misrepresentation", so I wanted to clear that up in case my RfC summary would be seen as a misrepresentation of Machine Elf's position too; if Machine Elf OKs my summary I'm happy to reinstate the RfC exactly as it was). In addition, [[WP:REDACT]] does say it's acceptable to replace a comment with a bracketed "placeholder", which is what I did above in response to Machine Elf's complaint about my removing it. I don't think there is any basis in the rules for saying I ''must'' leave up the original comment if Machine Elf demands it, even though Machine Elf had not responded to the comment at the time I took it down. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit suggesting that "block universe" was synonymous with "eternalism", MachineElf reverted it, so I changed it to reflect the language of the sources, saying that "Eternalism, defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, is also known as the "'''block universe'''" theory". Here are the sources I found, two of which use almost identical wording to describe the relation between the two ("also known as eternalism" and "also called eternalism"), and all of which giving the ''definition'' of both terms purely in terms of the ontology of different times:

:'The third and more popular theory is that there are no significant ontological differences among present, past, and future because the differences are merely subjective. This view is called “the block universe theory” or “eternalism.”' ([http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/ source])

:'Block universe theory: Metaphysical theory that implies all of the past, present, and future is real. The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block if space and time were to be finite in all directions. Also called "eternalism."' ([http://books.google.com/books?id=PPkwb6XsvOwC&pg=PA149 source])

:'It is commonly held that relativity favors the "block universe" view (known also as "eternalism"), according to which all events enjoy the same ontological status regardless of their location' ([http://books.google.com/books?id=Ov6zaiANlgsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA229#v=onepage&q&f=false source])

:'It does not help, either, that there is a tendency to conflate eternalism — the four-dimensional "block universe" view — with causal determinism.' ([http://books.google.com/books?id=yzZRAAAAYAAJ&q=eternalism+same+%22block+universe%22#search_anchor source])

MachineElf changed it back to "sometimes", apparently reflecting his view (elaborated at [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29.2C_Talk:Four-dimensionalism]]) that the meaning of the term "block universe" involves 20th century concepts like [[Minkowski diagram]]s from [[special relativity]], so that it would not be appropriate to refer to a pre-20th century philosopher as an advocate of the "block universe" even if they did hold the eternalist view that all times are equally real (none of the sources above seem to say that Minkowski diagrams are part of the ''definition'' of the block universe view, even if one says that the ''name'' "block universe" is inspired by Minkowski diagrams). He used as a source for the "sometimes" comment a [http://books.google.com/books?id=Uak1wtcXrjwC&pg=PT39#v=onepage&q&f=false quote] from Sean Carroll that simply described a view in which past, present and future all have the same status, and then said that this is "sometimes called the block time or block universe perspective". I didn't think this quote supported the idea that eternalism only "sometimes" means the same thing as "block universe"--since he hadn't actually introduced the term "eternalism" yet, I think Carroll probably used the phrase "sometimes called the block time..." because it is also "sometimes" known as eternalism (Carroll does introduce the term "eternalism" later in the book, but nowhere does he state that the meaning is different from block time/block universe). Anyway, and this led to a back-and-forth series of edits, leading to a discussion on the dispute resolution board at [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29.2C_Talk:Four-dimensionalism]] as well as a discussion on my talk page at [[User_talk:Hypnosifl#Edit_Warring]]. On the talk page and in one of my edit notes I had asked MachineElf to start a discussion on the eternalism talk page if he wished to keep reverting my "also known as" to "sometimes known as", since I thought it would be good to have the discussion in a place where others can weigh in; I still like that idea better than having a discussion on my personal talk page, so with MachineElf's permission I'm moving the discussion from there over to here:
{{cot}}
:I don't see how what I am doing constitutes edit warring, all but one of my edits have introduced changes beyond simple reversion, and I've responded to your comments in the edit notes, giving rationales. I would be happy to have a more detailed discussion on the talk page. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl#top|talk]]) 21:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
::No, you invariably insist on removing material in order to accommodate your newest additions. Your new additions aren't the problem, it's the cited material you insist on removing. Your edit summaries are misleading in regard to Carroll, whom you, ''yourself,'' originally added in support of the statement that eternalism ‘is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory’. Realizing that this implies it's not ''always'' referred to as such, you then claim your cite was "not good" because "it" merely referred to a "general idea of a lack of flow". "It" refers to a Kurt Vonnegut example, and Carroll does go on to specify eternalism.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 22:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
::Here's the full quote which indicates both that "Opinions differ, of course." and that "this lofty timeless Tralfamadorian perch" or "block universe" viewpoint he's been describing is known as "eternalism" ("which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real"):
{{quotation|In the philosophic literature, this is sometimes called the "block time" or "block universe" perspective, thinking of all space and time as a single existing block of spacetime. For our present purposes, the important point is that we ''can'' think about time in this way. Rather than carrying a picture in the back of our minds in which times is a substance that flows around us or through which we move, we can think of an ordered sequence of correlated events, together constituting the entire universe. Time is then something we reconstruct from the correlations in these events. "This ice cube melted over the course of ten minutes" is equivalent to "the clock reads ten minutes later when the ice cube has melted than it does when the ice cube is put into the glass." We're not committing ourselves to some dramatic conceptual stance to the effect that it's ''wrong'' to think of ourselves as embedded within time; it just turns out to be more ''useful,'' when we get around to asking why time and the universe are the way they are, to be able to step outside and view the whole ball of wax from the perspective of nowhen.
<br><br>
Opinions differ, of course. The struggle to understand time is a puzzle of long standing, and what is "real" and what is "useful" have been very much up for debate. One of the most influential thinkers on the nature of time was St. Augustine, the fifth-century North African theologian and Father of the Church. Augustine is perhaps best known for developing the doctrine of original sin, but he was interdisciplenary enough to occasionally turn his head to metaphysical issues. In Book XI of his ''Confessions,'' he discusses the nature of time.
<br><br>
:What is by now evident and clear is that neither future nor past exists, and it is inexact language to speak of three times--past, present, and future. Perhaps it would be exact to say: there are three times, a present of things past, a present of things present, a present of things to come. In the soul there are these three aspects of time, and I do not see them any where else. The present considering the past is memory, the present considering the present is immediate awaremess, the present considering the future is expectation.<br><br>
Augustine doesn't like this block-universe business. He is what is known as a "presentist," someone who thinks that only the present moment is real--the past and future are things that we here in hte present simply try to reconstruct, given the data and knowledge available to us. The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism," which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real.
<br><br>
Concerning the debate between eternalism and presentism, a typical physicist would say: "Who cares?" Perhaps surprisingly, physicists are not overly concerned with adjudicating which particular concepts are "real" or not. They care very much about how the real world works, but to them it's a matter of constructing comprehensive theoretical models and comparing them with empirical data. It's not the individual concepts characteristic of each model ("past," "future," "time") that matter; it's the structure as a whole. Indeed, it often turns out to be the case that one specific model can be described in two completely different ways, using an entirely different set of concepts.
<br><br>
So, as scientists, our goal is to construct a model of reality that successfully accounts for all of these different notions of time--time is measured by clocks, time is a coordinate on spacetime, and our subjective feeling that time flows. The first two are actually very well understood in terms of Einstein's theory of relativity, as we will cover in Part Two of the book. But the third remains a bit mysterious. The reason why I am belaboring the notion of standing outside of time to behold the entire universe as a single entity is because we need to distinguish the notion of time in and of itself from the perception of time as experienced from our parochial view within the present moment. The challenge before us is to reconcile these two perspectives.|Sean M. Carroll|From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time}}
—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 23:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
*[[User:Hypnosifl]] {{diff|Eternalism (philosophy of time)|prev|504325002|20:56, 26 July 2012}} {{small|{{gray|''(rv - Carroll does not use term "eternalism" in section quoted, if he does elsewhere please include in cite. No cite for claim that minkowski diagrams specifically inspire eternalism, I gave cite for idea that mathematics of relativity inspire it)''}}}}
Please don't give misleading edit summaries, you, ''yourself,'' have added two cites that specify Minkowski:
*{{cite book |first=Bradley |last=Dowden |year=2009 |title=The Metaphysics of Time: A Dialogue |series=New Dialogues in Philosophy |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9780742560314 |lccn=2009021319 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=PPkwb6XsvOwC&pg=PA149 |page=149 |quote=Block universe theory: Metaphysical theory that implies all of the past, present, and future is real. The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block if space and time were to be finite in all directions. Also called "eternalism."}}
*{{Citation | last1 = Peterson | first1 = Daniel | last2 = Silberstein | first2 = Michael | editor-last = Petkov | editor-first = Vesselin | contribution = Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of the Block Universe | year = 2009 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=t35AR6-F5QQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false | title = Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time | page = 208}}
—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 01:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Peterson and Silberstein flirt with anachronism. One might suspect it's intentional and tongue-in-cheek: Karl Popper having gone so far as to call Einstein "Parmenides", and there being no question that ancient Greek geometry stopped short at 3D solids. To whatever extent a treatment of Heraclitus and Parmenides is well–characterized as a presentist-eternalist debate, "block time" would seem, rather, to emphasize the 20th century novelties that have reinvigorated such debate. That doesn't require Heraclitus and Parmenides ''[[Talk:Four-dimensionalism#Elephant in the room - possible redundancy|to accept or reject]]'' Minkowski and Einstein...
{{quotation|As Ladyman et al. wisely note, the following are distinct but frequently conflated, deeply related questions in the metaphysics of time:
<br><br>
1. Are all events, past, present and future, real?<br>
2. Is there temporal passage or objective becoming?<br>
3. Does tensed language have tenseless truth conditions?<br>
4. Does time have a privilaged direction?<br><br>
This paper will focus almost exclusively on question (1). In the philosophy of time, this major question has captivated philosophers for decades now. This problem stems from two competing notions of time. The first, originally suggested by Heraclitus, is called presentism. Though we will later present the presentist position more clearly so that it can be made relevant to a more thorough and modern treatment of presentist/eternalist debate, a good starting defintion for presentism is the view that only the present is real; both the past and the future are unreal. This view is close to, but not the same as, possibilism, which states that the future is unreal while both the past and the present are real. Both of these stances claim to adequately capture the manifest human perception of time. We tend to view ourselves as occupying a unique temporal frame of that we call the present that always moves away from the past towards an uncertain future.
<br><br>
However, with the advent of relativity, a different stance, whose primary ancient proponent was Parmenides of Elea, provided a viable alternative to Heraclitean presentism. This new stance, eternalism, was translated into the language of relativity by Herman Minkowski in 1908 to suggest that time and space should be united in a single, four-dimensional manifold. Thus arose the notion of a 4D "block universe" (BU) in which the past, present, and future are all equally real. This view is called eternalism, and two arguments by Putnum and Rietdijk allegedly show that special relativity (SR) with its relativity of simultaneity (RoS) implies that only the BU perspective is correct.<ref name="Petkov2010">{{cite book |first=V. |last=Petkov |year=2010 |title=Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time |chapter=Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of the Block Universe |series=Fundamental Theories of Physics |publisher=Springer |isbn=9783642135378 |lccn=2010935080 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=t35AR6-F5QQC&pg=PA208 |page=208–210}}</ref>|Peterson and Silberstein|Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time|"Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of the Block Universe"}}
—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

:''Your edit summaries are misleading in regard to Carroll, whom you, yourself, originally added in support of the statement that eternalism ‘is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory’.''

:No, I added the Carroll reference simply because it was one of the few I could find that mentioned both the terms "block time" ''and'' the term "block universe" (most authors use one or the other, and it seems as if most professional philosophers use "block universe", so that term should probably appear first), and since he used the phrase "block time or block universe", I figured that was a good enough demonstration that ''those'' two terms are interchangeable (I have since found a cite in which the author defines "block time" to mean only the temporal dimension of the block universe, so I plan to edit the paragraph a bit to indicate that some authors use them interchangeably while some use block time in this more specific way).

:''Realizing that this implies it's not always referred to as such, you then claim your cite was "not good" because "it" merely referred to a "general idea of a lack of flow". "It" refers to a Kurt Vonnegut example, and Carroll does go on to specify eternalism.''

:No, I don't "realize" that. What he did was detail the ''idea'' of viewing all times as equally real without initially giving it a name (that's what I mean by "the general idea of a lack of flow"--in other words, I was just saying that he was giving a description of the idea rather than a particular term), and then he said that this view is "sometimes called the 'block time' or 'block universe'" perspective. I guess he uses the phrase "sometimes" precisely because the selfsame belief is also "sometimes" called eternalism! Of course I can't be sure that he uses "sometimes" for that reason, but the point is that there is nothing in Carroll's quote that clearly contradicts the idea that "eternalism" and "block universe" are understood by philosophers to refer to the selfsame philosophical theory, what he does ''not'' say is that "eternalism is sometimes known as block time". If your reason for being insistent on the "It [eternalism] is sometimes known as block time" edit has to do with your beliefs that at least some professional philosophers would assign the terms somewhat different meanings, you need to find a reference that clearly supports this belief--Carroll's does not, it is consistent with my interpretation.

:Thank you for providing the quote showing Carroll does use the word "eternalism", which is what I was asking for in my edit note when I said ''Carroll does not use term "eternalism" in section quoted, if he does elsewhere please include in cite.'' (I had not read the entire section of the book you quote, I was just referring to the fact that the word "eternalism" did not appear in the quote provided in the footnote). But the context in which he uses it again does not clearly indicate that he thinks the term has even a potentially different meaning from "block time"--he says ''The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism,"''. If he thought there was any potential difference in meaning between "eternalism" and "block time", why would he straightforwardly say "the viewpoint we've been describing"--which he previously referred to as "the block time or block universe perspective"--just ''is'' eternalism? Again I can't be sure that my interpretation of his meaning is correct, but nothing in this quote is a good cite for the idea that it is only ''sometimes'' correct to refer to eternalism as the "block universe" perspective, if that is what you are trying to suggest.

:Thanks for finding a cite that mentions Minkowski diagrams as an inspiration for the ''name'' "block universe"--it's true that it appears in a cite I had added, but I hadn't remembered that they mentioned Minkowski diagrams specifically (I was just googling for sources that equate eternalism with the block universe, that's really the only aspect of the sources I paid attention to). I think that this is distinct from saying the ''idea'' behind eternalism or the block universe was inspired by relativity, though--I provided a source, the Peterson/Silberstein paper, saying that Minkowski's mathematical treatment of relativity (along with the [[relativity of simultaneity]]) inspires many modern eternalists. (The mathematical treatment is distinct from his diagrams, which are just visualization aids and have no additional physical or mathematical content--it is Minkowski's mathematical treatment, detailed in a 1908 paper, which is being referred to in the Peterson/Silberstein paper when they say "This new stance, eternalism, was translated into the language of relativity by Herman Minkowski in 1908 to suggest that time and space should be united in a single, four-dimensional manifold.") Given this name vs. idea distinction, I think it would be best to first have the sentence mentioning the mathematical treatment and the relativity of simultaneity as a source of inspiration for modern eternalists, then add the idea of the name "block universe" being inspired by Minkowski diagrams in a parenthetical after then name "block universe" is introduced in the paragraph.

:If you don't object, I would like to copy and paste this discussion over to the talk page for eternalism, as I think it would be good to put it where more other editors of the article are likely to see it and perhaps weigh in themselves. If you prefer, you can copy and paste your part of the discussion to the talk page so it appears under your name in the edit log, then I can add my response...I'm going away this weekend but if you haven't done that by Monday, and haven't objected to moving the discussion to the talk page, I'll move the whole discussion over there when I get back. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl#top|talk]]) 12:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

::You might want to consider making finer distinctions between ''block time'' and ''block universe'' in the article body. The lede should introduce and summarize what's in the body. Carroll ''is'' a good cite, even if you selected it simply because it containd your search terms.
::I pointed that out, curious that you wouldn't realize it, and still won't... He introduced the concept with a popular example from fiction. He most certainly ''did'' name "this lofty timeless Tralfamadorian perch", sometimes called "block time" or "block universe", and in due course, he went on to say that he had been speaking about eternalism. It's [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] to claim there's nothing in Carroll 'that clearly contradicts the idea that "eternalism" and "block universe" are understood by '''[ALL]''' philosophers to refer to the selfsame philosophical theory'. But if 'sometimes' didn't make it clear enough, he belabors the point: 'Opinions differ, of course. The struggle to understand time is a puzzle of long standing, and what is "real" and what is "useful" have been very much up for debate.' Yes, he ''does'' say that eternalism is sometimes called "block time" or "block universe"... as opposed to Augustine's presentism: "The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism," which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real."
::The so-called '"It [eternalism] is sometimes known as block time" edit' was preexisting text and your ''bold'' subsequent edit has been challenged, see [[WP:BRD]]. It's a real pity you can't hold a discussion without making up some nonsense and claiming that's what I believe. I've asked you many times to stop putting words in my mouth. It's perfectly obvious that no philosopher who claims Parmenides for eternalism would seriously claim him for modern "block time" or "block universe". Again, it's merely [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] to repeat ''ad nauseum'' that you don't need a cite.
::Yes, Carroll would support the statement that "block time" or "block universe" is the modern evolution of classic eternalism. Both are eternalism, but ''obviously'', only the modern version is based on Minkowski and Einstein. What a surprise you [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]]LY arrive back at "nothing in this quote is a good cite for the idea that it is only sometimes correct"... You agree he's talking about eternalism, yet you deny ‘this is sometimes called the "block time" or "block universe" perspective’.
::Minkowski appears in ''two'' cites you added, and it's apparent you need to pay more attention to your sources. Peterson/Silberstein don't say "the ''idea'' behind eternalism or the block universe was inspired by relativity", and they don't say "that Minkowski's mathematical treatment of relativity (along with the relativity of simultaneity) inspires many modern eternalists". They say the ''idea'' goes back to Parmenides and that Minkowski suggests "time and space should be united in a single, four-dimensional manifold". That's consistent with Dowden: "The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block..." Not surprisingly, you prefer your own [[WP:OR]], while arguing that the sources, to whom you admittedly pay little attention, somehow support what ''you'' are saying.
::I can't stop you from posting it to yet a ''fourth'' venue... thanks for shopping.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 19:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
{{cob}}
:::''I pointed that out, curious that you wouldn't realize it, and still won't... He introduced the concept with a popular example from fiction. He most certainly ''did'' name "this lofty timeless Tralfamadorian perch", sometimes called "block time" or "block universe", and in due course, he went on to say that he had been speaking about eternalism. It's [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] to claim there's nothing in Carroll 'that clearly contradicts the idea that "eternalism" and "block universe" are understood by '''[ALL]''' philosophers to refer to the selfsame philosophical theory'.''

:::Why do you think it's tendentious? Do you think my reading, where he only said "sometimes called the block time or block universe perspective" because it is also "sometimes" known as eternalism, is wildly implausible? I don't say that this is definitely his meaning, I simply point out that this is a reading that's perfectly consistent with what he writes, so if you want to introduce the idea that there is "sometimes" a difference in meaning between the two terms, then you need to find a reliable source that actually states that explicitly.

<small><font color=gray> — [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] {{#if:21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)| (21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)</font></small><!--Template:Interrupted -->
::::Carroll does not ‘also’ say ‘"sometimes" known as eternalism’, he says ‘The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism..."’.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::I'm not suggesting he has any hard-and-fast rule about when to use "sometimes". The basic question I thought we were disputing is whether anything in Carroll's wording suggests he thinks there is a difference in meaning between "eternalism" and "block time". Pick two terms we can both agree have exactly the same meaning, like "The Moon" and "Luna". If describe the moon without naming it and say "this body is sometimes known as Luna" (analogous to Carroll describing the Tralfamadorian perspective and saying it's "sometimes known as" the block time/block universe perspective), then continue describing it and eventually say "the body we have been describing is, of course, called The Moon" (analogous to Carroll's statement about eternalism), this inconsistent use of "sometimes" would be understood as just an idiosyncracy of everyday speech, and not an indication that Luna is only "sometimes" defined to mean the same thing as The Moon. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::[[WP:OR]] Carroll says nothing about "The Moon" and "Luna"... it has nothing to do with the dispute. He says eternalism is sometimes called the "block universe" or "block time" perspective. Deal with it.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::This isn't [[WP:OR]] since I'm not trying to insert this analogy into the article, I'm just using it to explain to you and other readers why, #1, there is nothing about Carroll's comments that clearly suggests he believes there is a difference in meaning between the two terms, and #2, why his statements cannot be treated as exactly equivalent to "eternalism is sometimes called block universe/block time", just as in the analogy the person didn't say "The Moon is sometimes called Luna". Of course, we can imagine someone saying "The Moon is sometimes called Luna" or "eternalism is sometimes called the block universe/block time" without actually meaning to suggest any difference in meaning between the terms, but it's still my understanding that your reason for being insistent about replacing "also known as" with "sometimes known as" in the eternalism/block time case is because you ''do'' want to suggest that Carroll may have been indicating the terms are not always interchangeable. If Carroll had said "eternalism is sometimes called the block universe/block time", that might have supported a suggestion of non-equivalence a little more strongly than his actual words, which is why I object to your using Carroll as a reference for a different wording than he actually used. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::''It's a real pity you can't hold a discussion without making up some nonsense and claiming that's what I believe.''

:::Have I done so? If so, please state specifically what belief I have attributed to you that is incorrect.

<small><font color=gray> — [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] {{#if:21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)| (21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)</font></small><!--Template:Interrupted -->
::::You say: ‘If your reason for being insistent on the "It [eternalism] is sometimes known as block time" edit has to do with your beliefs that at least some professional philosophers would assign the terms somewhat different meanings, you need to find a reference that clearly supports this belief--Carroll's does not, it is consistent with my interpretation.’ And doing a complete 180°, you claim: ‘But the context in which he uses it again does not clearly indicate that he thinks the term has even a potentially different meaning from "block time"... Again I can't be sure that my interpretation of his meaning is correct, but nothing in this quote is a good cite for the idea that it is only ''sometimes'' correct to refer to eternalism as the "block universe" perspective, if that is what you are trying to suggest.’ [[WP:IDHT]] ‘In the philosophic literature, this [eternalism] is '''''<span style="color:magenta;">sometimes</span>''''' called the "block time" or "block universe" perspective...’ emphasis added. ''And see below...''—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::How is that a "complete 180°"? Perhaps you are misreading me somehow, in ''both'' cases I am saying that Carroll's quote gives no indication he thinks eternalism has a different meaning than "block universe". Also, you offer quotes of mine, but you don't give a direct answer to the question of "what belief I have attributed to you that is incorrect". Is it incorrect of me to say that you think the meaning of "eternalism" is sometimes taken to be ''different'' from the meaning of "block universe", so that it might be inaccurate to refer to a pre-20th century philosopher as an advocate of the "block universe" but correct to refer to them as an "eternalist"? If I am incorrect in attributing that belief to you, please say so clearly. If I am not incorrect about that, then what aspect of your beliefs am I incorrect about, if any? [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::Not a "complete 180°"? Pure nonsense then? You didn't even know he had referred to eternalism... Figured that out all by yourself did you?—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Not a 180° because I never said he ''didn't'' use eternalism anywhere in the book, I just said he didn't use it in the referenced quote you had put in the cite for the "eternalism is sometimes known as" edit, and in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29&diff=504325002&oldid=504322233 this edit note] I requested that if you wanted to use him as a cite for a claim about eternalism, you should point out in the cite what section you were referring to (and when you did, I said "Thank you for providing the quote showing Carroll does use the word 'eternalism', which is what I was asking for in my edit note"). As I said above, although I agree he would use both "eternalism" and "block universe" to describe the Tralfamadorian perspective he discusses initially, if he had actually written "eternalism is sometimes known as the block time/block universe perspective" it might suggest to readers that there is more ambiguity about the question of whether the terms are equivalent than what he actually did---namely describing the Tralfamadorian perspective, saying this is "sometimes known as" the block time/block universe perspective, and then a few paragraphs later saying "The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as 'eternalism'". Since I understand the heart of our dispute as this question of equivalence, I'm not cool with your recasting Carroll's words into a form that might suggest ambiguity about equivalence more strongly than his actual words (in a different context I might be OK with this reshuffling of his words). [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::''It's perfectly obvious that no philosopher who claims Parmenides for eternalism would seriously claim him for modern "block time" or "block universe".''

:::Why is that obvious? If the ''definition'' of block universe has absolutely nothing to do with relativity or Minkowski diagrams as I have been saying (and as verified by sources I provided), then it's irrelevant if the ''name'' was inspired by such 20th century concepts, it would still be perfectly appropriate to say something like "Parmenides was an early advocate of what is now called the block universe perspective". There are many technical terms whose ''names'' contain allusions to things that are not part of their ''definitions'' (latin names for animal species may contain the name of the biologist who discovered them or their contemporaries, for example, but that wouldn't prevent anyone from using the same latin name in a discussion of how some person living in an earlier time had spotted the same animal). If you can find a source written by a philosopher that clearly says that concepts such as Minkowski diagrams are part of the ''definition'' of block time I would have no problem with an edit saying that some philophers define "block universe" solely in terms of all times being equally real, while others define it in terms of Minkowski diagrams or whatnot.

<small><font color=gray> — [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] {{#if:21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)| (21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)</font></small><!--Template:Interrupted -->
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=504497040&oldid=504494669 I've explained the anachronism more than once], it is obvious because no philosopher who traces eternalism back to [[Parmenides]] would ''seriously'' claim Minkowski "block universe/block time" originated in the 5th century BC... Ancient Greek geometry stops short at 3D solids, for example... ''See next...''—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::And as I've explained more than once, ''I don't think the definition of "block universe" has anything whatsoever to do with Minkowski'', so although I would agree that no one would claim Minkowski spacetime originated in the 5th century BC, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the philosophical view currently denoted by the term "block universe" originated in the 5th century BC, assuming it's also reasonable to say that "eternalism" originated then (actually, I think most philosophers would avoid saying Parmenides was an "eternalist", since although he denied that things come into existence it's not clear whether he was saying "the different states of the world at different times are equally real" or "the idea of the world having different states at different times is an illusion", but that's a separate issue irrelevant to this debate). [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Who cares if you think the definition of "block universe" has nothing whatsoever to do with Minkowski? Personally, I think you're right about Parmenides, but I'm not an [[WP:RS]] either...—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::If you aren't saying the definition of block universe has anything to do with Minkowski, then your argument above, "it is obvious because no philosopher who traces eternalism back to [[Parmenides]] would ''seriously'' claim Minkowski 'block universe/block time' originated in the 5th century BC", doesn't make any sense to me. A philosopher who traces eternalism back to Parmenides might well claim the "block universe/block time" view originated in the 5th century BC, the fact that ''Minkowski's'' ideas didn't exist back then would be wholly irrelevant to this if the definitions of block universe/block time have nothing to do with Minkowski or other relativistic ideas. So if the definition of block universe/block time has nothing to do with Minkowski, then there is no "anachronism" in attributing a "block universe" perspective to Parmenides, as Popper did for example. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::''You'' are ‘saying the definition of block universe has [nothing] to do with Minkowski’, not me.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 17:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, but you said "who cares if you think the definition of 'block universe' has nothing whatsoever to do with Minkowski?" by which I thought you meant you didn't see the relevance of my view to the issue of "anachronism". If you understand that ''I'' believe that "block universe" is not defined in terms of Minkowski, then you should also be able to easily understand why your argument about "anachronism" wouldn't be convincing to me, since your argument ''presupposes'' that calling Parmenides a "block universe" advocate is equivalent to saying he had anticipated Minkowski's notions about spacetime. As such, when I said ''Why is that obvious? If the ''definition'' of block universe has absolutely nothing to do with relativity or Minkowski diagrams as I have been saying (and as verified by sources I provided), then it's irrelevant if the ''name'' was inspired by such 20th century concepts'', a less confusing response would have been to say something like "yes, it is only obvious if you accept that "block universe" is defined in terms of these concepts, as I strongly believe it is" rather than just saying "I've explained the anachronism more than once" and repeating it as if I was stupid and not getting something, when I had just shown pretty clearly that I understood the argument perfectly well but disagreed with one of its essential premises. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 18:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::''You agree he's talking about eternalism, yet you deny ‘this is sometimes called the "block time" or "block universe" perspective’.''

:::No, I just deny your reading that "sometimes" indicates that the two terms only "sometimes" have the same meaning, while "sometimes" they have different meanings (is this not your reason for continually reverting my "also known as" to "sometimes known as"? If not, please explain why you object so strenuously to my "eternalism ... is also known as the block universe", which directly reflects the language of two of the sources I added) He describes a view which I think can be named with two completely equivalent terms, "block universe" and "eternalism". Since both terms are used, it is correct to say the view he describes is "sometimes" known as the block universe perspective, and "sometimes" known as eternalism.

<small><font color=gray> — [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] {{#if:21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)| (21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)</font></small><!--Template:Interrupted -->
::::I'm not the only user who objects to your attempt to equate eternalism and "block universe" in an unqualified sense. Carroll does ''not'' say ‘the view he describes is "sometimes" known as the block universe perspective, and "sometimes" known as eternalism’. He says he's been describing ''eternalism'', which is sometimes called "block time" or the "block universe" perspective. You're being [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]].—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::Do you deny that two of the sources I quoted say the block universe is "also known as" eternalism, with the terms both included in the same sentence? Why are you insistent on replacing my "also known as" version with "sometimes known as", is it not because of a belief that "block universe" sometimes means something ''different'' from "eternalism"? (and why is your consistent reversion of my "also known as" edit ''not'' tendentious?) Carroll's words don't clearly suggest anything of that sort, they appear consistent with the possibility that he would regard the terms as having the same meaning, as with my Moon/Luna analogy. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Still misrepresenting what I "deny"... see below. I'm not the only user who had a problem with changing "sometimes called" to "also known as". It's [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] to claim "Carroll's words don't clearly suggest anything of the sort..." absent any mention of Moon/Luna, etc. etc. etc.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 14:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::It's "tendentious" to say that Carroll's words don't suggest he thinks "'block universe' sometimes means something different from 'eternalism'"? Even though he never points to any difference whatsoever between the terms? Or are you referring to something different when you called my statement "tendentious"? [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::''Minkowski appears in ''two'' cites you added, and it's apparent you need to pay more attention to your sources.''

:::I included Peterson/Silberstein specifically for the Minkowski reference (to show that Minkowski's mathematical treatment of space and time and a single four-dimensional manifold is an inspiration for some modern eternalists, perhaps somewhat distinct from the relativity of simultaneity issue), but nowhere do they suggest that the basic definition of "block universe" as understood by philosophers involves anything more than the idea of all times being equally real, or that there is any difference in meaning between the terms--see the sentence ''Thus arose the notion of a 4D “blockworld” (BW) in which the past, present, and future are all equally real. This view is called eternalism...'' As for Dowden, he gives a succinct definition of "block time" in the first sentence, then goes on to talk about where the name derives from: ''Block universe theory: Metaphysical theory that implies all of the past, present, and future is real. The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block if space and time were to be finite in all directions. Also called "eternalism."'' Do you really think the second sentence is meant to be part of the definition, even though he specifically says he's talking about the derivation of the name? When he says a Minkowski diagram ''would'' represent spacetime as a block ''if'' space and time were finite, for instance, it's pretty obvious that this hypothetical assumption is just to make things easier to visualize, actual [[Minkowski spacetime]] in special relativity is usually assumed to be infinite in spatial and temporal extent. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 14:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

<small><font color=gray> — [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] {{#if:21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)| (21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)</font></small><!--Template:Interrupted -->
:::::Again, you're arguing against claims I don't make... For whatever reason, you [[WP:DONTLIKE]] Dowden's second sentence, which you seem to be arguing against based on pseudo-etymological [[WP:OR]], because you were ‘just googling for sources that equate eternalism with the block universe, that's really the only aspect of the sources [you] paid attention to’. And yet, [[splitting hairs]], you [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]]LY misrepresent the dispute: ‘If you can find a source written by a philosopher that clearly says that concepts such as Minkowski diagrams are part of the ''definition'' of block time I would have no problem with an edit saying that some philophers define "block universe" solely in terms of all times being equally real, while others define it in terms of Minkowski diagrams or whatnot’.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::Why do you think I "don't like" Dowden's second sentence? I like it just fine, I just don't think it has anything to do with how he ''defines'' the term "block universe". It's not OR to read that sentence as not being part of the definition, any more than it's OR to say that it ''is'' part of the definition--he doesn't clearly specify "this is part of the definition" or "this isn't part of the definition" (although I would say he comes close to the latter in saying "The name derives from the fact..."). And if you think I am "misrepresenting the dispute", again I think it's reasonable to ask that you politely specify what specifically I am misunderstanding, and what specifically are your reasons for insisting on repeatedly reverting my "also known as" version which directly reflects the wording of the sources. As it says on [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]], "Do not ignore reasonable questions." [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Albeit a freak coincidence that it just so happens to appear in his glossary immediately following the sentence you call his "definition"? How is it not [[WP:OR]] to exclude part of the paragraph? How is not a straw man to claim the part you like best is the "definition" because ‘he doesn't clearly specify "this is part of the definition" or "this isn't part of the definition"...’ In fact, he doesn't say anything about a "definition" does he? "The name derives from the fact..." '''is not even remotely similar to''' "this isn't part of the definition". I'm being only too polite, too indulgent, of this non-stop [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] nonsense. Yes, you invariably misrepresent the issue: you want to change the sourced statement "sometimes called" for the more ambiguous "also known as". No one disagrees eternalism is "also known as"... and apparently no one except you disagrees that it's "sometimes called". It was far less disingenuous when you owned up to your [[WP:OR]] outright: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four-dimensionalism&diff=prev&oldid=504202037 ‘I suppose as long as you don't plan to edit the statements in the opening paragraph of Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) saying that eternalism is synonymous with the 4D block universe view, then your opinion on this issue doesn't have any further relevance to editing, so in that case I'm happy to drop it.’]—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::I didn't "exclude" anything, I included the full quote in the citation. I just don't draw the conclusions that you seem to do. And I asked if I had misrepresented ''your'' position or your reasons for wanting to replace "also known as" with "sometimes known as", it's changing the subject now to start talking about how I am "misrepresenting" what the references say. If you think I am misrepresenting ''your'' positions/views/reasons for reverting "also known as", as you have accused me of doing in several comments ("It's a real pity you can't hold a discussion without making up some nonsense and claiming that's what I believe", "Still misrepresenting what I 'deny'...", and "Again, you're arguing against claims I don't make..."), then please explain precisely what this misrepresentation consists of. Along these lines, please look over my original attempt at a synopsis of the debate for the [[Wikipedia:Request for comment]], which I deleted after the accusations I was misrepresenting you, and tell me if you think the synopsis misrepresents your position, and if so how: ''Summary of [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|comment request]]: Question about the metaphysical view known as [[eternalism|Eternalism (philosophy of time)]], namely, whether the given sources justify the statement "Eternalism, defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, is also known as the "'''block universe'''" theory", or whether this should be changed to a weaker statement that eternalism is only "sometimes known as" the block universe theory, because of the possibility that some philosophers define the meaning of the term "eternalism" differently from the meaning of the term "block universe".''

::::::::''In fact, he doesn't say anything about a "definition" does he?''

::::::::No, but the quote is from a [[glossary]], so I think it's obvious from the context that at least some part of the words after "block universe" are going to be an attempt to define the term. However, there is nothing unusual about including some additional information beyond the definition in a glossary entry, and "The name derives from the fact..." certainly suggests he has transitioned into talking about the eymology of the term rather than the definition. There is also the additional argument I made above for not considering the second sentence to be part of the definition, which you didn't respond to: he says "The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block if space and time were to be finite in all directions", but although Minkowski diagrams do show chunks of spacetime of finite spatial and temporal extend as a diagrammatic convention, ''the actual theory of special relativity normally assumes that the space and time dimensions are infinite''. So, it would be very strange indeed if space and time being finite in all directions was part of the ''definition'' of a "block universe", in spite of the fact that this finiteness is purely a convention of the diagrams and not part of the underlying physical theory. Do you in fact think Dowden intended it to be part of his definition of "block universe" that space and time are "finite in all directions"?

::::::::In any case, although I present these arguments to you and any other patient readers here on the talk page, they aren't really relevant to the question of whether Dowden counts as a good cite for my "also known as" edit; ''regardless'' of which part of the glossary entry is or isn't part of the definition of "block universe", at the end he writes "Also called 'eternalism'", which is all that's needed for it to be a good cite for the "also known as". You might make the argument that if Minkowski ''is'' part of the definition of block time, and if some modern philosophers ''do'' refer to pre-Minkowski philosophers as "eternalists", then those same modern philosophers could not also refer the pre-Minkowski philosophers as advocates of the "block universe", suggesting a difference in meaning between the two terms. But if you did make this argument, it would be an original synthesis of sources (Dowden's definition, and some other philosopher's calling a pre-Minkowski philosopher an "eternalist"), so not a good reason to edit the article without a single source explicitly saying that there are some ancient philosophers who could be called "eternalists" but who could not be called advocates of the "block universe" view. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Just because you say it ''ad nauseum'', doesn't make it so.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::Which part of my comments does "say it" refer to? I would like you to actually explain which points you disagree with, rather than just tell me I'm wrong about everything. For example, do you agree that the spacetime of SR is generally assumed to be infinite in all directions, and that when Dowden referred to time and space being a finite "block" he was just referring to a diagrammatic convention? If you agree with that, then do you agree that this fact makes it seem less likely that Dowden's comments about space and time being finite were meant to be part of the ''definition'' of "block universe"? Do you agree that neither Dowden nor any of the other sources points to any specific difference in the meaning of "block universe" and "eternalism"? If you disagree with any of these, can you explain your reasons? [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Oh, and I want to respond to this as well:

::::::::''Yes, you invariably misrepresent the issue: you want to change the sourced statement "sometimes called" for the more ambiguous "also known as". No one disagrees eternalism is "also known as"... and apparently no one except you disagrees that it's "sometimes called".''

::::::::This still does not explain a sense in which I have misrepresented ''your'' views specifically. If you don't disagree it's "also known as", ''then why are you making a huge deal of preventing my attempts to edit it to read that way?'' Of course my ''reason'' for wanting to make that edit has to do with my understanding of the meaning of the quoted statements--I think any reasonable parsing of a statement by a professional philosopher like 'This view is called “the block universe theory” or “eternalism"' is going to conclude that he means that both formal terms refer to exactly the same "view", and thus the two terms have the same technical meaning in philosophy. But I tried to accommodate your quibble with my statement that the terms are regarded as "synonymous" by not explicitly stating this in my later edits, instead just using "Eternalism ... also known as ... block universe" because A) near-identical wording was used by two of the cites, and B) I figured this would be more likely to suggest to readers that the terms could be synonymous (they could then look at the exact wording of the sources if they were wondering about it, and draw their own conclusions), whereas "sometimes called" is likely to suggest a more ambiguous relationship between the terms. And I took your resistance to this edit to have something to do with ''your'' belief that the terms don't always have the same meaning (as indicated by your specific argument that it might be reasonable to call some ancient philosophers "eternalists" but it would be anachronistic to call them advocates of the "block universe"). Is this misrepresenting your reasons for resisting my "also known as" edit, and if so how? Also, if it's a misrepresentation of your reasons, then what ''is'' your reason for resisting it so strongly? [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 18:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::*[[User:Machine Elf 1735]] {{diff|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard|504353121|504352773|01:02, 27 July 2012}} {{small|{{gray|''(→‎Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism discussion: there is no other dispute...)''}}}}
::::::::*[[User:HistoryBuff14 (page does not exist)]] {{diff|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard|504431543|504428249|14:11, 27 July 2012}} {{small|“Therefore, the concepts of the block universe and eternalism are certainly not synonymous in form anymore than an American is synonymous with America.”}}
::::::::Same old saw, it's not about me.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 19:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Since the dispute is between us, I think it is important that we at least have a good understanding of each other's respective positions and reasons for continuing the dispute, even if we continue to disagree about them. So I think it's pretty reasonable to ask you to specify what specific claims you are referring to when you say I misrepresent you--as I keep pointing out in various places, [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]] does list as a basic principle "Do not ignore reasonable questions."

:::::::::And sure, HistoryBuff14 doesn't think "eternalism" and "block universe" are synonymous, but one other person isn't a consensus, and from our discussion it seems HistoryBuff14 was going on imprecise memories and didn't have a reliable source handy for the claim that they differ in meaning. Also, HistoryBuff14 didn't comment on whether he/she disagreed with me that the sources I provided indicated by their words that they treated the terms as interchangeable, or whether he/she agreed about that but just thought those sources were incorrect. I'd be happy to discuss these issues further with HistoryBuff14 here on the talk page, if desired. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 19:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Also, until the dispute resolution is finished (or until others have weighed in here and some sort of consensus is formed), I think it would be better to revert the opening paragraph to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&oldid=502195221 earlier version] before this series of back-and-forth edits (BTW, sorry about reverting the additional material you added on Popper in my most recent edit on Friday, I didn't realize you had edited a later section as well as the opening paragraph). Would this be acceptable as a temporary solution? [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
<s><small><font color=gray> — [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] {{#if:21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)| (21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)</font></small><!--Template:Interrupted --></s>

:::::3 reverts in 6 hours demonstrate the question as to the acceptability of your "temporary solution", was purely rhetorical.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::The first change was not a "revert" but just implementing the suggestion about the lede after over 22 hours had passed since I had suggested it on the talk page. The second was done after you had said ''I don't have a problem with rolling back the lede to the point just prior to your first edit if there's a consensus for it", which I thought constituted agreement to that part even if you wanted to revert my other changes to other parts of the article. The third was again based on my assumption that your reason for reverting my changes had to do with the changes I had made to other parts of the article, not to "rolling back the lede" which I thought you had agreed to (and you didn't mention a problem with the lede specifically in either of your edit notes). You often seem to assume the worst about my motives--please, [[Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith|assume good faith]]. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::Please do not <s>implement your POV</s> (see below) while dispute resolution is pending and please do not conflate unrelated edits with those efforts.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 23:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::Actually, I don't have a problem with rolling back the lede to the point just prior to your first edit if there's a consensus for it, but the cites you've added do argue strongly against your POV so I'm not surprised you're amenable to having all your efforts undone. However, please don't take the opportunity edit unrelated areas as it [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29&diff=505174398&oldid=502195221 confuses the issue considerably].—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 23:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::My proposal to roll back the lede was obviously meant as a compromise to avoid continued back-and-forth reversions until the dispute is resolved and some consensus is formed. I continue to think the sources I added clearly indicate the authors treat "eternalism" and "block universe" as having the same meaning, and I think it would be helpful if you would continue the discussion by responding to my last extended response above (particularly the question of whether you understand the distinction between the origin of the ''name'' block time and its understood ''meaning'' for philosophers), but if you don't want to do that I suppose we'll just have to wait for others to weigh in. I don't see a problem with editing unrelated sections if the edits have nothing to do with the definitions of eternalism vs. block universe (the subject of our dispute), the changes to other sections (changes shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29&diff=505177889&oldid=505143723 here]) were just adding some historical information about pre-McTaggart views that are sometimes argued to anticipate the idea of all times having the same ontological status (though they are all somewhat ambiguous on this score), along with information on how different philosophers disagree about whether relativity clearly rules out presentism. As I pointed out in an edit note, you also made a significant edit that wasn't directly related to our dispute, namely the addition of the Popper quote about Einstein--I didn't have a problem with that, I don't see why you should have a problem with these edits of mine. All my additional edits are supported by references, please don't revert them reflexively but rather explain what specifically you think is incorrect, controversial, or not adequately supported by the references. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 23:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I'll repeat myself: "I don't have a problem with rolling back the lede to the point just prior to your first edit if there's a consensus for it". The sources you added argue strongly against your position, as I've indicated. [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29.2C_Talk:Four-dimensionalism Dispute resolution]] is currently on-hold, so ''no, it would not be helpful'' to entertain your response/question of "whether [I] understand the distinction between the origin of the ''name'' block time and its understood ''meaning'' for philosophers", (apparently, you're merely questioning whether I even understand it...)—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I think a better understanding of what the other person is actually arguing is always helpful in a situation like this, even if we are not making arguments to convince the people reading the dispute resolution board, but if you'd prefer to hold off on all further discussion that's fine too. Apologies if I was unclear, but by "understand" I intended to get at the question of whether you agree this is a meaningful distinction, so that you'd agree it's at least conceivable that the meaning of "block universe" might have nothing to do with Minkowski diagrams even if the name was inspired by them (agreeing this is ''a priori'' conceivable wouldn't mean agreeing that it's actually true in reality, of course, but if you were to agree that it's conceivable, we could then discuss whether the comments of Dowden and others about Minkowski diagrams fit with the interpretation that they are talking purely about the origin of the name and not about the definition of the term). [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 00:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29&diff=505183702&oldid=504493862 Edit warring] with misleading edit summaries.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 00:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::How is that misleading? You said above you didn't have a problem with rolling back the lede to a version before our dispute began, but then in your [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29&diff=505179963&oldid=505177889 most recent edit] you changed the lede back to your own version which I disagree with, so in [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29&diff=505183702&oldid=504493862 my most recent edit] I changed that back and commented that you hadn't given a justification for changing the lede from the pre-dispute version to your own version. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 00:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::You don't see how your edit summary is misleading? "no justification for restoring your version of the lede from the pre-dispute version"... I provided justification 1) in both of my edit summaries,[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=prev&oldid=505175040][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=prev&oldid=505179963] 2) on this page,[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29&diff=505186343&oldid=505173126] 3) at the dispute resolution page,[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=505186545&oldid=505173075] and 4) on the request for page protection.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=505186456&oldid=505177650] ''You'' may not think it's sufficient justification, but it's misleading to revert a third time claiming "no justification" as if I haven't said a word. In regard to your misleading claim here, I've never said I don't have a problem with your unilateral "temporary" solution, I said I wouldn't have a problem with rolling back the lede ''if there were a consensus to do so''... Frankly, calling it "my '''''[[WP:OWN|OWN]]''''' version" is a laugh, as it's merely an attempt to incorporate your cites, and where verifiable, your changes to the article text. Again, I'm really not surprised you want to remove your cites, as they don't support your position. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=504392637&oldid=504351635 I added the direct quote from Popper] (which ''would'' actually support your position, unless it's taken tongue-in-cheek), [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=504424484&oldid=504417870 ''prior'' to your participation in dispute resolution] and unlike your recent changes, it was ''not'' added simultaneously with a unilateral change to the lede. Very simply, I asked you not to "make changes while the dispute resolution has been put on hold", and you've repeatedly refused to comply. At dispute resolution, you've even gone so far as to claim you don't see how 3 reverts in less than 6 hours based solely on your unilateral "temporary" solution could be construed as edit warring.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=505143723&oldid=504493862][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=505177889&oldid=505175040][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)&diff=505183702&oldid=505179963]. Anyway, thanks for the backhanded acknowledgement that “The so-called '"It [eternalism] is sometimes known as block time" edit' was preexisting text and your bold subsequent edit has been challenged, see [[WP:BRD]].”... ''please see WP:BRD''.—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 05:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::OK, this question of whether I am "edit warring" and whether my edit summaries are misleading doesn't really have much to do with the content of the article, so to avoid derailing the discussion of content-related issues here, I've put my [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=505221729&oldid=505218150 response] over at the bottom of [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29.2C_Talk:Four-dimensionalism]]. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 07:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::[[WP:FORUMSHOP]]—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The comment at the "forum shopping" link is "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful." I am trying to ''avoid'' getting into a detailed discussion about your accusations of edit warring and misleading edit summaries on multiple boards--and it was you who copy-and-pasted exactly the same comment above to both this board [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=505208053&oldid=505207989 and also] to the dispute resolution noticeboard, I just decided it was better to respond to your accusations there where the discussion would be less off-topic than it is here. [[User:Hypnosifl|Hypnosifl]] ([[User talk:Hypnosifl|talk]]) 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, not exactly the same, but at least ''I'm'' consistent. What's that you're saying about off-topic?—[[User talk:Machine Elf 1735|<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735</sup></span>]] 13:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

==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)

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"