Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time): Difference between revisions
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)/Archive 2) (bot |
|||
| (222 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|1= |
|||
==Extra Info & Graphics== |
|||
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Low |metaphysics=yes}} |
|||
This article needs fleshing out and maybe graphics would aid in the explanation, can anyone help? |
|||
{{WikiProject Time |importance=High}} |
|||
--[[User:Filthish|Filthish]] 11:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
==Structure== |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
This article needs structure. Headings and the like. But I'm not sure where to begin. |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
--[[User:Filthish|Filthish]] 11:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
|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 == |
|||
=== Greek === |
|||
* eternalism: (ο) αιωνισμός [masculine noun] |
|||
* block universe: Σύμπαν στατικού τετραδιάστατου χωροχρόνου |
|||
== Wikipedia has a mistake (in physics the difference is of core importance) == |
|||
* 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) |
|||
== “In Fiction” == |
|||
The “In Fiction” section refers to “a clause of eternalism” and “the rules of eternalism” when referring to things that, as far as I can see, do not form a necessary part of eternalism, and are referenced as if there were some “eternalism” text that lays them out. |
|||
Is it that these fictional works have their own things that they call “eternalism”, of which they say these are clauses or rules? Or are Wikipedians just getting over-excited talking about things they like? |
|||
Either way, we possibly do not need what looks suspiciously like the old “in popular culture” section. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/90.242.137.43|90.242.137.43]] ([[User talk:90.242.137.43|talk]]) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Add mention of Arrival (2016)? == |
|||
I'm thinking that the movie Arrival might belong in the section on popular culture, as the movie is well known for featuring extraterrestrial beings that "remember" the future and enable the protagonist to do the same. They omit chronology in their linguistic rules and conceptualize time in an arguably eternalist perspective. Further, the structure of the film signals that the past and future are on equal grounds, given the non-chronological interpolation of scenes and ambiguity about the order of events. [[User:Quesoteric|Quesoteric]] ([[User talk:Quesoteric|talk]]) 09:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:26, 14 February 2024
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Translations
[edit]Greek
[edit]- eternalism: (ο) αιωνισμός [masculine noun]
- block universe: Σύμπαν στατικού τετραδιάστατου χωροχρόνου
Wikipedia has a mistake (in physics the difference is of core importance)
[edit]- Universe: the name of our own universe
- universe: any spatiotemporal-like connectome of mathematically procedural (mechanistic) interactions
Physics doesn't have the same criteria with literature. Some Wikipedia users don't know it. Modern science accepts both rigorous observational empiricism and mathematical foundational descriptions. Hard or strong empiricists deviate from mainstream science and claim that mere rigorous empiricism is enough to mathematically describe the ontological mechanisms of substantiality, thus the universe for them is identical/tautological to the Universe and vice versa. They don’t care about the field of study: "foundations of substantiality" like David Deutsch’s constructor theory and Max Tegmark’s struogony (the term mathematical universe hypothesis is very general; mathematical structures are more specific).
Origin of theory
[edit]Who first postulated this theory this theory? Cleverfellow (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
“In Fiction”
[edit]The “In Fiction” section refers to “a clause of eternalism” and “the rules of eternalism” when referring to things that, as far as I can see, do not form a necessary part of eternalism, and are referenced as if there were some “eternalism” text that lays them out.
Is it that these fictional works have their own things that they call “eternalism”, of which they say these are clauses or rules? Or are Wikipedians just getting over-excited talking about things they like?
Either way, we possibly do not need what looks suspiciously like the old “in popular culture” section.
90.242.137.43 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Add mention of Arrival (2016)?
[edit]I'm thinking that the movie Arrival might belong in the section on popular culture, as the movie is well known for featuring extraterrestrial beings that "remember" the future and enable the protagonist to do the same. They omit chronology in their linguistic rules and conceptualize time in an arguably eternalist perspective. Further, the structure of the film signals that the past and future are on equal grounds, given the non-chronological interpolation of scenes and ambiguity about the order of events. Quesoteric (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)