Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)

Changes

Could do with some discussion of Julian Barbours theories, and relation to multiverses. Note that there is a logical independence between the claims:

1. All moments of time exist on the same footing
2. Time is a space-like dimension, and there is a single unambiguous past and present for each moment

within it. Barbour accepts the first but not the second. This in turn illustrates a shade of difference between older (eg paremidean) philosophical eternalism (1) and block theory (1 & 2). 18:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you expand on what you mean by the 'same footing'? I had a glance at Barbour's wiki page but it didn't seem to describe any coherent mechanism for time. He seems to deny change exists yet he claims there are different 'nows' that we experience. How could that possible be? LegendLength (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, these illustrations fall short of their intentions. Could be replaced Leodiamondwiki (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

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 structures are more specific).

Diagram direction

Is there a good reason why this is illustrated as "Time progresses through the series of snapshots from the bottom of the page to the top", rather than the more usual top to bottom? Is the unintuitive ordering meant to help the reader think about time as instances which can be considered in other ways? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Objection section

I suspect at least the last paragraph (about Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti view) to refer to pseudoscience. Can a expert have a look at it and correct if necessary? 2001:660:5301:17:FCD4:C219:374E:E481 (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Hi! I believe that this article should include a few references to Eternalism as it is most commonly described in popular culture. A good place to begin would be the depiction of Eternalism by authors such as Kurt Vonnegut and Robert Heinlein. I intend to add an In Popular Culture section shortly, and appreciate any and all feedback! Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

* Note: The guide for creating an In Popular Culture section is linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections#%22In_popular_culture%22_and_%22Cultural_references%22_material and I will be referring to it for a general methodology. For the sake of consistency, other editors should refer to the same guide, or generally the same formatting principles, when editing this section in the future.