Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If B-Theory is true, what would that imply?

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 8:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well Space-Time is a form of B Theory. There are some unexplained issues that it implies that haven't been addressed yet. Like the law of entropy makes no sense under B Theory. Also what we call causality shouldn't exit. Forward causes and reverse causes would both be possible under B Theory. However, reverse causes only happen with non-local variables, and are limited to random causes to enforce causality with a "no signaling" rule.

Simply put we appear to be a B Time Theory universe following A Time Theory rules.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 9:59:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?

It wouldn't much, it's epistemological rather than ontological. A and B-Theory are about language, referential to propositional statements, it's points to the paradoxical nature of language. The goal is to determine the truth of propositional statements in a static manner, but there is nothing ontologically static about reality.

There is no consensus that McTaggart"s Paradox is valid, even less that it makes any valid ontological point about time. In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:00:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 9:59:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?

It wouldn't much, it's epistemological rather than ontological. A and B-Theory are about language, referential to propositional statements, it's points to the paradoxical nature of language. The goal is to determine the truth of propositional statements in a static manner, but there is nothing ontologically static about reality.

There is no consensus that McTaggart"s Paradox is valid, even less that it makes any valid ontological point about time. In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory.

"but there is nothing ontologically static about reality."

False. B-Theory posits an ontologically static 4d or n+1d block. Linguistics and semantics are only a small subset of the argument. I suggest you actually read philosophy of time before you make the outrageous statement you just made. B-Theory definitely posits that time is objectively static.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:04:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 9:59:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?

It wouldn't much, it's epistemological rather than ontological. A and B-Theory are about language, referential to propositional statements, it's points to the paradoxical nature of language. The goal is to determine the truth of propositional statements in a static manner, but there is nothing ontologically static about reality.

There is no consensus that McTaggart"s Paradox is valid, even less that it makes any valid ontological point about time. In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory.

"From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - William Lane Craig

Every A-Theorist I have ever read who published work knows that B-Theory posits an objectively static reality and that our experience of temporal passage is only an illusion of human consciousness. The semantics plays a huge role, but it certainly is not based around it. You really need to brush up on your research on B-Theory, because your comments are nothing short of embarrassing for someone who claims to read philosophy of time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:10:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 9:59:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?

It wouldn't much, it's epistemological rather than ontological. A and B-Theory are about language, referential to propositional statements, it's points to the paradoxical nature of language. The goal is to determine the truth of propositional statements in a static manner, but there is nothing ontologically static about reality.

There is no consensus that McTaggart"s Paradox is valid, even less that it makes any valid ontological point about time. In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory.

In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory"

Physics discredits the dynamic view of time, and strongly supports B-Theory as most philosophers of time and physics agree. I think it is clear that you live in the twilight zone where everything "false" is actually "true" in your mind. If you want to come back to reality, then let me know.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:12:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 11:00:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 9:59:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?

It wouldn't much, it's epistemological rather than ontological. A and B-Theory are about language, referential to propositional statements, it's points to the paradoxical nature of language. The goal is to determine the truth of propositional statements in a static manner, but there is nothing ontologically static about reality.

There is no consensus that McTaggart"s Paradox is valid, even less that it makes any valid ontological point about time. In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory.

"but there is nothing ontologically static about reality."

False. B-Theory posits an ontologically static 4d or n+1d block. Linguistics and semantics are only a small subset of the argument. I suggest you actually read philosophy of time before you make the outrageous statement you just made. B-Theory definitely posits that time is objectively static.

Oh pulease, I have read plenty on thephilosophy of time, I suggest you actually try to comprehend the philosophy of time before you make the outrageously stupid statements you make. Perhaps you can start by trying to comprehend the difference between philosophy and science, and then maybe try to comprehend the difference between epistemology and ontology.

You've made it abundantly clear that you can't distinguish between semantics and reality, but the simple fact is, your semantic parlor games have no bearing on physics.

Here's a starting point:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:13:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 9:59:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?

It wouldn't much, it's epistemological rather than ontological. A and B-Theory are about language, referential to propositional statements, it's points to the paradoxical nature of language. The goal is to determine the truth of propositional statements in a static manner, but there is nothing ontologically static about reality.

There is no consensus that McTaggart"s Paradox is valid, even less that it makes any valid ontological point about time. In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory.

Also, if A-Theory is true, then where are you getting this "relations" from?:

"There appears to be a prima facie problem with Presentism. If only the present is real, how can present entities stand in relations to past and future things which don't exist? Necessarily, if an individual a stands in a relation R to an individual b, then a and b exist." - Mathew Davidson

A-Theory is the least accepted philosophy of time, and A-Theorists themselves know this (like Dean Zimmerman):

"The A-theory is almost certainly a minority view among contemporary philosophers with an opinion about the metaphysics of time." - Dean Zimmerman
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:16:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 11:12:37 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/4/2013 11:00:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 9:59:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?

It wouldn't much, it's epistemological rather than ontological. A and B-Theory are about language, referential to propositional statements, it's points to the paradoxical nature of language. The goal is to determine the truth of propositional statements in a static manner, but there is nothing ontologically static about reality.

There is no consensus that McTaggart"s Paradox is valid, even less that it makes any valid ontological point about time. In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory.

"but there is nothing ontologically static about reality."

False. B-Theory posits an ontologically static 4d or n+1d block. Linguistics and semantics are only a small subset of the argument. I suggest you actually read philosophy of time before you make the outrageous statement you just made. B-Theory definitely posits that time is objectively static.

Oh pulease, I have read plenty on thephilosophy of time, I suggest you actually try to comprehend the philosophy of time before you make the outrageously stupid statements you make.

I am rubber you are glue? How childish.

Perhaps you can start by trying to comprehend the difference between philosophy and science, and then maybe try to comprehend the difference between epistemology and ontology.

I know the difference, your problem is that B-theory claims both.


You've made it abundantly clear that you can't distinguish between semantics and reality, but the simple fact is, your semantic parlor games have no bearing on physics.

Time dialation is an ontologically real phenomenon. To adhere you absolute time instead of relative time you would have to adhere to the Neo-Lorentzian view of time which the laws of electromagnetism debunk.


Here's a starting point:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Learn what B-Theory is. It posits an ontologically real space-time block.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 11:21:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 11:12:37 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/4/2013 11:00:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 9:59:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?

It wouldn't much, it's epistemological rather than ontological. A and B-Theory are about language, referential to propositional statements, it's points to the paradoxical nature of language. The goal is to determine the truth of propositional statements in a static manner, but there is nothing ontologically static about reality.

There is no consensus that McTaggart"s Paradox is valid, even less that it makes any valid ontological point about time. In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory.

"but there is nothing ontologically static about reality."

False. B-Theory posits an ontologically static 4d or n+1d block. Linguistics and semantics are only a small subset of the argument. I suggest you actually read philosophy of time before you make the outrageous statement you just made. B-Theory definitely posits that time is objectively static.

Oh pulease, I have read plenty on thephilosophy of time, I suggest you actually try to comprehend the philosophy of time before you make the outrageously stupid statements you make. Perhaps you can start by trying to comprehend the difference between philosophy and science, and then maybe try to comprehend the difference between epistemology and ontology.

You've made it abundantly clear that you can't distinguish between semantics and reality, but the simple fact is, your semantic parlor games have no bearing on physics.

Here's a starting point:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

B-Theory posits:

"...that there is no objective flow of time" - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time)

I can find papers if you want, discussing the ontology of the block and static time.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 12:03:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 11:21:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 11:12:37 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/4/2013 11:00:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 9:59:21 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:39:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
How would it affect physics and spacetime theories?

It wouldn't much, it's epistemological rather than ontological. A and B-Theory are about language, referential to propositional statements, it's points to the paradoxical nature of language. The goal is to determine the truth of propositional statements in a static manner, but there is nothing ontologically static about reality.

There is no consensus that McTaggart"s Paradox is valid, even less that it makes any valid ontological point about time. In Physics time exists as a function of variables that are related to each other, it must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of semantic theory.

"but there is nothing ontologically static about reality."

False. B-Theory posits an ontologically static 4d or n+1d block. Linguistics and semantics are only a small subset of the argument. I suggest you actually read philosophy of time before you make the outrageous statement you just made. B-Theory definitely posits that time is objectively static.

Oh pulease, I have read plenty on thephilosophy of time, I suggest you actually try to comprehend the philosophy of time before you make the outrageously stupid statements you make. Perhaps you can start by trying to comprehend the difference between philosophy and science, and then maybe try to comprehend the difference between epistemology and ontology.

You've made it abundantly clear that you can't distinguish between semantics and reality, but the simple fact is, your semantic parlor games have no bearing on physics.

Here's a starting point:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

B-Theory posits:

"...that there is no objective flow of time" - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time)

I can find papers if you want, discussing the ontology of the block and static time.

How about you just go find a single physicist that gives a crap about McTaggart's Paradox.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 4:42:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I haven't read much on the issue. I do intend to read more. But essentially what the B-Theory entails is that nothing begins to exist. The present is real for us, and the past and future are equally real for the people existing in those time frames, and they all exist now. So it would be true, under the B-Theory, that I existed during the Jurassic Period (which I think entails an absurdity).

It seems to be true that the A-Theory is the minority opinion among philosophers, but that doesn't make it false. It's also accepted by everyone who's not a philosopher. That's why the A-Theory is called the common sense view. The only reason you'd accept the B-Theory is to argue yourself out of it. But time just seems to flow. That's why we get older, and that's why we can even reasonably speak of a past and present. I also don't think it's technically true that nothing begins to exist, even under the B-Theory, because even if time exists as a cube, there was still a point in time in which my existence was caused. I still would not even exist if my parents had not conceived me, so I really don't think it makes logical sense to claim that nothing begins to exist.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 4:58:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 4:42:29 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
So it would be true, under the B-Theory, that I existed during the Jurassic Period (which I think entails an absurdity).

I also don't think it's technically true that nothing begins to exist, even under the B-Theory, because even if time exists as a cube, there was still a point in time in which my existence was caused.

Under B-Theory it is tensless so "existed" is the wrong word. Everything in the cube exists simultaneously. Time under B-Theory is an illusion of the mind, and a very convincing one at that. One of the main reasons this is accepted over A-Theory is that this is in line with how some understand time in Physics in regards to Space-Time.

If the cube exists necessarily then nothing within the cube is caused. Everything in the cube just is. It's a form of Absolute Determinism as well.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 7:41:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 4:42:29 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I haven't read much on the issue. I do intend to read more. But essentially what the B-Theory entails is that nothing begins to exist. The present is real for us, and the past and future are equally real for the people existing in those time frames, and they all exist now. So it would be true, under the B-Theory, that I existed during the Jurassic Period (which I think entails an absurdity).

It's only absurd if you do not qualify the subjective experience of time tensed along the ontological objectiveness of tenseless time. If you actually study the philosophy of time, you will actually come to learn that A-Theory is the one riddled with paradoxes.


It seems to be true that the A-Theory is the minority opinion among philosophers, but that doesn't make it false. It's also accepted by everyone who's not a philosopher. That's why the A-Theory is called the common sense view. The only reason you'd accept the B-Theory is to argue yourself out of it. But time just seems to flow. That's why we get older, and that's why we can even reasonably speak of a past and present. I also don't think it's technically true that nothing begins to exist, even under the B-Theory,because even if time exists as a cube, there was still a point in time in which my existence was caused.

You just do not understand B-Theory. Nothing begins to exist under B-Theory, because it all exists tenselessly and fixed on a 4d or n+1d block.

I still would not even exist if my parents had not conceived me, so I really don't think it makes logical sense to claim that nothing begins to exist.

This is because you do not understand B-Theory. Your existence on the block is just as real as your parents at a point at which you were not conceived. Meaning that ontologically, there is no real contingency.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 7:57:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 4:58:56 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:42:29 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
So it would be true, under the B-Theory, that I existed during the Jurassic Period (which I think entails an absurdity).

I also don't think it's technically true that nothing begins to exist, even under the B-Theory, because even if time exists as a cube, there was still a point in time in which my existence was caused.

Under B-Theory it is tensless so "existed" is the wrong word. Everything in the cube exists simultaneously. Time under B-Theory is an illusion of the mind, and a very convincing one at that. One of the main reasons this is accepted over A-Theory is that this is in line with how some understand time in Physics in regards to Space-Time.

If the cube exists necessarily then nothing within the cube is caused. Everything in the cube just is. It's a form of Absolute Determinism as well.

Yes, the interpretation of Special-Relativity that has been tested and has been passed with flying colors is the the Minkowskian space-time interpretation. They spent over 100 years searching for the luminous ether predicted by the neo-Lorentzian interpretation (the interpretation William Lane Craig holds) and found nothing. Length contraction is better explained by the Minkowskian space-time interpretation as well. Basically, the Minkowskian space-time interpretation is clearly the best interpretation as it has survived intense testing, while the neo-Lorentzian has fell short every time. Craig has still failed to sufficiently explain the laws of electromagnetism under the neo-Lorentzian view.

So, why would Craig desperately hold on to a sufficiently discredited interpretation of Special Relativity? Because, in a psuedo-scientific fashion he presupposes that there has to be a privileged reference frame or God cannot exist. Yet, he bases all his arguments on Presentism. This means, the majority of case for Theism is circular and begging the question.

"His central objection to the space-time interpretation is that it is incompatible with a preferred frame of reference, which, he claims, is a necessary condition for the existence of God. Such theological considerations lead Craig to embrace the neo-Lorentzian interpretation" "Balashov & Jansson

Craig already presupposes his conclusion, and ignores all the scientific benefits of the currently accepted interpretation of Relativity because it is theologically untenable in his mind.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 8:06:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 4:42:29 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I haven't read much on the issue. I do intend to read more. But essentially what the B-Theory entails is that nothing begins to exist. The present is real for us, and the past and future are equally real for the people existing in those time frames, and they all exist now. So it would be true, under the B-Theory, that I existed during the Jurassic Period (which I think entails an absurdity).

It seems to be true that the A-Theory is the minority opinion among philosophers, but that doesn't make it false. It's also accepted by everyone who's not a philosopher. That's why the A-Theory is called the common sense view. The only reason you'd accept the B-Theory is to argue yourself out of it. But time just seems to flow. That's why we get older, and that's why we can even reasonably speak of a past and present. I also don't think it's technically true that nothing begins to exist, even under the B-Theory, because even if time exists as a cube, there was still a point in time in which my existence was caused. I still would not even exist if my parents had not conceived me, so I really don't think it makes logical sense to claim that nothing begins to exist.

"It's also accepted by everyone who's not a philosopher."

Laymen are ignorant. Consensus is only matters in the field of expertise.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 8:22:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you already believe God is a fact, then you have to adhere to the neo-Lorentzian view by default. Quentin Smith only adheres to the neo-Lorentzian view because his Cosmological Argument against a divine cause depends on it. So, it seems the only reason someone would accept the neo-Lorentzian view is if they have philosophical arguments which depend on it. Purely scientifically speaking; it should be self-evident why the current view is the one that is widely accepted and why the neo-Lorentzian view is not accepted. One cannot exclude the neo-Lorentzian interpretation completely, but the case can be easily made why it should not be favored over a 4d space-time veiw.

I still remember when they thought they thought they found a faster than light neutrino, Craig posted on his website "Einstein was wrong, Lorentz has been vindicated!"....Then they found out there was a wire error haha
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 8:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 7:57:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:58:56 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:42:29 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
So it would be true, under the B-Theory, that I existed during the Jurassic Period (which I think entails an absurdity).

I also don't think it's technically true that nothing begins to exist, even under the B-Theory, because even if time exists as a cube, there was still a point in time in which my existence was caused.

Under B-Theory it is tensless so "existed" is the wrong word. Everything in the cube exists simultaneously. Time under B-Theory is an illusion of the mind, and a very convincing one at that. One of the main reasons this is accepted over A-Theory is that this is in line with how some understand time in Physics in regards to Space-Time.

If the cube exists necessarily then nothing within the cube is caused. Everything in the cube just is. It's a form of Absolute Determinism as well.

So, why would Craig desperately hold on to a sufficiently discredited interpretation of Special Relativity? Because, in a psuedo-scientific fashion he presupposes that there has to be a privileged reference frame or God cannot exist. Yet, he bases all his arguments on Presentism. This means, the majority of case for Theism is circular and begging the question.


As much as I understand your objection to WLC's view. Your way of going at it is more of an ad hom.

Most people have a hard time grasping time as anything other than A-Time Theory. Even when you start talking with high level physicists they'll describe something that requires A Time.

An example is M Theory. In M Theory we are a Space-Time Cube, but all the mater and energy is a result of another Space-Time Cube hitting our space time cube. This begs the question. How does one Space-Time Cube hit another without a second definition of time external to the two that collide?

WLC is falling back to a commonly understood version of time. One that everyone understands as Newton did. He's wrong, but not being able to grasp the finer points of relativity is hardly a fault. Most people don't get it after all. Quantum Physics also only muddies the water on the subject as well.

A better understanding of time would help narrow down the arguments. But as I see it B-Time and A-Time are both faulty as they are currently understood.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 8:52:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 8:22:47 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 7:57:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:58:56 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:42:29 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
So it would be true, under the B-Theory, that I existed during the Jurassic Period (which I think entails an absurdity).

I also don't think it's technically true that nothing begins to exist, even under the B-Theory, because even if time exists as a cube, there was still a point in time in which my existence was caused.

Under B-Theory it is tensless so "existed" is the wrong word. Everything in the cube exists simultaneously. Time under B-Theory is an illusion of the mind, and a very convincing one at that. One of the main reasons this is accepted over A-Theory is that this is in line with how some understand time in Physics in regards to Space-Time.

If the cube exists necessarily then nothing within the cube is caused. Everything in the cube just is. It's a form of Absolute Determinism as well.

So, why would Craig desperately hold on to a sufficiently discredited interpretation of Special Relativity? Because, in a psuedo-scientific fashion he presupposes that there has to be a privileged reference frame or God cannot exist. Yet, he bases all his arguments on Presentism. This means, the majority of case for Theism is circular and begging the question.


As much as I understand your objection to WLC's view. Your way of going at it is more of an ad hom.

Not really. The additional attacks on his bias were additional to my arguments, my arguments were not based around the attacks on his bias. Therefore, I was not using personal attacks to prove I was right. Ergo, no Ad Hominem by definition.


Most people have a hard time grasping time as anything other than A-Time Theory. Even when you start talking with high level physicists they'll describe something that requires A Time.

I understand this. This is because our language is tensed. A distinction has to be made between casual linguistics and philosophical semantics.


An example is M Theory. In M Theory we are a Space-Time Cube, but all the mater and energy is a result of another Space-Time Cube hitting our space time cube. This begs the question. How does one Space-Time Cube hit another without a second definition of time external to the two that collide?

I reject M-Theory. Also, B-Theory posits a 4d or n+1d block. This means we can fill the variable "n" with 10 dimensions of space. It could be possible that all these universes occupy the same cube. However, I am not a string theory advocate.


WLC is falling back to a commonly understood version of time. One that everyone understands as Newton did. He's wrong, but not being able to grasp the finer points of relativity is hardly a fault. Most people don't get it after all. Quantum Physics also only muddies the water on the subject as well.

Actually, good arguments have been made that quantum mechanics support B-Theory over A-Theory. Take a photon, in Quantum Mechanics it can somehow "know" (obviously not literally) where it will go. Well, since it goes through every point in an instant; it simultaneously "knows" everywhere it will ever be. Why? because it's already there in the future. B-Theory has a tremendous advantage over A-Theory as far as quantum mechanics is concerned.


A better understanding of time would help narrow down the arguments. But as I see it B-Time and A-Time are both faulty as they are currently understood.

B-Theory is just the lesser of all evils, I agree that it is severely incomplete. Accounting for the illusion of passage is something B-Theorists have yet to do sufficiently. However, Simon Prosser started off with a great idea on how it can be achieved in his paper "Why Does Time Seem to Pass?".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 8:59:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 8:22:47 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 7:57:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:58:56 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:42:29 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
So it would be true, under the B-Theory, that I existed during the Jurassic Period (which I think entails an absurdity).

I also don't think it's technically true that nothing begins to exist, even under the B-Theory, because even if time exists as a cube, there was still a point in time in which my existence was caused.

Under B-Theory it is tensless so "existed" is the wrong word. Everything in the cube exists simultaneously. Time under B-Theory is an illusion of the mind, and a very convincing one at that. One of the main reasons this is accepted over A-Theory is that this is in line with how some understand time in Physics in regards to Space-Time.

If the cube exists necessarily then nothing within the cube is caused. Everything in the cube just is. It's a form of Absolute Determinism as well.

So, why would Craig desperately hold on to a sufficiently discredited interpretation of Special Relativity? Because, in a psuedo-scientific fashion he presupposes that there has to be a privileged reference frame or God cannot exist. Yet, he bases all his arguments on Presentism. This means, the majority of case for Theism is circular and begging the question.


As much as I understand your objection to WLC's view. Your way of going at it is more of an ad hom.

Most people have a hard time grasping time as anything other than A-Time Theory. Even when you start talking with high level physicists they'll describe something that requires A Time.

An example is M Theory. In M Theory we are a Space-Time Cube, but all the mater and energy is a result of another Space-Time Cube hitting our space time cube. This begs the question. How does one Space-Time Cube hit another without a second definition of time external to the two that collide?

WLC is falling back to a commonly understood version of time. One that everyone understands as Newton did. He's wrong, but not being able to grasp the finer points of relativity is hardly a fault. Most people don't get it after all. Quantum Physics also only muddies the water on the subject as well.

A better understanding of time would help narrow down the arguments. But as I see it B-Time and A-Time are both faulty as they are currently understood.

What do you think of Moving Spotlight Theory, Growing Block Theory and Shrinking Block Theory?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 9:13:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"If B-Theory is true, what would that imply?"

C- Theory is next?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 9:19:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 9:13:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
"If B-Theory is true, what would that imply?"

C- Theory is next?

There actually is a C-Series. It is basically the exact same as the B-Series (B-Theory) in that the fixed "slices" or "points" are ordered; the only slight difference is they are non-directional.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 11:10:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 8:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What do you think of Moving Spotlight Theory, Growing Block Theory and Shrinking Block Theory?

They're better then the solid block since they'd explain some of the issues that arise, but I get the feeling that they mix a bit too much of A time within. They'd also have to explain where the growth or shrinkage was going if you want the conservation principals intact. I could see the KCA being bent to work with the Growing or Shrinking Block Theory.

Spotlight Theory has promise, but it needs an adequate explanation for the "source" of the present spotlight.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 11:28:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 11:10:08 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 8:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What do you think of Moving Spotlight Theory, Growing Block Theory and Shrinking Block Theory?

They're better then the solid block since they'd explain some of the issues that arise, but I get the feeling that they mix a bit too much of A time within.

First of all, Moving Spotlight Theory does posit a solid block (with past, present, and future being equally real). Also, you are correct that it mixes too many A-properties in the equation. The only difference between Moving Spotlight Theory and B-Theory is that time is actually real under the spotlight view; and there is an objective "now" that moves along the block in spotlight fashion.

They'd also have to explain where the growth or shrinkage was going if you want the conservation principals intact. I could see the KCA being bent to work with the Growing or Shrinking Block Theory.

I agree that the KCA could potentially run on a Growing Block or Shrinking Block Theory. However, William Lane Craig (the one who made the Kalam "famous") utterly rejects Growing Block theory because it would mean evil is never objectively overcome, because the evil of past is just as real as the present no matter what we do. Too many Christian doctrines rely on evil objectively being overcome I suppose.


Spotlight Theory has promise, but it needs an adequate explanation for the "source" of the present spotlight.

I agree, this is a huge issue. If there are fixated tenseless events on the block, then this is all that is needed under B-Theory as far as explanations for objective events go if time is an illusion. However, the moving spotlight would itself be an ontologically real event and thus requires explanation. This takes away the explanatory power the Moving Spotlight Theory. To be honest, it is a very attractive theory if you do not like B-Theory.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 6:53:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 9:19:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/5/2013 9:13:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
"If B-Theory is true, what would that imply?"

C- Theory is next?

There actually is a C-Series. It is basically the exact same as the B-Series (B-Theory) in that the fixed "slices" or "points" are ordered; the only slight difference is they are non-directional.

D-theory here we come.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 2:37:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If B-Theory is true, then, since "the present" is merely indexical/is an illusion of human consciousness, would it be possible, at least in principle, to experience some other point in our consciousness? Say, 10 years ago? Or 10 years in the future?
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 2:46:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's all running together or something. B-theory is just to posit the universe as we know it as God and eternal so far as I can see.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 2:59:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 2:46:26 PM, PrivateEye wrote:
It's all running together or something. B-theory is just to posit the universe as we know it as God and eternal so far as I can see.

I do not doubt that's how you "see" it PrivateEye, however you are committing a fallacy. Being eternal is one of God's attributes, that does not mean that if "x" is eternal we are calling it God. For example, being edible is one of an apple's attributes, but if I am saying "x" is edible, that does not mean I am calling it an apple.
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 3:02:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 2:59:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/7/2013 2:46:26 PM, PrivateEye wrote:
It's all running together or something. B-theory is just to posit the universe as we know it as God and eternal so far as I can see.

I do not doubt that's how you "see" it PrivateEye, however you are committing a fallacy. Being eternal is one of God's attributes, that does not mean that if "x" is eternal we are calling it God. For example, being edible is one of an apple's attributes, but if I am saying "x" is edible, that does not mean I am calling it an apple.

No, you're just f*cking stupid.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 3:03:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 2:37:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If B-Theory is true, then, since "the present" is merely indexical/is an illusion of human consciousness, would it be possible, at least in principle, to experience some other point in our consciousness? Say, 10 years ago? Or 10 years in the future?

This is an extremely interesting question. There have been some papers written on B-Theory and time travel and how it would work. My guess it would be that your scenario would be possible in principle, due to the fact that B-Theory posits that there is no individual "you", as "you" is broken up into multiple time slices on the 4d or n+1d block. However, if this was possible, I doubt you would have memory of the "you" pertaining to the other slices. Perhaps you would, because this scenario was already fixed on the block. It is a fascinating to think about.