Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problem with the A theory of time?

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 11:42:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I thought up of this objection to the A theory. I'm not sure of its validity, but I would like to see other thoughts on it.

Presentism says the present is the only temporal state that exists. The growing block says the past and present are the only temporal states that exist. The thing that matters to the argument is, the future is coming and the future has came. But if the present (or past) are the only temporal states, how did the future come to be? If the future doesn't exist, how does it come into being? Either it was uncaused and its existence came out of its nonexistence or the present caused it. But, how can you affect something that doesn't exist? The future doesn't exist and thus has no potential to be affected on.

Either the future comes out of nowhere, uncaused. Which seems illogical for most. Or nonexistence somehow has potential to be affected, but then it's not nonexistent.

Any thoughts on this?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 12:29:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 11:42:58 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I thought up of this objection to the A theory. I'm not sure of its validity, but I would like to see other thoughts on it.

Presentism says the present is the only temporal state that exists. The growing block says the past and present are the only temporal states that exist. The thing that matters to the argument is, the future is coming and the future has came. But if the present (or past) are the only temporal states, how did the future come to be? If the future doesn't exist, how does it come into being? Either it was uncaused and its existence came out of its nonexistence or the present caused it. But, how can you affect something that doesn't exist? The future doesn't exist and thus has no potential to be affected on.

Either the future comes out of nowhere, uncaused. Which seems illogical for most. Or nonexistence somehow has potential to be affected, but then it's not nonexistent.

Any thoughts on this?

Yeah, I am confused again.

If the future already exists and can not be altered, then that means the present has no affect on it's outcome, I do not think this is true, the present determines the future is how I would see it.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 1:14:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 11:42:58 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I thought up of this objection to the A theory. I'm not sure of its validity, but I would like to see other thoughts on it.

Presentism says the present is the only temporal state that exists. The growing block says the past and present are the only temporal states that exist. The thing that matters to the argument is, the future is coming and the future has came. But if the present (or past) are the only temporal states, how did the future come to be? If the future doesn't exist, how does it come into being? Either it was uncaused and its existence came out of its nonexistence or the present caused it. But, how can you affect something that doesn't exist? The future doesn't exist and thus has no potential to be affected on.

Either the future comes out of nowhere, uncaused. Which seems illogical for most. Or nonexistence somehow has potential to be affected, but then it's not nonexistent.

Any thoughts on this?

The question essential to this problem is one of existence. Can you truly say the past exists...? No.... Because, that which is past is no longer. Can you truly say the future exists...? No.... Because, the future is not, yet. Can you truly say the past existed...? No.... Because, at no moment, in time, were you living in the past. Can you truly say the future will exist...? No.... Because, at no moment, in time, will you be living in the future.

You can only live in the present, and the present is relative to an increment of time. No matter how infinitesimally small that increment is, it can be smaller still.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 1:40:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 11:42:58 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I thought up of this objection to the A theory. I'm not sure of its validity, but I would like to see other thoughts on it.

Presentism says the present is the only temporal state that exists. The growing block says the past and present are the only temporal states that exist. The thing that matters to the argument is, the future is coming and the future has came. But if the present (or past) are the only temporal states, how did the future come to be? If the future doesn't exist, how does it come into being? Either it was uncaused and its existence came out of its nonexistence or the present caused it. But, how can you affect something that doesn't exist? The future doesn't exist and thus has no potential to be affected on.

Either the future comes out of nowhere, uncaused. Which seems illogical for most. Or nonexistence somehow has potential to be affected, but then it's not nonexistent.

Any thoughts on this?

This is well known problem for presentism called the relational problem. It's clear that the present has a relationship with the future, but that can only be possible if the future exists. The future still exists under the Moving Spotlight Theory (which is a subset of A-Theory), so the argument only applies to presentism. Presentism has already been debunked my many experiments in quantum mechanics anyway.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 1:41:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 1:14:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/13/2013 11:42:58 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I thought up of this objection to the A theory. I'm not sure of its validity, but I would like to see other thoughts on it.

Presentism says the present is the only temporal state that exists. The growing block says the past and present are the only temporal states that exist. The thing that matters to the argument is, the future is coming and the future has came. But if the present (or past) are the only temporal states, how did the future come to be? If the future doesn't exist, how does it come into being? Either it was uncaused and its existence came out of its nonexistence or the present caused it. But, how can you affect something that doesn't exist? The future doesn't exist and thus has no potential to be affected on.

Either the future comes out of nowhere, uncaused. Which seems illogical for most. Or nonexistence somehow has potential to be affected, but then it's not nonexistent.

Any thoughts on this?

The question essential to this problem is one of existence. Can you truly say the past exists...? No.... Because, that which is past is no longer.

Says who? How do you know the past is no longer? This is the fallacy of presumption, you are just assuming A-Theory.

Can you truly say the future exists...? No.... Because, the future is not, yet.

The future does exist though, which has been proven by quantum mechanics. You have no idea what you are talking about....

Can you truly say the past existed...? No.... Because, at no moment, in time, were you living in the past. Can you truly say the future will exist...? No.... Because, at no moment, in time, will you be living in the future.

You can only live in the present, and the present is relative to an increment of time. No matter how infinitesimally small that increment is, it can be smaller still.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 2:08:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 1:40:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/13/2013 11:42:58 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I thought up of this objection to the A theory. I'm not sure of its validity, but I would like to see other thoughts on it.

Presentism says the present is the only temporal state that exists. The growing block says the past and present are the only temporal states that exist. The thing that matters to the argument is, the future is coming and the future has came. But if the present (or past) are the only temporal states, how did the future come to be? If the future doesn't exist, how does it come into being? Either it was uncaused and its existence came out of its nonexistence or the present caused it. But, how can you affect something that doesn't exist? The future doesn't exist and thus has no potential to be affected on.

Either the future comes out of nowhere, uncaused. Which seems illogical for most. Or nonexistence somehow has potential to be affected, but then it's not nonexistent.

Any thoughts on this?

This is well known problem for presentism called the relational problem. It's clear that the present has a relationship with the future, but that can only be possible if the future exists. The future still exists under the Moving Spotlight Theory (which is a subset of A-Theory), so the argument only applies to presentism. Presentism has already been debunked my many experiments in quantum mechanics anyway.

Mctaggart's paradox seems to come into play when dealing with the MST. The present is the past 10 seconds from now.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 2:08:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 1:14:46 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/13/2013 11:42:58 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I thought up of this objection to the A theory. I'm not sure of its validity, but I would like to see other thoughts on it.

Presentism says the present is the only temporal state that exists. The growing block says the past and present are the only temporal states that exist. The thing that matters to the argument is, the future is coming and the future has came. But if the present (or past) are the only temporal states, how did the future come to be? If the future doesn't exist, how does it come into being? Either it was uncaused and its existence came out of its nonexistence or the present caused it. But, how can you affect something that doesn't exist? The future doesn't exist and thus has no potential to be affected on.

Either the future comes out of nowhere, uncaused. Which seems illogical for most. Or nonexistence somehow has potential to be affected, but then it's not nonexistent.

Any thoughts on this?

The question essential to this problem is one of existence. Can you truly say the past exists...? No.... Because, that which is past is no longer. Can you truly say the future exists...? No.... Because, the future is not, yet. Can you truly say the past existed...? No.... Because, at no moment, in time, were you living in the past. Can you truly say the future will exist...? No.... Because, at no moment, in time, will you be living in the future.

You can only live in the present, and the present is relative to an increment of time. No matter how infinitesimally small that increment is, it can be smaller still.

This doesn't address the argument in question....
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 2:20:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 2:08:04 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 9/13/2013 1:40:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/13/2013 11:42:58 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
I thought up of this objection to the A theory. I'm not sure of its validity, but I would like to see other thoughts on it.

Presentism says the present is the only temporal state that exists. The growing block says the past and present are the only temporal states that exist. The thing that matters to the argument is, the future is coming and the future has came. But if the present (or past) are the only temporal states, how did the future come to be? If the future doesn't exist, how does it come into being? Either it was uncaused and its existence came out of its nonexistence or the present caused it. But, how can you affect something that doesn't exist? The future doesn't exist and thus has no potential to be affected on.

Either the future comes out of nowhere, uncaused. Which seems illogical for most. Or nonexistence somehow has potential to be affected, but then it's not nonexistent.

Any thoughts on this?

This is well known problem for presentism called the relational problem. It's clear that the present has a relationship with the future, but that can only be possible if the future exists. The future still exists under the Moving Spotlight Theory (which is a subset of A-Theory), so the argument only applies to presentism. Presentism has already been debunked my many experiments in quantum mechanics anyway.

Mctaggart's paradox seems to come into play when dealing with the MST. The present is the past 10 seconds from now.

McTaggart's paradox comes into play when dealing with the MST, but the relational problem you brought up doesn't (it only attacks presentism, not all subsets of A-Theory). You are essentially right though, and I even believe I heard William Lane Craig admit that McTaggart's Paradox works pertaining to the MST, but he still maintains it is no problem for Presentism. I don't think Craig is aware of the experiments which debunk Presentism...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 11:25:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.

Both A and B theory are a minority view.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:15:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 11:25:56 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.

Both A and B theory are a minority view.

That makes no sense, as these are the only two theories talked about in metaphysics lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:15:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 11:25:56 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.

Both A and B theory are a minority view.

Well, the metaphysics of time I mean.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:18:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:16:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, every philosophy poll I have encountered concludes B-Theory has more support than A-Theory from the community.

It does, but they are both a minority. Read the Philpapers study on the opinions of philosophers.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:20:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:18:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:16:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, every philosophy poll I have encountered concludes B-Theory has more support than A-Theory from the community.


It does, but they are both a minority. Read the Philpapers study on the opinions of philosophers.

I did, that's what I'm basing my argument on lol The only people who clicked "other" were people who don't have an opinion on the metaphysics of time (not every philosopher has an opinion on the A-Theory/ B-Theory debate). That doesn't mean they adhered to some other theory besides A or B theory, it means they most likely don't have a position on it, and clicked "other" as it was the only other option. However, most philosophers who had a stance on it chose B-Theory.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:20:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:15:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:25:56 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.

Both A and B theory are a minority view.

That makes no sense, as these are the only two theories talked about in metaphysics lol

Most philosophers have opinions on time that cannot be described as either one.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:23:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:20:57 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:15:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:25:56 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.

Both A and B theory are a minority view.

That makes no sense, as these are the only two theories talked about in metaphysics lol

Most philosophers have opinions on time that cannot be described as either one.

That's highly unlikely Sargon lol Only A-Theory and B-Theory are discussed in philosophical literature.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:24:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Regardless, even if you are right, B-Theory still has more support than another other theory of time in metaphysics. If you know of a more adhered to theory, I would love to hear it!
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:26:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:20:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:18:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:16:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, every philosophy poll I have encountered concludes B-Theory has more support than A-Theory from the community.


It does, but they are both a minority. Read the Philpapers study on the opinions of philosophers.

I did, that's what I'm basing my argument on lol The only people who clicked "other" were people who don't have an opinion on the metaphysics of time (not every philosopher has an opinion on the A-Theory/ B-Theory debate). That doesn't mean they adhered to some other theory besides A or B theory, it means they most likely don't have a position on it, and clicked "other" as it was the only other option. However, most philosophers who had a stance on it chose B-Theory.

Speculation.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:27:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:20:57 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:15:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:25:56 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.

Both A and B theory are a minority view.

That makes no sense, as these are the only two theories talked about in metaphysics lol

Most philosophers have opinions on time that cannot be described as either one.

Speculation.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:30:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:24:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Regardless, even if you are right, B-Theory still has more support than another other theory of time in metaphysics. If you know of a more adhered to theory, I would love to hear it!

I confess that the I don't give a damn about which interpretation is more popular. If you want to discuss the actual arguments, I've been asking for a debate on the Minkowski interpretation for a while now.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:30:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's more likely that the people who clicked "other" don't have a stance on the issue, than they all picked something else besides A-Theory and B-Theory when those are the only two theories discussed in the field of metaphysics lol
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:31:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:27:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:20:57 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:15:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:25:56 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.

Both A and B theory are a minority view.

That makes no sense, as these are the only two theories talked about in metaphysics lol

Most philosophers have opinions on time that cannot be described as either one.

Speculation.

Well, no, considering that's exactly what the poll says.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:33:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:31:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:27:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:20:57 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:15:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:25:56 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.

Both A and B theory are a minority view.

That makes no sense, as these are the only two theories talked about in metaphysics lol

Most philosophers have opinions on time that cannot be described as either one.

Speculation.

Well, no, considering that's exactly what the poll says.

Doesn't matter, it's the only other option. If you don't have an opinion, and you agreed to take the survey, you are going to click "other". Pretty simple dude...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:34:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:31:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:27:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:20:57 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:15:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/14/2013 11:25:56 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/13/2013 2:23:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
B-Theory is the most logically and scientifically sound theory of time, which probably explains why most experts in the field of metaphysics involving time agree.

Both A and B theory are a minority view.

That makes no sense, as these are the only two theories talked about in metaphysics lol

Most philosophers have opinions on time that cannot be described as either one.

Speculation.

Well, no, considering that's exactly what the poll says.

There is no "I don't have an opinion" option, so "other" is what those people are going to click.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:35:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's more likely that the people who clicked "other" don't have a stance on the issue, than they all picked something else besides A-Theory and B-Theory when those are the only two theories discussed in the field of metaphysics lol

Here, let me put it in your language:

The idea that most philosophers have a nuanced view of time flows easily from the study. Arguments about how they really have no opinion are ad hoc and contrived to "get around" the problem of B theory also being a minority view.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:36:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:35:21 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's more likely that the people who clicked "other" don't have a stance on the issue, than they all picked something else besides A-Theory and B-Theory when those are the only two theories discussed in the field of metaphysics lol


Here, let me put it in your language:

The idea that most philosophers have a nuanced view of time flows easily from the study. Arguments about how they really have no opinion are ad hoc and contrived to "get around" the problem of B theory also being a minority view.

B-Theory is still the most adhered to theory of time, and no other theory of time is more adhered to in metaphysics.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:37:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:35:21 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's more likely that the people who clicked "other" don't have a stance on the issue, than they all picked something else besides A-Theory and B-Theory when those are the only two theories discussed in the field of metaphysics lol


Here, let me put it in your language:

The idea that most philosophers have a nuanced view of time flows easily from the study. Arguments about how they really have no opinion are ad hoc and contrived to "get around" the problem of B theory also being a minority view.

You are acting like "other" is one theory or something Haha
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:38:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:35:21 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's more likely that the people who clicked "other" don't have a stance on the issue, than they all picked something else besides A-Theory and B-Theory when those are the only two theories discussed in the field of metaphysics lol


Here, let me put it in your language:

The idea that most philosophers have a nuanced view of time flows easily from the study. Arguments about how they really have no opinion are ad hoc and contrived to "get around" the problem of B theory also being a minority view.

It's not ad hoc, what's ad hoc is thinking that most philosphers believe in other theories when A-Theory and B-Theory are the ONLY theories discussed. Think about how stupid that sounds for a second lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:39:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:35:21 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's more likely that the people who clicked "other" don't have a stance on the issue, than they all picked something else besides A-Theory and B-Theory when those are the only two theories discussed in the field of metaphysics lol


Here, let me put it in your language:

The idea that most philosophers have a nuanced view of time flows easily from the study. Arguments about how they really have no opinion are ad hoc and contrived to "get around" the problem of B theory also being a minority view.

My speculation is more logically sound, as it is outrageous to believe most philosphers adhere to other theories besides the only ones discussed in the literature.