Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument Against The B-Theory Of Time

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 1:52:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He argues that if we suppose that temporal becoming is an illusion, there is a problem. The problem is that the illusion itself changes. However, if the illusion actually changes, then that presupposes real temporal becoming. Thus, B-Theory is self-refuting. What do you guys think?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 2:01:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 1:52:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
He argues that if we suppose that temporal becoming is an illusion, there is a problem. The problem is that the illusion itself changes. However, if the illusion actually changes, then that presupposes real temporal becoming. Thus, B-Theory is self-refuting. What do you guys think?

Wouldn't the illusion not actually change, though, under B? As in, our experience perceives it as being X, then Y, only because of the two different places in the "block", but there was never a becoming difference between the two?

My limited understanding of B theory is that, in contrast to A theory, time is a static quantity, like a box, containing all "moments". Being at point X of that line entails X experience, being at point Y entails Y experience, but the whole block exists unchanged, it is merely by being at point X that we have X and Y that we have Y, and our perception of movement is illusory, almost as though each "moment" is a "different us", which gets either X or Y depending on what place we're at, with Y encompassing all "previous" moments in terms of experience?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 3:05:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 2:33:47 PM, Smithereens wrote:
How did we come up with the idea that it was an illusion? Reminds me of the Gnostics.
Because the B theory states that all moments of time exist equally. No change can happen, because a change assumes a future state of time doesn't exist yet, in order to change into it.
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
10/16/2013 3:07:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Maybe I'm just not understanding the problem, but I don't see how it's a problem. If I state, all change is an illusion, that includes all change. The illusion of the changing illusion itself is included.
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
10/16/2013 3:11:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"If I state, change is an illusion, that includes all change. The illusion of the changing illusion itself is included."

This is a fair rebuttal, and I posted something similar in the comment section.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 3:15:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 3:11:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"If I state, change is an illusion, that includes all change. The illusion of the changing illusion itself is included."

This is a fair rebuttal, and I posted something similar in the comment section.

It seems to me like arguing that skepticism is self refuting. Because you must be skeptical of your skepticism. But being a skeptic, already includes being skeptical of yourself.
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
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 1:22:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 3:05:09 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/16/2013 2:33:47 PM, Smithereens wrote:
How did we come up with the idea that it was an illusion? Reminds me of the Gnostics.
Because the B theory states that all moments of time exist equally. No change can happen, because a change assumes a future state of time doesn't exist yet, in order to change into it.

Then apply the question. How did we come up with B theory of time? I'm curious now.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 2:10:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument is a double negative. It also argues that it is, itself, wrong. In the end, both A and B theories are wrong. And no human idea can be objective. We are limited by time; time is not limited by us.

However, that doesn't stop me from having my own ideas about time.

Time is a transitional experience of 4 dimensional space from a 3 dimensional angle. 3D objects, through time--as we know it--, make up a larger 4D object. A change in shape, along time, corresponds to a change in 4D space. An object which keeps it's shape over time is an object which has 4D right-angles. However, no object truly keeps it's shape.

Motion is perceived change through time; a change in 4D direction. A change in 3D space, as well as time, is a diagonal angle through 4D space. Two 3D objects moving away from each other are also moving away from each other in time.

Object A is in one galaxy. Object B is in another far-away galaxy. As they are both stationary, they exist in the same time-frame. Object B moves away from object A in the 3rdD, and thus moves behind it in time. As it get further away, the amount of time it travels behind increases exponentially. Object B turns around and moves toward object A. It now exists in objects A's future. As it moves closer to object A, the differences decreases exponentially. Time and space are relative to distance and motion.

Food for thought. I haven't even gotten into matter yet.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 5:10:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 2:10:05 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The argument is a double negative. It also argues that it is, itself, wrong. In the end, both A and B theories are wrong. And no human idea can be objective. We are limited by time; time is not limited by us.

However, that doesn't stop me from having my own ideas about time.

Time is a transitional experience of 4 dimensional space from a 3 dimensional angle. 3D objects, through time--as we know it--, make up a larger 4D object. A change in shape, along time, corresponds to a change in 4D space. An object which keeps it's shape over time is an object which has 4D right-angles. However, no object truly keeps it's shape.

Motion is perceived change through time; a change in 4D direction. A change in 3D space, as well as time, is a diagonal angle through 4D space. Two 3D objects moving away from each other are also moving away from each other in time.

Object A is in one galaxy. Object B is in another far-away galaxy. As they are both stationary, they exist in the same time-frame. Object B moves away from object A in the 3rdD, and thus moves behind it in time. As it get further away, the amount of time it travels behind increases exponentially. Object B turns around and moves toward object A. It now exists in objects A's future. As it moves closer to object A, the differences decreases exponentially. Time and space are relative to distance and motion.

Food for thought. I haven't even gotten into matter yet

"both A and B theories are wrong"

Impossible, as that is a true dichotomy.. Either time is tensed (A-Theory), or not tensed (B-Theory). There is no third option...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 1:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 5:10:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Impossible, as that is a true dichotomy.. Either time is tensed (A-Theory), or not tensed (B-Theory). There is no third option...

Time does not exist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 1:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 5:10:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Impossible, as that is a true dichotomy.. Either time is tensed (A-Theory), or not tensed (B-Theory). There is no third option...

Time does not exist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 2:09:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 1:02:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:10:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Impossible, as that is a true dichotomy.. Either time is tensed (A-Theory), or not tensed (B-Theory). There is no third option...

Time does not exist.

Arrow Paradox.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 3:45:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 1:02:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:10:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Impossible, as that is a true dichotomy.. Either time is tensed (A-Theory), or not tensed (B-Theory). There is no third option...

Time does not exist.

Then what is it that I don't have enough of when it takes me 10 minutes to get somewhere that I need to be in 3 minutes, if time doesn't exist?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:05:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 3:45:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/17/2013 1:02:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:10:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Impossible, as that is a true dichotomy.. Either time is tensed (A-Theory), or not tensed (B-Theory). There is no third option...

Time does not exist.

Then what is it that I don't have enough of when it takes me 10 minutes to get somewhere that I need to be in 3 minutes, if time doesn't exist?

You have too much distance :D
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:45:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 4:05:33 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/17/2013 3:45:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/17/2013 1:02:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:10:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Impossible, as that is a true dichotomy.. Either time is tensed (A-Theory), or not tensed (B-Theory). There is no third option...

Time does not exist.

Then what is it that I don't have enough of when it takes me 10 minutes to get somewhere that I need to be in 3 minutes, if time doesn't exist?

You have too much distance :D

Not really, because if I got there faster it doesn't matter how long the distance is. It's about time lol Think about it... If it takes me 10 minutes to get to spot A, but you 5 minutes, then what's the difference if it's the same distance? Oh ya, the difference is time, thus it has to exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:48:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 4:05:33 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/17/2013 3:45:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/17/2013 1:02:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:10:00 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Impossible, as that is a true dichotomy.. Either time is tensed (A-Theory), or not tensed (B-Theory). There is no third option...

Time does not exist.

Then what is it that I don't have enough of when it takes me 10 minutes to get somewhere that I need to be in 3 minutes, if time doesn't exist?

You have too much distance :D

There is never too much distance, because if you have enough time, you can get there no matter what... If you don't have enough time, you won't get there; distance is irrelevant.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:49:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To deny something as self-evident as time, you might as well deny that the sky exists... Time existing is actually more obvious than the sky existing, I can feel time passing as we speak without having to look outside.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:55:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The best argument for time is the fact that if you occupy spot A yesterday, and I occupy it today; we aren't fused together or exploding due to being in the same space. Since space doesn't separate us (we both occupy/occupied spot A), the only explanation for why we don't occupy the same space right now is time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:57:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The car in front of my at the drive thru window is not there anymore, I am there. Since we both occupied that space, why aren't we fused together? The thing that separates us is time, even though the same place is occupied!!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 6:47:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 5:52:05 PM, Sargon wrote:
The problem with B-theory is that the best physics indicates that absolute simultaneity exists.

I did a little research, and I didn't see anything about the Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's Inequalities supporting absolute simultaneity. It seems simultaneous and instantaneous, but there is no way to measure that accurately it seems, right? Also, the Cosmic Microwave Background doesn't really serve as a reference frame in context:

"The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames [of course, they mean the Minkowskian version or somethign similar]. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!

However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics."

I could be wrong, but how would you respond to these objections? I don't care either way, I would prefer if A-Theory were true because it certainly does seem like time flows. However, the Moving Spotlight Theory or the Shrinking Block Theory has to be true, because retro-causality in quantum physics shows that the future exists, and all other interpretations like hidden variable theories (that try to avoid retro-causality) have been ruled out as unlikely by other experiments. Since retro-causality is true, then the future must exist. Thus, even if some for of A-Theory is true, Presentism has to be false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 7:44:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 7:37:26 PM, Sargon wrote:
I'm always open to a re-match. I don't enjoy forum debates because they are too inconclusive.

Like I said, "I could be wrong...", meaning I am not confident enough in my concerns to have a debate. I just would like you to address the concerns. I will debate Presentism with you though, as I can prove that version of A-Theory is most likely false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 7:45:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 7:37:26 PM, Sargon wrote:
I'm always open to a re-match. I don't enjoy forum debates because they are too inconclusive.

I simply question your claims, that doesn't mean I believe they are false or that I am willing to defend B-Theory.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 7:54:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 7:46:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If A-Theory is true, Presentism is probably not true. So we can debate:

"Presentism Is Most Likely False"

With me being Pro..

I would prefer to debate something about the philosophy of time in relation to physics. I don't know much about the purely philosophical debates.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 8:25:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 7:54:43 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/17/2013 7:46:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If A-Theory is true, Presentism is probably not true. So we can debate:

"Presentism Is Most Likely False"

With me being Pro..

I would prefer to debate something about the philosophy of time in relation to physics. I don't know much about the purely philosophical debates.

It is in relation to physics. I will show that interpretations of experiments that entail retro-causality are most likely true, over interpretations which try avoid retro-causality. I will then show that retro-causality entails the future exists, thus presentism is false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 8:35:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 7:54:43 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/17/2013 7:46:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If A-Theory is true, Presentism is probably not true. So we can debate:

"Presentism Is Most Likely False"

With me being Pro..

I would prefer to debate something about the philosophy of time in relation to physics. I don't know much about the purely philosophical debates.

Only a small part of the debate would be philosophical (where I justify why retro-causality entails that the future exists, which is rather an easy premise to defend). Most of the debate will be around experiments showing retro-causality, and why we should view it as an actual phenomen over some other interpretations which try to claim retro-causality doesn't happen.