Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# A-Theory of Time, or B-Theory of Time?

 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/16/2014 8:17:20 PMPosted: 3 years agoWhich one do you think is the correct view, and why?
 Posts: 1,465 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/16/2014 8:22:20 PMPosted: 3 years agoEither the moving spotlight theory or the B theory. I think the best reason is time dilation404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution. Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
 Posts: 3,108 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/16/2014 8:25:33 PMPosted: 3 years agoA theory because it at least seems true. B theory leads to all sorts of counter-intuitive results.1. If the B theory is true, then the appearance of a flow of time is inexplicable.2. If the B theory is true, then backward time travel is theoretically possible, and that leads to unsolvable paradoxes.3. If the B theory is true, the causation is an illusion. Or, if it's not an illusion, then it must mean something other than what it seems to me, which is that one thing happening results in another thing happening.4. If the B theory is true, then nothing ever really happens.5. If the B theory is true, then so is fate.All the arguments I know of for the B theory are insufficient to warrant belief in the B theory. One example is that it's mathmatically consistent and fits scientific models.But in those cases the B theory is simply a mathematically consistent model. It's similar to electrical current. While, in reality, negatively charged particles flow in one direction, current is always calculated as if positive charges were flowing in the opposite direction. That just makes the math easier. Mathematically, there's no difference between negative charges flowing in one direction and positive charges flowing in the other direction. So "current" is just a mathematically consistent model for electricity. It doesn't describe the reality of the matter.In the same way, a positive charge moving in one direction is mathematically equivalent to a negative charge moving in that same direction, but backward through time. So a B theory is a very useful model to talk about the universe and time, but that's all it is--a model. It simplifies things the same way current as the apparent flow of positive charges simplifies things. I don't think it describes the way things really are."When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9 "Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/16/2014 8:58:20 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/16/2014 8:25:33 PM, philochristos wrote:A theory because it at least seems true. B theory leads to all sorts of counter-intuitive results.1. If the B theory is true, then the appearance of a flow of time is inexplicable.2. If the B theory is true, then backward time travel is theoretically possible, and that leads to unsolvable paradoxes.3. If the B theory is true, the causation is an illusion. Or, if it's not an illusion, then it must mean something other than what it seems to me, which is that one thing happening results in another thing happening.4. If the B theory is true, then nothing ever really happens.5. If the B theory is true, then so is fate.All the arguments I know of for the B theory are insufficient to warrant belief in the B theory. One example is that it's mathmatically consistent and fits scientific models.But in those cases the B theory is simply a mathematically consistent model. It's similar to electrical current. While, in reality, negatively charged particles flow in one direction, current is always calculated as if positive charges were flowing in the opposite direction. That just makes the math easier. Mathematically, there's no difference between negative charges flowing in one direction and positive charges flowing in the other direction. So "current" is just a mathematically consistent model for electricity. It doesn't describe the reality of the matter.In the same way, a positive charge moving in one direction is mathematically equivalent to a negative charge moving in that same direction, but backward through time. So a B theory is a very useful model to talk about the universe and time, but that's all it is--a model. It simplifies things the same way current as the apparent flow of positive charges simplifies things. I don't think it describes the way things really are.So, the best argument for B-Theory to me is:P1: If the Spacetime interpretation of Special Relativity is true, then B-Theory is trueP2: The Spacetime interpretation of Special Relativity is trueC: Therefore, B-Theory is true---P1 is uncontroversial, and and even the most hardcore A-Theorists like William Lane Craig accept P1, and even argue FOR P1. P2 is the controversial premise...
 Posts: 3,108 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/17/2014 6:32:46 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/16/2014 10:56:54 PM, n7 wrote:2. If the B theory is true, then backward time travel is theoretically possible, and that leads to unsolvable paradoxes.I assume you mean the grandfather paradox. This just means killing your grandpa is impossible, but that doesn't mean time travel in whole is impossible.I think it does. My argument goes like this:1. If it's possible to travel back in time, then it's possible to kill your grandfather.2. If it's possible to kill your grandfather, then it's possible to prevent your own existence.3. It's not possible to prevent your own existence.4. Therefore, it's not possible to travel back in time."When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9 "Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/17/2014 7:14:31 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/16/2014 8:17:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Which one do you think is the correct view, and why?A long time ago I considered how I don't think hitler exists well not "now" cause he is dead. He exists in the "past" and I exist in the 'Now". And the "past" doesn't really exist, it exists only in memories and photo's but it's just an illusion, the "past" doesn't really exist to talk about existing in the "past" is just a function of language that isn't literally true.At this point you may think that would lead me to A theory........but wait there's more !!!Then I considered how some one from a thousand years from now would see me as living in the "past" and thus does not exist, in the same way I view hitler as not existing.But hey hang on, I am dame sure I exist in what I call "now" just as much as hitler would regard himself as just as real living in the "now" just as the person from a thousands years reading this post (maybe) would regard themselves as real living the "now" yet we would all view each other as not really existing due to those other guys existing in the past or future.This lead me to believe that all "time" past/present/future (depending on your position) is just as real. I don't see any reason to think my "now" is any more or less real than those two other people I mentioned, even though from my relative view one does not exist (cause they are in the past) the and other does not exist (cause they are from the future), ergo B theory."Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/17/2014 7:58:39 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/16/2014 8:17:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Which one do you think is the correct view, and why?BothMcTaggart"s paradox is just a semantic paradox, the A and B series are just terminological variants, neither is convincing without reference to the other, they are co-aspects of time, it isn"t an either/or question and it doesn"t establish the unreality of time, it is about the descriptive limitations of language, and nothing more.Time is a relational term, the very nature and use of the word "time" implies that it is referential to a dynamic; it isn't self-referential, it refers to relationships between other things or events, therefore, the application of ontology to time as an entity "in and of itself" is misplaced.When looked at from the point of view of the essential vision they offer, the A series and the B series coincide fundamentally, when considered in their respective expressions of their referent, the A series and the B series need one another to support and complete each other. As McTaggart pointed out when he developed the concepts of the A and B series, neither is complete without the other."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
 Posts: 4,840 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/17/2014 9:29:35 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/16/2014 8:17:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Which one do you think is the correct view, and why?I tend towards B-theory for theological reasons.1. If A-theory is true, God can't know the future. If B-theory is true, God can know the future. I think God knows the future, so I think B-theory makes more sense then.2. The Eucharist. It's supposed to be that all throughout time, and all around the world, the body of Jesus is being offered to God the Father as a sacrificial offering for the sins of man. Sure, WLC says that then "evil" is also always present, but the Eucharist counter-reacts that. Furthermore, if there's a hell then there's always "evil" present. Does WLC think that God will destroy the devil?3. The doctrine of divine simplicity. As a Catholic, I'm bound to believe in divine simplicity since it's been declared an article of faith at the 4th Lateran Council and Vatican I. But if A-series is true, then God is divided up into pieces. There's the "God" that existed 10 minutes ago, and the part of "God" that exists now. To quote CS Lewis.. "But God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one." ~C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.169All in all, it just makes more sense to me."Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard "primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/17/2014 9:47:09 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/17/2014 9:29:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:At 4/16/2014 8:17:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Which one do you think is the correct view, and why?I tend towards B-theory for theological reasons.1. If A-theory is true, God can't know the future. If B-theory is true, God can know the future. I think God knows the future, so I think B-theory makes more sense then.2. The Eucharist. It's supposed to be that all throughout time, and all around the world, the body of Jesus is being offered to God the Father as a sacrificial offering for the sins of man. Sure, WLC says that then "evil" is also always present, but the Eucharist counter-reacts that. Furthermore, if there's a hell then there's always "evil" present. Does WLC think that God will destroy the devil?3. The doctrine of divine simplicity. As a Catholic, I'm bound to believe in divine simplicity since it's been declared an article of faith at the 4th Lateran Council and Vatican I.As some sort of intelligent self aware entity you are bound to think for yourself and not just accept something because some one declared it as an article of faith.But if A-series is true, then God is divided up into pieces. There's the "God" that existed 10 minutes ago, and the part of "God" that exists now. To quote CS Lewis.. "But God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one." ~C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.169All in all, just another brick in the wall"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 1,420 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/17/2014 11:08:43 AMPosted: 3 years agoIt's not an either/or question for me. B-theory makes sense of some situations, like the start of the Big Bang, and A-theory makes sense of other situations, like the existence of intervals of time during the Big Bang.
 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/17/2014 6:55:28 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/17/2014 9:29:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:At 4/16/2014 8:17:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Which one do you think is the correct view, and why?I tend towards B-theory for theological reasons.1. If A-theory is true, God can't know the future. If B-theory is true, God can know the future. I think God knows the future, so I think B-theory makes more sense then.What's your argument for God not being able to know the future under A-Theory?2. The Eucharist. It's supposed to be that all throughout time, and all around the world, the body of Jesus is being offered to God the Father as a sacrificial offering for the sins of man. Sure, WLC says that then "evil" is also always present, but the Eucharist counter-reacts that. Furthermore, if there's a hell then there's always "evil" present. Does WLC think that God will destroy the devil?3. The doctrine of divine simplicity. As a Catholic, I'm bound to believe in divine simplicity since it's been declared an article of faith at the 4th Lateran Council and Vatican I. But if A-series is true, then God is divided up into pieces. There's the "God" that existed 10 minutes ago, and the part of "God" that exists now. To quote CS Lewis.. "But God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one." ~C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.169All in all, it just makes more sense to me.
 Posts: 8,154 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/18/2014 8:09:41 AMPosted: 3 years agoIf I find good enough reason to believe B theory, then B theory it is.Join: MSGI Mafia [Signups]: http://www.debate.org... "Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote." ~Yraelz, 2017 Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org... If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/18/2014 12:37:50 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/18/2014 8:09:41 AM, Smithereens wrote:If I find good enough reason to believe B theory, then B theory it is.Well, I do believe A-Theory is the default position. I just think we have a defeater for that...
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/18/2014 4:03:44 PMPosted: 3 years agoWell, if we define time as change, we can clearly see that you can have "no change" or time stopping; "less change" or time slowing down; "more change" or time speeding up; but you cannot have "negative change" and thus not travel back in time. These are all things that have been observed to coincide with SR. So A-Theory it is!WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 2,919 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/19/2014 1:39:22 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/16/2014 8:25:33 PM, philochristos wrote:A theory because it at least seems true. B theory leads to all sorts of counter-intuitive results.1. If the B theory is true, then the appearance of a flow of time is inexplicable.2. If the B theory is true, then backward time travel is theoretically possible, and that leads to unsolvable paradoxes.3. If the B theory is true, the causation is an illusion. Or, if it's not an illusion, then it must mean something other than what it seems to me, which is that one thing happening results in another thing happening.4. If the B theory is true, then nothing ever really happens.5. If the B theory is true, then so is fate.All the arguments I know of for the B theory are insufficient to warrant belief in the B theory. One example is that it's mathmatically consistent and fits scientific models.But in those cases the B theory is simply a mathematically consistent model. It's similar to electrical current. While, in reality, negatively charged particles flow in one direction, current is always calculated as if positive charges were flowing in the opposite direction. That just makes the math easier. Mathematically, there's no difference between negative charges flowing in one direction and positive charges flowing in the other direction. So "current" is just a mathematically consistent model for electricity. It doesn't describe the reality of the matter.In the same way, a positive charge moving in one direction is mathematically equivalent to a negative charge moving in that same direction, but backward through time. So a B theory is a very useful model to talk about the universe and time, but that's all it is--a model. It simplifies things the same way current as the apparent flow of positive charges simplifies things. I don't think it describes the way things really are.B theory it is then.
 Posts: 2,919 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/19/2014 2:26:45 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/17/2014 9:29:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:At 4/16/2014 8:17:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Which one do you think is the correct view, and why?I tend towards B-theory for theological reasons.1. If A-theory is true, God can't know the future. If B-theory is true, God can know the future. I think God knows the future, so I think B-theory makes more sense then.2. The Eucharist. It's supposed to be that all throughout time, and all around the world, the body of Jesus is being offered to God the Father as a sacrificial offering for the sins of man. Sure, WLC says that then "evil" is also always present, but the Eucharist counter-reacts that. Furthermore, if there's a hell then there's always "evil" present. Does WLC think that God will destroy the devil?3. The doctrine of divine simplicity. As a Catholic, I'm bound to believe in divine simplicity since it's been declared an article of faith at the 4th Lateran Council and Vatican I. But if A-series is true, then God is divided up into pieces. There's the "God" that existed 10 minutes ago, and the part of "God" that exists now. To quote CS Lewis.. "But God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one." ~C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.169All in all, it just makes more sense to me.But God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one." ~C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.169That's is Because God is absolute, He is the past the present and the future all at once,
 Posts: 35 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/19/2014 10:36:39 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/18/2014 12:37:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 4/18/2014 8:09:41 AM, Smithereens wrote:If I find good enough reason to believe B theory, then B theory it is.Well, I do believe A-Theory is the default position. I just think we have a defeater for that...Let's not forget about the theory of Thermodynamics. This directly coincides with the B theory.For example, the same water you and I drink and use for other means, is the same water that was used over two thousand years ago by someone to bath in. Think about it.Perhaps you never thought about the possibility the bird you just seen fly in in your back yard is the same bird someone seen two thousand years ago.
 Posts: 8,154 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/20/2014 7:34:31 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/18/2014 12:37:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 4/18/2014 8:09:41 AM, Smithereens wrote:If I find good enough reason to believe B theory, then B theory it is.Well, I do believe A-Theory is the default position. I just think we have a defeater for that......Lol, you just gonna leave me hanging?Join: MSGI Mafia [Signups]: http://www.debate.org... "Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote." ~Yraelz, 2017 Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org... If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/20/2014 3:41:54 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/20/2014 7:34:31 AM, Smithereens wrote:At 4/18/2014 12:37:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 4/18/2014 8:09:41 AM, Smithereens wrote:If I find good enough reason to believe B theory, then B theory it is.Well, I do believe A-Theory is the default position. I just think we have a defeater for that......Lol, you just gonna leave me hanging?Leave you hanging? I don't remember you asking me anything...
 Posts: 8,154 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/21/2014 3:16:38 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/20/2014 3:41:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 4/20/2014 7:34:31 AM, Smithereens wrote:At 4/18/2014 12:37:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 4/18/2014 8:09:41 AM, Smithereens wrote:If I find good enough reason to believe B theory, then B theory it is.Well, I do believe A-Theory is the default position. I just think we have a defeater for that......Lol, you just gonna leave me hanging?Leave you hanging? I don't remember you asking me anything...You claim we have a defeater for the A-theory proposition. May I ask as to what it is?Join: MSGI Mafia [Signups]: http://www.debate.org... "Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote." ~Yraelz, 2017 Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org... If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/23/2014 8:43:07 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/21/2014 3:16:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:At 4/20/2014 3:41:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 4/20/2014 7:34:31 AM, Smithereens wrote:At 4/18/2014 12:37:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 4/18/2014 8:09:41 AM, Smithereens wrote:If I find good enough reason to believe B theory, then B theory it is.Well, I do believe A-Theory is the default position. I just think we have a defeater for that......Lol, you just gonna leave me hanging?Leave you hanging? I don't remember you asking me anything...You claim we have a defeater for the A-theory proposition. May I ask as to what it is?Well, I find the argument convincing at least:P1: If there exists a 4d object called spacetime, then time is tenselessP2: There exists a 4d object called spacetimeC: Therefore, time is tenseless
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/23/2014 9:00:20 PMPosted: 3 years agoTest post"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
 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/23/2014 9:22:51 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 4/23/2014 9:00:20 PM, Sidewalker wrote:Test postYour internet f*cking up or something?