Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions on Time

a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've heard some people argue a theory of time that suggests that past present and future all exist, that all of time exists right now, and that our passage through time is just an illusion. I've heard this referred to as the B theory of time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've also heard that the theory of General Relativity supports this view. I would like to ask, how does general relativity support this view?
Moreover, since general relativity identifies space and time as one (spacetime), it follows that past present and future should exist somewhere as well as"some-when." In another dimension/universe perhaps?

Also, if this view of time is true, then why should we view time as we do? Why do we view it as linear instead of nonlinear/random?

Also, if all of time exists independently, then how could causality work? Causality does seem to be true in our universe anyways. Going further with this thought, how would we be able to convict a said murderer of his actions? Because, assuming that the murderer happened in the past, the present murderer would technically not be the same as the present person, since all of time exists independently.

Sorry if I'm not making any sense. Perhaps I do not understand B theory as well as I think. If some one could clarify I would be grateful.
The truth will set you free
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 2:29:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
I've heard some people argue a theory of time that suggests that past present and future all exist, that all of time exists right now, and that our passage through time is just an illusion. I've heard this referred to as the B theory of time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've also heard that the theory of General Relativity supports this view. I would like to ask, how does general relativity support this view?
Moreover, since general relativity identifies space and time as one (spacetime), it follows that past present and future should exist somewhere as well as"some-when." In another dimension/universe perhaps?

I think the point is that past/present/future are relative descriptions and therefore our conception of "present" is not special, since it is only relative to us. All notions of "present" are equally valid in such a view. I hope this helps.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 2:48:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
I've heard some people argue a theory of time that suggests that past present and future all exist, that all of time exists right now, and that our passage through time is just an illusion. I've heard this referred to as the B theory of time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've also heard that the theory of General Relativity supports this view. I would like to ask, how does general relativity support this view?
Moreover, since general relativity identifies space and time as one (spacetime), it follows that past present and future should exist somewhere as well as"some-when." In another dimension/universe perhaps?

Also, if this view of time is true, then why should we view time as we do? Why do we view it as linear instead of nonlinear/random?

Also, if all of time exists independently, then how could causality work? Causality does seem to be true in our universe anyways. Going further with this thought, how would we be able to convict a said murderer of his actions? Because, assuming that the murderer happened in the past, the present murderer would technically not be the same as the present person, since all of time exists independently.

Sorry if I'm not making any sense. Perhaps I do not understand B theory as well as I think. If some one could clarify I would be grateful.

In other words: "You wouldn't consider any point in space special, so why should it be any different for time, given that they are both aspects of space-time".
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
I've heard some people argue a theory of time that suggests that past present and future all exist, that all of time exists right now, and that our passage through time is just an illusion. I've heard this referred to as the B theory of time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've also heard that the theory of General Relativity supports this view. I would like to ask, how does general relativity support this view?

http://www.debate.org...

Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle. In actual fact, both A- and B-theory are incorrect. This is unsurprising, as they are not scientific theories.

Moreover, since general relativity identifies space and time as one (spacetime), it follows that past present and future should exist somewhere as well as"some-when." In another dimension/universe perhaps?

There are 4 dimensions in General Relativity: height (up/down), width (left/right), length (forward/backward) and time (past/future). It's 10:14 in the morning as I'm writing this; if I wanted to send my watch to my past self at 8:30, my watch would need to travel 44 minutes in the past direction of the time dimension. It would not need to move in space, even though I was sitting in a lecture hall instead of at this computer, because the wrist the watch was attached to is the frame of reference, and the watch has not moved relative to it.

Also, if this view of time is true, then why should we view time as we do? Why do we view it as linear instead of nonlinear/random?

Blame thermodynamics. Life only evolves when it's aligned with it, and therefore we perceive time as one-way.

Also, if all of time exists independently, then how could causality work? Causality does seem to be true in our universe anyways.

Strictly speaking, cause and effect are interchangeable. Again, blame our limited perception on Thermodynamics.

Going further with this thought, how would we be able to convict a said murderer of his actions? Because, assuming that the murderer happened in the past, the present murderer would technically not be the same as the present person, since all of time exists independently.

In a legal context, they are the same person. Also, even if the murderer was "destined" to commit the crime, that doesn't mean they didn't choose to do it.

Sorry if I'm not making any sense. Perhaps I do not understand B theory as well as I think. If some one could clarify I would be grateful.

You'd really be better off forgetting about it, as it's not relevant to anything outside of bullshiit debates.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:


Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle. In actual fact, both A- and B-theory are incorrect. This is unsurprising, as they are not scientific theories.


The uncertainty principle only rules out certain interpretations of B-theory i.e., those which propose that our universe is an unchanging and already-determined set of states. But if you look at the universe as a set of states which are in direct descriptive contact with each other (thus allowing for retrocausation), such that the configuration of our universe is an ongoing process even though the "present" is relative, then you don't run into such problems.
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 5:37:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle. In actual fact, both A- and B-theory are incorrect. This is unsurprising, as they are not scientific theories.

Interesting. So how do you think time works?
The truth will set you free
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 3:49:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 5:37:19 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle. In actual fact, both A- and B-theory are incorrect. This is unsurprising, as they are not scientific theories.

Interesting. So how do you think time works?

Nobody knows. The best theory to date is General Relativity, but that doesn't work with gravitational singularities (infinite density screws up the math) or the Uncertainty Principle (Relativity assumes the universe is not random), so it's limited in those respects. Whatever the answer, it will come from Physics and not from Philosophy. Science rendered Philosophy obsolete three centuries ago. Quantum Mechanics then pissed on Philosophy's grave, by showing us that logic works differently at the subatomic level.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I won't even begin to explain that article, as the math is completely beyond me.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:


Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle. In actual fact, both A- and B-theory are incorrect. This is unsurprising, as they are not scientific theories.


The uncertainty principle only rules out certain interpretations of B-theory i.e., those which propose that our universe is an unchanging and already-determined set of states. But if you look at the universe as a set of states which are in direct descriptive contact with each other (thus allowing for retrocausation), such that the configuration of our universe is an ongoing process even though the "present" is relative, then you don't run into such problems.

Or we could just abandon B-theory altogether, as it is completely useless.
725bobspongeemo
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 5:57:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:


Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle. In actual fact, both A- and B-theory are incorrect. This is unsurprising, as they are not scientific theories.


The uncertainty principle only rules out certain interpretations of B-theory i.e., those which propose that our universe is an unchanging and already-determined set of states. But if you look at the universe as a set of states which are in direct descriptive contact with each other (thus allowing for retrocausation), such that the configuration of our universe is an ongoing process even though the "present" is relative, then you don't run into such problems.

Or we could just abandon B-theory altogether, as it is completely useless.

Yeah. My friend "M" made C-theory. Let's use C-theory.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:


Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle. In actual fact, both A- and B-theory are incorrect. This is unsurprising, as they are not scientific theories.


The uncertainty principle only rules out certain interpretations of B-theory i.e., those which propose that our universe is an unchanging and already-determined set of states. But if you look at the universe as a set of states which are in direct descriptive contact with each other (thus allowing for retrocausation), such that the configuration of our universe is an ongoing process even though the "present" is relative, then you don't run into such problems.

Or we could just abandon B-theory altogether, as it is completely useless.

What do you mean?
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 4:40:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:


Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle. In actual fact, both A- and B-theory are incorrect. This is unsurprising, as they are not scientific theories.


The uncertainty principle only rules out certain interpretations of B-theory i.e., those which propose that our universe is an unchanging and already-determined set of states. But if you look at the universe as a set of states which are in direct descriptive contact with each other (thus allowing for retrocausation), such that the configuration of our universe is an ongoing process even though the "present" is relative, then you don't run into such problems.

Or we could just abandon B-theory altogether, as it is completely useless.

What do you mean?

B-theory makes no testable predictions about how time works.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 4:57:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 4:40:48 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:


Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle. In actual fact, both A- and B-theory are incorrect. This is unsurprising, as they are not scientific theories.


The uncertainty principle only rules out certain interpretations of B-theory i.e., those which propose that our universe is an unchanging and already-determined set of states. But if you look at the universe as a set of states which are in direct descriptive contact with each other (thus allowing for retrocausation), such that the configuration of our universe is an ongoing process even though the "present" is relative, then you don't run into such problems.

Or we could just abandon B-theory altogether, as it is completely useless.

What do you mean?

B-theory makes no testable predictions about how time works.

Even if that's the case, that doesn't mean we are warranted in "abandoning it" a priori. B-theory is clearly of interest for those wishing to understand the nature of reality. What makes you think that all relevant facts about the natural world can be known through the scientific method?
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 4:59:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
I've heard some people argue a theory of time that suggests that past present and future all exist, that all of time exists right now, and that our passage through time is just an illusion. I've heard this referred to as the B theory of time. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've also heard that the theory of General Relativity supports this view. I would like to ask, how does general relativity support this view?
Moreover, since general relativity identifies space and time as one (spacetime), it follows that past present and future should exist somewhere as well as"some-when." In another dimension/universe perhaps?

Also, if this view of time is true, then why should we view time as we do? Why do we view it as linear instead of nonlinear/random?

Also, if all of time exists independently, then how could causality work? Causality does seem to be true in our universe anyways. Going further with this thought, how would we be able to convict a said murderer of his actions? Because, assuming that the murderer happened in the past, the present murderer would technically not be the same as the present person, since all of time exists independently.

Sorry if I'm not making any sense. Perhaps I do not understand B theory as well as I think. If some one could clarify I would be grateful.

This is why the Bible talks about "science, so-called" and men who are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. If you have time tomorrow, you can look up these phrases in the Bible.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 7:45:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 4:57:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Even if that's the case, that doesn't mean we are warranted in "abandoning it" a priori. B-theory is clearly of interest for those wishing to understand the nature of reality.

People interested in reality learn about reality. People interested in mindless waffle study Philosophy instead.

What makes you think that all relevant facts about the natural world can be known through the scientific method?

Relevant.

Facts.

Natural.

World.

You've answered your own question.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 10:19:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My view is that time emerges from Quantum Entanglement, and that it isn't fundamental. This view is actually supported by experiment.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 1:45:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 10:19:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This view is actually supported by experiment.

I'm calling bullshiit on that.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 1:55:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 1:45:36 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/18/2014 10:19:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This view is actually supported by experiment.

I'm calling bullshiit on that.

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time "Emerges" from Entanglement

https://medium.com...

;)
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 4:03:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 1:55:24 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/19/2014 1:45:36 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/18/2014 10:19:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This view is actually supported by experiment.

I'm calling bullshiit on that.

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time "Emerges" from Entanglement

https://medium.com...

;)

Interesting, though not conclusive. I recant my previous post.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 12:17:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 4:03:41 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/19/2014 1:55:24 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/19/2014 1:45:36 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/18/2014 10:19:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This view is actually supported by experiment.

I'm calling bullshiit on that.

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time "Emerges" from Entanglement

https://medium.com...

;)

Interesting, though not conclusive. I recant my previous post.

I didn't say that my view of time was "proven" by science conclusively, just that it is supported by it. The Big Bang isn't conclusively proven by science either, but the evidence supports it.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 2:32:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 4:40:48 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
B-theory makes no testable predictions about how time works.

At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle.

It makes no testable prediction about how time works, but it's shown false because it supposedly fails a prediction.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 5:21:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 2:32:41 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2014 4:40:48 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
B-theory makes no testable predictions about how time works.

At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle.

It makes no testable prediction about how time works, but it's shown false because it supposedly fails a prediction.

So you agree that B-theory predicts determinism, and that the Uncertainty Principle disproves determinism, and that B-theory is therefore incorrect.

Cheers.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:15:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 5:21:16 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 2:32:41 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2014 4:40:48 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
B-theory makes no testable predictions about how time works.

At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle.

It makes no testable prediction about how time works, but it's shown false because it supposedly fails a prediction.

So you agree that B-theory predicts determinism, and that the Uncertainty Principle disproves determinism, and that B-theory is therefore incorrect.

Cheers.

No, read my post again. Look at both of your quotes.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 9:49:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:15:46 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:21:16 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 2:32:41 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2014 4:40:48 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
B-theory makes no testable predictions about how time works.

At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle.

It makes no testable prediction about how time works, but it's shown false because it supposedly fails a prediction.

So you agree that B-theory predicts determinism, and that the Uncertainty Principle disproves determinism, and that B-theory is therefore incorrect.

Cheers.

No, read my post again. Look at both of your quotes.

I know.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:17:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 9:49:15 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:15:46 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:21:16 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 2:32:41 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2014 4:40:48 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
B-theory makes no testable predictions about how time works.

At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle.

It makes no testable prediction about how time works, but it's shown false because it supposedly fails a prediction.

So you agree that B-theory predicts determinism, and that the Uncertainty Principle disproves determinism, and that B-theory is therefore incorrect.

Cheers.

No, read my post again. Look at both of your quotes.

I know.

You find no problem with claiming something makes no predictions just after claiming it fails a prediction?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 12:27:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 5:21:16 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 2:32:41 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2014 4:40:48 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
B-theory makes no testable predictions about how time works.

At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle.

It makes no testable prediction about how time works, but it's shown false because it supposedly fails a prediction.

So you agree that B-theory predicts determinism, and that the Uncertainty Principle disproves determinism, and that B-theory is therefore incorrect.

Cheers.

This argument fails, and I believe Richard Carrier pointed out why in one of his articles on Quantum Mechanics. Basically, the Uncertainty Principle only means that there is no causal determining factor which leads to any particular contingent properties of a particle. That doesn't mean that if you re-round the clocks back, it could be a different conclusion, or you could get a different outcome. The Uncertainty Principle only refutes CAUSAL determinism, not determinism as a whole. Ergo, the UP does not disprove B-Theory.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 12:37:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What I heard recently is that the arrow of time would either come to a stop or it would be always moving forward. I haven't seen anything to suggest the arrow of time can go backwards once we hit and surpass the event horizon, but that is a rather unknown territory at this point and may likely stay that way.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:13:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 12:27:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:21:16 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 2:32:41 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2014 4:40:48 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:56:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/17/2014 3:51:06 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 5:18:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
B-theory makes no testable predictions about how time works.

At 10/16/2014 4:36:46 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/16/2014 12:50:25 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, makes B-theory impossible due to the Uncertainty Principle.

It makes no testable prediction about how time works, but it's shown false because it supposedly fails a prediction.

So you agree that B-theory predicts determinism, and that the Uncertainty Principle disproves determinism, and that B-theory is therefore incorrect.

Cheers.

This argument fails, and I believe Richard Carrier pointed out why in one of his articles on Quantum Mechanics. Basically, the Uncertainty Principle only means that there is no causal determining factor which leads to any particular contingent properties of a particle. That doesn't mean that if you re-round the clocks back, it could be a different conclusion, or you could get a different outcome. The Uncertainty Principle only refutes CAUSAL determinism, not determinism as a whole. Ergo, the UP does not disprove B-Theory.

Richard Carrier is not a scientist and has no credibility as an expert witness. Also, you haven't linked to the source, thus providing no evidence of your claim.