Eternalism and Presentism - theories of time

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThomasT
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theories Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the philosophical theories of time, specifically Eternalism and Presentism. Participants explore the implications of these theories through personal anecdotes and theoretical interpretations, particularly in relation to Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR). The conversation highlights the subjective experience of time and how individuals perceive their existence across different moments. Key insights include the notion that while we perceive time linearly, a more complex, four-dimensional understanding of time exists, as illustrated by the analogy of a pawn on a chessboard.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with philosophical concepts of time, specifically Eternalism and Presentism
  • Basic knowledge of theoretical physics and its implications on time perception
  • Ability to engage in abstract philosophical discussions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of General Relativity on the nature of time
  • Explore philosophical literature on Eternalism and Presentism
  • Study the concept of time as a dimension in theoretical physics
  • Examine case studies or thought experiments related to time travel and its paradoxes
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the nature of time and its perception in both scientific and philosophical contexts.

ThomasT
Messages
529
Reaction score
0
Eternalism and Presentism -- theories of time

The topic of this thread emerged from this thread, [thread=289962]A problem with time travel[/thread]

Originally posted by Maxtm
You and I can perform experiments which show that we are not in the same Present, that we do not share a Now.

How does Presentism hold against that simple truth?

I was having a conversation with my girlfriend about time earlier.

We were driving home from somewhere, and I told her "We are already at home, upstairs, changing into our leisure clothes. We are still at the book store, beginning this conversation. We are still in the moment where I began telling you this."

Then, when we got home, I continued "We are still back there at the corner, when I said we are already upstairs changing, and we are upstairs changing. We are still at the book store, we are still in the moment when we first met. We can't see these periods of time because they are... around the corner from us. That does not invalidate them, nor does our inability to directly perceive events we clearly remember in our past make them stop existing. You and I are lines scribbled through time, imagining each snap shot we perceive to be the truth of reality."
How do I know that you're not just a closet presentist masquerading as an eternalist? :smile:

Your statements don't make any sense to me, so far. (They seem to contradict SR's definition of time.) I'm here to learn, so please elaborate.

What do you think the word, time, refers to? How would you define it?

Are your statements based on an interpretation of general relativity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Time refers to a direction.

I would define it as an ironic degree of freedom, in that it has directions one can move along in theory, but we are constrained by our mass to one of those directions.

Rather like a pawn on a chessboard, we know the other squares exist, but are limited to a single general orientation to our progress.

Like knowing left and right exist while standing sideways on a treadmill. You are aware there is a potential freedom of movement to your left, but you are constrained to move to the right with the treadmill.

You can move back and forth across it, which will reduce the distance you move to the right accordingly, but without some ability to overcome your own inertia, you cannot move across the surface fast enough to go to the left.

A true 4 Dimensional view of your path would be a line extending along the treadmill surface, meandering back and forth through the dimensions you are free to traverse. While you yourself only see 3 D slices of that line, labeling them as a sequence of Nows.

Yes, it is based on GR.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
672
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K