Is Time a Series or a Theory: What Do Philosophers Think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lmoh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the philosophical concepts of time, specifically the A-series and B-series theories. Participants explore whether time is a real, flowing entity or a static dimension where all events are fixed. The conversation touches on implications for physics, subjective experiences of time, and the relationship between time and entropy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants outline the A-theory, which posits that time flows and reality changes, contrasting it with the B-theory, which suggests that all moments in time are fixed.
  • One participant argues that the arrow of time challenges the B-theory, suggesting that it is flawed due to the observable flow of time.
  • Another participant claims that the feeling of time flowing may be a subjective trick related to memory and brain functions, rather than a fundamental aspect of reality.
  • Some participants propose that the laws of relativity support a "block universe" view, where time is static and all events exist simultaneously.
  • One viewpoint suggests that time can be understood contextually, potentially moving beyond traditional metaphysical arguments.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the direction of time may correlate with increasing entropy, linking the perception of past and future to states of order in the universe.
  • There are claims that both A and B theories can be true depending on the observer's frame of reference, particularly when considering relativistic effects.
  • One participant asserts that time does not exist as a separate entity, but is a conceptual tool used to describe sequences of events influenced by entropy and causality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the nature of time. Some support the A-theory, while others favor the B-theory or propose alternative perspectives. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing interpretations of time's nature and implications for physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions, such as the dependence on frames of reference and the subjective nature of time perception. There are also unresolved mathematical and conceptual steps regarding the implications of relativity and entropy on the understanding of time.

Time:

  • A-series (Presentism, Growing Block Theory, Moving Spotlight Theory, etc.)

    Votes: 12 46.2%

  • B-series (Eternalism, Block Universe, etc.)

    Votes: 10 38.5%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 2 7.7%

  • Other (Please Explain)

    Votes: 2 7.7%
  • Total voters
    26
  • #61
lmoh said:
I have tried to read this over, but I am not sure what you are trying to say.

I have read the last few posts and I think we are talking past each other partly.

You poll equates A-series with presentism etc. and B-series with eternalism. I am certainly in favour of some form of eternalism to avoid discarding GR due to the existence of a present but I am less sure about A versus B:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series

http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/#H7

I can see there is a connection but I could also see that it could be related to whether the Big Bang was the start of time, thus every event occurs at some specific co-moving cosmic age and relationships like "before" and "after" are secondary, versus a view that the Big Bang was an event that happened in time while time itself is infinite into the past, thus all event times can only be relative and the Big Bang is merely a convenient origin for our temporal scale. I think I still go with the B-series for my answer but I suspect they may be different decisions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
mangaroosh said:
I think the main arguments against B-series, which only slightly favour A-series - insofar as A-series postulates that the present moment is all that exists - are:

- A clock doesn't measure a physcial property called time; a clock provides a regularly occurring, repetitive process which is used as a standard unit, which facilitates the comparison of other physical processes, and the expression of those processes in standardised units. At no point in the process is there a physical property called "time" actually measured.

- There is no experiment that can, or ever will, be conducted that isn't in the present moment. All that can ever be experienced by anyone is the present moment.

- Following on from that; there is no direct evidence that "the past" or "the future" exist; what we have are the mental constructs of "past" and "future". Without such direct evidenece, both have to be assumed to exist, and "time" along with them.

sweet.
 
  • #63
has anyone ever made a mobius strip? when u put a line in the center it ends up back where it started. i have no evidence to back it up but i get a hunch time is kinda like that.
 
  • #64
Darken-Sol said:
has anyone ever made a mobius strip? when u put a line in the center it ends up back where it started. i have no evidence to back it up but i get a hunch time is kinda like that.

The way we see time behave in experiments leads us to see it slightly differently. One analogy is that it is more like a skater going from one end to the other of a frozen lake, they generally progress towards the destination but with a slight zig-zag to either side. What we call time is the length of the zig-zag path, not the length of the lake.

The Earth's orbit around the Sun means you travel from birth to death in a spiral like a spring with hopefully about 70 turns on the coil. Your age is measured along the helix, not directly between the ends, it is the length of wire needed to wind the coil.

Perdurantism says your life is a coiled spring and equally real at all points, presentism says you are a skater, only real at one spot on the track you leave.
 
  • #65
GeorgeDishman said:
You poll equates A-series with presentism etc. and B-series with eternalism. I am certainly in favour of some form of eternalism to avoid discarding GR due to the existence of a present but I am less sure about A versus B.

I am not sure what you mean here by "A versus B" or what about it you are so unsure about. What is the distinction between "A-series or B-series" and "A versus B"?

GeorgeDishman said:
I can see there is a connection but I could also see that it could be related to whether the Big Bang was the start of time, thus every event occurs at some specific co-moving cosmic age and relationships like "before" and "after" are secondary, versus a view that the Big Bang was an event that happened in time while time itself is infinite into the past, thus all event times can only be relative and the Big Bang is merely a convenient origin for our temporal scale. I think I still go with the B-series for my answer but I suspect they may be different decisions.

They are both certaintly issues within the philosophy of time, but that is as far as I will go. Whether or not time is finite or infinite is not important to whether or not time flows. We can say that time never began flowing or did at the beginning of the universe for the A-series, or just say that there is a block of either infinite or finite size in the case of the B-series (Though the moving spotlight theory kind of incorporates both options).

(I appreciate the discussion, but for now, I will just bow out. I have since lost interest and I am not sure if this conversation is going anywhere. You can respond if you want, maybe I will reply, but I am going to take a break.)
 
  • #66
lmoh said:
I am not sure what you mean here by "A versus B" or what about it you are so unsure about.

I am unsure whether a choice between "A-series" versus "B-series" is the same as a choice between "presentism" versus "eternalism". The way you asked the poll suggested you see them as being the same.

What is the distinction between "A-series or B-series" and "A versus B"?

I got bored typing "series".

(I appreciate the discussion, but for now, I will just bow out. I have since lost interest and I am not sure if this conversation is going anywhere. You can respond if you want, maybe I will reply, but I am going to take a break.)

It's been interesting but I think we have gone as far as we can so I'll leave it at that too.

Best regards
 
  • #67
Good place to stop.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Graduate Is time real (in a physical sense)?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Writing: Input Wanted "Spacetime Drive" idea for sci-fi series of shorts
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
What Philosophical Question Kicks Off Metaphysics 101?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
High School A Valid Position on Time Theory?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Time, Ontology & Platonic Reality vs Material Reality
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
Undergrad No Special Reason for Thinking Consciousness Special in QM
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Undergrad Is the Minkowksi/Einstein Block Universe theory science?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Graduate An Infinite Time's Arrow is Impossible and Incompatible with Scientific Theory
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
13K