Why Does Time Flow Forward?

[Tournesol]

All moments (= temporal plane slices in 4D spacetime) are conscious - but from the conscious perspective "within" each moment (temporal plane slice in 4D spacetime) you have no direct awareness of the other moments (other temporal plane slices in 4D spacetime).

The implication of the BU/BS theory is that you should have. I agree you don't.
That is how the BU/BS theory doesn't match observation.

Just because all moments are conscious does not mean they are all conscious "at the same time"

It does under the BU/BS theory, because being conscious one-after the
other would require an A series, which it explictly lacks.

- because the (internal) time is different for each moment,

what do you mean by "internal time" ? The mental contents
are certainly different. But, by hypothesis, they call
co-exist in the fourth dimension.

and there is no other dimension of "background time" against which the 4D spacetime is "played out"!

Exactly. The BU is no different from 4D space. The fourth dimension is only
time in an "honourary" sense. Every moment along the 4th dimension is "on
all fours" with all others, so there is no way individual moments
can be picked out to be conscious. They either all are equally, or none are.

It is static. Its the same problem as "if time is flowing - what is it flowing relative to?" - the question is meaningless, because time is not flowing (therefore it is not flowing relative to anything).

The flow of time is subectively evident. It can be explained by Becoming without the paradoxes of the "motion" metaphor.

Why ? Why isn't conscious experience located in individual neurons? Why does individualisation apply to time and not to space ?
Flow-of-Time/A-series theorists can claim this because it follows naturally form their premises. But BU/BS theorists regrard time as being almost the same, or the same, as space.

I agree that consciousness must be delocalised over a finite region of 4D spacetime, but this does not mean that time flows, any more than it means that "space flows".

BU theory predicts that consciousness must be much less localised than is observed.
BU theory is therefore false.
Either time flows, or there is a block universe.
Since BU is false, FoT must be true.

They have "already" communicated, in that subsequent moments contain information-traces from previous ones.

Agreed, but that communication is limited to times and spaces which are in direct causal contact with the spacetime in question. The only information in your brain linked to previous times is contained in the causally dependent brain-states which result from those direct causal contacts. You have no conscious connection with those other spacetimes except via the information provided from those causal connections.

Which me ? The me *now*...the me *now*...?

Each "me" at each point in time is in exactly the same boat, according to BU/BS.

Either they are all conscious, or none are.

So the me at time T is conscious, and the me at time T-1 is conscious.

Now, you can argue that there is no reason that me(T-1) should have
consicous awarness of me(T), because me(T-1) lacks information about
me(T). But the reverse is not the case. Why shouldn't me(T) share me(T-1)'s
conscious experience ? The natural model would be that my consicousness
expands as it goes on, just as my information does

Conscious(T0)
Conscious(T0+T1)
Conscious(T0+T1+T2)

rather than the perceived

Conscious(T0)
Conscious(T1)
Conscious(T2)

That doesn't follow. Under the BU/BS theory, we are 4D, so why wouldn't we have a 4D consciousness ? If spatially separated neurons can form the same consciousness, why can't temporally separated ones ?

Consciousness is delocalised over a small, but only a very small, region of spacetime, I agree.

Consciousness is delocalised over a small area of space, because the rich causal
interaction inside the cranium do not extend outside the cranium. The perceived delocalisation
is exactly line with the causal evidence--as far a s space is concerned.

However, every brains state of your existence is casually connected to every other
one. So we would expect, on the BU/BS theory, that you cosnciousness is "delocalised"
to you lifetime -- and not just a moment.

Our consciousness is 4D, but the relations between different temporal "slices" of 4D spacetime is mediated by intervening slices. In the same way that a person when in New York is spatially (and temporally) separated from that same person when in New Delhi, your consciousness in 1996 is temporally (and spatially) separated from your consciousness in 2006 - they are separate instances of consciousness in spacetime.

Spatial separation doesn't matter so long as there is casual connection. (E.g. split-brain patients).

How can there be evolution without a flow of time ?

Because evolution is simply the deterministic relation between different temporal plane slices in a block 4D spacetime.

Why should future events need to be causally determined by laws if they exist already ?

 

[Drachir]

moving finger wrote in #85:

Originally Posted by Drachir
The solipsist notes that the solipsist’s first conscious act had to have been the act of identifying and defining the content of the solipsist’s first perception. That was the solipsist’s first meeting with the unknown. Since no perception or act of consciousness could precede that first perception or first act of consciousness, the solipsist becomes aware that such an act implied that the requisite already-held knowledge could not have been acquired from perceptions by the solipsist’s consciousness.

This does not follow. It is quite possible that the solipsist's consciousness is the only thing in existence, and the first act of that consciousness was to imagine a perception. You seem to be assuming that the first perception must be grounded in some reality external to consciousness, but there is no a priori reason why this must be the case.

Your are correct in stating that there is no reason why the first perception must be grounded in some reality external to consciousness. The first perception might well be a hallucination. However, for the first perception to be meaningful (even if a hallucination) it must be identified or defined. However, identification and definition require some already-held knowledge, since the unknown can only be defined in terms of the known. That already-held knowledge could not have been consciously acquired prior to that first act of consciousness. That already-held knowledge, therefore, is independent of consciousness. Hence, consciousness cannot be the sole existent. That already-held knowledge, the bootstrap data so to speak, is inherent in the ‘pre-wiring’ of the brain. First experiences (first inputs) could have no meaning if they did not somehow relate to that already-held knowledge (bootstrap data).

moving finger continued:

You talk of "knowledge" - but what do you mean by the word? The conventional analysis of knowledge defines it as justified true belief. Now there is no way that the solipsist can know for certain that his beliefs are true, therefore any knowledge he thinks he has is simply a "belief about" knowledge. The solipsist has beliefs (beliefs which he may even claim are justified beliefs), but to make the leap of faith from belief to knowledge entails that those beliefs are true - and the solipsist has no access to certain truth (any more than you or I).

Your argument is therefore unsound.

If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, and if there is no access to certain truth , then we cannot justify the truth of a belief and, hence, cannot have knowledge. Nonetheless, in your response quoted above you have made several claims to knowledge. Perhaps we can improve on, and simplify, the definition of knowledge.

A golfer goes to the pro shop at his club on a Thursday afternoon and requests a caddy. The pro tells him that the only caddy available is old Mike, who, though 97 years old, still has excellent eyesight. At the first tee the golfer hits a beautiful long one and asks his caddy “Did you see that one?” Old Mike replies “Sure I saw it. I have eyes like an eagle.” Then the golfer asks, “Where did it go?” Old Mike replies “I don’t remember.”

By my definition, knowledge is recallable memory. Old Mike did not know where the ball went. We all occasionally experience temporary memory lapses during which we cannot recall some knowledge, say the name of a person we met earlier in the day. During that lapse we do not know the name of that person. If we subsequently recall the memory we know the name of the person.

Knowledge, a recallable memory, is not necessarily ‘true.’ Ptolemy developed an epicyclic model of the universe with the sun in orbit around the Earth and the planets in orbit around the sun. For fourteen centuries people knew his system was ‘true’ because it gave good correspondence with observations. But, knowledge can be updated. Isn’t that what a bulletin board like this is all about?

Here is a dictionary definition of belief - confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. If the truth or existence of something is immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, it is not a belief.

As for access to certain truth by the solipsist and us, is their anything uncertain or untrue about Aristotle’s laws of identity, excluded middle, or non-contradiction? Aren’t those laws the very foundations of, and touchstones for, certainty and truth?

Best regards.

 

[Drachir]

Tournesol wrote in #76:

Originally Posted by Drachir
My ground for saying that there is no such thing as time itself is not that it doesn’t exist separately from specific instances. My grounds are 1) that we cannot even conceive of time without invoking a conception of something moving, and 2) that our notion of time is an abstraction from the motions of things. When we measure time we are comparing one motion with another. Motion can be sensed with several of our senses.

To move is to be in different places at different times. v=dx/dt

I cannot agree with your definition because circular, oscillating, or rebounding motion allows being in the same place at different times. My dictionary defines motion as the action or process of changing place or position. That definition does not refer to time. I still maintain that things and their motions have physical existence; time does not. Time exists only in our minds as an abstraction from the motions of things.

Tournesol also wrote in #76:

Time is inferred from the position
of clock-hands

I think you forgot something important. Time is inferred from the position of clock hands only if the hands are moving.

Tournesol also wrote in #76 first quoting me:

You err if you equate a reversal of time with a reversal of all the laws of physics. Some essential things in physics, such as the resolution of forces, are time invariant.

If they are time-invariant, a fortiori they can be reversed. Time-invariance doesn't mean reversal is impossible, it means it makes no difference !

And if it makes no difference to a physical law it means the law is not reversed by a reversal of time.

 

[Drachir]

The One Way Arrow Of Time

If the arrow of time were to reverse and point backward to the past, old knowledge would disappear and no new knowledge could form. Then it could not be known that time reversed or ran backwards, since that would be new knowledge. Therefore, the arrow of time can only be known to point one way, toward the future.

 

[Psykostx]

Wait wait. I thought time was simply the effect of movement through space? I got a good question , is time speeding up, or slowing down? Is time singular or dynamic? Maybe our minds are time travel devices, breaking the one component of time into many pieces, allowing us to experience one short event (the big bang) as a sequence of longer events. Our small size could dialate time as objects trillions of times our size move through space at the speed of light.. much as a spider experiences many events in the same time we experience one. A boxer can get nine shots in (fully conscious of each hits location and power) before you even feel the first one...because he is trained to slow down his perception of time through extreme concentration. This is a cool thread!

 

[Tournesol]

Tournesol wrote in #76:I cannot agree with your definition because circular, oscillating, or rebounding motion allows being in the same place at different times.

That is not a problem if the definition is read as

"If the same thing is ever in different places at different times, it is moving"

(rather than "if a thing is never in the same place twice, it is moving").

My dictionary defines motion as the action or process of changing place or position. That definition does not refer to time.

In the way that "bachelor" does not refer to "man"...
time is always impicit in change.

I still maintain that things and their motions have physical existence; time does not. Time exists only in our minds as an abstraction from the motions of things.

It doesn't go away when you stop thinking about it.
So, no.

Tournesol also wrote in #76: I think you forgot something important. Time is inferred from the position of clock hands only if the hands are moving.

That doesn't mean "time is motion" any more than "temperature is mercury".

Tournesol also wrote in #76 first quoting me: And if it makes no difference to a physical law it means the law is not reversed by a reversal of time.

It doesn't mean it is "not reversed" in the sense that
it keeps stubbornly pointing the same way, it means it is "not reversed"
in the sense that it never pointed in the first place.

 

[Drachir]

The reversal of time is not a subject of science.

Tournesol wrote in #96:

"If the same thing is ever in different places at different times, it is moving"

I disagree with that statement. If something was at one position in the past and is at another position at present, it certainly moved in the past, but it does not necessarily follow that it is moving at present. It could have just come to rest at present or perhaps even sooner.

Tournesol continued in #96 quoting me first:

My dictionary defines motion as the action or process of changing place or position. That definition does not refer to time.

In the way that "bachelor" does not refer to "man"...
time is always impicit in change.

In the same vein, one could also claim that time is always implicit in the absence of change. Examples: how long it took to change, or how long it hasn’t changed. How can time be implicit in both change and the absence of change? Time seems to be independent of change.

Motion, not time, is implicit in change, because there can be no change without motion of something. Motion is implicit in change; absence of motion is implicit in absence of change. If we say that a person is fifty years old, it means that the Earth has completed 50 orbits of the sun since that person was born. Motion is implicit in those orbits, not time. The aging or the changes of that person are not the result of the passage of time; they are the result of motions of molecules, atoms, electrons, photons, and so on.

Time is an abstraction we make to allow us to compare different motions. When we measure the time elapsed during a change we compare the motions implicit in the change to the motions implicit in the clock used for the measurement.

Tournesol continued in #96 quoting me first:

I still maintain that things and their motions have physical existence; time does not. Time exists only in our minds as an abstraction from the motions of things.

It doesn't go away when you stop thinking about it.
So, no.

When you stop thinking of an abstraction, it has certainly gone away from your conscious mind and is not necessarily preserved in memory. So, yes?

Tournesol continued in #96 quoting me first:

[ I think you forgot something important. Time is inferred from the position of clock hands only if the hands are moving.

That doesn't mean "time is motion" any more than "temperature is mercury".

At last we agree on something. Of course time is not motion. Time is an abstraction we make from motions.

Tournesol finally wrote in #96 quoting me first:

And if it makes no difference to a physical law it means the law is not reversed by a reversal of time.

It doesn't mean it is "not reversed" in the sense that
it keeps stubbornly pointing the same way, it means it is "not reversed"
in the sense that it never pointed in the first place.

If some laws of physics “never pointed in the first place,” it is meaningless to speak of reversing them. However, Tournesol did want them reversed when he wrote in #31:

If you reverse all the laws of physics ,
you reverse all the laws of physics. The problems
you mention will "cancel through"

In #94 I wrote:

If the arrow of time were to reverse and point backward to the past, old knowledge would disappear and no new knowledge could form. Then it could not be known that time reversed or ran backwards, since that would be new knowledge. Therefore, the arrow of time can only be known to point one way, toward the future.

A reversal of time would be unknowable; we could have no knowledge of it. Science is a branch of knowledge. The word science derives from the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge. Anything unknowable, such as the reversal of time, is not a subject of science.

 

[Tournesol]

I disagree with that statement. If something was at one position in the past and is at another position at present, it certainly moved in the past, but it does not necessarily follow that it is moving at present. It could have just come to rest at present or perhaps even sooner.

Fine then:

"If the same thing is ever in different places at different times, it is HAS MOVED"

You are making mountains out of molehills. The basic point is that
motion is change of position over time. That is how it is defined
in both physics and philosophy.

In the same vein, one could also claim that time is always implicit in the absence of change. Examples: how long it took to change, or how long it hasn’t changed. How can time be implicit in both change and the absence of change? Time seems to be independent of change.

In a timeless universe, there is complete absence
of change, so time is not always implicit in absence of change.

Time is impict in "how long" something doesn't change or any
other "how long" question. It is implicit in the "how long" not
the "didn't change".

Motion, not time, is implicit in change, because there can be no change without motion of something.

How do you know ? That would depend on the laws
of the universe. We can conceive of universes where nothing
moves, but changes occur (changes of colour, for instance).

Chnge and time are more concpertually fundamental than motion.

If we say that a person is fifty years old, it means that the Earth has completed 50 orbits of the sun since that person was born.

It is convenient to measure time with
moving objects. Concpetually, we don't
have to -- we could use something that
goes through a cyclic colour change.

Motion is implicit in those orbits, not time. The aging or the changes of that person are not the result of the passage of time; they are the result of motions of molecules, atoms, electrons, photons, and so on.

Time underpinds motion.

Time is an abstraction we make to allow us to compare different motions. When we measure the time elapsed during a change we compare the motions implicit in the change to the motions implicit in the clock used for the measurement.

we can't analyse time in terms of motion. Of we did, we
would have to conclude that when a pendulum returns to
a point it has visited before, it has gone back in time.

[ time ] doesn't go away when you stop thinking about it.

When you stop thinking of an abstraction, it has certainly gone away from your conscious mind and is not necessarily preserved in memory. So, yes?

So , no. The clock keeps ticking. Time is still passing
objectively.

At last we agree on something. Of course time is not motion. Time is an abstraction we make from motions.

Why not say motion is an abstraction form
time and position ? You need a consistent set of criteria.

However, Tournesol did want them reversed when he wrote in #31:

If you reverse all the laws of physics ,
you reverse all the laws of physics. The problems
you mention will "cancel through"

I didn't "wan't them reversed". I pointed out that it
was possible; that your counterexamples assume only
some things are reversed and not other. In fact,
if the laws of physics ae time-invariant, that only
reinforces the point.

If the arrow of time were to reverse and point backward to the past, old knowledge would disappear and no new knowledge could form.

Looked at from the perspective of the "old" arrow
of time. You are assuming some things reverse and not others,
again.

Then it could not be known that time reversed or ran backwards, since that would be new knowledge. Therefore, the arrow of time can only be known to point one way, toward the future.

The question is more why it should point at all.

A reversal of time would be unknowable; we could have no knowledge of it. Science is a branch of knowledge. The word science derives from the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge. Anything unknowable, such as the reversal of time, is not a subject of science.

There are different arrows of time.

 

[Drachir]

Tournesol wrote in#98:

Fine then:

"If the same thing is ever in different places at different times, it is HAS MOVED"

If you meant to write “it HAS MOVED”, thanks for coming over to the other side on that one. However, you started out to describe present motion when you wrote in #96:

If the same thing is ever in different places at different times, it is moving.

How would you change that definition to define present motion in terms of time?

Tournesol continued:

You are making mountains out of molehills. The basic point is that
motion is change of position over time. That is how it is defined
in both physics and philosophy.

That definition leads to a serious problem in the following way. If something is in continuous motion from position A, through position B, to position C, it has no change of position and spends no time at position B. According to that definition, then, it has no motion at position B, which contradicts our postulate that it is in continuous motion. We know, however, that because it is continuously moving, it has both velocity and momentum (qualities of motion) at position B.

My dictionaries define motion as the act or process of moving or of changing place or position. That definition has no such problem at position B where the act or process, and hence motion, can continue.

Here are Newton’s definitions of motion: “Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another; and relative motion is a translation from one relative place into another.”

Philosophers wouldn’t define motion in terms of time, which few have considered to be real. Antiphon the Sophist (circa 500 BC) held that “Time is not a reality, but a concept or a measure."

Newton believed in the reality of absolute space and absolute time, but gave us neither proof of their existence nor methods to determine them. Regarding relative time, Newton wrote: “Relative, apparent, and common time is any sensible and external measure (precise or imprecise) of duration by means of motion; such a measure - for example, an hour, a day, a month, a year - is commonly used instead of true time." Note that in his definition of relative time Newton measured “duration by means of motion”, not vice versa.

Leibniz believed time to be an abstract concept rather than real. Kant considered time to be an a priori notion or idea, so denying the external reality of time. Emerson and Julian Barbour deny the reality of time in their own ways.

Einstein wrote, “Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.”

Tournesol also wrote in #98:

In a timeless universe, there is complete absence
of change, so time is not always implicit in absence of change.

A universe is a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails. A timeless universe would have to be empty of matter or energy, i.e., with nothing existing or prevailing in it. Therefore, a timeless universe is a contradiction in terms, and meaningless.

Tournesol also wrote in #98, quoting me first:

Motion, not time, is implicit in change, because there can be no change without motion of something.

How do you know ? That would depend on the laws
of the universe. We can conceive of universes where nothing
moves, but changes occur (changes of colour, for instance).

Chnge and time are more concpertually fundamental than motion.

A universe in which nothing moves is meaningless for the same reasons that a timeless universe is meaningless. Color is an abstraction we make from our sensing of visible wavelengths of light. For color to have meaning there must be light. Light moves.

We form concepts from our percepts. We can perceive motion but cannot perceive change or time. Therefore, motion is more fundamental than change or time.

Tournesol also wrote in #98:

It is convenient to measure time with
moving objects. Concpetually, we don't
have to -- we could use something that
goes through a cyclic colour change.

What would cause a color change if not the motions of things? We could certainly design an LCD clock that displayed time as a cyclic color change, but we would have to use something that moves (such as an oscillating quartz crystal) to produce the cycles.

Tournesol also wrote in #98:

Time underpinds motion.

and

we can't analyse time in terms of motion.

Do you mean that Newton was wrong regarding relative time? In what terms can we analyze time?

Tournesol also wrote in #98:

So , no. The clock keeps ticking. Time is still passing
objectively.

The only thing objective there is that the clock escapement keeps moving and ticking. Things and their motions are objective. Time is subjective because it is a mental abstraction.

Tournesol also wrote in #98:

Why not say motion is an abstraction form
time and position ? You need a consistent set of criteria.

That cannot be said because motion is experienced as a percept. Time, like any concept, is an abstraction. An abstraction expresses a common quality of two or more percepts or concepts.

Tournesol also wrote in #98, quoting me first:

If the arrow of time were to reverse and point backward to the past, old knowledge would disappear and no new knowledge could form.

Looked at from the perspective of the "old" arrow
of time. You are assuming some things reverse and not others,
again.

How would they differ looked at from the perspective of the “new” arrow of time? As for assumptions, that statement clearly assumes that a reversal of time means that all things reverse, all motions reverse, that each event plays backward, and all sequential events or states of the world occur in reverse order.

Tournesol also wrote about the arrow of time in #98:

The question is more why it should point at all.

The arrow of time has to point because all arrows have a point by definition.

If the arrow of time were to point to neither future nor past, if it were not to point at all, time would stand still. If time were to stand still, there could be no new knowledge, not even that time was standing still. Time standing still would be unknowable. Anything unknowable is beyond comprehension and is meaningless.


Tournesol finally wrote in #98

There are different arrows of time.

We have tackled the forward arrow of our time, the backward arrow of time reversal, the arrow of time that points to neither future nor past, the arrow of time that does not point at all (despite all arrows having a point}and the absent arrow of time. Have we omitted any, and if so, how would they change this discussion?

 

[Tournesol]

If you meant to write “it HAS MOVED”, thanks for coming over to the other side on that one. However, you started out to describe present motion when you wrote in #96: How would you change that definition to define present motion in terms of time?

Motion is still change of location. All this past/present stuff is a red herring.

That definition leads to a serious problem in the following way. If something is in continuous motion from position A, through position B, to position C, it has no change of position

It obviously does change position.

and spends no time at position B.

Don't get the problems of time confused with the problems of real-number analysis.

According to that definition, then, it has no motion at position B, which contradicts our postulate that it is in continuous motion. We know, however, that because it is continuously moving, it has both velocity and momentum (qualities of motion) at position B.

If you are saying it has no **instantaneous** velocity, I can only agree: motion requires time.

My dictionaries define motion as the act or process of moving or of changing place or position. That definition has no such problem at position B where the act or process, and hence motion, can continue.

I have no idea what you mean.

Here are Newton’s definitions of motion: “Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another; and relative motion is a translation from one relative place into another.”

Although he doesn't say so, motion requires time, or ther would be no difference between
a moving point and a stationary line.

Philosophers wouldn’t define motion in terms of time, which few have considered to be real. Antiphon the Sophist (circa 500 BC) held that “Time is not a reality, but a concept or a measure."

Philosophers nowadays are expected to come up with arguments, not just "say" things.

Newton believed in the reality of absolute space and absolute time, but gave us neither proof of their existence nor methods to determine them. Regarding relative time, Newton wrote: “Relative, apparent, and common time is any sensible and external measure (precise or imprecise) of duration by means of motion; such a measure - for example, an hour, a day, a month, a year - is commonly used instead of true time." Note that in his definition of relative time Newton measured “duration by means of motion”, not vice versa.

We've been through this before. The fact that time is measured with the help
of motion does not mean motion is more *conceptually* fundamental than time.

Leibniz believed time to be an abstract concept rather than real. Kant considered time to be an a priori notion or idea, so denying the external reality of time. Emerson and Julian Barbour deny the reality of time in their own ways.

Yes, and I have criticised their views.

Einstein wrote, “Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.”

Tournesol also wrote in #98: A universe is a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails. A timeless universe would have to be empty of matter or energy,

Why ?

i.e., with nothing existing or prevailing in it. Therefore, a timeless universe is a contradiction in terms, and meaningless.

You are making a lot of arbitrary assumptions.

Tournesol also wrote in #98, quoting me first: A universe in which nothing moves is meaningless for the same reasons that a timeless universe is meaningless. Color is an abstraction we make from our sensing of visible wavelengths of light. For color to have meaning there must be light. Light moves.

We could see colours for centuries before we knew anything about wavelengths. So the meaning of colour has
nothing to do with motion.

We form concepts from our percepts. We can perceive motion but cannot perceive change or time. Therefore, motion is more fundamental than change or time.

We *can* perceive change. We can perceive things getting louder or quieter, warmer or colder.

Time is more fundamental than motion because motion is defined as dx/dt

What would cause a color change if not the motions of things?

Alternate laws of physics.

We could certainly design an LCD clock that displayed time as a cyclic color change, but we would have to use something that moves (such as an oscillating quartz crystal) to produce the cycles.

With our laws of physics, yes. But our laws of physics define motion in terms of time.

and Do you mean that Newton was wrong regarding relative time? In what terms can we analyze time?

Newton was talking about measurement.

Time is fundamental in physics.

The only thing objective there is that the clock escapement keeps moving and ticking. Things and their motions are objective. Time is subjective because it is a mental abstraction.

Time passes whether you believe in it or not. Although there are legions
of people who think Time Is An Illusion, none of them has ever gone back to last tuesday.

Time, like any concept, is an abstraction. An abstraction expresses a common quality of two or more percepts or concepts.

Motion is a percept and a concpept. As a concept, it is less fundamental than time.

How would they differ looked at from the perspective of the “new” arrow of time?

They wouldn't. If you reverse everything, no change would be evident. You have to
reverse one arrow but not another.

If the arrow of time were to point to neither future nor past, if it were not to point at all, time would stand still.

Time would be like space, which has no inherent direction.

The question is more why it should point at all.

The arrow of time has to point because all arrows have a point by definition

Then the question is why it has an arrow.

 

[Pademelon]

I believe that the 'arrow of time', which is defined by increasing entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, is variable through spacetime. I believe that Planck's constant, the underlying constant of thermodynamics and quantum theory, is not a constant but varies through spacetime. For example if we were to travel linearly 'backwards' through spacetime to the 'big bang', Plancks constant would decrease until at the singularity at the big bang, Plancks constant would = 0 and time would essentially stop. However, traveling linearly further 'backwards' through spacetime, Plancks constant would have an increasingly negative value and the 'arrow of time' would be reversed from our perspective. This is the theoretical scenario if one could travel through the event horizon of a black hole. The arrow of time therefore is unique to each point in spacetime

Mick

 

[Tournesol]

There is no evidence for variation in Planck's constant.

 

[moving finger]

Then the question is why it has an arrow.

If there were no arrow of time, there would also be no intelligent life to ask the question why.

Life can only arise in a universe where there is an arrow of time.

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

The implication of the BU/BS theory is that you should have. I agree you don't. That is how the BU/BS theory doesn't match observation.

No, the implication of the BU (Block Universe) interpretation is NOT that you should have direct awareness of other moments of time. You seem to think of consciousness existing “outside of” the BU, so that it can “experience” all times simultaneously – that is not how it works. Consciousness exists within the BU, not external to it..

It does under the BU/BS theory, because being conscious one-after the
other would require an A series, which it explictly lacks.

No. Under the BU interpretation there is no such thing as “at the same time” except as coincident points on the T-axis, because time exists only within the universe (as one of the dimensions of the universe), there is not necessarily any time dimension external to the BU.

what do you mean by "internal time" ? The mental contents are certainly different. But, by hypothesis, they call co-exist in the fourth dimension.

Yes, but they exist at different “points” in that 4th dimension, hence the “time” is different for each of them. In the BU interpretation, “time” is simply a way of measuring position in the 4th dimension.

Exactly. The BU is no different from 4D space. The fourth dimension is only time in an "honourary" sense. Every moment along the 4th dimension is "on all fours" with all others, so there is no way individual moments can be picked out to be conscious. They either all are equally, or none are.

They all are, but not at the same “time” – by definition they each exist at different times.

The 4th dimension of time is quite different to the 3 dimensions of space. It has very different properties.

The flow of time is subectively evident. It can be explained by Becoming without the paradoxes of the "motion" metaphor.

Indeed it is explained, as simply a subjective interpretation that conscious entities place upon their experience of the arrow of time.

BU theory predicts that consciousness must be much less localised than is observed.
BU theory is therefore false.

The BU interpretation predicts nothing of the sort.

Either time flows, or there is a block universe.
Since BU is false, FoT must be true.

BU is not necessarily false.

Which me ? The me *now*...the me *now*...?

Which *me* would you like to choose? The argument applies to every one of them.

Each "me" at each point in time is in exactly the same boat, according to BU/BS.

They are at different spacetime positions in that boat.

Either they are all conscious, or none are.

They all are, but at different points on the 4th dimension, hence at subjectively different times.

So the me at time T is conscious, and the me at time T-1 is conscious.

Agreed.

Now, you can argue that there is no reason that me(T-1) should have consicous awarness of me(T), because me(T-1) lacks information about me(T). But the reverse is not the case. Why shouldn't me(T) share me(T-1)'s conscious experience ? The natural model would be that my consicousness expands as it goes on, just as my information does

Why should it? Nothing “goes on” because there is no flow. The natural explanation simply that each conscious point on the T-axis exists in deterministic relation to each other point. There is no “expansion” of consciousness”, except insofar as there is a correlation between information between each conscious point due to the deterministic relationships between them.

Conscious(T0)
Conscious(T0+T1)
Conscious(T0+T1+T2)

rather than the perceived

Conscious(T0)
Conscious(T1)
Conscious(T2)

The latter is the correct interprettation, as long as you remember that these conscious points are not uncorrelated.

Consciousness is delocalised over a small area of space, because the rich causal interaction inside the cranium do not extend outside the cranium. The perceived delocalisation is exactly line with the causal evidence--as far a s space is concerned.

However, every brains state of your existence is casually connected to every other
one. So we would expect, on the BU/BS theory, that you cosnciousness is "delocalised"
to you lifetime -- and not just a moment.

Not at all. The conscious experience is not delocalised over all time for the same reason that it is not delocalised over all space. The rich causal interaction inside the “now” does not often extend outside the now, in the same way that the rich causal interaction inside the “here” does not often extend outside the “here”. But when you look at a starry night sky, your consciousness is in (indirect) causal contact with spaces and times that exist in completely different regions of the BU – far away in space and far away in time.

Why should future events need to be causally determined by laws if they exist already ?

You are looking at our so-called “laws of nature” as being prescriptive. They are not, they are descriptive. They simply describe the regularities that exist in nature (they do not tell nature how to behave). One of those regularities is that given any state of the universe at time T1, all other states of the universe at all other times are “fixed” to be consistent with the state at T1. None of this implies an arrow of time or a flow of time.

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

Your are correct in stating that there is no reason why the first perception must be grounded in some reality external to consciousness. The first perception might well be a hallucination. However, for the first perception to be meaningful (even if a hallucination) it must be identified or defined. However, identification and definition require some already-held knowledge, since the unknown can only be defined in terms of the known.

I disagree. “meaningful” is an entirely subjective state, and “knowledge” is based on justified belief. None of this requires any prior “known” entities. The first awakenings of consciousness will not be based on knowledge, but rather on perceptions. Only when the agent has been able to acquire a certain store of perceptions will it then be able to form opinions (beliefs) based upon those perceptions. None of this requires “already held knowledge”.

First experiences (first inputs) could have no meaning if they did not somehow relate to that already-held knowledge (bootstrap data).

First experiences (in the literal sense) have no meaning – it is only when an agent has acquired a certain store of perceptions/experiences that it can then try to assign any kind of meaning to them (according to the perceived inter-relationshiops between them).

If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, and if there is no access to certain truth , then we cannot justify the truth of a belief and, hence, cannot have knowledge.

Only if you believe that justification entails certainty (which would then entail that your definition of knowledge entails certain knowledge). Most people do not define justification (or knowledge) this way. Justification (legally as well as in common practice) usually means “beyond reasonable doubt”.

As for access to certain truth by the solipsist and us, is their anything uncertain or untrue about Aristotle’s laws of identity, excluded middle, or non-contradiction? Aren’t those laws the very foundations of, and touchstones for, certainty and truth?

Such propositions may be the foundation of human logic systems, but that doesn’t make them laws. If these propositions can be proven to be true, then they are laws. If they cannot be proven to be true, then by definition they are axioms (an axiom is a proposition which is assumed, but cannot be proven, to be true).

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

It combines CHDO and rationality. Look at the definition of FW at the beginning.

Your definition is :

Free Will : "the power or ability to rationally choose and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought about necessarily and inevitably by external circumstances"

At least two things here :

1) Indeterminism clearly allows your model to dissociate itself from external circumstances, but in what sense does your model "choose" to perform one action rather than another?

2) You don’t believe that free will entails ultimate responsibility?

For a detailed examination of the problems inherent in any naturalistic model of free will based on a combination of determinism & indeterminism, see :

http://www.geocities.com/alex_b_christie/Swamp.pdf

Best Regards

 

[Mickey]

Did you know that the instance of suicide has fallen in recent years? Since the introduction of Prozac, in fact.

For whom? I'm quite sure that the instance of suicide has risen for those in the 15-24 age group.

According the NMHA, the http://www.nmha.org/suicide/youngPeople.cfm since 1960.

 

[Fittler]

Time is a creation of man.

 

[moving finger]

Time is a creation of man.

wish I could create time. first thing I'd do is to pack 2 seconds into every 1.

Best Regards

 

[ValenceE]

Dear Madness,

It seems that your first question refers to the present moment; in the now.

As for your question about a scientific way of determining if times flows or not, well, what I can say is that, in many equations where time is used as a parameter, it serves the purpose of making both sides of the = sign work together, validating those same equations.

One of those states that; Speed = Distance / Time

This equation simply defines movement as opposed to rest.

What is particularly interesting about this equation is that, for it to take form, Time cannot be static (cannot equal zero) because both speed and distance just don’t exist on their own, they are constructions of each other through time. Hence, time, as showed in this simple equation, not only can be assigned any arbitrary value, but this value must be endowed with flow for movement to occur.




For your question in 2), I would respond by putting myself in the following context ;

… sitting on a rock by a brook on a sunny autumn day, looking at a leaf that had just fallen in the water, upstream, coming towards me, as I wonder if time flows, just like the water carrying the leaf does… the entirety of the universal laws are contained in that single experience, including the arrow of time and my perception of it.

In my mind, there is just absolutely no way that this experience could go backwards or sideways or any other way that is has… because it HAS happened the way it has. Past and future just don’t exist as separate entities they are all intertwined in the experience of the now. I can, in the now, remember seeing the leaf fall in the brook, as I can in the now, looking at it, envision it being carried further downstream.



VE

 

[jhe1984]

Didn't read all the posts, but if no one else has, I thought I'd add a passage from Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols, in which he discusses our perception of events and subsequent, almost simultaneous, reordering of these events to match what we understand as likely to have occurred in the objective, physical world,

"The cannon shot appears in a causal mode, in an apparent reversal of time. What is really later (the causal interpretation) is experienced first — often with a hundred details that pass like lightning before the shot is heard. What has happened? The representations which were produced in reaction to certain stimulus have been misinterpreted as its causes."


In the example, Nietzsche describes hearing the boom of the cannon first (or perhaps the cannon ball wizzing over head, depending on distance I guess?) and from that event, immediately working backward to reconsruct a series of events leading up to the cannon shot: loading the cannon, aiming the cannon, being told to fire, igniting the cannon, etc. All of these reconstructed events lead up to the one experienced even that we hear as the cannon ball overhead (or the boom). But once we process these events, they all become real and the order of the sequence puts our actual experience somewhere towards the end, as opposed to the first.

The excerpt is by no means a final answer to this question which won't be solved here, but I thought it might add another voice to the discussion. [If in fact, no one's included it yet, lol.]

 

[myoho.renge.kyo]

This is a topic relating to physics but philosophical in nature. Physicists are talking about explaing why the "arrow of time" flows forward the way it does, instead of flowing in any other direction. My questions are these:
1) How do we know that time flows at all? is it not possible that we simply experience time to be flowing as a feature of our consciousness and that all moments in time simply exist with no flow from one to the next. Is there any scientific way to distinguish between time flowing or not?
2) Does it make any sense at all to ask why time flows in the direction it does? surely the direction of time being labelled as "forwards" is arbitrary. What would be strange is if time suddenly changed direction. But even then, would we even notice? If time were to change direction, we would have no idea as we ourselved would be going back in time, retracing our steps.
Basically, i have no idea what physicists mean when they ask why time has an arrow

i am going to try to answer the questions as when i was a kid.

"How do we know that time flows at all?"

if you take a piece of ice out of the freezer, it melts. water does not freeze out of the freezer. or if you put water in a freezer, it freezes, but you need a freezer to do that. that is how we know that time flows.

"Does it make any sense at all to ask why time flows in the direction it does?"

why is it that ice melts when you take it out of the freezer? why is it that water does not freeze out of the freezer? why is it the water freezes inside a freezer? `it is as good a question as any (i think).

 

[Evo]

if you take a piece of ice out of the freezer, it melts. water does not freeze out of the freezer.

It does if it's cold enough outside the freezer.

or if you put water in a freezer, it freezes, but you need a freezer to do that. that is how we know that time flows.

it would depend on the temperature in the freezer.

why is it that ice melts when you take it out of the freezer? why is it that water does not freeze out of the freezer? why is it the water freezes inside a freezer? `it is as good a question as any (i think).

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

 

[mosassam]

Is there a mathematical or scientific proof for Time? If not we must assume that Time has no objective reality until such a proof arrives.
Is Time a byproduct of change? If so 'cause-and-effect' is also a byproduct of change.
Q: What causes change?
A: Change
Q: What is the effect?
A: Change
I know this is all bar stool philosophy but I'm driving at something important. Without proof of either, two fundamental buliding blocks of physics disappear.
Time and Cause-and-Effect are so blindingly obvious that they have been assumed to have objective reality. This does not mean that the history of physics and all its myriad applications are invalid, but it does mean that physics as a desription of reality is.
PS Can I descibe something as indescribable?

 

[Time is Unreal]

Time could be holding us back in our minds. Could it not? Can something be simualtaneous, and in the past at the same time? I don't think so . Yesterday, if you like calling it that is the past. I don't think so. Ithink it is just a simualtaneous motion in or at a point of space where when at that point all things are present . When you move into the future if you like to call it that. Same thing. How can a point that is always present, just because it changes distance from one point to another be called time?
It could just be eternity we are in. Always present and constant. This is just some ideas I wonder if they could ever be proven? Maybe time does exist, but hard to imagine it for me. I believe all matter, energy and everything in the universe are constant and present always. I guess what I'm saying is just because something was present over there point (a) and now is present here point (b) dose'nt prove any time has gone by. It just explains change in corrdinates for something and it is always present, at the point it rests or moves. I will be present and constant were ever that point may be realative too anything else or even nothing. If we are let's say 4 hours apart in "time" if you want too use that, we are present were we are in space; time does not apply to our presence , or any other matter , or gravity, or energy so why do we insist on using it when it confuses us? Distance, and motion does not give any reasonable answer for" time" if you consider presence while moving, or setting still. It is still present in a form whether it be energy, matter, mass, or gravity, or light.

 

[mosassam]

It could just be eternity we are in. Always present and constant

.
My continuous experience of 'reality' is as an ever-changing present. I have memory of the past, can make predictions about the future but these are just 'tricks' of the mind. My ongoing experience is always of NOW. I can make rational arguments demonstrating the reality of Time but these are more tricks of the mind. I am coming to the conclusion that time only exists in an abstract sense. However, although NOW is constant it is ever-changing. This changing, or unfolding, does not seem to happen in a random way. It gives the impression of "movement forward", and I don't know why this should be so.
Two things bother me -
Is my NOW the same as everyone/everything else's NOW?
Is there a mathematical model of reality that doesn't have time factored into it?

 

[heman]

I think
If however the arrow of time has had the same direction since the big bang or whatever started it all, then it is a pointless theory, unless it changes direction.

Why it will be a pointless theory in that case ?

 

[abhaiitg]

is velocity of time is equal to the velocity of light?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

is velocity of time is equal to the velocity of light?

It doesn't really make sense to ask a question like that because velocity involves both a change in time and a change in distance (and direction of movement, actually). Time just involve a change in time.

But if you want to talk about the rate of change of time, it's one second per second.

⚛​

 

[basePARTICLE]

Relavistic time can be defined as Tr = M/E, where M is mass and E is total Energy. A zero value corresponds to annhilation whereas 1 corresponds to timelessness. Seeing total energy is always greater than mass, Tr is never greater than one.

M can be written as M1 + M2 and similarily E can be written as E1 + E2.
If M2 is sufficiently small, along with E2, we have the wave function collapsing in dTr, as M+dM/E+dE. There are no arrows of time seeing the interval Tr, in essence represents a state in the block universe. However dTr has an arrow, a very specific band through the now moment, which implies that all possible movement backwards in time will occur during the foward cycle dTr!