Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Need for Theories?

Okay from what I've read, the passage of time is the decay of a system from a lower entropy to a higher entropy state (since probabilistically higher entropy configurations are more likely). The 'movement' through the time dimension is movement of the elements (in whatever arbitrary direction) of the system that comprise this decay. Hence a system with absolutely no change can be equivalent to a system where no time passes. While a system which changes quickly, slowly, or somehow reverts back to a previous state (if the rules were reversed) can be equivalent to a system where time passes 'quickly','slowly',or goes in the opposite direction respectively.

With regard to relativity, a distorted area of space will obviously affect the way particles/parts of a system move. Time appears to pass by differently for certain objects because from an observer's perspective they're looking at change occurring in a frame which is spatially distorted in regards to their own reference. The same principle applies to why time appears to pass differently depending on your location in a gravitational well. The twin who stays on earth find that his returning brother aged less because the change which occurred in the 'distorted' rocket counted for less than the equivalent change on earth once they share the same frame of reference. If time is change (ie action), should we still postulate a whole fourth dimension? Jarwulf (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All combinations of matter and energy

I think that eternalism/block time theory is explained in an incomplete manner. One could assume, just from the information in the article, that this theory suggests that there is a proper "course" of events.

That is essentially the idea behind eternalism. There is only one course of events (strictly only one).

I think it should be stressed or at least proposed that there are enough "blocks" to realize every single possible combination of matter and energy in the universe.

It's not necessary. A universe could just be a set of events that are only a small fraction of possibile arrangements of events. And when you think about it there are an infinite number of arrangements anyway.

For example in a universe with only two events, EventA and EventB, there are infinite ways to arrange them throughout time: A, B, A, A, B, A, B, B, B etc.. (given a long enough time axis).

The mere existence of these blocks would allow for the illusion of flowing time, multiple universes, and even the breakdown of "sensical physics" at subatomic levels. I should stress... that block time theory is more philosophy and a way of thinking rather than a scientific theory.

I like to look at eternalism as a blooming scientific theory rather than straight out philosophy. For instance, it would be possible in theory to build a 3d block out of some material and encode a bunch of 2d 'animals' living within it (a static / non-moving block of course). You could then go on to argue the difference between the block and a normal 2d creature (say a highly advanced artificial intelligence creature on a screen). LegendLength (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyways... if no one rewrites this article I will do so myself, and see if the results are approved by the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.134.134 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eternalism is a philosophical doctrine, not a scientific one. Some people believe it follows from relativity theory, but it has been around since the pre-Socratics (e.g. Parmenides). The "block" metaphor simply refers to the contention that all of time co-exists on a temporal manifold, and is not meant as a literal description of the shape of the universe or anything else. There cannot be multiple blocks under this theory, properly understood. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Eternalism is about describing the physical structure of space-time. People may have talked about the subject for many years but if it doesn't include the central idea of a static 4d block then there needs to be a clear distinction made between the subjects (in my opinion).

The block doesn't have to have flat sides but it is certainly not a metaphor, it is a fully physical theory. It may or may not be provable and if it does turn out to be 100% unprovable then I would be happy to call it a non-scientific theory / conjecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegendLength (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Eternalism is about the ontology of the universe, not the physical structure of the universe per se. The "block universe" refers to the Eternalists' contention that said ontology is static, with all times co-existing on a temporal manifold. I think we are saying similar things, but it is important to note that Eternalism/block universe is a philosophical issue that has both influenced and been influenced by modern science. (And by the way, philosophy is just as involved with provable theories as science.) Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused physicist says:

I don't understand what this entry is about. It seems like a really botched version of relativity. Yes time is a dimension which is as real as the spatial dimensions, but no, this does not mean we have a 4D block. Instead all physical dimensions form a so-called (smooth) manifold. Blocks are not the only manifolds, but for example in 2 dimensions we have: sphere, torus(donut) and multitori (donuts with more than one hole). So if you want to understand time, study relativity. Block time does not capture the essence of relativity. — Bryan Derksen (16:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)

"Block time" isn't intended to capture any particular 4D geometry. You are reading too much into the word "block".1Z (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As distinct from "block universe"? which historically has been... though not exclusively.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to study relativity, go read the relativity articles. This article is not specifically about relativity, "botched" or otherwise, it's about a philosophical perspective on how to conceptualize the passage of time. "Block" probably isn't being used in the same technical sense as you're thinking in this case. Perhaps you could suggest some concepts in relativity that would be relevant for linking to here? There's already links to special relativity, simultinaity, and reference frames. Bryan 16:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I love the entry on Block time. However, it brings up (I think) an interesting question, and the question should (I believe) be noted on the page:

Why is it now? Rather than some other time?

All times are "the present", according to an observer who is located at that particular time. Imagine a magic door with one side right in front of you here in 2004 and the other side right in front of Henry Ford in 1908. If you ask Henry Ford whether he's in the past, present, or future, he will of course say "the present." It doesn't matter if the door's open or closed, as far as Henry Ford is concerned 1908 is the present because that's where he is. Perhaps in 2039 someone will be browsing old Wikipedia talk: pages and see this conversation; from his or her perspective 2039 is "the present", but that doesn't affect our own perceptions here in 2004.

In fact, as you read this response, think back to when you first asked the question; at that point in time you were convinced that it was "the present". Now, however, you think that you asked the question in the past and now "the present" is right now (yikes). But that doesn't change the fact that you thought it was "the present" back then, just as you think it's "the present" right now even though that guy in 2039 thinks this all happened in the past.

As for why we all percieve our location in time to be "the present", I think that's probably due to the fact that we can remember events that occurred prior to any given location in time but not events subsequent to that location in time. Perhaps the thermodynamic arrow of time is responsible for that. Bryan 07:35, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Regarding this statement:

For example, relativity has shown that the concept of simultaneity is not universal, with different frames of reference having different perceptions of which events are in the future and which are in the past; there is no way to definitively identify a particlar point in univeral time as "the present".

As a layman, I'm having trouble getting this, and the entry on relativity isn't helping any. I can see how frame of reference can influence how I perceive the passage of time and how far in the past something happened, but I don't see how it affects my perception of which events are in the past. The article goes on to mention that people aren't able to observe future events, so there seems to be a contradiction here.

I've read nothing on the topic besides this article, and some introductions to relativity many years ago, and watching Cosmos.. so.. grain of salt :) --mjb

Simultenaity makes my head hurt too, when I pay attention to the details. :) Basically, it is my understanding that if there are two events "A" and "B" that occur some distance apart, there are some frames of reference in which an observer will see that event A happened before event B and some frames of reference in which an observer will see that event B happened before event A. The observer isn't observing anything in his own future, just observing two distant events that happened in his past and determining which one happened first. Since no frame of reference is more important than any other frame of reference, this isn't just an optical illusion.

I can't say why this works the way it does, offhand, I'd have to read up on it some more before I'd feel confident about writing anything over at special relativity. It does need to be explained more clearly, though, so if nobody with more physics knowlege than I gets to it before me I'll see if I can write something that I can understand. :) Bryan

Your confusion is understandable as it doesn't confirm to our common sense understanding of the world around us. The light clock thought experiment is an excellent way to refine your understanding of it. So here goes:

Empirical evidence supports the proposition that a given lightwave / photon particle will travel at a constant velocity irrespective of your interial reference frame; that means if you're going at c/2 (c equals the speed of light in a vacuum) relative to another frame of reference in the same direction as the lightwave, the lightwave will still be measured as going at c by parties in both reference frames.

Let's put a light clock in the frame moving at c/2. What happens when someone in the other reference frame looks at the light clock? He sees a ball of light moving along a diagonal path bouncing up and down between the two mirrors of the light clock. What does the person in the clock's reference frame see? He sees a ball of light moving straight up and down between the two mirrors. The ball of light that moved along the diagonal path had to travel further, and given that additive velocities only works in Newtonian mechanics, i.e. the ball of light is moving at the same speed relative to parties in both reference frames, that means the ball of light will take longer to bounce between the two mirrors for observers in the outside reference frame of the clock than observers inside the reference frame.

So time as measured by this light clock is moving slower in that reference frame relative to the other reference frame. (If parties in both reference frames had light clocks, both parties would see the other as moving slower. But this all gets reconciled, although it's a little tricky and beyond the scope of this reply.)

For a more tangible example of different parties seeing a different order of events happen, let me go over a train example:

A train is moving along in direction x. There are two laser sensors situated at opposite ends in one of its compartments. At the center of the compartment there is a laser that will fire beams at both sensors when turned on. When the sensors detect a laser beam, they light up. What happens when a person on the train in the compartment watches this process unfold? Both sensors light up at the same time. But what happens when someone on the ground, looking at the train go by, watches this process unfold? Since the train is moving in direction x, the laser beam moving in direction x towards the sensor nearer the front of the train must traverse a longer distance to reach the sensor than the laser beam that is moving towards the sensor at the back of the train. In Newtoniam mechanics, both observers would see the same thing as additive/substractive velocities would add to the velocity of the laser moving in the same direction as the train is and substract from the other laser, but we don't apparently live in a Newtonian world.

All sorts of interesting thought experiments can be done with this. What happens if the spaceship with the light clock moved at c? The ball of light in the light clock would use up all its velocity just to keep up and time would be completely still. And since we could use the light clock as a way to measure distance, space / distance itself is just as relativistic as time. If you were in a ship traveling at c, the whole Universe would be the size of a singularity.

Not only light travels at the speed of light; *everything* does. That is, everything moves through space-time at the speed of light. That means, the faster you move through space the slower you must move through time.

Can someone please provide links to validate this. I've never heard this before, and I find it interesting. -- Olathe November 17, 2003

That is the implication of special relativity, which follows from the finite speed of light. However, that is all relative to a detector, and assumes points in spacetime do not have a timestamp. The temperature of the microwave background seems to provide such an absolute timestamp, but I have seen no discussion of that. I guess the accelerating detector sees the universe expanding faster. Does that have any implications for our observations of the Hubble "constant"? ----

Anyway, hope that clarified some things for you. Relativity is fairly logical once you accept the premise of the constancy of the speed of light. It's light reading compared to quantum mechanics! No one understands it! :) --Spinoza

Block time/Eternalism - merge?

What is the difference between block time and eternalism? --Max 07:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is no difference. - LegendLength 10:07 22 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Block timers are coming from the physics direction, eternalists form the philosophy direction, but they may be meeting in the middle.

Anyway: should the articles be merged?1Z 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced

The one source cited does not support the phrase "block time". This article is pretentious twaddle. The notion of "block time" is the same notion that time can be modelled as a dimension -- which is universally accepted amongst physicists. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not the case block time is the same as modelling time as a dimension or parameter. Prima facie a time parameter could represent a moving "now", as in Presentism. 1Z (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Untrue. The Scientific American article in external links uses "block time", and the PhilSci article uses the similar "block universe" Bryan 04:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference quote does not support the phrase "block time", nor the word "block" (note the word "not" in it!). Paul Davies is describing the universally accepted model of time as a dimension, similar to the other spatial dimensions. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see the source of this problem. The footnote in question is not actually a reference, citation or source of any kind. It's just a footnote, a bit of extra explanatory text that doesn't otherwise fit into the flow of the article. What it's saying is basically "don't be confused into thinking that the name 'block time' means that the universe literally has the shape of a block." It doesn't invalidate the use of the term "block time" in general, it's just trying to make sure that the term isn't misinterpreted. For external sources see the Block time#External links section, those include the two I mention above. Bryan 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Block time is the belief that time is literally a dimension that is no different from the 3 space dimensions around us. - LegendLength, 10:20 22 Jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.242.92 (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

If so it is false since time has a different sign from the spatial dimensions in the metric.--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The sign of the time dimension only deals with the way matter is distributed within that dimension. The sign does not show that the time dimension is dynamic and undecided to an outside observer. It only specifies the pattern that is 'sewn' into the 4D block for that direction. My original statement that the time dimension is no different from the other 3 was meant in the context that all 4 dimensions are static and unchanging (for Eternalism), unlike the normal view that the time dimension is undecided to a god-like observer who exists outside the universe (i.e. Presentism).

As for why the time dimension obeys the laws of conservation etc., I believe that is a separate discussion from Eternalism. For instance, I could hypothetically create a 3D block that contains long strands that go from one end to the other. Each strand would be an 2D atom that exists at each timeslice along the block. Just because the distribution of matter is dissimilar for the 'time' dimension doesn't mean that the block is moving.

For Eternalists, whatever force/god created the block universe is unknown, and a different question as to whether the universe is static or dynamic (eternalism vs presentism). 121.44.245.31 06:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

'Philosophilcal Objections' section

I think some of these objections have problems:

But if the block universe view is correct, death is just one of our temporal borders, and should be no more worrisome than birth.

This is mixing up the hypothetical god-view with the subjective human view. Humans *should* be scared of death, even in a block universe. All of the reasons that we are afraid of death are the same for people living subjectively within a block universe as they are for people within a free-will/presentist universe.

Are they? The article goes on to suggest that we fear future events in order to do something about them, in order to experience a different future than we would have experienced had we not been afraid. That relies on indeterminism.1Z 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The original text says that death should be no more worrisome than birth. But many of the reasons we fear death for presentism (e.g. not able to provide for family, regret about wasting parts of our lives, fear of pain just before death) are all valid for eternalism. Therefore it is incorrect to say that death is not to be feared.

To answer you question in particular, I agree that there is a change in how eternalists view death, because it there is nothing we can do about future events. But subjects within a block universe effectively have free will because they are still unable to predict the future with full accuracy. Therefore we should still be careful about crossing the read etc., where fear of death is a useful thing. But again, I agree that there may be less fear of death for eternalists (although some may argue that religous promises of heaven make worshippers less fearful of it, for example). 121.44.245.31 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

If subjects are unable to predict the future, they may be under an ignorance-based illusion of FW, but that can hardly be called "effective", since it cannot do anything.1Z 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Inability to predict the future is a necessary precondition for free will, no matter whether you belive it to be predetermined or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.187.5.196 (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

The reason is that those of us living within a block universe cannot see the future with any certainty, so it is the same as living in a dynamic universe. Only a god-like, external observer would be able to see when someone will die, for instance (with 100% accuracy). That fact that we can never know the future for certain means that there is no difference between eternalism and presentism for humans.

But is the fact that we don't know the future a sufficient reason for being apprehensive about it.

If it has(in effect) already happened, why not reign oneself, as fatalists advise? 1Z 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'reign yourself' here.

Fear & apprehension are both valid and useful feelings for eternalists. Even knowing that there is no free will doesn't necessarily make those feelings obselete. Same goes for morality.

Eternalism is about how a god-like viewer would see the universe (either pre-created or still dynamically being created as time goes by). For subjects within the universe, there is no functional difference for their lives, except that they might know that the universe is a static 4d block (eternalism) or they know that it is dynamic and only exists in the now (moving 3d block). Knowing these things would surely make a difference in how we view things, but morality, fear and other related philosophies are effectively the same for both eternalism & presentism.

For instance, as an believer in eternalism, I would see it as immoral to harm other people without a reason, and I also am scared of my own death or pain that may be caused to me. I see both of these feelings as functionaly useful, and justifiable for my personal goals of living in a society free of pain and suffering. If I looked at the 'big picture' then maybe I would feel differently, but as a subject I cannot look at the 'big picture' fully, because I cannot see the future with 100% accuracy for a start (nor can I see the other 3 dimensions in their entirety). 121.44.245.31 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

If indeterminism can be removed from flow-of-time theories, can it be added to Block theories? Surprisingly, the answer is a qualified "yes" in the form of multiverse theories...

I object to this one too. Either the universe is static (to an outside observer) or it is dynamic (i.e. presentism). This theory tries to create a block universe where we can choose which 'block' we will take. It says there are multiple blocks (multiverse).

The article does not say that multiverses are dynamic, and they are not. Nor does it suggest that observers can choose their branch, only that they cannot predict their branch, leading to subjective indeterminism, as some term it.1Z 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree I mis-read this part of the article. I take back my arguments for this part. 121.44.245.31 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

'Block universe' is not about the shape, it is really just a phrase to say that the entire universe is static. Even if it is shaped like a tree with blocks at each branch/junction, then it is still a block universe. Either matter is created all at the start, or it is created dynamically. This theory falls into the 'half-pregnant' fallacy.

The article does not suggest that any 'dynamism' at all attaches to multiversal theories.

All off the issues being discussed in this talk section are hotly debated in the professional literature at present. The Eternalism/Determinism debate has been going on at least since a 1968 article by Prior, and the injection of philosophy of time into the debate over Epicureanism in regards to death has been going on at least since Feldman joined the fray two decades ago and is currently part of the debate between Ben Bradley and his critics. When I do my overhaul of the Eternalism pages (see the talk page for Eternalism for details), I'll address the possible slanting of this article in favor of certain controversial theses over other (equally controversial) theses, as well.

Postmodern Beatnik 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncertainty Principle

It can be argued that the uncertainty principle, interpreted as disturbance or observer effect, should not exist in a block universe...

This sits fine with block universe theory. It has trouble with determinism which is a different concept. That is, the block universe does not necessarily need to obey determinism, it can be a block universe with random matter scattered throughout all 4 dimensions (obviously it would need to obey determinism at least for our local area as we have observed).

It would still obey fatalism. Determinism implies fatalism but not vice-versa.1Z 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but if you read the original article text, it is saying something different. It is saying that the uncertainty principle should not belong in a block universe, but it can. Determinism really has nothing to do with block universe as you point out, whereas the original text tries to shoot down block theory by pointing out the observed indeterminism in quantum mechanics. 121.44.245.31 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

Well, I amended the text to point out that the UP is not an argument against the BU. (But note that the UP is not the same things as causal indeterminism).1Z 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That does not mean it will always be the case though. 121.44.245.31 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC) LegendLength

what I meant by this is that if all of the past, present and future exist, then observing it should have no effect on the content... if block universe is like a film strip, my watching the film should not change the film...etc. there would be some need to explain how an observer who is part of the film can watch and if there are multiple films, how he can change which one he is watching.

Jiohdi 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A BU can "imitate" causal laws, inasmuch a s there is a predictable pattern to the transition from one moment to the next. As such, it can "imitate" observer effect, since that is just another casual law. But note that Observer effect is not the same as the UP.1Z 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right that observing should have no effect if it all exists statically, but only for an external observer. Subjective observers are also part of the static structure, allowing the block universe to imitate quantum observer effect as IZ mentioned.

This same concept can be seen (if you accept block universe theory) by considering that subjects within the block universe can seemingly affect their surroundings, by throwing a ball around for example. For an external observer they just see the static trajectory of the ball, but for someone within the universe it appears to be moving. LegendLength 00:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

to me that is the greatest flaw in the BU theory...you say to the observer it appears to be moving...what is moving? there is no explanation for anything to be moving at all...its a static 4-d block. an external observer would have to exist in a moving universe to watch anything moving in ours...we would have to be greater than 4-d beings as we notice movements...and something seems quite un-scientific about such a thought. --my read of einstein is that rather than time being a static 4-d block of events, there is really only a 3-d energy system moving in a 4th direction...hyperspacially, but only existing at one actual moment of reality, NOW. that each observer can argue over who's now is the real now is not relevant...but that from the god point of view, if you will, there is only one reality existing and it can be charted in a 4th direction as a steady evolving of changing relationships, but does not actually exist in all of the chart at the same hyper now.Jiohdi 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... regardless of whether or not the objection goes through, it has been argued that UP and BU are in tension. That alone justifies the statement "it has been argued that (etc.)," don't you think? Anyway, there are bigger problems with this entry.

Postmodern Beatnik 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair Jiohdi, I was responding to your argument against quantum-like effects being able to exist within an eternalistic universe. I agree that the greatest flaw of it is to make the claim that our universe is actually static, which goes against our everyday perception of time and movement. But at the same time this is the core claim of eternalism. That is, it attempts to explain movement away by arguing that the universe is fully static.

which again is their biggest flaw as they provide no means of removing the necessity for motionJiohdi 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agreed it was a flaw. Eternalists do not argue that it is a water-tight, proven theory. It is still very much in development. For a more complete discussion of the claims Eternalism makes and how it tries to prove them I welcome you to join me in one of the more popular philosphy forums ( http://forums.philosophyforums.com/metaphysics-and-epistemology/ ), as I don't think this talk page is the right place for such a large discussion.LegendLength 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That core argument is the most important one to be fleshed out for Eternalism.LegendLength 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a tie in here with Zeno's arrow paradox, Uncertainty Principle 24.68.170.164 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

--I think most here are missing the point. Vonnegut nailed it in Slaughterhouse-Five: “The moment is structured that way.” The question raised is: “How did it get structured that way?” Moments include the HUP. As I note in my recent entry under “The physics part…,” the block universe cannot account for causality…from within.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Changes

• Moved Block time to Eternalism (philosophy of time).
• Block time redirects here, and I have fixed double redirects.
• Changed the words "block time" to "Eternalism" in the main article for consistency, with exceptions where appropriate.
• Added a sentence explaining the relation between the two terms to the introductory paragraph.
• Made some minor grammatical changes.

This article still needs some work, so I'm leaving the clean-up tag at the top. I'll probably get to it Monday if no one else does it by then.

Postmodern Beatnik 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The "physics" part of this article is pure speculation

When there are established theories such as relativity that deal with time why are all the references in the physics part of this article to speculative theories? I will go back through the history to see if this is a recent change. Geometer 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's because this is a philosophy article. Scientists typically ignore the philosophical baggage that they unwittingly attach to their theories. That's where philosophers of science come in. Postmodern Beatnik 16:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this whole article either - if "block time/eternalism" is a religious view, ok. But how relativity implies that future human actions are somehow "fixed" is beyond me. Einstein apparently referred to this concept upon the death of a friend (source: BBC Horizon 1999, "The Flow of Time"), so the article might benefit from a good explanation in his words. 88.217.62.228 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a religious view, it's a philosophical theory. Relativity doesn't imply determinism, Eternalism does (according to some—this is a matter of debate, of course). Einstein was an Eternalist because Minkowski convinced him that was the best philosophical reaction to relativity. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is the subject is a philosophy that aims to be a scientific theory. This is in contrast to other types of philosophy which are rooted in purely non-scientific or metaphysical concepts. On top of that there is the whole history of Eternalism that did not have the luxury of 21st century science along-side it.

I don't know what is to become of the wiki article and I wish I had more time to discuss and edit the subject because I am very passionate about it. I can only suggest that it be split into two pages that describe the philosophical and scientific claims of the subject. But it still doesn't seem like the most elegant way of doing it.LegendLength (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Twins Paradox illustrates how the block universe fits with relativity. One twin stays at home while the other travels away and back, reaching the reunion point in less time than the twin who stayed put. As time has only one rate of travel, the moving twin arrives at the reunion point before the stay-at-home twin can do so, and yet they both appear to arrive there at the same time. This is only possible if the future of the stay-at-home twin already exists so that the travelling twin can meet up with it.

Alternatively, there could be a mechanism which controls the rate of the flow of time for different paths to allow the twins to arrive together at the reunion point such that there would be no need of the block universe interpretation, but it appears that this can only be done by introducing an external time dimension and a preferred frame. However, without such a mechanism, you are stuck with the fatal defect of a block universe which is that it can never be created in cause and effect order with a flow of construction from beginning to end. It can only be created as a complete block by magic (or God). This is where Einstein's theory appears to have a significant problem. Djvyd (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good observation, but time, unlike the other dimensions, incorporates atrophy. Atrophy is at the basis of what we refer to as cause and effect (a glass of water can be broken into pieces, but the pieces can never become a whole, intact glass again). This is why a block universe can indeed incorporate all the events that are brought about by time (future developments). Of course, who put it there and for what purpose is a different question altogether and not one I presume to be able to answer. I can only say that this question would remain valid whether or not Eternalism is correct. Ron g (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address the problem. If you try to simulate the creation of a block universe in a computer, all you can do is calculate everything up front and then produce the entire result at one go along with the assertion that it wasn't built up over time with a rolling construction front, even though such a construction front did exist during the calculation phase. During that calculation phase, which is effectively the real construction phase, the traveling twin reaches the reunion point before the stay-at-home twin gets there, even though they should arrive there simultaneously. This can only be avoided by having an external time to control the growth rates of different paths in order to ensure that things that are supposed to arrive at particular points in space and time actually do so. The only way a block universe can exist is if it is eternal to the point of never being created, and that also means that none of the causes in it ever really caused any of their effects: all the cause-and-effect relationships written through the block would have to be generated by magic. I've written a computer program to help teach relativity for an education project, but what my simulations actually show is that Einstein's theory doesn't work because the generation phase is simply impossible by his rules.Djvyd (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It would seem impossible if you imagine that time is external to the universe and therefore a block universe would have to be created all at once as if by magic. But this is an illusion: time is a dimension and the movement of time is an illusion brought about by our awareness (or you’d have to experience everything happening at once, which would make it somewhat hard to function for a living being). In other words, the calculation phase is inseparable from the production phase. This is why you can’t simulate it on a computer – you can only experience time one slice at a time, and so the simulation you create would always be missing a crucial element: because you are bound by the passage of time, you'd have to make an artificial distinction between the calculation phase and the production phase. This is like trying to fit a 3-D structure into a flat surface without destroying it. A block universe simply incorporates the laws of physics (including atrophy), to arrive at the shape it is in. If you think about it, from a standpoint of pure physics it does not matter whether this exists all at once or is broken down into smaller slices of time. Both are different views of the same thing. It depends on the observer. Ron g (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have time flowing, you don't have real cause and effect relationships. Event 1 causes result 1; result 1 = event 2; event 2 causes result 2; result 2 = event 3; etc. Each event in the chain has to occur after the one before, and the only way to hide this flow of time is to make it instant such that the problem is hidden in an infinity. This isn't the place for an extended discussion so I'm not going to push the argument any further, but a block universe is static and cannot be generated in any rational way.Djvyd (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That is more of a statement than a reply, isn’t it? I agree with you though that this is not the place for an extended discussion of the subject. A lot has been written about this by people far smarter than me. Stephen Hawking’s books are a good place to start. Ron g (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

--I unfortunately just stumbled upon this Wikipedia article and its attendant discussion page recently; unfortunately, because I have been intensely interested in this subject for years now. I find the level of discourse here to be elevating and most illuminating.

I have written a philosophical proof of a creator that is based upon Einstein’s STR and eternalism. I agree that the implied block universe of relativity, as first discerned by Minkowski and eventually accepted by Einstein (albeit after a period of reluctance over what I suppose to have been philosophical grounds), raises interesting philosophical and physical questions and considerations. Please note that my proof is philosophical in nature and not religious. It only purports to prove, using logic based upon physics, the existence of a creator (of some kind) of our block universe and not God per se. The nature of the creator is beyond the scope of the paper.

Basically, the proof is derived from what I perceive to be the inability of the block universe to accommodate causality. Since causality obviously exists as attested to upon empirical grounds, then causality must have come from somewhere. I maintain that it had to have come from without. I make many of the same points discussed in this section, particularly the train of thought put forward by Djvyd regarding an attempted computer simulation.

Please note that my proof contains one factual error that is, however, not integral to the points I make and does nothing to discredit them. I state that Einstein had been an atheist, a contention I derived from an indignant letter he had written to a Jesuit in response to the priest’s claim that he had converted Einstein to, if not Catholicism, at least theism. It appears as if I took the matter out of context, and I am now uncertain what Einstein’s ontological beliefs had actually been as there seems to be so much contradictory evidence on the point. Perhaps the term “agnostic” would be best used to describe him, at least in the common (and erroneous) understanding of the term.

Within my proof I offer what I believe to be a very interesting thought experiment concerning a scenario where characters within a novel could somehow achieve sentience and intelligence. In that hypothetical scenario, how would the characters interpret their universe? I believe much as we do in our block universe.

If anyone is interested due to its closely related subject matter, here is the link to my proof on my personal website:

http://wwwdnschneidercom.xbuild.com/#/miscellaneous-7/4526495432

Perhaps I flatter myself, but I don’t belief my proof can be refuted other than by rejecting the notion of the block universe and, in tandem, eternalism. Nevertheless, I have always prided myself on being educable. I would be only too glad to endure constructive criticism from what I perceive to be the erudite minds who have joined in the discourse here.Don SchneiderHistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Builds on" v. "based on"

I have just reverted a recent edit by MichaelCPrice regarding wording in the lead paragraph. The reason I find the old wording to be superior is that (a) Eternalism, as a metaphysical position, goes back to the ancient Greeks and is thus older than both modern physics and relativity theory (and, therefore, can't really be based on either of them) and (b) even in the context of relativity (which Eternalists suppose supports their position over Presentism), Eternalists go further than physicists and assert that four-dimensional models are literal and accurate representations of the world as it is. And while it is true that Minkowski held such philosophical beliefs (and eventually convinced Einstein as well) the two are, in principle, seperable. That is, space-time models could remain popular and useful scientific tools even if Eternalism is false, and Eternalism could be true even if no scientific theories made use of 4D models. So while the two have become strongly linked in recent times, they neither rise nor fall together. All this said, perhaps there is a still superior way of wording the opening sentence(s), but for now I maintain that "builds on" is superior to "based on." Postmodern Beatnik 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No matter which came first the article needs to be clearer that this is an entirely mainstream physics concept.--Michael C. Price ^talk 05:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the philosophy of time. The notion that time can be modeled as a dimension is a mainstream physics concept, and one which Presentists (the main opponents of Eternalism) can agree with. The question, to put it briefly, is over how literally to take the model. This is a question of metaphysics. Yes, many scientists were convinced by Minkowski to take the model literally, but this is to unwittingly import philosophical baggage into a scientific theory (see Ned Markosian's A Defense of Presentism). I admit that a great deal of science rests on unstated metaphysical premises, but Eternalism can be usefully and coherently separated from the essential idea of modeling time. Conflating philosophy with science in this article works against the encyclopedic purpose of clarification. -- Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

″Popular fiction section?"

I can think of a few books that seem to exemplify this belief. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five and its alien creatures believe in a ≥ 3 dimmensional world, with time as one of those dimmensions. It seems to fit here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.70.194 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse Five is an excellent example of eternalism in pop culture, as is Alan Moore's The Watchmen. I worry, though, that a popular fiction section here could become as bad as the situation over at Fatalism. But perhaps not. Eternalism is probably not nearly as common of a literary device as fatalism. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

humans flow thru time?

the argument about if time flows thru us, or if it is we that flow thru time kind seems to conflict with what the concept of "block time" seems to mean to me, it is like discussing whether a rolling ball on a flipbook animation flows thru the pages, or if the pages flow thru the ball, neither is true, the ball exists in all pages at the same time, neither the ball nor the pages are moving relative to each other... --TiagoTiago (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article talks about 'flow' and then shows why eternalism thinks the flow doesn't even exist. So there's no conflict between block theory and flow because the fundamental pillar of block theory is that there's no flow, just a large non-moving block with 4 dimensions.

But your question still stands as to whether we flow through time or whether time flows through us (or neither as you point out). It is a interesting question but I would say probably out of the scope of the article. It might be best to link to an article about the flow of time (or conciousness if there isn't one). LegendLength (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? Why is it fundamental to Eternalism/Block Theory that there is no - or not in any sense - a flow? I always understood Eternalism just so, that the whole underlying "basis" (i.e. 4-d spacetime) is taken to be, well, eternal, and from the very beginning eternally laid out in its entirety. But that alone doesn't say anything concerning any one single "patch" of spacetime being phenomenologically realized, or actualized (for a conscious observer) at any moment of time whatsoever. What I mean by phenomenologically realized is nothing else than what we know by the present, this now. Take the analogy of a movie tape! Let's say the whole of spacetime is a kind of movie tape. So indeed, it is all there. The entire "movie" is already captured and at any time in existence, materialized, all the information making it up given -- but almost all the way static. Now enter we, the conscious observers (still of only one present per one observer), witnessing this movie tape, which is being projected (like a film we're curiously part of ourselves) and because it naturally cannot be projected all at once.. we're bound to watch it step by step. The exact part of the movie, we're always watching at one time, then simply is what we call the present, or now, and it's also what provides us the illusion of a "time flow". When in fact, the tape is all there, has been there, always. What I'm just driving at is that Eternalism does not (necessarily?) entail, that there -- by this very moment -- is some (other) conscious me already experiencing the following hour. Or tomorrow. Or my future death. Sure, according to Eternalism, it is there, placed in spacetime, yet no conscious observer present, to actually experience it. Why not? Well, because as it seems I'm still here! At this part of the "movie". At no other.

This would not be Presentism. As to my understanding, this is Eternalism, since Presentism of course denies the very existence of the "movie tape". Yet, when you take Eternalism to entail that there actually exist a countless number of conscious observers, scattered throughout spacetime, even of the selfsame respective persons, who keep experiencing any moment of time, again and again, then of course you'd run into all kinds of very tricky problems; just think about the question of personal identity. Which me then is me? That, which is currently experiencing yesterday noon? Or that of my, of this very present? Or is it all me?! Or, another question: Where, exactly, would be the "next (conscious) me"? I mean, "ahead" of me (in time) as well "behind"? In a "distance" of 2 seconds? Or a nanosecond? Or a Planck time?? All this seems by no means clear! At least I don't understand it. That's why I believe, it overcomplicates Eternalism on the one hand, and on the other it draws a scenario which Eternalism proper does not entail by necessity. Zero Thrust (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Which me then is me? That, which is currently experiencing yesterday noon? Or that of my, of this very present? Or is it all me?! Or, another question: Where, exactly, would be the "next (conscious) me"? I mean, "ahead" of me (in time) as well "behind"? In a "distance" of 2 seconds? Or a nanosecond? Or a Planck time??

There's a lot of good questions there but I think what you're really probing at is the central 'mechanism' of eternalism. That is, the reasoning that explains why we feel the flow of time. That mechanism still needs to hammered out and made more clear by supporters of the theory. Unfortunately it's a deep / tricky area and doesn't get much attention from philosophers.

I think I have a reasonable model in my own mind but it's not formal enough for my liking. To try and describe it in a paragraph:

Consider a 2 dimensional creature at a single point in time. Its mind contains memories from 1 second ago, 1 minute ago, hours ago etc.. Would you say the creature feels the flow of time at that very instant? Or does it require a length of time to 'feel' anything? If it does feel the flow then it would go a long way in explaining how time flow could exist within a block universe. If it requires a length of time (say 10 seconds) then you are claiming the creature feels the flow over those 10 seconds yet it never feels the flow at any instant within those 10 seconds.

That seems contradictory, at least on the surface, and perhaps points to an area of discussion that needs to take place between eternalists and presentists. LegendLength (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ZT, your example would be something like the moving spotlight view, or the dynamic block universe. Perhaps it would not be necessarily right to say that time flows per say, but rather that our minds flow, through this block universe as you state, so it may be vaible concept for eternalism. But how this relates to the article is unclear at the moment, but I have not had any time to read it over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.165.149 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Eternalism only restricted to B-series theorists?

Is it possible to reconcile Eternalism with an objective flow of time? I have heard that there are some people such as Quentin smith who reportedly adhere to Eternalism while at the same time the A-theory of time. Though I don't find Mctaggart's argument to be wholly convincing, it is not my main contention. Perhaps a mention should be made about the possible compatibility of the A-series and the theory of eternalism (at least in the fact that some people attempt to do so like Smith)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.246.112 (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Quentin Smith does favor the A-theory of time (see here, especially the last sentence), but where are you getting the claim that he favors eternalism over presentism? This book seems to identify him as one who argues against eternalism, saying "For many years, eternalism seemed to be as philosophically secure as a position can be, but increasingly, presentists have developed new arguments and strategies. The most sustained defense of tenseless approaches to time may be found in Mellor 1981 and Mellor 1998, whereas the most sustained defense of tensed theory thus far is Smith 1993".

But Quentin Smith aside, my googling did turn up some arguments in favor of your suggestion that some philosophers advocate both eternalism and the A-theory--see this paper, in the section 'Understanding the debate' on pp. 5-10. If anyone wants to take a stab at summarizing how the A-theory is different from presentism so that it might be possible to be both an A-theory advocate and an eternalist, perhaps using that paper as a reference, I think it'd be a good addition to the article. Hypnosifl (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the paper you referenced by Michael Rea (and thank you for a very informative and interesting link!). He does not appear to maintain that one may adhere to eternalism and the A-series of time. Rather, he is lumping eternalism and variations—with the most popular being the growing block theory—into what he refers to as “four-dimensionalism.” He seems to maintain that one may be an adherent of both four-dimensionalism and of the A-series in regard to the growing block theory and less popular variations of eternalism, but not of eternalism itself.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I hadn't realized that Michael Rea was talking about the growing block universe, an interesting variation which falls into the category of the "A-theory" but is non-presentist since it says the past is just as real as the present (and it's also non-eternalist, since it says the future is not real). So while the A-theory doesn't necessarily imply presentism, it seems as if the B-theory always implies eternalism. Hypnosifl (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)