B Theory of time

[BH]

Can someone explain to me in layman's terms why the B-Theory of Time tends to undermine the Kalaam Cosmological Argument?

Thanks.

 

[Valjean]

What is this B Theory of time?

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is this B Theory of time?

B-theory of time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.

I don't see how the B-theory of time would undermine the Kalam cosmological argument.

Beside, I don't see why anyone should take this argument as compelling, at least if we take the presentation by Wikipedia to be correct:

P1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
P2 The universe began to exist;
C1 Therefore, the universe has a cause;
P3 If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Each one of these premises is just an unknown. I don't see any reason to think that whatever begins to exist has a cause or that the universe began to exist, and even less that if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists. Beats me. I'm certainly not convinced.

So, people who think the Kalam cosmological argument is compelling should explain why.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

...why the B-Theory of Time tends to undermine the Kalaam Cosmological Argument?

The B-Theory of time is a "block theory of time", in which all events exist simultaneously. There is no time flow, or becoming. Everything exists always as part of a multidimensional framework, I'm not sure of the explanations for why we find ourselves at a particular "location" in the eternal "block universe".

Kalam relies on the assumption that things begin to exist.

 

[untermensche]

Change has a flow, not time.

Time is just the "dimension" that allows changes to flow.

And even if all changes exist forever, whatever the hell that could mean, they still have a flow.

We walk forward because that is the direction our eyes face.

That is how we navigate. The word "navigate" implies a specific direction.

And something that flows, something that progresses, must begin that flow.

The idea of "no beginning" and the idea of "progression" conflict with one another.

If there is no beginning to a progression there is no progression.

 

[WAB]

I like the James Morrison theory of Time:

"Time is a straight plantation".

 

[Wiploc]

Can someone explain to me in layman's terms why the B-Theory of Time tends to undermine the [Kalam] Cosmological Argument?

It's not a good argument, in terms of tactics. That is, it won't persuade any Christians to agree that Kalam is lame.

You don't want to respond to the moral argument by claiming morality is fiction. That move just lets Christians denounce atheists are amoral. Likewise, you don't want to argue for the B-theory in response to Kalam, because that just let's Christians denounce you as an idiot. "He doesn't even believe in time, so there won't be any reasoning with him. Atheists are beyond the reach of logic."

That said, it works like this: A-theory says one moment happens after the next. We are always in the moment that's happening now. The past is behind us and the future ahead. The future hasn't happened yet.

B-theory says the moments of history are like the pages of a book. The whole book exists, already written, and we're on page 10,017. Pages 1 thru 10,016 still exist; they just aren't the pages we're on. Or, more properly, we on on some of those pages too, but on those pages we are younger, and we think it is earlier.

Future pages and past pages, all of them, already exist.

I don't know what the appeal of b-theory is supposed to be. But one thing it is used for is refuting Kalaam.

Kalam involves some hand-waving argument about how infinite regress isn't possible, because if an infinity of time had already passed, there's no way we could be here now. Because infinity.

Then they turn right around and claim that their god is eternal, so they aren't even the tiniest bit impressed with their own logic.

Anyway, the b-theory people say that it is possible to open any page of a book with infinity pages, because you don't have to traverse each page to get to the present one. It doesn't matter how many moments are "earlier" than this one if they all exist side by side in some kind of meta-present.

That's the argument. It seems to me utterly unappealing.

- I don't know of any reason to think it is true.

- It will never persuade people who think Kalam wasn't an idiot.

- It makes proponents of Kalam think we are willing to grasp at the most outrageous straws.

- And, mostly, it draws attention away from the patent flaws in Kalam's argument, flaws that Christians can understand if we hold their attention on them.

 

[Underseer]

What is this B Theory of time?

B-theory of time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.

I don't see how the B-theory of time would undermine the Kalam cosmological argument.

Beside, I don't see why anyone should take this argument as compelling, at least if we take the presentation by Wikipedia to be correct:

P1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
P2 The universe began to exist;
C1 Therefore, the universe has a cause;
P3 If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Each one of these premises is just an unknown. I don't see any reason to think that whatever begins to exist has a cause or that the universe began to exist, and even less that if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists. Beats me. I'm certainly not convinced.

So, people who think the Kalam cosmological argument is compelling should explain why.
EB

I just love this.

The A theory and B theory were coined in the 1960s, over half a century after Relativity settled the argument. That's philosophy for you: posing deep questions about things that were settled with evidence a long time ago. Simultaneity isn't what we think it is, or rather it isn't the same for everyone, so if the A theory of time is true, then whole chunks of reality exist for some observers, but not others. It's insane.

And for the record, because of Relativity, we have absolutely no idea if "before the universe" is in any way meaningful because "before time" is about as meaningless as "outside of space."

 

[DBT]

I'm not sure of the explanations for why we find ourselves at a particular "location" in the eternal "block universe".

Presumable as an artifact of a brain - being an information processor - which has a particular location and thus interprets its environment, a small part or aspect of this universal multidimensional framework of relationships as being composed of a series of causal events, one event leading to another and so on, which we call time.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If there is no A time, past, present, future, and all is now, B time, then there was no beginning. All is including the Universe and God. Creation then, as such, becomes a meaningless concept. Augustine, in his "Confessions, Book 11" on time, noted this back in the 4th century, so this isn't really new.

If in fact, there is a Big Now that is all there is, past present and future, then all parts of reality, including God's relationship to all parts of reality are as they are and have always been that way. We all lose our free will, including God. I call this the Flies in Amber Scenario.
There can then, logically be no change in anything, and the very idea of creation becomes rather meaningless. How did we all end up like this? A lot of theologians have abandoned the idea of B time since it is rather incoherent and leads to this sort of weirdness.

On the other hand, if A time, real time is true, then where does time come from so powerful it even affects God? Since we know time is related to mass and dimensions and velocity (relativity) this implies that physics is outside and beyond God and affects God. This strongly implies naturalism is the true state of affairs.

Then there is what is called Presentism. The past no longer exists and the future likewise does not exist yet, only the present. If the future in some sense exists, then we have no free will, all is determined. If not this calls God's supposed knowledge of future events into question. Google Aristotle, sea battle for more. The idea that the future is not determined and existent is old.

Back to the early middle ages, there was debate on whether or not God can change the past. Consensus is, no. That implies the arrow of time moves only forward, even for God. God is subject to time.

Time and God are problematic.

 

[bilby]

Forget the past; It cannot be changed.

Forget the future; It will happen regardless.

And forget the present; I didn't bring you one.

 

[steve_bank]

The universe changes. Time is ticks in a clock used to meare change.

Outside of religion there are a limited number of possibilities.

1. The universe sprang from nothing without a cause.
2. The universe always was and always will be.

Causality is always true or it is not, there are no other options unless you invoke deities and the like. You then have to explain origins of the gods.

 

[steve_bank]

What is this B Theory of time?

B-theory of time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.

I don't see how the B-theory of time would undermine the Kalam cosmological argument.

Beside, I don't see why anyone should take this argument as compelling, at least if we take the presentation by Wikipedia to be correct:

P1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
P2 The universe began to exist;
C1 Therefore, the universe has a cause;
P3 If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Each one of these premises is just an unknown. I don't see any reason to think that whatever begins to exist has a cause or that the universe began to exist, and even less that if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists. Beats me. I'm certainly not convinced.

So, people who think the Kalam cosmological argument is compelling should explain why.
EB

That is creationism in an alternate form.

Or, the universe can not possibly exist without god, therefore god exists.

 

[bilby]

The universe changes. Time is ticks in a clock used to meare change.

That's a manifestly awful definition of 'time'; unless you assert that time didn't exist until humans invented clocks that ticked.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The universe changes. Time is ticks in a clock used to meare change.

Outside of religion there are a limited number of possibilities.

1. The universe sprang from nothing without a cause.
2. The universe always was and always will be.

Causality is always true or it is not, there are no other options unless you invoke deities and the like. You then have to explain origins of the gods.

So that should be good news to you that you share this with religious people that you all want to insist that the number of possibilities is finite, and as it happens conveniently really small, and that you are all so smart that you and only you can figure out what these are.

So, I'm not sure you're all that much "outside of religion" here.
EB

 

[Valjean]

Its sounding like this "B-Theory" is just modern physics.
So where's the controversy?

 

[skepticalbip]

The universe changes.

Indeed it does, and it changes continuously.

Time is ticks in a clock used to meare change.

?? that is a bit confusing for me.

How about time is the period between events just as distance is the separation between locations. Clocks are just tools that allow us to more accurately measure the period of time between events and meter sticks are just tools that allow us to more accurately measure the distance between locations. Both time and distance exist whether or not we have tools to measure them and, indeed, whether or not there are humans existing to define and measure them.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Its sounding like this "B-Theory" is just modern physics.
So where's the controversy?

I'm not sure there's any controversy here.

So, let me start one.

The B-theory at least appears incompatible with our subjective experience of going through time.

Proponents of the B-theory certainly have at least some explaining to do here.

But I somehow doubt anyone anywhere could ever come up with this wee bit of cleverness.

But I may be wrong here.
EB

 

[DBT]

What is this thing we call time if not relative rates of change?

 

[steve_bank]

The universe changes.

Indeed it does, and it changes continuously.

Time is ticks in a clock used to meare change.

?? that is a bit confusing for me.

How about time is the period between events just as distance is the separation between locations. Clocks are just tools that allow us to more accurately measure the period of time between events and meter sticks are just tools that allow us to more accurately measure the distance between locations. Both time and distance exist whether or not we have tools to measure them and, indeed, whether or not there are humans existing to define and measure them.

Change to 'How about time is the period between events in seconds...' and you and I are in agreement.

In science s = distance, t = time. d stands for delta or change. v = velocity

v = ds/dt. Velocity equals distance traveled in meters between two points divided by the time interval in seconds between two points. Math/calculus notation is shorthand for a lot of words that can become confusing.