B Theory of time

[steve_bank]

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

It is yet another weak attempt to justify or prove Creationism. Like Intelligent Design.

 

[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.

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

The claim science is as much faith as religion is another old tactic of the Creationists. Sciennce and Creationism are bioth faith based therefore Creationism is as valid as cosmology and evolution. Hardly.

To quote the late Carver Meade, I do not know if an electron exists, bur I know I can do useful things with the theory'. That sums it all up for me. Reality as we are able to measure it quantitatively, not qualirartively, is discrete or quantized. Atoms and particles.

I put forward two basic choices. The universe came from nothing, or the universe always was and will be.

I go with the latter and believe causality must always hold. I base that on the well tested Laws Of Thermodynamics for which to date no exceptions have been found. In the totality of the universe total mass and energy can not change. Only forms change.

As a someone who ascribes to free thinking, if what we call the supernatural or deities can impact our reality, then there is a causal connection. If you see a ghost and it is real then there is a causal relation between your brain and the ghost.

Whether the number of possibilities are finite or infinite becomes a philosophical debate. There is nothing on which to derive probabilities for the entire universe.

By out of religion I refer to the Abrahamic form of god, who can wink things into existence. Causality not required.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

The universe exists regardless of how we think of it. The universe exists, objective and subjective human time are created by our brains. That is my philosophical view. Objective time is the second, that is my scientific view.

 

[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

The claim science is as much faith as religion is another old tactic of the Creationists. Sciennce and Creationism are bioth faith based therefore Creationism is as valid as cosmology and evolution. Hardly.

You're attitude here is really typical of the old preacher. Look again at my post, I never once talked about science, and therefore never made the claim you're ascribing to me that somehow science would be like religion.

My post was only about you and your apparent intellectual narrow-mindedness, and there you just endeavored with beastly insistence to confirm my suspicion. Well done, Preacher! Keep the Good Work.

To quote the late Carver Meade, I do not know if an electron exists, bur I know I can do useful things with the theory'.

Sounds good to me although I can see how that could be misconstrued and I fear that you're going to do just that.

That sums it all up for me.

Here you go. Simplism expressed in its most simplistic form. You are really good at it.

Reality as we are able to measure it quantitatively, not qualirartively, is discrete or quantized. Atoms and particles.

"Tautological" is the word that comes to my mind here.

And your "That sums it all up for me" makes your mind out as most beautifully ouroboros. I would worry if I were you.

You should listen more to Carver Meade himself. He said that the brains of animals are beautiful examples of very complex systems that do very delicate and efficient computation. Your brain should try it. It works.

Beside, and as far as seems plausible to me, you should experience qualia. And if I assume we all do, then as far as I can tell, qualia are the only things each of us knows they exist. That is to say, they are the only reality each of us is given to know. Even measures have somehow to come through our qualia.

So, your "reality as we are able to measure it quantitatively" is really just an assumption. And a belief.

I put forward two basic choices. The universe came from nothing, or the universe always was and will be.

See? you're doing it again! This sad copycat of the religious mindset.

There are other possibilities. I seem I can't even stop from finding new ones every now and then. Your brain should try that, too.

I go with the latter and believe causality must always hold. I base that on the well tested Laws Of Thermodynamics for which to date no exceptions have been found. In the totality of the universe total mass and energy can not change. Only forms change.

As a someone who ascribes to free thinking, if what we call the supernatural or deities can impact our reality, then there is a causal connection. If you see a ghost and it is real then there is a causal relation between your brain and the ghost.

Causality is a belief. That doesn't mean it's on a par with a belief in God for example. Still, it's a belief, and your brain would do well to open itself to the suggestions made by other brains that are actively considering alternatives to causality.

Whether the number of possibilities are finite or infinite becomes a philosophical debate.

Sure. What isn't is to limit oneself to two or three miserly possibilities like your brain does. I must be at ten or more possibilities myself and I don't see why there wouldn't be more of them.

There is nothing on which to derive probabilities for the entire universe.

Yet, it seems that's just what you did here by assuming Laws Of Thermodynamics to apply to the whole universe. Your brain is actively contradicting itself, there. You should keep it on a shorter leash.

By out of religion I refer to the Abrahamic form of god, who can wink things into existence. Causality not required.

Maybe it's not.

Quantum fluctuations anyone?

And just as plausible, the whole universe itself, for all we know. Not bad.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So are we moving forward on the learning B theory of time or the schooling of steve_bank and Speakpigeon or what?

 

[steve_bank]

There are no known exceptions to causality. There are a number of theories in quantum physcs that are misinterpreted.

Math itself is an expression of conservation. You can not have a demostratable theory that violates causality.

Can you feel a pain in the but before I kick it?

Probabilistic and statiscal events do not violate causality.

 

[Wiploc]

There are no known exceptions to causality.

I believe radioactive breakdown is supposed to be uncaused. And the occurrence of virtual particles.

There are a number of theories in quantum physcs that are misinterpreted.

Isn't there something like a consensus among experts?

Am I wrong about the consensus, or do you have an argument so persuasive that we must disregard the consensus?

Math itself is an expression of conservation.

Did you mean to write "causation"? Or are you saying that anything consistent with the conservation laws is caused? Or did you mean some third thing that I can't even guess at?

You can not have a demostratable theory that violates causality.

I've read that there are various interpretations of quantum phenomena. The most popular interpretation gives up causation. The other interpretations give up other things, things we are even less comfortable doing without.

Does that sound fair to you? If so, what does your theory give up?

Can you feel a pain in the but before I kick it?

I have often felt pain where you didn't kick.

Probabilistic and statiscal events do not violate causality.

They wouldn't have to, but they seem to in some cases.

If you hit a walnut with a sledge hammer, it will smash 100% of the time. That's probabilistic and also causal, so some probabilistic things are caused.

But radioactive decay is probabilistic without seeming to have any cause. So, your claim needs defending.

I'm open minded about this. I want to see your response in order to consider it. I've seen Christians arguing against quantum mechanics on religious grounds, but I've never seen someone try to logically defend such claims.

So, if you are willing to explain your position, I'm all ears.

 

[WAB]

If you hit a walnut with a sledge hammer, it will smash 100% of the time.

^That!

 

[steve_bank]

Again, no known exceptions to causality. To us when a radioctive material emits a particle is only predictable statistically. That does not mean without a causal link.

In stsremsmthe top level category is chaotic. In a chaotic system like weather aand climate the variables are such that a ling term prediction beco,es unptredictable. A chaotic system is unpredictable but causal.

Under chotic comes deterministic and probabil;istic.

Calculating the spped of a car is deterministic. Given time and distance velocity is deterministically calculated.

Sit in a restaurant. When somweone enters or leaves can not be dterministically calculated. A probabiity model can be contructed to predict the probabilty of somebody entering the retaurant versus time of day. It is called queing theory. Why a random person enters is not knowable apriori.

The argument in the OP fails for the same reason as Intelligent Design. ID says humans were designed by an unspecied designer, but in the thinking it is god who itself exists fotrever or somehow came into existence.

If the unmverse has a beginning and a first cause then where did the first cause came from? The Big Bang Theory postualtes a hypothetical initial condition, but not what led to the initial condition.

 

[fromderinside]

two pictures of the state of the world are taken. They are different. Which picture is the caused image.

 

[Underseer]

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

The controversy is that as Speakpigeon pointed out, the B-Theory of time undermines the Kalam cosmological argument, which is how you end up with William Lane Craig trying to disprove Relativity with a syllogism:



This argument is the reason I think William Lane Craig is actually dumber than Ray "banana man" Comfort. Even Comfort understands enough about why things are true in science to lie about the evidence, but only Craig is dumb enough to think that the evidence doesn't matter.

If Craig wants to say that Relativity is false, he needs to figure out an experiment to prove it and carry out the experiment, but as you can see from the video above, he doesn't understand enough about physics to ever design such an experiment. The circularity of this is delicious. The origin of Craig's version of the Kalam argument is that he wanted to borrow credibility from modern physics to make his version of the Kalam sound reasonable, but in the end he had to try and disprove a well-established proven theory from modern physics in order to salvage his version of Kalam.

It seems obvious to me that Craig's version of Kalam was never intended to convince anyone with even a modicum of education (that would explain why he keeps repeating arguments that were debunked by academics), but was simply meant to convince people who are already convinced, then throw enough big words at them to confuse them and convince them that their beliefs are proved.

 

[Wiploc]

Again, no known exceptions to causality.

I understand that that's your position. I asked why you hold that position.

My understanding is that the weight of scientific opinion is against you. Am I wrong about that, or do you have information that makes you immune to the weight of scientific opinion, above it?

Why do you believe that there are no known exceptions to causality?

To us when a radioctive material emits a particle is only predictable statistically. That does not mean without a causal link.

Nor does it mean with a causal link. Your position is that everything is caused. Why do you take that position? How do you justify it?

In stsremsmthe top level category is chaotic. In a chaotic system like weather aand climate the variables are such that a ling term prediction beco,es unptredictable. A chaotic system is unpredictable but causal.

Some chaotic systems are unpredictable but nonetheless causal. I grant you that point. But your claim is that all of them are causal. Why is that?

Don't just repeat your claim. Explain it, justify it. Or, if you really don't have any justification, say that.

Under chotic comes deterministic and probabil;istic.

Calculating the spped of a car is deterministic. Given time and distance velocity is deterministically calculated.

Yes, some things are caused. I assure you that I am with you that far. What I want to know is why you think everything is caused. My understanding is that most, or nearly all, of the people qualified to have an opinion think that some things are uncaused. Why do you disagree with them? Why are you saying they're wrong? Why do you say that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is a "misinterpretation"?

Don't just repeat your claim. Explain it. Justify it. Make your case so that it becomes possible for people to agree with you.

Sit in a restaurant. When somweone enters or leaves can not be dterministically calculated. A probabiity model can be contructed to predict the probabilty of somebody entering the retaurant versus time of day. It is called queing theory. Why a random person enters is not knowable apriori.

And yet there are causes for why those people go in when they do. I understand that. Not everything unpredictable is uncaused. I'm with you.

But your claim goes beyond that. I'm asking you to explain why you maintain that everything is caused. Even radioactive breakdown. Even the big bang. Even gods, if gods exist.

Why is it your position--in the teeth of expert opinion--that everything is caused? Why should anyone agree with you?

The argument in the OP fails

There is no argument in the OP. It's just a question. The question has nothing to do with your assertion that everything is caused, that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong.

for the same reason as Intelligent Design. ID says humans were designed by an unspecied designer, but in the thinking it is god who itself exists fotrever or somehow came into existence.

I stipulate the ID sucks, that it cannot be justified, that it does not survive examination. I want to know whether your theory is different. Do you have a justification. Can you support your claim? Will it survive examination? Or is it no better than ID?

If the unmverse has a beginning and a first cause then where did the first cause came from? The Big Bang Theory postualtes a hypothetical initial condition, but not what led to the initial condition.

Are you rejecting big bang theory in addition to the Copenhagen interpretation?

 

[untermensche]

My understanding is that most, or nearly all, of the people qualified to have an opinion think that some things are uncaused.

Do they conclude conclusively that some event occurred without a cause or just that they know of no cause?

Ultimately no matter what event you observe the most you can say is you know of no cause. If you know of no cause.

You cannot say you know there was no cause.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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

B time is a modern label (philosopher Richard Gale) for an ancient debate on the nature of God and time. Going back to Augustine and Boethius. It is at the base, a theological and metaphysical argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

 

[WAB]

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

B time is a modern label (philosopher Richard Gale) for an ancient debate on the nature of God and time. Going back to Augustine and Boethius. It is at the base, a theological and metaphysical argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

Thanks for that, CC.

There's a great book, called The Human Experience of Time, edited by Charles M. Sherover, which I am bringing with me to the Funny Farm. Lots of great stuff, from Genesis, Heraclitus, all the way up to modern times.

 

[Underseer]

Steve, if you think everything has a cause, then how can the universe have a cause?

In order for something to have a cause, the cause has to come before the effect, but in this case the effect includes time itself. So how can there be a cause if there is no before? In order to posit that the universe has a cause, you have to say that there is such a thing as "before the universe," but in order to that, you have to prove some other form of spacetime beyond the spacetime of our universe. How the heck are you ever going to prove that?

There's a metric crap-ton of hypotheses in cosmology that posit some other spacetime beyond our own, but they are all called hypotheses because at the moment no one can think of a way to test them.

Unless we can prove some other spacetime that encompasses our spacetime, then the universe has to be uncaused, at least from our point of view.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody can say "everything" needs a cause as we understand causes.

Nobody can say anything about "everything".

All you can talk about are those things that can be observed by humans in some way.

 

[Tharmas]

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

B time is a modern label (philosopher Richard Gale) for an ancient debate on the nature of God and time. Going back to Augustine and Boethius. It is at the base, a theological and metaphysical argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

One could also say that atomic theory is "at base" a theological and metaphysical argument.

 

[Jobar]

In my understanding, B Theory is saying that reality is eviternal, always-existing, and the apparent flow of time is only the way it looks to us conscious observers. Each of us is like the laser beam reading the dots on a CD or DVD, or a needle tracing the grooves of a phonograph record. The entire record exists all at once, but we evoke meaning at the human level by traversing it moment by moment.

This does seem to render human free will a chimera, and only lets God have any choice outside of any time dimension, upon the creation of a new universe, like the stamping of a phonograph record. (And of course we have no idea what 'outside of any time dimension' might mean.)

And if God Himself is truly omniscient, then He also is absolutely determined in any possible time-like dimension, exactly as much as any of his creations. No surprises, no freedoms, no choices. Holy boredom might be the ultimate form and cause of suffering.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In my understanding, B Theory is saying that reality is eviternal, always-existing, and the apparent flow of time is only the way it looks to us conscious observers. Each of us is like the laser beam reading the dots on a CD or DVD, or a needle tracing the grooves of a phonograph record. The entire record exists all at once, but we evoke meaning at the human level by traversing it moment by moment.

We evoke meaning at the human level by traversing it moment by moment?!

"Traversing", I guess that's the bit I don't quite understand.

Hopefully, I wouldn't be the only one.

I would say that if the flow of time is only apparent and "the way it looks to us conscious observers", then we're actually not traversing anything.

So, how would we do it?

Sorry, even "doing" wouldn't mean anything in this context. Rather, how would we be experiencing the flow of time without any actual flow of time?

Sounds rather like a B movie to me.

Except it wouldn't be a movie at all but a thick collection of photographs you couldn't even flick through.
EB