The block universe, free will, death, and Nietzsche

[pood]

Recently an article appeared on the philosophical implications of the block universe, here.

The basic idea, of course, is that time is like space, as evidenced by relativity theory, and that all moments in time exist in the same way all places in space do. Jupiter exists, but is far away from us in space; the dinosaurs exist, but are far away from us in time. Of course this would mean the future, as seen from our current standpoint of Now, also exists. Thus the future is as fixed and unalterable as the past.

The article, by the philosopher Nikk Effingham, examines the implications of the block universe on free will and death. I think he gets it mostly right. If the future is fixed and unalterable, this does not preclude compatibilist free will, because part of the reason that the fixed future will be, the way that it will be, is because of our free choices. In just the same way, our free choices contributed to making the past what it was, and contribute to making the present what it is.

The author makes the crucial distinction between will and must. Just because it is true today that 20 years hence I will get divorced, it does not mean that I must do that, only that I will do it. My acts are unfree only if they are necessitated; but even though the future is fixed and unalterable under the block view, that future is not necessary; it is, was, and always will be, contingent.

In sum, the view of free will on the block universe reading is no different from a similar view of free will according to the Problem of Future Contingents, mooted by Aristotle thousands of years ago. If it is true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, Aristotle worried, then tomorrow there must be a sea battle, and no one has free will. As I have argued in other threads, this argument commits a modal fallacy, as follows:

If today it is true that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, then tomorrow there must (of necessity) be a sea battle.

The fallacy lies in ascribing “must” to the consequent of the antecedent. it reality, it must be ascribed to the antecedent and the consequent jointly, as follows:

Necessarily (if it is true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, then tomorrow there will [not MUST] be a sea battle.)

If tomorrow there is no sea battle, then a different prior proposition would have been true: Today it is true that tomorrow there will be no sea battle.

Hence the fear that the future exists somehow threatens free will is baseless.

The author then turns to the subject of the block universe and death. He quotes Einstein consoling the widow of a recently deceased friend, observing that for working physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is a “stubbornly persistent illusion.”

What Einstein seems to have had in mind, and what the author seems to have in mind, is that although Einstein’s friend is dead NOW, he “lives on,” so to say, in the past, because the past exists. The friend then is not actually dead, but alive — only he is alive “prior to” the time that Einstein writes the consoling letter to the window. Is that very consoling? Maybe, maybe not.

However, I’m going to hypothesize — a hypothesis only, something to think about — that the block universe has deeper implications for life and death.

If the block universe is true, then whole of me is not located at the present moment. Just as I have spatial parts, I must have temporal parts. The whole of me is a world tube in Minkowski spacetime with its boundary conditions my birth and death. That world tube exists, in its particular string of spacetime coordinates, eternally — the block universe is also known as the thesis of “eternalism.” This does not mean, of course, that I exist eternally after my death, or existed eternally before my birth. It must means that my whole life is eternally “baked in” to a particular tiny subset of the totality of the block universe.

If I have temporal parts, then the me of April 21, 1995 (pick any other date) is just as conscious as the me of April 21, 2023, who is typing this. All my past and future versions, my temporal parts, are equally conscious within my block universe spacetime span.

If all my conscious temporal parts are “baked in,” eternally, to a specific, tiny subset of the block universe, then all these conscious parts are eternal per definition.

Nietzsche posited the eternal recurrence — that you will live your life over and over again, albeit with no memory of having lived it before.

Hypothesis: If the block universe is real, then when I die I will subjectively begin to experience my life all over again, with no memory of my past life. Like a video game in which a character vanishes off of the right side of the screen and re-emerges on the left, I simply re-experience my temporal parts sequentially over and over again, eternally. There’s your life after death — under the block universe, it’s your very own life.

If Nietzsche is right yet again, it would hardly surprise me. And he knew nothing of the block universe.

 

[steve_bank]

Scientifically time in seconds is one of four dimensions that define a point in space relative to a reference pint.

To knOw where Mars is relATIVE to Earth in an xyz coordinate system requires 3 points in space and time. Here dimension means mensuration or units of measure. x,y,z are measured in meters. Rate of change in position is measured in seconds, time.

Time is a unit o measure as is meters. No more complicated that that.

To me time as some kind of independent reality is scifi, unless one can define what time as a kind of independent reality is. I don't think it can done.

Another peice of the cosmic puzzle is that C the speed of light is not reltvistc. All observers ib all inertial frames will measure the same C.

The universe is in ate of constant change. Insted of saying time say goung back to a preiviious ste in the unverse. If I want to back in time 1 hour that means the ste of unverse 1 hour ago.

The idea that time is a dimension one can travel through to a past statee of the unverse makes no sense at all.

The OP sounds like theology. Using science to prove life after death.

Nietzsche posited the eternal recurrence — that you will live your life over and over again, albeit with no memory of having lived it before

That sounds like Hindu-Buddhist reincarnation. The cycle of birth ad rebirth until you rise above it. I always took that to be metaphor for life.

 

[lostone]

I'm somewhat of a fan of the Block Universe concept, Nietzsche's Eternal Return, but not too tightly bound to it. It is a way of looking at General Relativity.

It is a lot like theology, to be sure. One can also assert time is distance, with unassailable and valid logic.

There is a cousin of this logical chain called the Growing Block Universe in which the past is fixed, but the future is not fixed. Most of it borders on being theology or philosophy. as does a lot of cutting edge modern physics and cosmology.

 

[SIB]

Nietzsche would understand: Look at the belief(s) and see how closely it matches what we experience and our commonsense. Then cross check ourselves first.

I would have to talk to him to see how literal he is. Some people take "transcendent" to mean "Never, and I mean never, try to connect the dots. I call them fundamental think types. Although the ones that I dislike more are the ones that don't connect the dots because they don't want to give "them" a "way out". Weather atheist or theist, they are they same. Dangerous.

Growing block? Like a seed? The embryo will probably grow up. We just can't predict the exact dimensions. Fundamental theist/atheist, wow, just wow, if we are off by a mm they will scream and shout "See, they are wrong!!!"

From the outside of our bubble, I wonder if a universe would match alive more than not alive? I guess we have to define how we define "objects". But alas, some people will whip out "I don't believe you." like its the end all.

 

[bilby]

There is a cousin of this logical chain called the Growing Block Universe in which the past is fixed, but the future is not fixed.

Yeah. It's beyond stupid. Relativity tells us that there's no absolute time.

The past isn't different from the future in any way; Indeed, what constitutes the "future" and the "past" are determined by the observer, and therefore different for every observer.

There is no "the future", only "my future". For another observer, "my future" could well be their past - so it's as immutable as any other past.

 

[Gospel]

To me, saying there's no absolute time is like looking at waves and claiming there is no ocean. While one wave might move at a different pace than another due to various factors, they all undeniably belong to the same sea.

Edit: There is absolutely an ocean.

 

[steve_bank]

Time and length are measures of change. Time is ticks on a clock, distance is ticks o a meter stick. It is no more than that.

That time is not absolute is frm the observed fact that clocks in different moving reference frames appear to run at different rates compared to other frames.

Which clock is slow and which is fast depends on the arbitrary reference point.

By this time this is demonstrated text book physics. Time dilation.

A clock at sea level and a clock on the top of Mt Everest will run at different rates.

 

[Gospel]

A clock at sea level and a clock on the top of Mt Everest will run at different rates.

We measure time by harnessing the consistent oscillations of atoms. Similarly, when exploring the vast expanse of the ocean, we rely on tools like sonar and satellites. Just as atomic oscillations provide a unified measure of time, these tools aim to understand the ocean in its entirety. However, if we needed different tools for distinct oceanic regions, it might indicate that we aren't truly seeing the sea as a whole. Analogously, until we need varied instruments to gauge time, we're observing a singular entity with diverse manifestations.

 

[lostone]

To me, saying there's no absolute time is like looking at waves and claiming there is no ocean. While one wave might move at a different pace than another due to various factors, they all undeniably belong to the same sea.

GPS works based on time relative time. That is pretty solid evidence.

 

[Gospel]

To me, saying there's no absolute time is like looking at waves and claiming there is no ocean. While one wave might move at a different pace than another due to various factors, they all undeniably belong to the same sea.

GPS works based on time relative time. That is pretty solid evidence.

Yeah, solid evidence that the ocean doesn't move at the same speed everywhere. That's just about it.

 

[Gospel]

I may have been a bit hasty with that assertion. It seems I've reached the extent of my understanding for now. Thank you for including me in this discussion. I'll need to reflect on this further.

 

[lostone]

Thirteen billion years ago is 'now' when looking at it in a telescope.

We cannot see micro-events, like happens here on Earth, that far off. But what happens here, in our local area, a few meters or miles apart, is locked in place. Their 'now' is different from ours, but at that distance, we cannot see any of their local events.

If what happened here could be different, or is different, in some other corner of a 'Block Universe;', is a philosophical question. Like what happened before the Big Bang.

 

[bilby]

To me, saying there's no absolute time is like looking at waves and claiming there is no ocean. While one wave might move at a different pace than another due to various factors, they all undeniably belong to the same sea.

Edit: There is absolutely an ocean.

Do you also think there's absolute space?

If a rock is in deep space, far from any other mass, is it stationary? How do you know how fast it's going, or in what direction?

If two GPS satellites are orbiting the Earth, and their onboard clocks don't agree with each other, which is giving the correct time? How do we know?

Neither space nor time has an observer independent reference point that we can use as a basis for an absolute space or absolute time system, with which every object must agree.

Something that is in the past to you, could be in the future to someone who is moving very differently in space.

 

[steve_bank]

Substitute the word change for time.

A car chges position. Speed is meters/seconds. distance = speed * time.

The first clocks were water clocks and sand clocks, nothing to do with oscillations.

I stretch out my arms and declare 1 SBL is the length of my outstretch arms. I craft a netal rod to mth the distance declare it the distance standard f my empir

I make a sand clcok ad decare the unit of tine the SBT to be the duation of 100 grains dropping..

In the empire of SB speed = SBLs/SBTs
In the rest of the world distance = meters /seconds

Both system work.

The reason we define the second as we do is because it is repeatable anywhere in the wolrd.

 

[Gospel]

Do you also think there's absolute space?

I don't think there is absolute time nor space based on yours, Newton's and Einstein's definition of absolute. I've realized I'm talking to a different audience and have since retreated.

 

[Gospel]

Thirteen billion years ago is 'now' when looking at it in a telescope.

I assumed that when we look through a telescope, we're simply observing the light that strikes its lens in real-time, without any additional complexities. Sure the light may have traveled thirteen billion years to get to that lens but it's not the actual object 13 billion lightyears away that we are looking at. We are just looking at the light it sent our way.

 

[bilby]

Thirteen billion years ago is 'now' when looking at it in a telescope.

I assumed that when we look through a telescope, we're simply observing the light that strikes its lens in real-time, without any additional complexities. Sure the light may have traveled thirteen billion years to get to that lens but it's not the actual object 13 billion lightyears away that we are looking at. We are just looking at the light it sent our way.

Light travels at c, and so doesn't experience time. From a photon's perspective, everywhere is in the same place.

You can't actually see anything, except photons; The difference between photons that have travelled a metre, and photons that have travelled 13 billion light years, is not that in the first case you're experiencing the object they came from, but in the second case you're not.

Your experience of the nearer object is out of date too (just by a much smaller amount).

 

[SIB]

"experience no time". So nothing is changing in "it". Kind of like "frozen", I think when we figure out what space time is that may change. Like a water wave not changing as it move through "totally still" water but the water it (the energy pulse) is in does change. But that is well, you know ,,,

 

[lostone]

The Canadian Sci Fi TV Series Lexx that ran several years ago was based on a repeating universe and some similar ideas to the Block Universe

Lexx - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org