Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Today at 12:12 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:22 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 03:29 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
June 25, 2025, 03:06 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
June 23, 2025, 08:28 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
June 22, 2025, 03:34 PM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
June 21, 2025, 01:05 PM

New Britain
June 20, 2025, 09:26 PM

Is Iran/Persia going to b...
by zeca
June 17, 2025, 10:20 PM

News From Syria
June 17, 2025, 05:58 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
June 17, 2025, 10:47 AM

ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
June 02, 2025, 10:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Eternalism

 (Read 5596 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Eternalism
     OP - February 23, 2010, 01:08 AM

    Eternalism is a philosophical argument that is in harmony with the theory of special relativity. It treats time as though it were another dimention of space. Just because one does not live in Canada, this does NOT change the fact that Canada is ALREADY there. Similarly, according to Eternalism, although we are not living in the future, the future ALREADY happened.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

    Quote
    Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time. It builds on the standard method of modeling time as a dimension in physics, to give time a similar ontology to that of space. This would mean that time is just another dimension, that future events are "already there", and that there is no objective flow of time. It is sometimes referred to as the "Block Time" or "Block Universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block",[1] as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time.


    Quote
    Conventionally, time is divided into three distinct regions; the "past", the "present", and the "future". Using that representational model, the past is generally seen as being immutably fixed, and the future as undefined and nebulous. As time passes, the moment that was once the present becomes part of the past; and part of the future, in turn, becomes the new present. In this way time is said to pass, with a distinct present moment "moving" forward into the future and leaving the past behind. This view of time is given the name presentism by philosophers

    This conventional model presents a number of difficult philosophical problems, and seems difficult to reconcile with currently accepted scientific theories such as the theory of relativity..


    Quote
    More generally, special relativity makes no distinction between past, future, or present.


    Quote
    Eternalism addresses these various difficulties by considering all points in time to be equally valid frames of reference—or equally "real", if one prefers. It does not do away with the concept of past and future, but instead considers them directions rather than states of being; whether some point in time is in the future or past is entirely dependent on which frame of reference you are using as a basis for observing it.


    Quote
    Eternalism has implications for the concept of free will, in that it proposes that future events are as immutably fixed and impossible to change as past events (see determinism).


    Quote
    Eternalism takes its inspiration from physics, especially the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, in which the relativity of simultaneity is used to show that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment.


    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #1 - February 23, 2010, 05:55 AM

    It appears to me that special theory of relativity is not needed at all to propose that time is a fourth dimension. In fact relativity implies that space time is curved and makes the geometry rather mangled. In a "classical" world view, time as a fourth dimension seems even more natural, and in fact I am not sure what the difference in that case is between presentism and essentialism. How we perceive the world need not have anything to do with its underlying geometry.
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #2 - March 03, 2010, 12:52 AM

    Many-worlds interpretation of Schrödinger's cat is amused and not amused Smiley Cry

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #3 - March 03, 2010, 03:56 AM

    eternalism is the position that the majority of time/space philosophers have adopted. However, the position does have problems. Namely, if time is just another dimension like space then why cannot we travel time in both directions, or stop travelling in time? Why is time always a constant arrow in the same direction and at the same speed?
    It makes sense to think of time like it is space, but we experience time very differently to how we experience space and there has to be an explanation for this difference before a thesis like eternalism can be adopted.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #4 - June 22, 2010, 08:29 PM

    so do you adopt presentism then, z10?

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #5 - June 22, 2010, 08:34 PM

    Unfortunately debunker, that theory has it's problems too. I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue - I will have to give it more thought.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #6 - June 22, 2010, 08:35 PM

    but I would guess you're leaning more towards eternalism?

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #7 - June 22, 2010, 08:37 PM

    Yes, though it has it's problems it seems the best position at the moment. Ofcourse, I don't agree that eternalism implies determinism in any meaningful sense but that's a bit of a tangent.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #8 - June 22, 2010, 08:50 PM

    ok, how do you think eternalism does not imply deternism if the future, according to eternalism, is fixed?

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #9 - June 22, 2010, 10:20 PM

    I think it doesn't follow from the fact that just because everything is the way it is supposed to be according to absolute principles and completely determined that we can know what exactly is determined. In other words, determinism does hold but it doesn't have any meaning for us because we can't determine the future based on the past from our own perspective.
    I think the example of space does well to illustrate the point. If you were to take a region of space and split it in half it is absolutely true that both halves will have determinate particles in determinate locations however, you won't be able to figure out what one half has by knowing everything about the other half. Similarly, knowing everything about the past won't tell you everything about the future.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #10 - June 22, 2010, 10:36 PM

    Quote
    I think it doesn't follow from the fact that just because everything is the way it is supposed to be according to absolute principles and completely determined that we can know what exactly is determined. In other words, determinism does hold but it doesn't have any meaning for us because we can't determine the future based on the past from our own perspective.
    I think the example of space does well to illustrate the point. If you were to take a region of space and split it in half it is absolutely true that both halves will have determinate particles in determinate locations however, you won't be able to figure out what one half has by knowing everything about the other half. Similarly, knowing everything about the past won't tell you everything about the future.


    It seems to me you're basically saying that determinism is irrelevant, or at least it doesn't affect our free-will in any tangible way.

    Is this the same as saying that, with determinism, free-will is only true in a relative (or subjective) sense rather an absolute (or objective) sense?

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #11 - June 22, 2010, 10:37 PM

    Yes that's what I am saying. This is not to say that I am willing to stake a claim in these theories, I think both positions lead to paradoxes and the best solution is yet to be found. From what we have to work with, that would be my answer.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #12 - June 22, 2010, 10:43 PM

    I love my z10!

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #13 - June 22, 2010, 11:02 PM

    eternalism is the position that the majority of time/space philosophers have adopted. However, the position does have problems. Namely, if time is just another dimension like space then why cannot we travel time in both directions, or stop travelling in time? Why is time always a constant arrow in the same direction and at the same speed?
    It makes sense to think of time like it is space, but we experience time very differently to how we experience space and there has to be an explanation for this difference before a thesis like eternalism can be adopted.


    z10, some particles can travel back in time, depends on your perspective of it, either you can see it as having 'negitive energy' or negivitive time, i.e travels backwards in time.

    Particles such as the electron anti-neutrino (i think, or maybe it was the anti-electron..hmm). It can be thought of as an electron travelling back in time.

    And time isn't always going at the same speed, time varies depending on your motion/speed. (The effects only noticible at relativistic speeds).

    I should be able to give you a better idea on this, having a masters in physics, but my memory is a bit rusty to be honest.

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #14 - June 22, 2010, 11:03 PM

    Ye, apparently time 'slows' down as you approach the speed of light.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #15 - June 23, 2010, 01:36 AM

    They're both inadequate theories.
    I'm doing my masters thesis on essentially this problem -- it's much more complicated than laid out on SEP. Essentially this is my beef with the state of philosophy for the past, ah, several thousand years. Problems are laid out in fragmented, compartmentalized disputes, false paradoxes, and disputes that are like a piece of burnt incense -- the slightest breeze and they dissapear. So-called Meta-metaphysics has scratched the surface of these problems, though only barely and along the same lines as traditional analytic traditions, and the same mentality that has existed since we learned how to count.

    These questions are impervious to us, and will always be until we consider (or stumble upon) a paradigm shift.

    No one in the history of Philosophy has really been brave enough to pull the loose thread, lest all of their precious discipline become unravelled along with it.

    *end of rant*
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #16 - June 23, 2010, 01:44 AM

    Yes that's what I am saying. This is not to say that I am willing to stake a claim in these theories, I think both positions lead to paradoxes and the best solution is yet to be found. From what we have to work with, that would be my answer.


    Agree.
     parrot
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #17 - June 23, 2010, 01:36 PM

    zoomi, are you a pantheist like z10?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #18 - June 23, 2010, 09:59 PM

    I'd lean towards it because it's a pretty theory that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but have the same line about it as above.
    (Though I don't want to be mistaken for a skeptic)  Tongue
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #19 - June 23, 2010, 10:01 PM

    z10, some particles can travel back in time, depends on your perspective of it, either you can see it as having 'negitive energy' or negivitive time, i.e travels backwards in time.

    Particles such as the electron anti-neutrino (i think, or maybe it was the anti-electron..hmm). It can be thought of as an electron travelling back in time.

    And time isn't always going at the same speed, time varies depending on your motion/speed. (The effects only noticible at relativistic speeds).

    I should be able to give you a better idea on this, having a masters in physics, but my memory is a bit rusty to be honest.


    I'm so turned on right now. Sock it to me!
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #20 - June 23, 2010, 10:13 PM

    I'd lean towards it because it's a pretty theory that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside

    Not the best methodology (its the same trap that many theists fall for Wink) but what the heck..

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #21 - June 24, 2010, 02:20 AM

    Apparently my sarcasm wasn't thick enough Wink
  • Re: Eternalism
     Reply #22 - June 24, 2010, 08:08 AM

    Nah Islame is just thick.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »