Why is "now" the same for everybody?

[tar]

It isn't the case, so everything that follows is wrong. You are implicitly assuming that clocks everywhere tick at the same rate. They don't.

 

When cosmologists say that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, they are referring to a clock that is well-removed from any small scale variations in density such as planets, stars, black holes, and galaxies, and is locally at rest with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation.

 

 

D H,

 

OK, perhaps I don't know what they mean when they talk about the age of the universe. But it should mean something to them. I will admit that now is a relative term, and there are many of them, nows that is. And I only mean to ask some questions, not ignore any facts we have discovered.

 

But since we have this intuitive understanding of the present moment, and are aware of the fact that other, different moments, consisting of many of the same characteristics as this one, have come before now, and many similarly constituted moment are by all accounts going to continue to present themselves, it seems very reasonable that one can easily divide all of the stuff that has happened in our very local inertial reference frame (Earth,Moon combo), is currently happening, and will happen, into those three general categories. My thought was, and still is, that it appears to be very true that the majority of the things that have happened on Earth are in the past, what currently is the case on Earth moon is the case for everybody (within a several second floating window), and what will happen next, has not happened for ANYBODY here.

 

Now, if you want to throw in all possible observers in the universe, as everybody, we have some real problems defining now. That was not my intent in asking why everybody is in the same now. I was referring to everybody "currently" alive on Earth. And I am asking for a several second floating window, and nobody traveling at relativistic speeds, in reference to the rest of us. Given this leeway, there is a real now, that we all share, and it is interesting to me that we do.

 

And once you grant me this local now, we can imagine this particular one extending, as a slice, thoughout all of spacetime...so that all of our possible observers currently exist...in some relationship to us, at some particular distance, at some one particular relative velocity, experiencing time faster or slower than we do, but experiencing it now. That is, they are as well, in a situation where the majority of the stuff they know has already happened, there is stuff happening currently in their local now, and what is going to happen next, to them, has not yet occurred.

 

The various observers will not agree on the order of events that have occurred in the universe, but that is not important. There is not an observer that can see now from anyplace or time but his or her own now. Although we can put ourselves in the shoes of any observer we wish to, instantly, in our imaginations.

 

Which brings me back to the Mars rover. Its craft will enter the atmosphere of Mars only once. One short moment. And it won't be till 14 minutes later that we see the event. When we see it, when we receive its signals, informing us that it is entering the atmosphere, we will know it "really" entered the atmosphere 14 minutes ago, as surely as we know an exploding star we see explode at a distance of 100,000 light years, really exploded 100,000 years, ago, and does not exist, NOW.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

My thought was, and still is, that it appears to be very true that the majority of the things that have happened on Earth are in the past

Relative to whom or what?

 

what currently is the case on Earth moon is the case for everybody (within a several second floating window), and what will happen next, has not happened for ANYBODY here.

Relative to whom or what?

 

And I am asking for a several second floating window, and nobody traveling at relativistic speeds, in reference to the rest of us. Given this leeway, there is a real now, that we all share, and it is interesting to me that we do.

While there is tremendous overlap in the present moment each of us here on earth experience, we do not all share a common one. That is a point that I think you may be struggling to grasp. Even two atoms side by side don't "share the same now." There is tremendous overlap, but not a full one... even at atomic and subatomic scales... let alone at the huge macro scales at which we humans exist.

 

And once you grant me this local now...

Sorry, but that has not been granted. It's been rebutted.

 

Which brings me back to the Mars rover. Its craft will enter the atmosphere of Mars only once. One short moment. And it won't be till 14 minutes later that we see the event. When we see it, when we receive its signals, informing us that it is entering the atmosphere, we will know it "really" entered the atmosphere 14 minutes ago...

 

Seven minutes... Relative to us as earth-based observers.

 

[Iggy]

But since we have this intuitive understanding of the present moment, and are aware of the fact that other, different moments, consisting of many of the same characteristics as this one, have come before now, and many similarly constituted moment are by all accounts going to continue to present themselves, it seems very reasonable that one can easily divide all of the stuff that has happened in our very local inertial reference frame (Earth,Moon combo), is currently happening, and will happen, into those three general categories. My thought was, and still is, that it appears to be very true that the majority of the things that have happened on Earth are in the past, what currently is the case on Earth moon is the case for everybody (within a several second floating window), and what will happen next, has not happened for ANYBODY here.

There are two events -- one on the moon and one on earth. You can figure out, using your clock and your knowledge about how far away the moon is, that the event on the moon happened before the event on earth according to you. If the event on earth is in your present then the event on the moon would have happened in your past.

 

Someone else in the solar system traveling a different velocity from you (maybe they are on mars or in a spaceship) can use their clock and their knowledge of the distance to the events and figure out that the event on earth happened before the event on the moon (quite opposite from the conclusion you made). If the event on earth is in this person's present then the event on the moon is in their past.

 

The matter of which event happens first is relative. You must include the bolded part of this statement: this event is in the present and that event is in the past relative to a certain person or a certain frame of reference. If you don't include the bolded part of the statement then you are making a universal statement which may not be universally true.

[tar]

Relative to whom or what?

 

 

Relative to whom or what?

 

 

While there is tremendous overlap in the present moment each of us here on earth experience, we do not all share a common one. That is a point that I think you may be struggling to grasp. Even two atoms side by side don't "share the same now." There is tremendous overlap, but not a full one... even at atomic and subatomic scales... let alone at the huge macro scales at which we humans exist.

 

 

Sorry, but that has not been granted. It's been rebutted.

 

 

 

Seven minutes... Relative to us as earth-based observers.

 

 

Inow,

 

Thanks for the video. Nice summary of the plan.

 

I am not struggling with the fact that my now is different from even the closest possible "other" observer. I am rather counting on it. That is already built into my understanding. My figuring says that it is the speed of light that connects us to the rest of the universe. Which means that every other event, every other instant in the universe must have already happened, for me to be informed of it now. That is the only thing we can be informed of, is the universe's past. The universe itself, any observer in it, is in the exact same boat. The observer can only experience his/her own now, and can only be informed of what has already happened, everywhere else. Things a planck length away arriving now, occurred a Plank time ago. Things arriving now from Alpha Centuri, happened 1.3 years ago, and the moment we see the Curiostiy enter the atmosphere of Mars, as soon as we are informed of the event, it will have been sitting on the surface, for seven minutes.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Just to get the scale of what's happening, with the Mars landing, to tie it back to human judgement and understanding, is anybody here feel like figuring what the angular size of the rover would be, sitting on Mars that day, from the vantage point of an Earth bound observer...and compare that to the size of a particle of the same angular size, sitting on my thumb, at arms length? What size particle would we be talking?

[iNow]

Sorry. I was wrong on the time. It WILL take 14 minutes for the signal to get back to earth. The seven minutes I was thinking of are how long it will take the rover to go from outside the atmosphere to the surface. My bad.

 

Which means that every other event, every other instant in the universe must have already happened, for me to be informed of it now. That is the only thing we can be informed of, is the universe's past.

Relative to whom or what?

 

Things a planck length away arriving now, occurred a Plank time ago.

Relative to whom or what?

Edited August 2, 2012 by iNow

[tar]

Planck not Plank, sorry.

 

Inow,

 

Relative to me, and my here and now, of course. What other actual now could I possibly be aware of? (not what other heres and nows could I imagine putting myself in the shoes of)

 

Regards, TAR2

[JMJones0424]

Just to get the scale of what's happening, with the Mars landing, to tie it back to human judgement and understanding, is anybody here feel like figuring what the angular size of the rover would be, sitting on Mars that day, from the vantage point of an Earth bound observer...and compare that to the size of a particle of the same angular size, sitting on my thumb, at arms length? What size particle would we be talking?

 

If the signal takes 14 minutes to reach Earth, then the distance to the rover is about

 

[math]\frac{3 \times 10^{8}m}{sec} \cdot \frac{60sec}{min} \cdot 14min = 2.52 \times 10^{11}m[/math]

 

And the rover's length is about 3m.

 

Now we can use a ratio to determine what an equivalent object's length would be one meter away.

 

[math]\frac {n}{1m} = \frac {3m}{2.52 \times 10^{11}m}[/math]

 

[math]n \approx 1.19\times10^{-11}m[/math]

 

This is about 11.9 picometers, very small indeed, about one quarter the size of a hydrogen atom.

Edited August 2, 2012 by JMJones0424

[tar]

JMJones0424,

 

Wonderful. Thank you. And here I was trying to get things into small fractions of a second of a degree and back again.

Thank goodness for smart people, that can cut to the chase. Thank you. Just what I wanted to know.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. I am sort of working on a notion that we form an analog image of the world around us, based on the information about it that comes in. And your jumping right to the ratios was excellent. Our model of the world, since it exists in the neurons and nerves of a human brain/body size collection of nodes and signals, yet is judged as being MUCH larger, must indeed use analogies, and transforms and ratios, to do the job. One grain size, standing for another, as we "think" about the world we are in and of. Almost as if we use the world itself as an extension of our thoughts as we internalize the information the universe presents to us.

[tar]

Congratulations Curiostiy team. Excellent plan, job well done.

 

As I heard on the radio this morning. We "now' have a 1 ton peice of American ingenuity, safely on Mars, allowing us to investigate that crater for signs of life on Mars, and carry on scientific experiments for the next two years.

 

Excellent job. To those involved, "You make us all proud, and we share the joy of your victory."

 

Regards, TAR2

[Alan McDougall]

There is no universal time or absolute time, how then can there be an absolute universal now, it makes no sense?

[StringJunky]

There is no universal time or absolute time, how then can there be an absolute universal now, it makes no sense?

 

There isn't a universal now...now can't move faster than light.

[swansont]

There is no universal time or absolute time, how then can there be an absolute universal now, it makes no sense?

"Now" is a tautology. It is always now, by definition.

[Alan McDougall]

There isn't a universal now...now can't move faster than light.

 

I never said there was a universal now!

[tar]

I never said there was a universal now!

 

Alan,

 

I am the one that refers, for argument and expression to a universal now.

 

Let me try to explain my thinking.

 

When we look in the sky we see what is up there now.

 

In logic a thing either is or is not. Is a star that we see 10,000 ly away true or false? Does it exist NOW? Or does it not exist?

 

If we see it go super nova, we know two things, 1. It is going super nova now, and 2. it went super nova 10,000 years ago.

 

Which statement is true? 1. or 2.?

 

Did that star exist yesterday? Did it exist 10 years ago? 1,000 years ago? 9,999.99 years ago?

 

Similarly, we have the same situation with Curiosity. When we saw it touch down safely, we know it had already been on the surface for 14 minutes. We see only the image of an event that occured on Mars, 14 minutes in the past. Like when we see the super nova, we know there is an implied existence of that event actually having been the case, actually having had occurred 10,000 years ago.

 

10,001 years ago, here on Earth an observer looking at that star, saying "that star exists now" would have been correct.

Two years later, that same observer saying "that star exists now" would have been incorrect.

 

It is THAT now, that I used in the above paragraph, that I am considering the "universal now". That which is, in truth, currently the case. (even though it does not enter our regular now, til later).

 

Both nows are actual and true. But they are not interchangeable and cannot be used at the same time to refer to the same, distant event in an interchangable fashion. There are events actually happening now, that will not appear here, 'til later.

 

Currently happening in the "universal" now.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Our regular now, happening at the speed of light. The universal now happening similtaneously, everywhere, at the speed of thought. All points in the universe are currently about to do the next thing, that has not yet happened. This we KNOW as the universal now. But we SEE the whole universe as it occurs, here and now. And it is not an "image", it is real and true, and happening now.

[Ben Banana]

In logic a thing either is or is not.

 

...

 

I'd say, nope. In an extremely arbitrary logic, that may be an axiom. Neither is "thing" rigid enough.

 

Is a star that we see 10,000 ly away true or false?

Unfortunately, you have no statement to reason with. You cannot question truth here.

 

Does it exist NOW? Or does it not exist?

 

First, lets be careful about the meaning of "existence." I would say, the image exists now; however, we're not sure whether the image's source exists no more.

[tar]

Ben Bowen,

 

I will try to be more careful in not assigning truth or falsness to nonstatements. And maybe learn something about conciseness in the process.

 

But I will take issue with you, (and me), on speaking about the image of the thing as not the thing. As if it was somehow less than real.

The photons that have traveled from the supernova to Earth are real. They actually hit our instruments and our eyes. They ARE the supernova event, and that supernova event, that happened 10,000 years ago, is effecting Earth, and Earthbound observers, and every surface on Earth, facing the supernova, in a measurable way. One could measure the energy, reaching an eye, from the supernova. And the measurement of the amount of light and wavelength and intensity hitting a square meter of the surface of the Earth NOW, can be actually made. All the frequencies, radio, to infrared, to visible to ultraviolet to gamma and x-ray are hitting us now. We are affected by its radiation in the same manner we are affected by the sun...only to a much lesser degree.

 

I would say, as I sit out on the grass on a sunny day, that the grass and I consider the sun more than an image. Its shining on us now. Not 7 minutes from now.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited August 22, 2012 by tar

[Ben Banana]

I would say, as I sit out on the grass on a sunny day, that the grass and I consider the sun more than an image. Its shining on us now. Not 7 minutes from now.

Yes, the sunlight is shining on you then, but the event had a cause which originated previously. The sun may be producing photons at the instant while you lay in the grass, but perhaps you move into a building before that light may directly reach you.

[Alan McDougall]

Alan,

 

I am the one that refers, for argument and expression to a universal now.

 

Let me try to explain my thinking.

 

When we look in the sky we see what is up there now.

 

In logic a thing either is or is not. Is a star that we see 10,000 ly away true or false? Does it exist NOW? Or does it not exist? (IT EXISTS)

 

If we see it go super nova, we know two things, 1. It is going super nova now, and 2. it went super nova 10,000 years ago.

 

Which statement is true? 1. or 2.? (2)

 

d that star exist yesterday? Did it exist 10 years ago? 1,000 years ago? 9,999.99 years ago? (WE DO NOT KNOW)

 

e the same situation with Curiosity. When we saw it touch down safely, we know it had already been on the surface for 14 minutes. We see only the image of an event that occured on Mars, 14 minutes in the past. Like when we see the super nova, we know there is an implied existence of that event actually having been the case, actually having had occurred 10,000 years ago.

 

10,001 years ago, here on Earth an observer looking at that star, saying "that star exists now" would have been correct.

Two years later, that same observer saying "that star exists now" would have been incorrect.

 

It is THAT now, that I used in the above paragraph, that I am considering the "universal now". That which is, in truth, currently the case. (even though it does not enter our regular now, til later).

 

Both nows are actual and true. But they are not interchangeable and cannot be used at the same time to refer to the same, distant event in an interchangable fashion. There are events actually happening now, that will not appear here, 'til later.

 

Currently happening in the "universal" now.

 

(EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE SO THE SUPERNOVA IS GOING NOVA NOW TO THE OBSERVER BUT IN REALITY WENT NOVA A VERY LONG TIME AGO)

 

 

 

the speed of thought. All points in the universe are currently about to do the next thing, that has not yet happened. This we KNOW as the universal now. But we SEE the whole universe as it occurs, here and now. And it is not an "image", it is real and true, and happening now.

 

Hi Tar,

 

Of course, there is a same exact now or moment on Mars and on earth, why not. As for the whole universe would it not depends on the observer, If God exists then surly he could view the whole universe in onemoment or now. Take a ball game as an example, the spectators see only each other and the players as moments in time , but are unaware of what is going on outside. A helicopter flying high above can observe the very same moments but from a much greater view of point, taking in the whole of Manhattan Island

Below is an article I wrote on the "Now" subject

We never really reach a moment in time, just when we think we have the next moment is already passed. There is always a blur at both ends no matter how close one observes them. I once wrote a short paper on the subject, however, I used an arrow and how it flies toward its target always a blur, I rationalized this by saying the movement of the arrow was like infinitely tiny frames on a movie reel, jumping between moments rather than a smooth flow like a river.

 

If we stand still relative to the universe, time still moves, but once a person starts to move relative to the universe, time slows, this effect of course can only be seen in a meaningful way at colossal speeds approaching the of the speed of light.

 

 

Some physicists say, however, that there is no real"Arrow of Time" or that time flows smoothly like a river, and that time is in reality infinity of separate infinitely tiny moments, extending back to the eternal past and into the eternal future, in both directions from the moment we exist in the present. To understand the theory of infinity of moments making up the reality of the universe, think of a loaf of bread as the universe and each grain of wheat in the loaf (universe) as a moment or "Now" somewhere in the universe?.

 

 

The Left side of the loaf the moment of creation the right time flowing into the Infinite future.

 

 

LOAF OR UNIVERSE

 

 

Big Bang=Past<.................................<NOW>.............................................................>Future

 

 

Someone on the other side of the universe, directly opposite, could exist in very the same "NOW" or moment as you are. By slicing the loaf/universe directly in front of you are linking with every other "NOW" across the same time frame/moment you then existed in across the whole universe. Thus a universal "NOW"exists across the in the universe at that moment! However the very next moment the "NOW's" no longer agree and you must make another slice to see what is happening at the other end of the universe, because the "NOW' moments jump to different "NOWS" because of the effect of gravity, mass, speed and relativity.

 

 

However, if you were to slant your hypothetical knife to the left across the universe, which is towards the "past" from your vantage moment "NOW" in time" you would hypothetically be able to view what, is going on in the moment in the past for an object.

 

You would be looking at the "past" of the far off object. Your "NOW' and its "NOW" would differ in time and space. You both would continue to exist in the ever-jumping subjective "NOWs" but each using the same method could look into the other "pasts" by slanting your knife more and more to the left..

The same will happen if you took the hypothetical knife,sliced the loaf or universe to the right, toward the future, then you will beable to observe what is going on in the future of the objects futures accross the whole universe.

 

Thus, every moment OR NOW in the universe, that has ever existed from the very beginning, of its existence until its end, to the present, into the infinite future still exists in our universe and the law's of physics do not forbid this.

 

Regards

 

 

Alan

 

 

Edited August 22, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[iNow]

We've been through this. Repeatedly and also recently. There is no universal now, nor is one shared between earth and mars. To continue suggesting otherwise shows only your own profound lack of understanding.

[Ben Banana]

iNow's name says it all.

[StringJunky]

If a person on the Moon and another on Earth each had synchronised clocks and both said "now" at a predetermined time, each would not hear the other for 1 1/2 seconds...one can safely conclude a universal now does not exist.

[tar]

Well perhaps you just defined my universal now. Because they both said "now" at the same time.

 

That now, in which they both said "now" IS the universal now I am imagining.

 

I explain it to myself as all hydrogen atoms in the universe that have existed for exactly the same amount of some standand cycle present in a hydrogen atom, as a hydrogen atom present in my brain.

 

The syncronized clock you sent to the moon had experienced the same amount more of these cycles, as the Earthbound clock, when both parties said now.

 

the 1 1/2 second delay proves the "nows" were indeed said at the same time, universal time, that is.

 

Each hydrogen atom in the universe should be as old as the universe is, right now.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=4kmpE5LN3cY&NR=1

Edited August 23, 2012 by tar

[StringJunky]

Well perhaps you just defined my universal now. Because they both said "now" at the same time.

 

That now, in which they both said "now" IS the universal now I am imagining.

 

 

I see where you are coming from but the clocks are corrected/contrived so that they can say now at the same time...the important part of my thought-experiment is that each will not hear the other for about 1 1/2 seconds.

 

Your universal now is an abstract notion in your head whereby you are mentally trying to extrapolate simultaneously occurring events between two far-distant points which have no way of actually being measured/observed, in real-time without corrections, due to the limitations of the SOL.

 

Just because this sense of a universal now makes sense or exists in our heads doesn't mean that it exists in the nature, or physics, of the universe.

 

Hope that makes sense.

[tar]

I see where you are coming from but the clocks are corrected/contrived so that they can say now at the same time...the important part of my thought-experiment is that each will not hear the other for about 1 1/2 seconds.

 

Your universal now is an abstract notion in your head whereby you are mentally trying to extrapolate simultaneously occurring events between two far-distant points which have no way of actually being measured/observed, in real-time without corrections, due to the limitations of the SOL.

 

Just because this sense of a universal now makes sense or exists in our heads doesn't mean that it exists in the nature, or physics, of the universe.

 

Hope that makes sense.

StringJunky,

 

Perfect sense. What we have in our heads, is a model of what actually exists. The model itself, actually exists, and the thing itself actually exists. Not everything that is true about the thing in itself can fit into the model and much of it can not be known till later, but there is a portion of it that can be witnessed and incorporated into the model, now. It is that portion, that in my estimation, creates our actual now. That portion that exsists at the time and place of our consciousness. Our individual consciousness is in this way, directly connected, at the speed of light, to the entire universe. That this implies a "slice" of the universe, must also be witnessing a similar "same" moment, is not something false. The rest of the universe MUST be doing something now, for us to see it later. And it also MUST have done before, what we see it doing now.

 

My only point in this is that since both nows MUST exist, we can neither choose one over the other, nor merge them together inappropriately. We have to accept both facts into our models. Our common sense model of the universe is on close inspection, pretty darn good. And I think its only when we interchange the universal now, and the present now, inappropriately, that we get into logical trouble.

 

In my estimation, it is possible to hold an "idea" of a universe, that is currently in the state of being 13.7 billion years old. That this MUST be the case for everything to appear as it does. And everything appears as it does because this IS the case. But the actual now that we witness is BECAUSE of the way the universe is and one can either and both explain and model the universe based on the way it is. And have your judgment be correct.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Matching up our model with the thing we are modeling is what we do. Common people, and exceptional people alike.

Edited August 25, 2012 by tar

[Alan McDougall]

This is rather long but covers most of the topic,

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=that-mysterious-flow

 

 

 

The Philosophy of Time

 

Center for Science and Society Symposium, Fall 2003 "A Matter of Time"

February 5, 2003

 

Cheryl Chen

Department of Philosophy Notes made available at talk

 

Supposing pictures about the nature of time:

 

1) The Conventional View

"In daily life we divide time into three parts: past, present, and future. The grammatical structure of language revolves around this fundamental distinction. Reality is associated with the present moment. The past we think of having slipped out of existence, whereas the future is even more shadowy, its details still unformed. In this simple picture, the "now" of our conscious awareness glides steadily onward, transforming events that were once in the unformed future into the concrete but fleeting reality of the present, and thence relegating them to the fixed past." --Paul Davies, "That Mysterious Flow"

 

2) The "Block Universe" View

"Physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entirety - a timescape, analogous to a landscape - with all past and future events located there together ... Completely absent from this description of nature is anything that singles out a privileged special moment as the present or any process that would systematically turn future events into the present, then past, events. In short, the time of the physicist does not pass or flow." --Paul Davies, "That Mysterious Flow"

 

The debate between the conventional view and the block universe view is actually the combination of two debates in the philosophy of time: 1) Presentism vs. Eternalism

 

 

Presentism: only things in the present exist.

 

 

Eternalism: things in the past (e.g., dinosaurs) and future (e.g., human outposts on Mars) exist too. 2)

 

The A-Theory vs. the B-Theory

A-properties: happening now, happened a week ago, happened in the past, will happen two years from now, happening in the future

B-properties: being two years after the 2000 Presidential Election, happening on July 4, 1776The A-Theory: A-properties are genuine features of the world. Time passes. The present moment has a special status.

The B-Theory: A-properties are reducible to B-properties. Time doesn"t pass or flow. No moment in time has any special status.

 

Why many philosophers and physicists believe in the block universe view: Philosophical considerations 1) McTaggart's argument

The A-properties are incompatible with one another, but according to the A-Theory, every position in time must possess all of the different A-properties. Since that leads to contradiction, the A-Theory must be false!2)

 

How fast does time flow?

If it makes sense to say that time passes, then it must also make sense to ask how fast time passes. Since that question doesn"t make sense, time doesn"t pass.

 

 

 

Considerations from physics: Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity According to the Special Theory of Relativity, there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. But if there"s no absolute simultaneity, then there is no objective fact about whether a particular event is in the present. Worries about the block universe view:

 

1) "Thank Goodness That"s Over" (Arthur Prior)

When your headache finally stops after bothering you all morning, you say, "Thank goodness, that"s over!" But if the block universe view is correct, there is no such property as being over or no longer happening now. So what exactly are you thankful for?

 

2) The painful operation

You wake up and find yourself in a hospital bed. You know that you are in one of two situations: i) You are about to undergo a very painful operation

ii) You have just had the painful operation, but were given a drug to make you forget the entire experience. Which of these two situations would you prefer to be in? Commonsense says you should prefer (ii), but on the block universe view it shouldn"t matter which situation you"re in.

 

3) Fearing death

If the block universe view is correct, it is irrational to fear death. We apparently fear death because we believe that we will no longer exist after we die. But according to the block universe view, it"s not true to say that we exist now, but won"t exist any longer after death. Death is just one of our temporal borders, and should be no more worrisome than birth!

 

4) A general problem about explaining our actions

Our beliefs that presuppose the passage of time - beliefs expressed by terms that refer to A-properties - play an essential role in explaining most of our actions. Without such beliefs we would lack the resources to explain just about anything we do.

 

A mundane example: leaving my office to attend the time symposium This action makes no sense at all if I merely believed that I was due to give a talk at 7pm - my behavior only makes sense if I also believed that 7pm was coming up soon. If scientists and philosophers succeed in convincing us to abandon our A-theory beliefs, just about everything we do or desire will be completely incomprehensible. So it"s hard to see how we could abandon those beliefs---even if scientists and philosophers give us reasons to do so!

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2012 by Alan McDougall