Eternalism vs Presentism?

[_heretic]

So recently I have been turning this over in my head. Is Eternalism correct? Or is it Presentism?

 

It seems to me that, Special and General Relativity support Eternalism. Just look at the Andromeda Paradox and the fact that there is no preferred "frame of reference" to choose from.

 

On the other hand, there seems to be a "arrow of time" in physics, although for all we know this might get resolved.

 

I have considered that an argument for Presentism is that we humans experience a "flow of time." This is not convincing to me at all because if this was anything to base facts upon then Quantum mechanics and the modern model of the atom (where its mostly empty space) would have been dismissed long ago as drivel since, after all, those ideas go completely against the reality we experience.

 

Now there are of course emotional reasons for not liking, particularly Eternalism:

 

1. It seems to suggest the future is set and so that apparently means we don't have free will (I don't really see how this takes the choice out of our hands. So what if its "set", we're never going to know what it is until we get there anyway!)

 

2. As I have considered it, Eternalism surely implies "eternal return" since it says that Shakespeare, for example, still exits (in the sense that the time point he's 'in' is as real as this one) and so could still be said to be writing plays.

 

What do you think? (I find myself more "aligned" to Eternalism, given what we know about space-time and relativity; whereas, as it stands, we are liberty to 'pick' an interpretation of quantum mechanics and there are relativistic ones.)

[VikingF]

I think Eternalism is a more correct model of the universe than Presentism because of SR and Relativity of Simultaneity, and I agree with the rest of your post. (This is probably the most boring answer of this century )

 

According to Vesselin Petkov, the experiments confirming SR have also disproved Presentism.

[_heretic]

(This is probably the most boring answer of this century )

 

According to Vesselin Petkov, the experiments confirming SR have also disproved Presentism.

 

Lol. Thanks!

 

Is there anything Petkov has written that you can recommend reading?

 

 

[iNow]

So recently I have been turning this over in my head. Is Eternalism correct? Or is it Presentism?

I think you are limiting this unnecessarily, and that this is a false dichotomy.

[_heretic]

I think you are limiting this unnecessarily, and that this is a false dichotomy.

 

Really? So what are the other alternatives to consider?

[iNow]

Relativism... Absurdism... Otherisms...

[VikingF]

Lol. Thanks!

 

Is there anything Petkov has written that you can recommend reading?

 

I recommend "Relativity and the Nature of Spacetime". You can find it on Amazon. It is a book which gives a good overview of Relativity, and how it is more or less given that our universe must be four-dimensional, i.e. containing three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. At least that is Petkov's conclusion.

[_heretic]

Relativism... Absurdism... Otherisms...

 

Relativism and Absurdism are not philosophies about the ontological nature of time...

 

I recommend "Relativity and the Nature of Spacetime". You can find it on Amazon. It is a book which gives a good overview of Relativity, and how it is more or less given that our universe must be four-dimensional, i.e. containing three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. At least that is Petkov's conclusion.

 

Thanks, I'll try to get my hands on this book

[iNow]

Relativism and Absurdism are not philosophies about the ontological nature of time...

So?

Also, in retrospect, I was thinking of relativity, not relativism. That maybe is part of the confusion here.

[JMJones0424]

I must admit that due to a general apathy towards philosophy for much of my life, I am just beginning to appreciate the significance of questions like this. However, it seems to me that the question, "Is eternalism or presentism correct?" is a bad question.

 

Presentism, as I understand it, can be thrown out immediately because of special relativity; there is no universal "present".

 

Eternalism is also undesirable, as it evokes destiny and other concepts that I choose to reject, because it asserts that my future already exists, I just haven't experienced it yet.

 

Is there such a thing as "world-line-ism"? While none can agree on a universal present, past, or future, events only occur once, and all can agree on the progression of a world line. Simultaneity between events on different world lines is relative to the observer, but events on a world line are universally observed to occur in the same order. Where two world lines cross, all events prior to the crossing are universally recognizable as occurring prior to the crossing event (past in both world lines), and all events after the crossing are universally recognizable as occurring after the crossing event (future in both world lines).

 

Eternalism seems to me to rely on a false construct, the idea that we can arrange all world lines together in a great big block and meaningfully proclaim that future events on my world line already exist from some other's perspective. Instead, it makes more sense to me to recognize that there's no such thing as an external observer, and the timing of events is always dependent upon the world line from which you are measuring those events. Words like "past", "present", and "future" are only meaningful in the context of a world line.

[_heretic]

Eternalism is also undesirable, as it evokes destiny and other concepts that I choose to reject, because it asserts that my future already exists, I just haven't experienced it yet.

 

I don't see it as taking away free will after all we are part of the space-time and are still doing the choosing. Perhaps multiple possible histories co-exist? a.la. the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics.

[JMJones0424]

If my future exists before I experience it, which is what I understand eternalism proposes, how does that not remove free will? Am I mistaken in my understanding of eternalism?

[VikingF]

Is there such a thing as "world-line-ism"? While none can agree on a universal present, past, or future, events only occur once, and all can agree on the progression of a world line. Simultaneity between events on different world lines is relative to the observer, but events on a world line are universally observed to occur in the same order. Where two world lines cross, all events prior to the crossing are universally recognizable as occurring prior to the crossing event (past in both world lines), and all events after the crossing are universally recognizable as occurring after the crossing event (future in both world lines).

 

Eternalism seems to me to rely on a false construct, the idea that we can arrange all world lines together in a great big block and meaningfully proclaim that future events on my world line already exist from some other's perspective. Instead, it makes more sense to me to recognize that there's no such thing as an external observer, and the timing of events is always dependent upon the world line from which you are measuring those events. Words like "past", "present", and "future" are only meaningful in the context of a world line.

 

I don't understand your ontology of time. Either only the present exists (Presentism), the complete spacetime exists (Eternalism), or the past and present exist but not the future (Growing block view). I think the growing block view is somewhat unappealing, because if all temporal parts of me up until now exist, then how can I know that THIS exact moment, i.e. what I call "now", is "the present moment", and not one of the points of time in the future of now? The temporal part of me that exists in e.g. 2001 will also say that he is in "the present" and that it is only his temporal part and his past temporal parts that exist.

 

Hence, I think Presentism and Eternalism are the views that are easiest to cope with, and as you say yourself, Presentism is incompatible with SR, or more specifically RoS.

Edited August 29, 2012 by VikingF

[JMJones0424]

I plead ignorance again, on more than one front. What is "RoS"?

 

Perhaps I need to revisit my understanding of eternalism. Do you have a specific source that is better than wikipedia?

[VikingF]

I plead ignorance again, on more than one front. What is "RoS"?

 

Perhaps I need to revisit my understanding of eternalism. Do you have a specific source that is better than wikipedia?

 

Relativity of Simultaneity.

 

I think this is an interesting paper: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf by Vesselin Petkov, who I also mentioned in a previous post.

Edited August 29, 2012 by VikingF

[JMJones0424]

VikingF- rarely have I encountered an answer to one of my questions that so absolutely addresses the issue as the paper you have recommended. I can not thank you enough. I'm going to work in my garden to digest what I've read, and re-read at least a few times, but it seems that my concept of world-line-ism is entirely compatible with eternalism. In fact, on page 5, there exists a diagram that had I taken the time to draw, would nearly exactly match what I had envisioned. My only remaining question, then, is how can there be any support whatsoever for presentism? It seems obviously false to me, and I have learned to be wary of my "obvious" conclusions.

[swansont]

If my future exists before I experience it, which is what I understand eternalism proposes, how does that not remove free will? Am I mistaken in my understanding of eternalism?

I think the many worlds hypothesis could restore it. Within each reality there was no free will up to the present, but which reality you end up in afterwards is not determined.

[VikingF]

VikingF- rarely have I encountered an answer to one of my questions that so absolutely addresses the issue as the paper you have recommended. I can not thank you enough. I'm going to work in my garden to digest what I've read, and re-read at least a few times, but it seems that my concept of world-line-ism is entirely compatible with eternalism. In fact, on page 5, there exists a diagram that had I taken the time to draw, would nearly exactly match what I had envisioned. My only remaining question, then, is how can there be any support whatsoever for presentism? It seems obviously false to me, and I have learned to be wary of my "obvious" conclusions.

 

You're welcome. This topic has fascinated me for quite some years now.

 

The main argument for Presentism that I have seen is that Relativity of Simultaneity is a part of SR that has not been tested directly, and could just be a "theoretical truth", but not a part of the ontological reality. However, it is a central part of SR and can be seen by examining a simple Minkowski diagram (spacetime diagram), and from the same diagram we can extract e.g. the Lorentz transformations, which have actually been tested and verified.

[_heretic]

If I may be so bold as to suggest a paper that is worth a read: http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/RoSandBlockworld.pdf "Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of the

Block Universe" There's some strong arguments in there as to why presentism is untenable and why presentists have the burden of proof.

[Sato]

I remember back when I knew nothing of relativity I thought that time was constant but wanted to come up with something that could make time travel possible. What I thought was that for every possibility there was a different universe and that time travel would technically be interuniversal travel, to a universe where 10 years ago/ahead was occurring at the present time. Of course I know better now, but it was an interesting idea (coinciding with the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics).

[LaurieAG]

Hi guys, what an interesting thread.

 

The Wick rotation is the only bridge I know between Presentism and Eternalism, the gateway between the imaginary and the real worlds.

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Wick_rotation

In physics, Wick rotation, named after Gian-Carlo Wick, is a method of finding a solution to a mathematical problem in Minkowski space from a solution to a related problem in Euclidean space by means of a transformation that substitutes an imaginary-number variable for a real-number variable. This transformation is also used to find solutions to problems in quantum mechanics and other areas.

...

We get the solution to the dynamics problem (up to a factor of i) from the statics problem by Wick rotation, replacing y(x) by y(it) and the spring constant by the mass of the rock M

You'd have to be careful about mixups with relative mass and rest mass though as the difference between the reduced Compton wavelength used in QM (and the Wick rotation) and the normal Compton wavelength (used in association with luminosity (Boltzmann's constant uses the Planck constant which uses the reduced Compton wavelength form) in astronomical mass calculations) is a factor of 2 * Pi. If the calculated mass of rotating sources is based on the wrong form then dividing this sum by 2 * Pi would mean that there is very little dark matter around.

 

I bet Zeno stood at the start/finish line to see who the winner was just like all the other ancient greeks.

Edited August 30, 2012 by LaurieAG

[_heretic]

Hi guys, what an interesting thread.

 

The Wick rotation is the only bridge I know between Presentism and Eternalism, the gateway between the imaginary and the real worlds.

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Wick_rotation

 

You'd have to be careful about mixups with relative mass and rest mass though as the difference between the reduced Compton wavelength used in QM (and the Wick rotation) and the normal Compton wavelength (used in association with luminosity (Boltzmann's constant uses the Planck constant which uses the reduced Compton wavelength form) in astronomical mass calculations) is a factor of 2 * Pi. If the calculated mass of rotating sources is based on the wrong form then dividing this sum by 2 * Pi would mean that there is very little dark matter around.

 

I bet Zeno stood at the start/finish line to see who the winner was just like all the other ancient greeks.

 

In what way is it a "bridge"? (And what do you mean by that?)

[Iggy]

2. As I have considered it, Eternalism surely implies "eternal return" since it says that Shakespeare, for example, still exits (in the sense that the time point he's 'in' is as real as this one) and so could still be said to be writing plays.

I've always had the impression that any debate between presentism and eternalism rests on grammatical errors. From the time and place that I'm writing this post it only makes sense to say "Shakespeare existed". It wouldn't make sense to say "Shakespeare, who died some time ago, still exists right now". Rather than being the basis of a philosophy, it looks more like a problem with grammar. The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy tries to clear it up but just manages to obfuscate it more,

It might be objected that there is something odd about attributing to a Non-presentist the claim that Socrates exists right now, since there is a sense in which that claim is clearly false. In order to forestall this objection, let us distinguish between two senses of ‘x exists now’. In one sense, which we can call the temporal location sense, this expression is synonymous with ‘x is present’. The Non-presentist will admit that, in the temporal location sense of ‘x exists now’, it is true that no non-present objects exist right now. But in the other sense of ‘x exists now’, which we can call the ontological sense, to say that x exists now is just to say that x is now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers, whether x happens to be present, like you and me, or non-present, like Socrates. When we attribute to Non-presentists the claim that non-present objects like Socrates exist right now, we commit the Non-presentist only to the claim that these non-present objects exist now in the ontological sense (the one involving the most unrestricted quantifiers).

 

edit:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PreEteGroUniThe

 

In other words, "Socrates exists right now" actually means "Socrates doesn't exist right now (in the present), but he does belong to the 'domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers'"... which is a meaningless phrase. Does the color red belong to the domain of our most unrestricted qualifiers?

 

 

I'm also not sure how presentism's most understandable claim "non-present objects don't exist" disagrees with relativity. Being specific and keeping the grammar straight makes it easy to say, "Socrates exists relative to a spaceship at a great distance from earth moving away from the earth". Relative to that spaceship Socrates exists in the present. Events in the life of Socrates and events on the spaceship are simultaneous relative to the spaceship. That wouldn't make Socrates a "non-present object". It would rather make him present relative to the ship. Relative to me writing this post Socrates is not present and does not exist. The claim "non-present objects don't exist" seems correct in both cases.

 

As long as Presentism isn't saying "non-present objects did not exist".

Edited August 30, 2012 by Iggy

[_heretic]

<snip>

 

If you think it is just a issue of grammar, you should read the paper I linked.

 

If I may be so bold as to suggest a paper that is worth a read: http://fqxi.org/data...dBlockworld.pdf "Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of the

Block Universe" There's some strong arguments in there as to why presentism is untenable and why presentists have the burden of proof.

 

Edited August 30, 2012 by _heretic

[michel123456]

Relativity of Simultaneity.

 

I think this is an interesting paper: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf by Vesselin Petkov, who I also mentioned in a previous post.

 

Interesting indeed.

There is no date on Petkov's paper. Isn't that a paradox for a paper about spacetime?

 

-------------------

To the point:

IMHO the Block Universe is a remain of the belief that something can exist in 3D space only. The Block Universe is the image of a collection of stacked 3Dspaces the one above the other (or the one after the other). I think this is a wrong conception.

IMHO things exist in time first (that means vertically through the stacks) and then, eventually, horizontally (that is in 3d space). Existence means first displacement in time.