3D Space, relativity and presentism

[Memammal]

Tim, it seems as if you have made some great progress as articulated in your most recent posts. So are you starting to realise why our brains intuitively struggle to understand the possibility of a 4D block universe, but that we should never allow our perception of reality to obscure reality itself?

Edited October 12, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

Memammal, not exactly, and partly quite the inverse - maybe I was just as ambiguous as studiot a few posts back? I'll try again.

 

I fully agree that we should not allow our perception of reality to obscure reality itself.

 

On the one hand our brains intuitively know that "place" and "time" are different, based on experience. That points to some kind of presentism. But on the other hand our brains intuitively associate "time" with "place" and "distance" - and that suggests some kind of eternalism. [edit: Indeed, those conflicting intuitions can create a philosophical struggle in our brains.]

 

Yesterday I came to understand that the way we store memories is apt to mixing up "time" with "location" and "distance". Confounding "time" with ""place" and "distance" comes natural to us, as those memory labels are stored in the same location.

Eternalist philosophy can thus be explained as a natural confusion that is caused by the data storage handling of our brains.

 

Based on the earlier mentioned facts I now formed the hypothesis that we actually make use of place and grid cells for storing time and duration memories. I intend to suggest this as a separate line of research to Prof. Moser, who so far has been focused on spatial associations.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Tim88

[michel123456]

Today I went to a talk by Noble prize winner May-Britt Moser.

Surprisingly her talk was not only excellent and fascinating, but the information I received relates to the topic here, as our concept of "present" as a separate concept of location is put in doubt. For it connects to Michel's associations of events with space, as well as to my elaboration on how our consciousness processes events. I will try to correctly reflect her team's findings.

 

While such similarities somewhat explain why we associate time with spatial distance, I had the impression that the association is so strong that there should be more to it.

For why are people not similarly associating for example force with acceleration, so that they consider the two concepts as a single whole called forceacceleration? And why do we conceptually so strongly link "time" with "space" that we speak of such things as "those dates are close to each other", and "we can place those events in the year 90"?

One is easily led to think that our subconsciousness is trying to tell us that time is truly a kind of 4th spatial dimension. But there is another, much more reasonable explanation.

 

Earlier today I contemplated on our memory and the fact that we store experiences as events in our brain, although not very reliably, due to the way we process and store them:

 

A few hours later Prof. Moser explained that in and near to the part of our brain in which we store our memories there are "place" and "grid" cells, which form a variety of spatial maps of our surroundings, completed with "head direction" cells and even "speed cells" (with linear response!) as well as "border" cells, that serve as spatial navigation system for location and distance. This grid cell based navigation system is innate, but enforced and calibrated by means of experiences (events). Preliminary data suggest that the horizontal grid is the strongest developed, and it extends into the hippocampus where memories are stored.

Obviously (my own thinking) this is used by animals as guidance for such necessities as finding back places with food, which also benefits from time information - if only to know which memory of a place is the last, and thus the most actual map.

According to Professor Moser, spatial mnemonics work well because they actually use spatial memory; but the same area also serves for memorizing day to day events such as if you had breakfast today.

 

Apparently the (x,y,z) space grid in our head serves to memorize (x,y,z,t) events or snapshots, linked to associated memories.

 

This provides us, in addition to the above mentioned explanations, with a straightforward biological explanation for the strong associations that we make between space / distance and time. Our brain connects memories to a spatial navigation zone, so that the "when and where" is stored in a spatial mapping system.

 

[edit]: slight improvement of phrasing - and here's her Nobel lecture which I now quickly scanned through for checking.

Hi Tim.

There is more to it: that is sure.

Make this exercise:

_focus with your eyes to an object at a close distance. For example a glass of water on your desk. Do you see it at a distance? Yes.

Now, figure, in your brain, that the "thing" between your eyes and the glass of water is not distance. It is Time.

The glass of water is not at a distance, it is in the past. It is maybe less than a microsecond in the past. But in the past.

Now focus on another object. This other object is also in the past. In your past.

Do this exercise with the entire room around you. You will see the entire room around you lying in time.

Time is right there in front of your eyes.

Of course

The problem is that it does not explain the flow of time, but if you continue the exercise you may find a solution.

 

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

Take the glass of water in your hand. Get it closer and drink. The moment you drink is Present time and corresponds to null distance to the glass.

Edited October 12, 2016 by michel123456

[Memammal]

Eternalist philosophy can thus be explained as a natural confusion that is caused by the data storage handling of our brains.

I tried to follow your logic up to this point (and reserve my opinion)...but I need to ask if you meant that eternalist philosophy stems from a natural confusion in our mind, or whether eternalist philosophy creates a natural confusion in our minds?

The problem is that it does not explain the flow of time, but if you continue the exercise you may find a solution.

Possibly because there is no flow of time and our perception of moving-, or flowing time is us moving through "static" (space)time.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Memammal

[Mordred]

lol its probably a good thing we didn't get into "evolving block" probalistic observers.

[Tim88]

I tried to follow your logic up to this point (and reserve my opinion)...but I need to ask if you meant that eternalist philosophy stems from a natural confusion in our mind, or whether eternalist philosophy creates a natural confusion in our minds?

Possibly because there is no flow of time and our perception of moving-, or flowing time is us moving through "static" (space)time.

I clarified why it can be explained as stemming from a natural confusion in our minds; and that solves the paradox. And there is only a "flow" of natural processes (including in our heads) which we can interpret as "flow of time".

[..] Now focus on another object. This other object is also in the past. In your past.

Do this exercise with the entire room around you. You will see the entire room around you lying in time.

[..]

I just explained how that works, and how, in all likelihood, that illusion is created.

[edit:] or did you simply mean that what we see now is what happened in the past? I already elaborated on that...

 

Take the glass of water in your hand. Get it closer and drink. The moment you drink is Present time and corresponds to null distance to the glass.

 

Not exactly: there still is a little distance! See my post #22

Edited October 12, 2016 by Tim88

[michel123456]

I tried to follow your logic up to this point (and reserve my opinion)...but I need to ask if you meant that eternalist philosophy stems from a natural confusion in our mind, or whether eternalist philosophy creates a natural confusion in our minds?

Possibly because there is no flow of time and our perception of moving-, or flowing time is us moving through "static" (space)time.

Moving. You said "moving".

Not "extending". If you understand the difference.

 

I just explained how that works, and how, in all likelihood, that illusion is created.

 

 

 

I disagree about the illusion. I believe it is physics at work.

[Mordred]

Sounded like a good lecture you went to. I can certainly see the correlation. I have never met anyone who has intuitively understood the 4d aspects of relativity.

Whether its due to our brain process, or simply being used to Galilean/Newtonian dynamics in our everyday lives.

 

In either case it is a difficult hurdle for many. A few years ago a student of mine (when I work as an assistant instructor) decided to perform a little experiment.

(exact numbers I can't recall)

 

Anyways he ran a survey, on opinions of relativity. (more or less to get an idea what % understood the PoR time dilation)

Out of 5000 people less than 5 % understood the variable time aspects. The typical response went something like

 

"How can spacetime be curved, space isn't made out of rubber or any other mysterious substance. So how can time dilation be correct. Scientists must be wrong if they think that."

The % is what surprised me, I expected the typical responses. I would have figured after a 100 years that % would have been higher. However it did yield an interesting result. Some of the analogies we use to help explain relativity, can actually hinder people's opinion on relativity.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Memammal]

I clarified why it can be explained as stemming from a natural confusion in our minds; and that solves the paradox. And there is only a "flow" of natural processes (including in our heads) which we can interpret as "flow of time".

...that illusion is created.

Perhaps illusion and confusion are in the eye and mind of the beholder, no..?

 

Moving. You said "moving".

Not "extending". If you understand the difference.

I do. Moving like in us moving along was a figure of speech. It is more like us observing (or "moving our observation") of different static events embedded at different coordinates. In said (4D block universe) model time and space are laid out, we are just observing/experiencing it slice by slice.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

Perhaps illusion and confusion are in the eye and mind of the beholder, no..?

[..]

Certainly so.

 

I clarified how, if Lorentzian presentism is correct, we can extremely easily explain not only SR but also the intuitive paradox that was raised in the discussion.

 

If someone else would claim that block universe is incompatible with relativity or experience because it implies eternalism, that would be something for a different discussion.

I disagree about the illusion. I believe it is physics at work.

 

I see that you answered when I added the precision "[edit:] or did you simply mean that what we see now is what happened in the past? I already elaborated on that...". So it is unclear if I simply misunderstood you, or not.

 

Apart of that, I believe that it is biology at work - and that's mostly physics.

Sounded like a good lecture you went to. I can certainly see the correlation. I have never met anyone who has intuitively understood the 4d aspects of relativity.

Whether its due to our brain process, or simply being used to Galilean/Newtonian dynamics in our everyday lives.

 

In either case it is a difficult hurdle for many. A few years ago a student of mine (when I work as an assistant instructor) decided to perform a little experiment.

(exact numbers I can't recall)

 

Anyways he ran a survey, on opinions of relativity. (more or less to get an idea what % understood the PoR time dilation)

Out of 5000 people less than 5 % understood the variable time aspects. The typical response went something like

 

"How can spacetime be curved, space isn't made out of rubber or any other mysterious substance. So how can time dilation be correct. Scientists must be wrong if they think that."

The % is what surprised me, I expected the typical responses. I would have figured after a 100 years that % would have been higher. However it did yield an interesting result. Some of the analogies we use to help explain relativity, can actually hinder people's opinion on relativity.

 

The mathematical 4D aspects of relativity should not be difficult to understand; I think that Einstein explained it in a very understandable way.

 

Those 5000 people were not physics students I hope!

[Mordred]

Just random adults. Tim I really wish you would learn BOTH presentism and eternalism is "block". Though eternalism adapted to growing block.

 

By someone else I assume other than myself lol

 

Please define Lorentzian presentism. With your arguments. I've already shown that it is a contradiction.

 

I don't think that is an unfair request. I would like to understand what you think presentism and eternalism means precisely.

 

Maybe your referring to Neo-Lorentzian ie Ether absolute space and absolute time.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4748&ved=0ahUKEwjd6YnE19XPAhUKr1QKHfmzD8kQFgghMAE&usg=AFQjCNEuCgGDxQ81uKGVEV8GuWiy3_mzxw&sig2=raL5EM_Yi8mx58A2UvgKwA

 

Here is a related arxiv coverage.

 

Put succintly presentism vs eternalism can be argued just by Lorentz itself. Neo-Lorentz vs Lorentz(SR). Two different views the previous is specific to the Ether.

 

Maybe a math equation relating an absolute frame that keeps c constant might help. U = velocity, I=absolute.

[latex]\acute{c}=(c^2-v^2sin^2\theta)^{\frac{1}{2}}+vcos\theta[/latex]

 

this two consequences, a primary anistropy in the due to motion relative to I

and a gravitational potential retardation.

 

[latex]F=\frac{_GMm}{r^2} \frac{(1-u^2/c^2)}{[1-(u^2/c^2sin^2\theta}]^{3/2}[/latex]

 

I can't recall who came up with these formulas, I think it was G.Builder but not positive. It was in my notes from the late 80's, back when I was first trying to prove relativity wrong days. Actual target was prove expansion wrong in regards to the observable universe being larger than the Hubble horizon. I used this equation as a replacement to GR in my goal to explain expansion strictly by classical thermodynamics. (never did succeed, though I got close. I was able to prove my own model wrong)

 

PS my collection of notes, textbooks, pdf's is huge. The pdf's alone is well over 30 gigabytes.

 

I never could get the above equations to work with Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics. In terms of EoS.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Mordred

[studiot]

 

Mordred

"How can spacetime be curved, space isn't made out of rubber or any other mysterious substance. So how can time dilation be correct. Scientists must be wrong if they think that."

The % is what surprised me, I expected the typical responses. I would have figured after a 100 years that % would have been higher. However it did yield an interesting result. Some of the analogies we use to help explain relativity, can actually hinder people's opinion on relativity.

 

Indeed this is what the current thread by geordief is all about.

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by studiot

[Memammal]

There are indeed a number of variations of the block universe model, presentism, eternalism, growing (which is not the same as eternalism) and evolving (I must admit that I am not too familiar with the last-mentioned and how it differs from growing). So perhaps we should all (including myself) be a bit more mindful of how we interpret these models. That being said, it first appeared to me like Tim has pinpointed how our brains adapt in order to make sense of reality, including the (illusionary) flow of time. It also seemed to me as if he concluded that presentism best explains our (intuitive?) interpretation of reality (which is understandable), even though it may in fact be an illusion of sorts, but at the same time he then stated that eternalism is "stemming from a natural confusion in our minds". It sounds somewhat like a contradiction, but maybe I am just not following the logic behind his explanation (Tim, don't bother to explain it again...I will go through it step-by-step).

 

Einstein, who of course knew a thing or two about GR & SR, seemed to have been pro-eternalism and pro-determinism. Strange and myself have recently discussed the ins and outs of said model in the thread "How to convince somebody they don't have free will?" in this same General Philosophy category...from post #22 on page 2 of that thread inbetween other posts related more to the OP. (I am sorry that I cannot insert links, but I am currently working on a laptop with an old browser that would not allow me to copy and paste anything, or to insert quotes). Anyone who is keen to better understand the implications thereof is welcome to read that, or at least the short article (Time, Free Will and the Block Universe) that I linked in that post #22.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

[..] Please define Lorentzian presentism. With your arguments. I've already shown that it is a contradiction.

 

I don't think that is an unfair request. I would like to understand what you think presentism and eternalism means precisely.

 

[..]

I can't recall who came up with these formulas, I think it was G.Builder but not positive. It was in my notes from the late 80's, back when I was first trying to prove relativity wrong days. Actual target was prove expansion wrong in regards to the observable universe being larger than the Hubble horizon. I used this equation as a replacement to GR in my goal to explain expansion strictly by classical thermodynamics. (never did succeed, though I got close. I was able to prove my own model wrong)

[..]

 

I disagree to turn this thread into a double of the thread that this came from; I already won't reply here to an earlier post of you in this thread that even doesn't belong in there, but in the thread that started all this (the one I called here the "grandmother thread"). That makes two posts that you can recycle by reposting them in the appropriate threads (but in the last post is link missing it seems).

 

In the discussion in which the two models or views of reality are put side by side, each model is given a chance to explain how it makes SR and GR work by means of a couple of simple examples (in the pipeline!). Here it has become clear that how each of those relates to "presentism" or "eternalism", is best clarified by such examples and not by philosophical talk. I'm confident that within a couple of days we will be ready to continue improving on those examples - but we may need help from someone who strongly believes in "block universe". And note that cosmology is not my piece of cake.

 

PS funny that you also tried to disprove relativity; in my case it resulted in a very nice paper (supporting SR) as spin-off.

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Tim88

[michel123456]

Perhaps illusion and confusion are in the eye and mind of the beholder, no..?

 

I do. Moving like in us moving along was a figure of speech. It is more like us observing (or "moving our observation") of different static events embedded at different coordinates. In said (4D block universe) model time and space are laid out, we are just observing/experiencing it slice by slice.

In this case it is not "moving".

What you say and what the block universe describes is an object occupying a set of 4D coordinates that extend from the past to the present and to the future. The object is 4D. The effect of Time is then "something else" happening that make the illusion of time passing by. The "illusion" comes in because the 4D object describes the block universe completely. Nothing else is needed. And because nothing else is needed we have a lack of explanation of this embarrassing feeling of time passing by and the only solution is to throw the solution out of the block by calling it an "illusion".

 

My opinion is that things are not as described above.

My opinion is that the object is 3D (as Tim88 wrote) and that this 3D object "moves" through time i.e. the 3D object change coordinates. It slides from one set of 4D coordinates to another set of 4D coordinates. It does not extend from one set to another. It does not "exist" in the past and does not wait to "exist" in the future (like presentism says).

The pencil is just a pencil. "Moving" in time.

But of course I may be wrong on this.

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

And there is a way to prove me wrong: show me that the pencil "still exist" in the past.

Edited October 13, 2016 by michel123456

[Memammal]

And because nothing else is needed we have a lack of explanation of this embarrassing feeling of time passing by and the only solution is to throw the solution out of the block by calling it an "illusion".

Lol...I enjoyed this ^

 

My opinion is that the object is 3D (as Tim88 wrote) and that this 3D object "moves" through time i.e. the 3D object change coordinates. It slides from one set of 4D coordinates to another set of 4D coordinates. It does not extend from one set to another. It does not "exist" in the past and does not wait to "exist" in the future (like presentism says).

The pencil is just a pencil. "Moving" in time.

But of course I may be wrong on this.

An observation of what is seemingly a 3-D object captured/embedded in a slice of spacetime at a specific coordinate. One coordinate "back" will give you the same pen at a slightly different distance (as per your original illustration) and thus per implication at a different (space)time. One coordinate "forward" implies that the same pen will be observed at a ever so slightly closer distance (at a different coordinate of spacetime). Think about an analogy, for example a set of animation flip cards...on each card (coordinate) a different image (event) already exists. We are observing our lifeline as an illusion of the fast moving set of animation cards. (I used the same analogy in the other thread referred to earlier where I discussed it with Strange). I.t.o. eternalism all these events are equally real...time is laid out, or there are many "nows"...even though we are unable to rewind or fast forward. I.t.o. presentism there is a distinction between an event in the past, present, and future (an event in the past was real, an event in the present is real, and an event in the future will become real). Notice that the “now” moves. This is where I want to insert this quote that describes it quite well: ...it raises the question which has puzzled philosophers: “How fast does time flow?”. If the “now” moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not. To say “Time moves at the rate of one second per second” is meaningless. Rather, the rate of time flow would have to be measured with respect to some secondary, external time reference. However, in our earlier discussion on this page it was stressed that there was no clock outside the universe, so there could not be any such external time reference. It is simply logically impossible for there to be a moving “now”. Time does not “flow”! (Time, Free Will and the Block Universe)

 

PS. I might have confused Tim's pen with Michel's glass of water...but it is all the same.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Memammal

[Mordred]

 

I disagree to turn this thread into a double of the thread that this came from;

 

That isn't the intention. The intention is simply making sure we are all on the same page. Particularly on how those two terms are being used.

I liked your last post Memmammal.

You seem to be far more familiar with block arguments. Is my understanding between presentism and eternalism correct?

Block isn't something I've spent a lot of time debating. If I made any errors in my analysis I would definetely welcome corrections.

 

If Tim wishes to keep block out of this thread, throw your assessment of my understanding onto the block thread.(lol even though the OP includes my poor mans attempt at block argument)

Edited October 13, 2016 by Mordred

[michel123456]

Lol...I enjoyed this ^

 

An observation of what is seemingly a 3-D object captured/embedded in a slice of spacetime at a specific coordinate. One coordinate "back" will give you the same pen at a slightly different distance (as per your original illustration) and thus per implication at a different (space)time. One coordinate "forward" implies that the same pen will be observed at a ever so slightly closer distance (at a different coordinate of spacetime). Think about an analogy, for example a set of animation flip cards...on each card (coordinate) a different image (event) already exists. We are observing our lifeline as an illusion of the fast moving set of animation cards. (I used the same analogy in the other thread referred to earlier where I discussed it with Strange). I.t.o. eternalism all these events are equally real...time is laid out, or there are many "nows"...even though we are unable to rewind or fast forward. I.t.o. presentism there is a distinction between an event in the past, present, and future (an event in the past was real, an event in the present is real, and an event in the future will become real). Notice that the “now” moves. This is where I want to insert this quote that describes it quite well: ...it raises the question which has puzzled philosophers: “How fast does time flow?”. If the “now” moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not. To say “Time moves at the rate of one second per second” is meaningless. Rather, the rate of time flow would have to be measured with respect to some secondary, external time reference. However, in our earlier discussion on this page it was stressed that there was no clock outside the universe, so there could not be any such external time reference. It is simply logically impossible for there to be a moving “now”. Time does not “flow”! (Time, Free Will and the Block Universe)

 

PS. I might have confused Tim's pen with Michel's glass of water...but it is all the same.

Yes i notice that the "now" moves. But what is moving? The pen? In this explanation, no, the pen does not move. What moves is a "now" of unknown properties. This "now" is made up of nothing. That is reason why I believe this way of thinking is wrong.

 

And concerning the "speed of time", my concept goes like this: if speed is length divided by time (meters/sec), then the opposite (don't call it speed, you must invent a new word for it) would be time divided by length (seconds/meter). Whatever it means.

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

IOW speed is the rate at which space is traveled by a certain of time.

The opposite is the rate at which time is traveled by a certain amount of space.

It is clear like source water.

Edited October 13, 2016 by michel123456

[Memammal]

You seem to be far more familiar with block arguments. Is my understanding between presentism and eternalism correct?

Block isn't something I've spent a lot of time debating. If I made any errors in my analysis I would definetely welcome corrections.

With your math skills you will "intuitively" end up ticking the right block.

 

Yes i notice that the "now" moves. But what is moving? The pen? In this explanation, no, the pen does not move. What moves is a "now" of unknown properties. This "now" is made up of nothing. That is reason why I believe this way of thinking is wrong.

The "now" is made up of an observation/experience of an event at a specific coordinate (a slide in the animation example). The "now" should not move as presentism suggests (IOW that way of thinking might indeed be wrong), rather it is the continuous observation of many "nows" that give the impression of movement (animation)...as per eternalism.

 

PS. Michel, just note that I previously mixed up Tim's example of the pen with your glass of water (as I mentioned in my previous PS note). The pen was indeed stationary (sic), but a separate observation thereof would reveal a slightly different looking pen (different light on it, or slightly different angle, or something like that).

Edited October 13, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

[..] Anyone who is keen to better understand the implications thereof is welcome to read that, or at least the short article (Time, Free Will and the Block Universe) that I linked in that post #22.

 

Is there currently a suitable thread where the block universe is discussed and criticized, so that we can discuss such articles there?

[..] We are observing our lifeline as an illusion of the fast moving set of animation cards. [..] I.t.o. eternalism all these events are equally real...time is laid out, or there are many "nows"...even though we are unable to rewind or fast forward. I.t.o. presentism there is a distinction between an event in the past, present, and future (an event in the past was real, an event in the present is real, and an event in the future will become real).

Notice that the “now” moves. This is where I want to insert this quote that describes it quite well: ...it raises the question which has puzzled philosophers: “How fast does time flow?”. If the “now” moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not. To say “Time moves at the rate of one second per second” is meaningless. Rather, the rate of time flow would have to be measured with respect to some secondary, external time reference. However, in our earlier discussion on this page it was stressed that there was no clock outside the universe, so there could not be any such external time reference. It is simply logically impossible for there to be a moving “now”. Time does not “flow”! (Time, Free Will and the Block Universe) [..]

 

Our memory stores events (which are all past events!) as spatial pictures with time stamps, just like your animation cards or a motion picture. While you call that "eternalist", I would call that rather "presentist"!

 

And then that citation against "a moving now": "moves" = ds/dt... that is an improper description as it confounds in itself time with position displacement, it doesn't help at all to represent "presentism". It's more fitting for eternalism which holds that "our perception of now" literally moves along a "time dimension". [edit:] In fact I agree with him that time does not really "flow", but his argument is faulty - and certainly not an argument against "a now".

 

A "now" means that for example a chemical process really happens, so that we can follow it while it happens. That is not a "flow". At this moment oxygen is being taken up by my lungs. Without a real distinction between "now" and other times, so that everything exists eternally, neither chemical processes nor anything else really happen - we just have movie pictures lying around, and no explanation why we have the impression that they are playing, and that we are playing in them.

PS Memammal thanks for that link: we can probably use some of it for clarifying the block universe view in the other thread.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Tim88

[Memammal]

The pen was indeed stationary (sic), but a separate observation thereof would reveal a slightly different looking pen (different light on it, or slightly different angle, or something like that).

Let me just clarify what I meant by this - the pen is a "stationary prop" in its spatial environment, i.e. it does not move in relation to its surroundings. It is merely being "copied" (I should be careful with using too many analogies here) from one event to the next, but as I explained there may be other factors of said event (or "image"), for example the ambience, that might have changed (who knows, perhaps a bird started chirping outside in the next observation of "stationary" pen).

 

Our memory stores events (which are all past events!) as spatial pictures with time stamps, just like your animation cards or a motion picture. While you call that "eternalist", I would call that rather "presentist"!

It is on this point that we keep on missing each other. The way our brains interpret reality is indeed akin to presentism (as you explained before and again above), but the actual reality may be different to the way our brains interpret it. Actual reality according to eternalism/determinism in a 4D block universe implies that all events are pre-existing and laid out at different coordinates of spacetime. They are all equally real, carved in stone, frozen. etc. We are merely experiencing/observing said "sequence"; hence my use of the way our brains perceive an animation...which it interprets as an ongoing event (a moving now) opposed to different events (many nows) being experienced/observed.

 

A "now" means that for example a chemical process really happens, so that we can follow it while it happens. That is not a "flow". At this moment oxygen is being taken up by my lungs. Without a real distinction between "now" and other times, so that everything exists eternally, neither chemical processes nor anything else really happen - we just have movie pictures lying around, and no explanation why we have the impression that they are playing, and that we are playing in them.

 

PS Memammal thanks for that link: we can probably use some of it for clarifying the block universe view in the other thread.

A natural living and evolving environment should not deter us from the possibility of a many-now reality. Perceived causality, randomness, changes, us being reliant on oxygen could all be an entirely natural (but deterministic) sequence within symbiotic eco systems in said reality. (You may want to think of living and breathing actors playing their parts in the movie..?).

 

Tim, there have been many instances where the block universe came up for discussion in a number of threads in this same General Philosophy category. As far as I have seen they all dealt with certain aspects thereof. I don't know if you want to start a new thread and merge all the relevant posts into it as this current discussion may indeed be moving a bit off topic..? Said thread should attempt to differentiate between the various models (presentism, eternalism, growing and evolving).

[Tim88]

art that[..] A natural living and evolving environment should not deter us from the possibility of a many-now reality. Perceived causality, randomness, changes, us being reliant on oxygen could all be an entirely natural (but deterministic) sequence within symbiotic eco systems in said reality. (You may want to think of living and breathing actors playing their parts in the movie..?).

 

Tim, there have been many instances where the block universe came up for discussion in a number of threads in this same General Philosophy category. As far as I have seen they all dealt with certain aspects thereof. I don't know if you want to start a new thread and merge all the relevant posts into it as this current discussion may indeed be moving a bit off topic..? Said thread should attempt to differentiate between the various models (presentism, eternalism, growing and evolving).

 

I'll gladly leave it to you to start such a thread (and what thread did Mordred refer to?), especially as some differences may have little metaphysically substance and be more a matter of sound, due to different words...

[Mordred]

the thread where you specifically included block on the OP.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98845-models-for-making-sense-of-relativity-physical-space-vs-physical-spacetime/page-1

 

Though a seperate thread may be better on just block itself. Although Memmammal and I have roughly the same understanding on presentism, eternalism there is little point.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

Ah yes,that thread is has a different focus than what Memammal has in mind.

edit: but I do hope that Memammal will there clarify some of the practical features of the block universe interpretation.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Tim88

[Memammal]

I will go through that thread again, but I followed it before and contributed to it (on page 3, for example). Both ajb (in the opening 4 pages, especially on page 4) and later VandD (on page 7), among others, raised some pertinent points w.r.t. block universe model(s). In the mean time, talking about practical features of the block universe and its implied non-compliance (for lack of a better word) with quantum behaviour, see this post.

Edited October 16, 2016 by Memammal