A static block universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In a fixed block universe, what are we to make of concepts such as motion and time? Are they illusiory?

[Stranger]

In a fixed block universe, what are we to make of concepts such as motion and time? Are they illusiory?

Motion and time aren't really a problem. Time is a (observer specific) coordinate and motion just means that, as you vary the time (t-coordinate), then the values of the (also observer specific) spatial coordinates x, y, and z will change.

It's the passage of time that seems to be an artefact of perception. It doesn't really appear in any basic science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Motion and time aren't really a problem. Time is a (observer specific) coordinate and motion just means that, as you vary the time (t-coordinate), then the values of the (also observer specific) spatial coordinates x, y, and z will change.

It's the passage of time that seems to be an artefact of perception. It doesn't really appear in any basic science.

in what way is the passage of time different from ''varying the time''. time then? Are you saying the passage of time is illusiory?

If you can as you suggest vary or change time in what way is a block universe ''blocked'' or fixed?

[Sebastian Toe]

FFS, somebody please say that time is illusory in order that Vlad can jump in with his point!
 

[Stranger]

in what way is the passage of time different from ''varying the time''. time then?

You can certainly model it is a smooth variation along your own time coordinate, but there seems to be nothing in the underlying theories that tells us why that is how we perceive it.

Are you saying the passage of time is illusiory?

Possibly. Certainly Einstein is quoted as saying that the distinction between past, present, and future is a stubbornly persistent illusion.

If you can as you suggest vary or change time in what way is a block universe ''blocked'' or fixed?

No idea what you mean by that. Space-time is an extension of space that has four coordinates instead of three, hence the idea of a "block". This is reinforced by the notion that said coordinates are not absolute but a associated with a specific frame of reference. What you regard as time and space is not the same as I do, if we are moving relative to each other (just using special relativity).

[Nearly Sane]

FFS, somebody please say that time is illusory in order that Vlad can jump in with his point!
 

https://youtu.be/LqqHrTItmXw

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can certainly model it is a smooth variation along your own time coordinate, but there seems to be nothing in the underlying theories that tells us why that is how we perceive it.

Possibly. Certainly Einstein is quoted as saying that the distinction between past, present, and future is a stubbornly persistent illusion.

No idea what you mean by that. Space-time is an extension of space that has four coordinates instead of three, hence the idea of a "block". This is reinforced by the notion that said coordinates are not absolute but a associated with a specific frame of reference. What you regard as time and space is not the same as I do, if we are moving relative to each other (just using special relativity).

But that is the question isn't it? How can you have/even talk about/even perceive movement in a static block universe?

[Stranger]

But that is the question isn't it? How can you have/even talk about/even perceive movement in a static block universe?

There's a big difference between talking about, or calculating, motion and the way in which we perceive it. We can take some time, call it 'the present', and then predict future motion, or deduce past motion, but nothing in the theory tells us why we perceive it in the way we do.

The explicitly geometric approach of relativity and the fact that you need to choose a frame of reference, makes the problem more obvious but it's not all that different to the Newtonian view, which also contained no notion of the passage of time in its mathematical formulation.

In short, I don't know how or why we perceive motion and time as we do, and neither does anybody else.

[Udayana]

But that is the question isn't it? How can you have/even talk about/even perceive movement in a static block universe?

It is not clear what you mean by "static" or "fixed" here. They are part of your conception of the model. Time is a dimension within the block, and perception of motion depends on your relative motion within it.

These matters are far from resolved especially wrt. perception and memory:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time-20160719

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is not clear what you mean by "static" or "fixed" here. They are part of your conception of the model. Time is a dimension within the block, and perception of motion depends on your relative motion within it.

These matters are far from resolved especially wrt. perception and memory:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time-20160719

Nice to see some of the big hitters debating, rather than dismissing the reality or otherwise of Time being a change. Sean Carroll is there as is Lee Smolin who should be familiar to readers of The God Delusion. Ellis offers a description for and  reason for the perception of time passing with the growing block universe.

What I felt though was that there was not enough cross reference to the idea that time is a persistent illusion of the Block universe idea and was wondering whether anybody had developed a synthesis of the two.....such as human minds being outside the block somehow scanning their own timelines which, in our universe, are actually static (in otherwords a dualistic theory based on recognising a block universe ) since where would the perception of motion or change possibly come from in a static universe?

Which lastly brings me to another point, how long can we hold out with our favourite theories if other lines of intellectual enquiry seem more productive in ''the reasons for'' stakes?

[Stranger]

Nice to see some of the big hitters debating, rather than dismissing the reality or otherwise of Time being a change. Sean Carroll is there as is Lee Smolin who should be familiar to readers of The God Delusion. Ellis offers a description for and  reason for the perception of time passing with the growing block universe.

What I felt though was that there was not enough cross reference to the idea that time is a persistent illusion of the Block universe idea and was wondering whether anybody had developed a synthesis of the two.....such as human minds being outside the block somehow scanning their own timelines which, in our universe, are actually static (in otherwords a dualistic theory based on recognising a block universe ) since where would the perception of motion or change possibly come from in a static universe?

Which lastly brings me to another point, how long can we hold out with our favourite theories if other lines of intellectual enquiry seem more productive in ''the reasons for'' stakes?

It's not really about favourite theories, it's about what are currently the best theories we have (by which I mean, the ones that have been directly tested and produced correct predictions) and as yet untested conjectures and hypotheses.

One thing we know is that we don't know everything yet and the views may well change if and when any of the newer ideas can actually be tested. Worth also pointing out that others are producing conjectures that try to dispense with time altogether, at least as a fundamental aspect of reality.

Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath for some sort of human mind exception though, looks like nothing but religious wishful thinking. Not that I can rule it out with certainty, of course.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not really about favourite theories, it's about what are currently the best theories we have (by which I mean, the ones that have been directly tested and produced correct predictions) and as yet untested conjectures and hypotheses.

One thing we know is that we don't know everything yet and the views may well change if and when any of the newer ideas can actually be tested. Worth also pointing out that others are producing conjectures that try to dispense with time altogether, at least as a fundamental aspect of reality.

Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath for some sort of human mind exception though, looks like nothing but religious wishful thinking. Not that I can rule it out with certainty, of course.

It Doesn't look like wishful thinking until it is discounted with grounds and then persisted with. It could be wrong, but it's definitely out of order to dismiss a question on the ground of who it comes from or whether it smacks of whatever in your eyes.

Also in the article we have physicists who say the expanding block idea may undermine determinism and yet I know of one argument on here fuelled by an almost absolute commitment to Determinism and belief in religious wishful thinking and who has it (Although how that differs in quality and quantity of wishful thinking involved in scientism, I don't know..) and that argument may not be the one you think it is.

[Sebastian Toe]

Which lastly brings me to another point, how long can we hold out with our favourite theories if other lines of intellectual enquiry seem more productive in ''the reasons for'' stakes?

I'm not sure.
How long can you hold on to your favourites?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure.
How long can you hold on to your favourites?

Until they are demonstrably wrong of course however to get to the point. I cannot see how you can possibly get an illusion of movement and change in a universe that is static, that has no actual movement and change.

''Illusiondiddit'' is a copout, ''I don't know why and I'm not going to entertain explanations'' shows a commitment to agnosticism. As far as I'm concerned the question the perception of motion and change in a universe where they cannot reasonably exist opens all kinds of non divine possibilities involving parallel universes right down to the idea of a block universe being not the universe we live in.......but on a divine note, to be able to contemplate stepping outside this universe even conceptually is to gain a God's eye view of history as described, without the maths, by classical theologians of old.

[Stranger]

It Doesn't look like wishful thinking...

Well, what it 'looks like' to somebody is inherently subjective, I guess it might look different to you.

It could be wrong, but it's definitely out of order to dismiss a question on the ground of who it comes from or whether it smacks of whatever in your eyes.

I didn't dismiss it, I said quite clearly that we couldn't rule it out. I just found it quite funny that you rushed straight towards human exceptionalism, even though I'm not aware of any serious hypotheses along those lines, and given your beliefs.

Also in the article we have physicists who say the expanding block idea may undermine determinism and yet I know of one argument on here fuelled by an almost absolute commitment to Determinism...

If you're referring to the 'free will' Alan Burns debate, that's a mistake Alan keeps making too. I have repeatedly said that determinism simply doesn't matter one way or the other.

Until they are demonstrably wrong of course...

It's rather irrational to 'hold on' to ideas until they are shown to be wrong, unless you have a good reason to believe them in the first place. There are well tested theories and there are untested hypotheses and conjectures. You can find one or other of those more appealing, of course, that's human nature, but you have to wait for evidence before actually pretending it's any better than all the rest.

I cannot see how you can possibly get an illusion of movement and change in a universe that is static, that has no actual movement and change.

Personal incredulity and intuition have been little use in modern science.

''I don't know why and I'm not going to entertain explanations'' shows a commitment to agnosticism.

You really do have a very strange view of the way other people think. It seems quite common amongst some theists to simply fail to understand a lack of commitment. Like admitting to not knowing something is a totally alien concept to you.

[Dicky Underpants]

but on a divine note, to be able to contemplate stepping outside this universe even conceptually is to gain a God's eye view of history as described, without the maths, by classical theologians of old.

How could the 'classical theologians of old' achieve this except conceptually? The alternative is to step outside the universe actually, and I'm disinclined to think they managed that.

[Sebastian Toe]

. As far as I'm concerned the question the perception of motion and change in a universe where they cannot reasonably exist opens all kinds of non divine possibilities involving parallel universes right down to the idea of a block universe being not the universe we live in.......

...and this one.....?
"Perhaps the strongest statement made at the conference in favor of the block universe’s compatibility with everyday experience came from the philosopher Jenann Ismael of the University of Arizona. The way Ismael sees it, the block universe, properly understood, holds within it the explanation for our experience of time’s apparent passage. A careful look at conventional physics, supplemented by what we’ve learned in recent decades from cognitive science and psychology, can recover “the flow, the whoosh, of experience,” she said. In this view, time is not an illusion — in fact, we experience it directly. She cited studies that show that each moment we experience represents a finite interval of time. In other words, we don’t infer the flow of time; it’s part of the experience itself. The challenge, she said, is to frame this first-person experience within the static block offered by physics — to examine “how the world looks from the evolving frame of reference of an embedded perceiver” whose history is represented by a curve within the space-time of the block universe"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, what it 'looks like' to somebody is inherently subjective, I guess it might look different to you.

I didn't dismiss it, I said quite clearly that we couldn't rule it out. I just found it quite funny that you rushed straight towards human exceptionalism, even though I'm not aware of any serious hypotheses along those lines, and given your beliefs.

If you're referring to the 'free will' Alan Burns debate, that's a mistake Alan keeps making too. I have repeatedly said that determinism simply doesn't matter one way or the other.

It's rather irrational to 'hold on' to ideas until they are shown to be wrong, unless you have a good reason to believe them in the first place. There are well tested theories and there are untested hypotheses and conjectures. You can find one or other of those more appealing, of course, that's human nature, but you have to wait for evidence before actually pretending it's any better than all the rest.

Personal incredulity and intuition have been little use in modern science.

You really do have a very strange view of the way other people think. It seems quite common amongst some theists to simply fail to understand a lack of commitment. Like admitting to not knowing something is a totally alien concept to you.

No I have no objection to I don't know, but '' i'll be an agnostic boy and that's the way i'll stay is a bit iffy as is something else I saw here once ''I don't know what it is but I know it can't be God''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Personal incredulity and intuition have been little use in modern science.

Pure scientism. What you are suggesting here is that we could see how movement and change in is possible in a universe where movement and change isn't possible if only we have faith in the power of science.

[Stranger]

...as is something else I saw here once ''I don't know what it is but I know it can't be God''.

Where did you see that? I've never seen anybody say that, or anything remotely like it.

No I have no objection to I don't know, but '' i'll be an agnostic boy and that's the way i'll stay is a bit iffy...

Pure scientism. What you are suggesting here is that we could see how movement and change in is possible in a universe where movement and change isn't possible if only we have faith in the power of science.

Oh do stop putting words in my mouth. If you can't address the points I actually made, then it's more honest to admit it or just shut up and not make an idiot of yourself.