Four Theories of Time - An Introduction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this video, I define four different theories of time: (1) presentism, (2) the growing block theory, (3) eternalism, and (4) the moving spotlight theory.
My favorite three books on time are the following:
- Sider, Theodore. 2001. Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Baron, Sam, and Kristie Miller. 2019. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time. Cambridge: Polity.
- Dainton, Barry. 2010. Time and Space. 2nd ed. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
The classical take on the moving spotlight theory is found in:
- Broad, C. D. 1923. Scientific Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
For a recent take on the moving spotlight theory, see
Cameron, Ross P. 2015. The Moving Spotlight. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
🌐 SUBSCRIBE to my channel for more videos: goo.gl/ukVPLo
Can you do more videos on space and time? Possibly make a video on the relationist and substantivalist portions? This video helped so much!
This is a good suggestion and something I've always wanted to do more of since obviously space and time go together!
Amazing content, besides that, I cannot express in words how much I love the fact that you love evangelion
Thanks! Ya, I'd love to do commentaries on sections of the show since some parts are overtly philosophical and would be fun to discuss! So little time though!
Thanks for this video. I’ll be rewatching it a few times to make sure I’m getting the correct understanding.
Great video. The thumbnail looks like it could be the 3rd system of a down album cover in the mesmerise hypnotise double album haha
Thanks! Had to look this album cover up. You are right! All the blurred faces.
I have never studied the topic nor is it even relevant to what I do in life but I find it very very interesting
Very armature in my endeavour to understand time
Could you recommend books that can introduce me to the topic?
Here are a few books I really like on time: (1) Time and Space by Barry Dainton, (2) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time by Barron and Miller, and (3) Philosophy of Time by Sean Power. I think the Dainton book is the most interesting (although it can be hard to get and hard to read in places), the Barron and Miller book is the most introductory, and the Power book is the most exhaustive (covering the most topics).
Wonderful clarity thx 😊
Glad it was helpful! Best wishes!
Which theory of your time is your favorite? Why is it better than the alternatives?
There is one theory that I am missing. That is the burning block theory, or digested block theory.
The burning block theory says that only the future and the present realy exists, but the future not in a completely fixed state.
Think of a sheet of paper to which you set fire. The fire slowly 'eats' its way through the paper. The 'fire rim' represents the now. Behind the fire rim (the past) there is nothing (with paper, there are ashes, but in this theory of space-time there is nothing, no block or remnants of a block). In front of the fire rim the paper turns black before it starts to burn. This represents the future, that exists as a block, but not in a completely fixed state, it is influence by the rim slowly moving forward 'burning' or 'digesting' the block and sending 'ripples' into the future.
This theory solves the problem of free will. Free will is mostly defined as 'one could have chosen otherwise'. But that formulation suggests a past. In this theory, the larger structures in the univers are more determined (but not completely determined), the smaller structures are less determined, and the processes in our brains are completely undetermined (quantum level). We can recognize determenentie (a canon ball will follow a certain trajectory) and since the processes in our brain are not determined, we can freely choose which direction we want to shoot the cannon ball. Every choice then 'ripples' forward into the not completely fixed future block so that the future is effected and changed by our choice.
Think of it this way. At the beginning of the universe, there was only the future block. It contained everything that at some point would become the past. So the future block contains both the future, that what is to become present, and that what is to become past. It is therefor completely self-containing. That means we don't need the past as 'a block'. We can just 'burn' the future block, or 'eat' the future block, and everything remains the same. If we don't need it, Occam’s Razors tells us to get rid of it.
This theory is also compatilble with relativity.
I am very curious to hear your response.
Fun theory. Yes, there are lots of different theories to consider that were not considered here (e.g., only Future exists, only Past exists, only Past and Future exists, none of these categories make sense since there is only earlier/later, etc.).
With respect to your theory (correct me if I'm wrong), you are saying the Future exists and the Present exists, but not the past. I think I have two questions:
1. What makes past-tense sentences true? Suppose I say "George Washington was a great President". The eternalist, since they believe in past events, can say, "ah, what makes it true is that there exists a person in a time earlier than this one that is President of the US and embodies greatness.
2. It seems like the Present exists in a way different from the Future. Some philosophers will balk at these two different senses of "exist." Things either exist or they don't. To say that the future is underdetermined is to say it doesn't exist. Perhaps you want to say the Future doesn't already exist but it is more or less largely determined by present facts (excluding certain minor events in the power of human beings).
Looking forward to the clarifications of your theory!
Simply beautiful
Nice video. Subbed.
Excellent video. Are there more theories?
Yes! There are plenty more! First, you can look at various subtheories under each one of these theories. Presentists will sometimes articulate what it means for "everything that exists is in the present" differently. Eternalists will have different theories of "change", some contending that there is no change but others redefining the notion of change as something akin to spatial variation. There is also varieties of the moving spotlight theory: (1) the classic version, (2) a non-classic version (Deasy), and (3) a non-classic version call the cresting wave theory ( vs. contemporary moving spotlight theory (Miller).
Besides these, the video gives you the ingredients to create your own more exotic theories, e.g., just the future exists (let's call it "futurism"!)
Sources
- Deasy, D. 2015. “The Moving Spotlight Theory.” Philosophical Studies 172: 2073-2089.
- Kristie Miller (2019) The cresting wave: a new moving spotlight theory, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 49:1, 94-122
One thing that would interest me is if there could conceivably ever be a way of testing any of these hypotheses.
My understanding is currently based on the current model of physics, eternalism or B-theory seems to be widely accepted, but not conclusive in any way apart from rudimentary thought experiments.
Is it possible to conceive a theory similar to eternalism but one that defends the passage of time, or that reality does change?
Howdy! I would say that the Moving Spotlight Theory asserts that (1) eternalist ontology is the case, but (2) time passes, but they wouldn't (except in a limited sense) accept that reality changes since the only thing that changes are which events take the property of being present.
From relativity stand of point, eternalism makes the most sense. However, how does it reconcile with quantum mechanic which negates a fixed future?
How does quantum mechanics negate a fixed future? (Sincere question)
Are there more flavors of B-theory than the eternalism presented here? I've heard mention of a C-theory; what's that all about? Finally, sci-fi writer Greg Egan presented a "Dust Theory" in some of his works; how would that fit into this framework?
Howdy! In terms of B-theories, I don't recall. Off hand, I think there are some different routes you could go about (1) the composition of objects or (2) the reality of change. For (1), you might accept or deny the doctrine of temporal parts (this is the doctrine that a physical object can be located at different times and it has a part (a temporal part) at each time). If you accept it, you are saying that just as we have spatial parts in different spaces, we have temporal parts at different times. I think this is the route pursued by David Lewis and others. If you reject it, you are saying there is one single thing that exists across time (a kind of blob). I think this is Mellor's route. Or, you might go the nihilistic route and say that this theory implies we don't exist at different times. For (2) you might deny change is real or try to account for it being real without relying upon any notion of the "present" moment.
I remember Taggart talking about the C-theory / C-series, but don't recall what he says about it (I think he talks about it in "The Unreality of Time" and then again in _The Nature of Existence_). Another good resource for the discussion of the C-series is Baron and Miller's _An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time_.
I'm unfamiliar with Egan's dust theory. From Wikipedia, I'm assuming this comes from his book Permutation City? I'll read it. Off hand, I will say that there are many many different possible theories of time that are simply excluded here because they don't fit with the facts of our world. You could come up with a theory of time that says only the future is real but this isn't considered since it isn't clear what advantages such a theory would have over its competitors. A book that I love and frequently use parts of to teach is Barry Dainton's _Time and Space_. In ch.6, he talks about many different varieties of presentism, e.g. solipsistic presentism, many-worlds presentism, compound presentism, dynamic presentism.
Of course, there are lots more questions about time, e.g. the flow of time, its directionality / asymmetry, our perception of time, its relation to change. All fun stuff!
@@LogicPhilosophy Thanks for the reply! Re: Egan - Permutation City is definitely the main source for dust theory, though I think it might get hinted at in some of his other works.
One thing that's always confused me about the growing block-universe theory (aside from relativistic simultaneity making the moment of the present be observer relative) is that the leading edge is a super privileged position. Almost all observers would find themselves further back in the block, presumably thinking that they were at the leading edge. If that's true, then it's only a growing block universe for a fantastically unusual observer. It's just a block universe for the rest of us. Am I missing something?
So do you have any view on the theory of time that is most plausible
I tend to favor non A-theories since I tend to think arguments for the objective present are unconvincing / implausible. For that reason, I tend to favor Eternalism. For example, in this video (th-cam.com/video/WwrUT1uKCD0/w-d-xo.html) I outline an argument an argument the view that only the present moment exists.
@@LogicPhilosophy I agree, and most of the science and physics tends to back this up, even though at first it seems implausible.
Time is fascinating. If gravity affects time? So is gravity time or vice-versa. Or are they both separate its just gravity effects the pull of time? I also thought about this last night. If time is linear and were constantly moving through it. So thing like coincidence or those tines where we feel like we experienced this already? Or like when you say things hapen for a reason. I wonder if so.e how subconsciously ur perception skipped ahead of time or moved through the time block a few moments ahead. You at the present time couldn't perceive it. So when it happens u feel like it was "for a reason" or a weird coincidence.
moving spotlight theory is weird because how can 1 moment be more real then another? and wouldnt this theory of time imply a hyper time or second dimension of time?
I agree. I've always struggled with understanding how all times/events already exist but one has this special "metaphysical status" of being present. MST says that past, present, and future times all exist but there is also some "objective becoming" where (1) some event in time is absolutely present or non-relative and (2) this event in time changes. So, the visualization is of a spotlight (signaling the present moment) moving over already existent moments in time. I haven't checked in a while, but the most recent, book-length defense of the theory is: The Moving Spotlight: An Essay on Time and Ontology by Ross P. Cameron. It is $20 on Amazon but here is a link to a review of the book: ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-moving-spotlight-an-essay-on-time-and-ontology/ The review has a really nice table of different versions of the MST.
@@LogicPhilosophy i still think that if people in the past and future are sentient then the word present doesn't really have a meaning in mst.
and minimal a theory can't be true because matter(in the past) can't be outside of space. and distributional properties are the description of an objects lifetime? (I'm bad at English)
The spotlight model introduces at least one more dimension for the location of the spotlight and implies a meta observer which implies a whole other universe, which might be a helpful way to visualise an immutable block universe, but if there really is a spotlight operator, or multiple spotlights controlled by any number of operators, that doesn't make much difference to the inhabitants of this universe.
If we were going to make a giant simulated universe in a computer as a science experiment, it almost certainly would be a block universe where its creators would explore the results after having completed the simulation. In such a situation I don't know when sentient beings would experience their existence. Is it when it was created or when someone views the results?
It's funny how much I like this model, despite me being an atheist, and how very compatible it is with a god who might search such a universe to find interesting people to put in another version we might call heaven
Thanks for watching! One of the counterintuitive parts of the block theory is explaining away our experience and some of our strongest beliefs about time, e.g., our belief that we exist in the present, that our experience is confined to the present (the confinement doctrine), that we experience of the passage of time / change, etc. I talk a little about the confinement doctrine in another video (Experience and Non-Present Objects: th-cam.com/video/WwrUT1uKCD0/w-d-xo.html).
One question I would have for you is why does the spotlight model imply a meta-observer? Couldn't we just say that moments have the "metaphysical property" of being present and this property just happens to be unobservable to human beings (and to any agent for that matter)?
@@LogicPhilosophy Thanks for making this video, and for taking the time to reply. Your subsequent video is very much how I see things.
I think having a spotlight slightly hints at an observer because the metaphor of a spotlight makes me think of a theatre, also why should an event need to wait for the spotlight, why not just have all events illuminated now?
I prefer the weirdness of seeing all of time as happening now, than to deal with the weirdness of existing as this specific human at this unique point in time and knowing I have popped in and out of existence every time I have fallen asleep, and the weirdness of knowing there was a time when I didn't exist at all, and that there will be a time again when I won't exist, and another when people won't exist, and there will be quite a lot of time long past the heat death of the universe.
Given the vastness of time, compared to shortness of life, it's so overwhelmingly improbable to be at a time where I exist, it's also so improbable to be at a time when people exist, but if I switch my thinking to the eternal now of a block universe, this isn't particularly surprising. I am a conscious entity, therefore I am existing at all the locations where I am awake, and doing so for eternity (or at least whenever the spotlight is on me)
The Fermi paradox also becomes banal under this way of thinking. This just happens to be a time before we meet the aliens, all the time we experience with the aliens is also happening right now too.
Obviously I can only experience the state of my brain as it is, and I only have access to the memories physically recorded in my brain and as such it obviously feels like there is a present, and the future unknowable to me.
I don't think it makes that much of a difference whether there is a spotlight or if all times are being experienced simultaneously. This is unknowable and wouldn't make any difference to the inhabitants of such a universe.
Per the point that there is no practical difference as to whether there is a spotlight or all times equally exist with no unique present moment, the eternalist (block theorist) will say that this is a reason for dispensing altogether with the idea of an objective present. Everyone should become a full-fledged eternalist! See you at the next meeting!
Yes, if there is a time later than right now (aka 17 Aug 2022) where we are interacting with aliens, then that event is happening at that time. When people say that event "will" happen, the eternalist will say "you are speaking a little loosely here since your use of "will" implies an objective future and that objective future implies an objective present, but neither are real."
Time manifests in Timing, QM 010
The moving spotlight seems most plausible to me.
On the one hand, it seems the most intuitive since it can account for why past-tense sentences are true (e.g., if you say something true about Napoleon then what makes it true is the FACT that Napoleon is doing that action in the past) AND it gives us the present (which people believe in). However, on the other hand, there are some pretty powerful arguments against it, e.g. McTaggart's argument, or trying to explain the property of a "moving present" that seems to change nothing.
@@LogicPhilosophy My comment might have been premature. My initial understanding was that of the observer specific past light cone on a spacetime diagram, which looks like a moving flashlight. Looks like I'm back to eternalism and superdeterminism. But why we experience the 'flow' of time and perceive the space as dynamic is still a mystery to me.
This is one of the things that the eternalist has to wrestle with for sure. I think there are two options. First, you can say that we do experience the flow of time but it is an illusion. To do this, you might leverage illusions like the flash lag effect, phi phenomenon, beta movement, and then try to argue that there is an analogous temporal illusion. Second, you can deny the underlying rationale that we really do experience the flow of time and argue we only experience discrete moments rather than any kind of flow or passage.
@@LogicPhilosophy One thing, although quite obvious, it doesn't make sense to talk about the speed of time. If we think of our flow of time as progression through slices of space cut along the time axis in the 4D block, we would not be able to perceive any change in the rate of progression. If all natural phenomenon is 'sped up', so is our perception and will not notice any difference. Any interruption in the flow is similarly non-observable.
This requires much thinking
What sort of conclusions did you come up with?
@@LogicPhilosophy He has concluded that he doesn't have enough time to respond to TH-cam comments.
@@battt1718 He is presently thinking...hahaha
Chicago 2:32
You're right!