Temporal Becoming and A-theories of Time versus B-theories of Time: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Temporal Becoming and A-theories of Time versus B-theories of Time » Temporal Becoming and A-theories of Time versus B-theories of Time

Temporal Becoming and A-theories of Time versus B-theories of Time

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Temporal Becoming and A-theories of Time versus B-theories of Time

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 08/06/03 - 08:15 AM:	#1
According to the B-theory, time consists in nothing but a fixed B-series of events running from earlier to later. The A-theory requires that these events also form an A-series going from the future through the present into the past and, moreover, shift in respect to these determinations. The latter sort of change, commonly referred to as temporal becoming, gives rise to well-known perplexities concerning both what does the shifting and the sort of shift involved. Often it is said that it is the present or now that shifts to ever-later times. This quickly leads to absurdity. ‘The present’ and ‘now’, like ‘this time’, are used to refer to a moment of time. Thus, to say that the present shifts to later times entails that this very moment of time -- the present -- will become some other moment of time and thus cease to be identical with itself! Sometimes the entity that shifts is the property of nowness or presentness. The problem is that every event has this property at some time, namely when it occurs. Thus, what must qualify some event as being now simpliciter is its having the property of nowness now; and this is the start of an infinite regress that is vicious because at each stage we are left with an unexpurgated use of ‘now’, the very term that was supposed to be analyzed in terms of the property of nowness. If events are to change from being future to present and from present to past, as is required by temporal becoming, they must do so in relation to some mysterious transcendent entity, since temporal relations between events and/or times cannot change. The nature of the shift is equally perplexing, for it must occur at a particular rate; but a rate of change involves a comparison between one kind of change and a change of time. Here, it is change of time that is compared to change of time, resulting in the seeming tautology that time passes or shifts at the rate of one second per second, surely an absurdity since this is not a rate of change at all. C.D. Broad attempted to skirt these perplexities by saying that becoming is sui generis and thereby defies analysis, which puts him on the side of the mystically inclined Henri Bergson who thought that it could be known only through an act of ineffable intuition. To escape the clutches of both perplexity and mysticism, as well as to satisfy the demand of science to view the world non-perspectivally, the B-theory attempted to reduce the A-series to the B-series via a linguistic reduction in which a temporal indexical proposition reporting an event as past, present, or future is shown to be identical with a non-indexical proposition reporting a relation of precedence or simultaneity between it and another event or time. It is generally conceded that such a reduction fails, since, in general, no indexical proposition is identical with any non-indexical one, this being due to the fact that one can have a propositional attitude toward one of them that is not had to the other; e.g., I can believe that it is now raining without believing that it rains (tenselessly) at t7. The friends of becoming have drawn the wrong moral from this failure-that there is a mysterious Mr. X out there doing The Shift. They have overlooked the fact that two sentences can express different propositions and yet report one and the same event or state of affairs; e.g., ‘This is water’ and ‘this is a collection of H2O molecules’, though differing in sense, report the same state of affairs-this being water is nothing but this being a collection of H2O molecules. It could be claimed that the same holds for the appropriate use of indexical and non-indexical sentences; the tokening at t7 of ‘TecnoTut flies at this time (at present)’ is coreporting with the non-synonymous ‘TecnoTut flies (tenselessly) at t7’, since TecnoTut’s flying at this time is the same event as TecnoTut’s flying at t7, given that this time is t7. This effects the same ontological reduction of the becoming of events to their bearing temporal relations to each other as does the linguistic reduction. The coreporting reduction also shows the absurdity of the psychological reduction according to which an event’s being present, etc., requires a relation to a perceiver, whereas an event’s having a temporal relation to another event or time does not require a relation to a perceiver. Given that TecnoTut’s flying at this time is identical with TecnoTut’s flying at t7, it follows that one and the same event both does and does not have the property of requiring relation to a perceiver, thereby violating Leibniz’s law that identicals are indiscernible.
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 08/06/03 - 09:38 AM:	#2
Any linguistic analysis of the concept of time is meaningless without a context and useless without at least an implicit definition of linguistics. Relational Frame Theory provides both and directly connects them to the physical world. Ancient Chinese saying, "Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do." If you watch what they do, the meaning behind their words becomes clear.

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 08/06/03 - 10:03 AM:	#3
What are you talking about? This is the metaphysics of time, not linguistics. A-series and B-series are terms introduced by J. M. E. McTaggart to describe two different ways in which events can be thought of as being ordered in time. Events are ordered in the A-series as being past, present, or future, whereas in the B-series they are ordered as being earlier or later than one another. Thus the battle of Hastings is past and the destruction of earth is future, and the former is earlier than the latter. However, events do not change their B-series relations over time, whereas they do change in respect of being past, present, or future. The battle of Hastings was once a future event and the destruction of earth will in time become a past event, but those two events always have stood and always will stand in the same earlier-later relation to one another.
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 08/06/03 - 11:01 AM:	#4
History is written by the victors, thus to understand history one must do linguistic analysis. Likewise, to understand metaphysical analysis one must understand the linguistics used. To assert otherwise is absurd and self-defeating. In the case of Mr. McTaggart's assertion, among other things it entirely avoids the uncomfortable metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics which allow for the battle of hastings to both have occured and not occured. It implicitely asserts a strictly causal temporal dynamics and dismisses all other possible alternatives. This denies a hundred years of dedicated research into the subject, the success of less causal perspectives, and the growing consensus among physicists over the last thirty years that our notions of time must become "fuzzier" if we are to make progress in understanding. An example of what I am referring to can be seen in modern physical theories of time and experiments being conducted. Currently a serious attempt is being made to construct a time machine in Conneticut. Theoretically it will either simply require too much energy to operate, blow up, or actually work. One speculation is that, if it does work, temporal loops may be possible. Steven Hawking once stated that if time travel into the past were possible, we'd be inundated by tourists. Newer theories speculate that if it is possible, it may simply be impossible to go back in time further than the day the machine is turned on. Furthermore, temporal loops might be possible, while changing the past remains impossible. In other words, it may be possible to go back in time and save ourselves from an early death, but impossible to kill ourselves at an earlier time because, obviously, we actually saved our own life rather than killing ourselves. Such theories are the bane of many physicists and often include temporal laws similar to the Indeterminacy of Quantum Mechanics. However, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. A similar approach to what these modern theories propose can also address Mr McTaggart's analysis, that is, a pragmatic statistical analysis. Rather than assuming time is causal or acausal, we can simply analyze the linguistics behind the use of the concept and their practical implications. Rather than debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, we can start with an analysis of how useful and meaningful such a debate might be.

Woods
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 16, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.
Total Topics: 65
Total Posts: 1313

Posted 08/06/03 - 08:49 PM:	#5
I don't think now requires a perciever any more or less than T7. I think that making the asertion that someone's perception is necessary for Now or Time Seven is the same thing. Both now and T7 are arbitrary signs intended to signify the same thing. The thing is the same. only the signifyers vary, and according to rules of diction, not rules of physics.

Fire
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2003
Location: in your eye
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 27

Posted 08/06/03 - 11:42 PM:	#6
Tecno Tut wrote: Events are ordered in the A-series as being past, present, or future, whereas in the B-series they are ordered as being earlier or later than one another ... However, events do not change their B-series relations over time, whereas they do change in respect of being past, present, or future. What does 'the ordering of events in time' have to do with Time? McTaggart: A-series ... past present future (relative frame of reference) B-series ... earlier, later (internal necessity) Are there no other ordering schemes possible? Wuliheron wrote: Rather than assuming time is causal or acausal, we can simply analyze the linguistics behind the use of the concept and their practical implications. "Ordering of events" sounds very much like a deployment of signifiers. Linguistics & rhetoric. B-series cannot be reduced to A-series since they are complementary interpretations and not constituents of Time. (Metaphysics is just metaphor gone wild! Time is becoming. What is becoming? Events can be ordered. What are events? How many ways can events be ordered? What is ordering? Metaphor is just metaphysics in the making.)
You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 08/07/03 - 01:31 AM:	#7
(Metaphysics is just metaphor gone wild! Time is becoming. What is becoming? Events can be ordered. What are events? How many ways can events be ordered? What is ordering? Metaphor is just metaphysics in the making.) Metaphore can also be mystical or paradoxical. The Chinese, for example, hang paradoxes on their walls in promonent places the way we hang mirrors. They present mirrors for the mind with which to groom ourselves internally in the same way a physical mirror is useful for combing your hair. Navaho indians were used during WWII to send battle plans for the US. Their language has no future tense and the Germans could not translate it. They also sainted Einstein, because his theory of Relativity described their worldviews and religion. Yes, there most certainly are alternatives to McTaggert's very ethnocentric analysis of time.

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 08/13/03 - 07:14 PM:	#8
Originally Posted by Wuliheron History is written by the victors, thus to understand history one must do linguistic analysis. Likewise, to understand metaphysical analysis one must understand the linguistics used. To assert otherwise is absurd and self-defeating. But that does not reduce metaphysics to linguistics. Last time I checked linguists do not study time, metaphysicists do. Originally Posted by Wuliheron In the case of Mr. McTaggart's assertion, among other things it entirely avoids the uncomfortable metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics which allow for the battle of hastings to both have occured and not occured. It implicitely asserts a strictly causal temporal dynamics and dismisses all other possible alternatives. This denies a hundred years of dedicated research into the subject, the success of less causal perspectives, and the growing consensus among physicists over the last thirty years that our notions of time must become "fuzzier" if we are to make progress in understanding. Even if I accept your dubious interpretation of quantum mechanics and its just-as-questionable application to the macro world, the issue, nevertheless, has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. The issue is NOT whether the Battle of Hastings has occured in this world and yet to occur in another world. The issue is whether, in this world, there are properties such as past, present, and futute. Originally Posted by Wuliheron An example of what I am referring to can be seen in modern physical theories of time and experiments being conducted. Currently a serious attempt is being made to construct a time machine in Conneticut. Theoretically it will either simply require too much energy to operate, blow up, or actually work. One speculation is that, if it does work, temporal loops may be possible. The issue is not whether time travel is possible or how much energy is needed for a time machine to work. Originally Posted by Wuliheron Steven Hawking once stated that if time travel into the past were possible, we'd be inundated by tourists. Newer theories speculate that if it is possible, it may simply be impossible to go back in time further than the day the machine is turned on. Furthermore, temporal loops might be possible, while changing the past remains impossible. I agree with Hawking (unless time travelers are under a "prime directive" a la Star Trek), but that's not the issue for this post. Originally Posted by Wuliheron In other words, it may be possible to go back in time and save ourselves from an early death, but impossible to kill ourselves at an earlier time because, obviously, we actually saved our own life rather than killing ourselves. Such theories are the bane of many physicists and often include temporal laws similar to the Indeterminacy of Quantum Mechanics. However, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. A similar approach to what these modern theories propose can also address Mr McTaggart's analysis, that is, a pragmatic statistical analysis. Rather than assuming time is causal or acausal, we can simply analyze the linguistics behind the use of the concept and their practical implications. Rather than debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, we can start with an analysis of how useful and meaningful such a debate might be. Huh? I should have stated Mctaggart's argument first. His argument is that time does not exist because A-series are contradictory. A-series are contradictory because A-events have the properties of being past, present, and future. According to Mctaggart, the "unreality of time" is that it lacks A-series properties; A-series are essential to the existence of time because A-series change, and time does not exist without change. In other words, no A-series, no change, no time. Agreed?
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

Lysander
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2003
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 08/19/03 - 07:41 AM:	#9
It seems dangerous to me to say that time is a series of events; it is better to say moments, as "event" implies action or occurence which is not necessary for the passage of time. Hawking's thinking on the tourists is remarkably shallow. For example, how does he know we're not inundated with temporal tourists? Perhaps time travel is possible but prohibitely expensive. Perhaps it is dangerous. Perhaps it is a highly controlled technology.

rotodisc@aol.com
Dagmar Piano

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 22, 2003
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 40

Posted 08/19/03 - 09:03 AM:	#10
re: time tourists. they could be all around us, in disguise. many paranoid schizophrenics will vouch for that. technonut, what you say reminds me of Kripke's naming and necessity, Frege's sense and reference and also that Greek Paradox of the Hooded Man (you don't know the man in the hood. you know you're brother. but hey, he takes off the hood and it is your brother. does that mean you both do and don't know the man/your brother?) hmm, i used to know all this but now it's hazy. it seems that identity of meaning can be taken to mean the actual state of affairs, as well as the sense in your head. bertrand russell had modes of presentation... cough. no my brain's melted. i give up. here's an easier approach: logic was invented by male oppressors to confuse us so-called 'idiots'! down with truth! Time is an absurd social construction! ah that's better.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.