Is a deterministic universe as profoundly counter intuitive for you too?

[Memammal]

^ No,not really. Can change not be deterministic? Take evolution as an example...it appears to be random...but natural selection implies adapting to a changing environment...which could very well be deterministic. As for your reference to radioactivity and that it is not possible to determine the future course of any radioactive particle, the block universe theory does not state that the future is known or that it is predictable, only that it already exists. (The growing block universe differs on this point, not so?) Furthermore, keep in mind that the block universe does not necessarily discard the notion of a multi block universe (with multiple outcomes).

[studiot]

^ No,not really. Can change not be deterministic? Take evolution as an example...it appears to be random...but natural selection implies adapting to a changing environment...which could very well be deterministic. As for your reference to radioactivity and that it is not possible to determine the future course of any radioactive particle, the block universe theory does not state that the future is known or that it is predictable, only that it already exists. (The growing block universe differs on this point, not so?) Furthermore, keep in mind that the block universe does not necessarily discard the notion of a multi block universe (with multiple outcomes).

 

None of that runs counter to what I said, except the no not really.

 

I quite specifically said that both determinism and chance embody change.

 

But there is no change in the block universe, or even the possibility of change.

 

That is the meaning of the word immutable.

 

A multiblockuniverse possesses the same characteristics.

All the blocks must already be lined up.

[koti]

 

I said that the block universe refutes both chance and determinism.

 

Both of these are about the process of arriving at a future course ie a process of change.

 

In order for there to be a future course it is necessary for there to be change.

 

But since everything is already set in the block universe and is immutable, but definition, there is no change.

 

Does this help progress here ?

 

What you wrote above is unclear to me, seems full of contradictions and I can't seem to wrap my head around it. Could you do me the courtesy of explaining to me a conclusion which comes out of what you wrote?

 

Edit:

 

I need to analize what you wrote in order to try to understand it:

 

Block Universe refutes Chance & Determinism -> Chance & Determinism are about the process of Change -> Future to exist needs Change -> Block Universe is set so there is no change present in it.

 

The conclusion which I am drawing from that logic is that the Block Universe concept refutes change -> in order for a future to exist there has to be change therefore there is either no future (the universe is non-deterministic) or that definition of the Block Universe concept is rubbish or I'm in error here.

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by koti

[studiot]

 

What you wrote above is unclear to me, seems full of contradictions and I can't seem to wrap my head around it. Could you do me the courtesy of explaining to me a conclusion which comes out of what you wrote?

 

Edit:

 

I need to analize what you wrote in order to try to understand it:

 

Block Universe refutes Chance & Determinism -> Chance & Determinism are about the process of Change -> Future to exist needs Change -> Block Universe is set so there is no change present in it.

 

The conclusion which I am drawing from that logic is that the Block Universe concept refutes change -> in order for a future to exist there has to be change therefore there is either no future (the universe is non-deterministic) or that definition of the Block Universe concept is rubbish or I'm in error here.

 

 

 

Of course I will try to make my points more understandable, but it is a good job I waited as it seems you are getting there by your own efforts, which is always better.

 

I wouldn't describe the block universe as rubbish, it has some merits as a model.

 

But it is definitely not exact.

 

In fact it is arguable that the only perfect model of anything is the thing itself.

 

 

Back to the issue at hand,

 

Consider just for the moment the possibility of a super being - Maxwellian Daemon or even a God, external to the block universe.

Or perhaps a non intelligent agent but still external to the block universe.

 

Such an agent could intervene in the future history of any sort of particle and prevent whatever the laws of physics had projected for it unless it was a block universe where that projection co existed with the past and present.

 

Notice I have not said any such agent exists, just that a block universe would preclude any action by that agent.

[koti]

 

 

Of course I will try to make my points more understandable, but it is a good job I waited as it seems you are getting there by your own efforts, which is always better.

 

I wouldn't describe the block universe as rubbish, it has some merits as a model.

 

But it is definitely not exact.

 

In fact it is arguable that the only perfect model of anything is the thing itself.

 

 

Back to the issue at hand,

 

Consider just for the moment the possibility of a super being - Maxwellian Daemon or even a God, external to the block universe.

Or perhaps a non intelligent agent but still external to the block universe.

 

Such an agent could intervene in the future history of any sort of particle and prevent whatever the laws of physics had projected for it unless it was a block universe where that projection co existed with the past and present.

 

Notice I have not said any such agent exists, just that a block universe would preclude any action by that agent.

Studiot, all I can say at this point is Holy Agent!

If things werent complex enough you managed to put another variable in there which makes me totaly lost. I will need to sit on this one for a while.

PS. I do not have problem with hypothesising about an "agent" in this context

[Memammal]

Consider just for the moment the possibility of a super being - Maxwellian Daemon or even a God, external to the block universe.

Or perhaps a non intelligent agent but still external to the block universe.

 

Such an agent could intervene in the future history of any sort of particle and prevent whatever the laws of physics had projected for it unless it was a block universe where that projection co existed with the past and present.

 

Notice I have not said any such agent exists, just that a block universe would preclude any action by that agent.

Yes, I alluded to this in another thread. It does not allow for a personal/involved supernatural tinkerer. I don't see why that should be problematic. It does not exclude the possibility of other forms of "gods or agents" though (ID, deistic, pantheistic, etc.).

 

PS. @ studiot: Is this your main gripe with the block universe?

Edited August 25, 2016 by Memammal

[koti]

I found a very interesting 23 minute video of Lee Smolin talking about what we are trying to crack here. Can I post it here?

 

Edit:

I will post it without waiting for an answer, I hope I'm not breaching the rules. His speach is actualy 15 minutes long, the rest are comments which I skipped. I find that I deeply agree with Lee Smolin on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hi4VbERDyI

Edited August 25, 2016 by koti

[studiot]

 

 

PS. @ studiot: Is this your main gripe with the block universe?

 

Not at all.

 

In fact I did say that the block universe model has some merits.

 

I have just been trying to find an alternative way to explain why I assert that the block universe contradicts both determinism and chance.

 

 

 

Here is another.

 

Determinism

 

F IFF E IFF D IFF C IFF B IFF A

 

Is an example of a deterministic chain of causation leading from A to F.

 

Chance

 

F OR E OR D OR C OR B IFF A

 

Is an example of a chance chain of events leading from A to F.

 

where A through F are events or points in the block universe.

 

If A leads to F in either route, deleting A will not delete B, C , D, E or F from the block universe, by definition.

 

But the only way B, C, D, E or F can occur is if A occurs.

 

This is a contradiction.

 

Yet another way to put is would be to note that the block universe regards the axis variables as independent and equivalent.

 

They are neither, because there is an additional constraint which reduces the number of degrees of freedom from 4.

Edited August 25, 2016 by studiot

[koti]

 

Not at all.

 

In fact I did say that the block universe model has some merits.

 

I have just been trying to find an alternative way to explain why I assert that the block universe contradicts both determinism and chance.

 

 

 

Here is another.

 

Determinism

 

F IFF E IFF D IFF C IFF B IFF A

 

Is an example of a deterministic chain of causation leading from A to F.

 

Chance

 

F OR E OR D OR C OR B IFF A

 

Is an example of a chance chain of events leading from A to F.

 

where A through F are events or points in the block universe.

All clear up untill here.

 

If A leads to F in either route, deleting A will not delete B, C , D, E or F from the block universe, by definition.

This is also clear with the exception that I don't understand why would we want to delete event A from the chain of events which depend on each other. Wouldn't this create a paradox therefore removing any event is not an option?

 

But the only way B, C, D, E or F can occur is if A occurs.

I agree.

 

This is a contradiction.

I agree. Previously I used the word "rubbish" instead of "contradiction" which I agree is more fortunate.

 

Yet another way to put is would be to note that the block universe regards the axis variables as independent and equivalent.

 

They are neither, because there is an additional constraint which reduces the number of degrees of freedom from 4.

Edited August 26, 2016 by koti

[Memammal]

I found a very interesting 23 minute video of Lee Smolin talking about what we are trying to crack here.

I watched it and in my mind he does not really add anything new to the discussion. His so-called Naturalism 1 = Determinism/Block Universe/Eternalism while his Naturalism 2 = Indeterminism...perhaps Growing Block Universe...perhaps bordering on Presentism (I will have to read/see more to determine where exactly he slots in). The debates between these various schools of thought have been raging for a long "time", in fact Lee Smolin's arguments almost mirror that of Karl Popper in his discussion with Einstein. It is an understandable argument, one from a human experience of reality, a deeply rooted intuition, almost anthropistic. Smolin referred to evolution and how science should deal with climate change among other things to support his point of view, but as I already demonstrated with evolution it does not necessarily disprove the block universe. There are various sources that one could turn to, each with its own arguments pro- or against either of these. That lengthy older post of mine in another thread to which I provided a link earlier contains quite a few insightful arguments. Here is Standford Encyclopedia of Philosphy's take on it.

 

Interesting discussion.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Memammal

[michel123456]

To me the block universe is based on a wrong concept of how time behaves.

In the block universe, all events are "existing" in the past, the present, the future.

IOW all spacetime coordinates are occupied by events "once for all".

IMHO it is not correct.

 

For example, in your example with the "external agent", what could prevent the "External Agent" to make a change in the past? He could if he wanted, there is no "physical law" that could prevent him to do that.

What I believe (I cannot prove it, so far) is that the spacetime coordinates are not occupied by events "once for all".

I believe that things translate from coordinate to coordinate and create events. IOW that if the "External Agent" wanted to change something that happened to the Earth on the 25th of August 2016, he simply couldn't, because the Earth is not there anymore.

There are no 2 Earths, one in the present and one in the past. There is only one single Earth changing coordinates in spacetime.

Edited August 26, 2016 by michel123456

[Memammal]

To me the block universe is based on a wrong concept of how time behaves.

In the block universe, all events are "existing" in the past, the present, the future.

IOW all spacetime coordinates are occupied by events "once for all".

IMHO it is not correct..

It feels wrong in terms of our perception of how time behaves, i.e. our reality. That does not disprove the block universe.

 

For example, in your example with the "external agent", what could prevent the "External Agent" to make a change in the past? He could if he wanted, there is no "physical law" that could prevent him to do that.

No, the block universe precludes (the word that was used earlier) an external agent to tinker with anything...past, present or future...it is fixed.

[koti]

To me the block universe is based on a wrong concept of how time behaves.

In the block universe, all events are "existing" in the past, the present, the future.

IOW all spacetime coordinates are occupied by events "once for all".

IMHO it is not correct.

 

I share your view on this. My reasoning - if all spacetime coordinates are occuoied by ALL events once and for all than when was this state established? How long did the establishing of that state take? Was it done isntantly? That seems just plain nutts.

 

For example, in your example with the "external agent", what could prevent the "External Agent" to make a change in the past? He could if he wanted, there is no "physical law" that could prevent him to do that.

What I believe (I cannot prove it, so far) is that the spacetime coordinates are not occupied by events "once for all".

I believe that things translate from coordinate to coordinate and create events. IOW that if the "External Agent" wanted to change something that happened to the Earth on the 25th of August 2016, he simply couldn't, because the Earth is not there anymore.

There are no 2 Earths, one in the present and one in the past. There is only one single Earth changing coordinates in spacetime.

That is how I see it as well.

 

It feels wrong in terms of our perception of how time behaves, i.e. our reality. That does not disprove the block universe.

 

 

No, the block universe precludes (the word that was used earlier) an external agent to tinker with anything...past, present or future...it is fixed.

I don't think that the Agent, considering him being God, cares about your opinion that the block universe precludes him from tinkering with whatever he wants. In other words - the Agent is not bound by any laws. If he wishes he could remove an event from the block universe and fix the consequences throughout the whole continuum from T-0 to T-~ in zero time. Its nutts, I know.

Edited August 26, 2016 by koti

[Memammal]

I don't think that the Agent, considering him being God, cares about your opinion that the block universe precludes him from tinkering with whatever he wants. In other words - the Agent is not bound by any laws. If he wishes he could remove an event from the block universe and fix the consequences throughout the whole continuum from T-0 to T-~ in zero time. Its nutts, I know.

Let me rephrase...the two are mutually exclusive...you cannot have a tinkering agent and a block universe.

 

In all honesty, we would probably not be here discussing this subject if it was not for the fact that the idea of a block universe has some serious scientific credibility. I am not saying we should just sit back and accept it...that is not how science works...plus it is far more interesting to deliberate on it in this fashion.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Memammal

[studiot]

 

 

No, the block universe precludes (the word that was used earlier) an external agent to tinker with anything...past, present or future...it is fixed.

 

Yes I did end post#29 with that statement, but not quite with the meaning you inferred.

 

I did not say that an external agent could not change one point or event (or even more than one).

 

Indeed that whole argument was based on the proposition of an an external agent doing exactly that.

 

What I was saying was that both chance and determinism refer to the relationship between at least two events or points.

 

Therefore in a deterministic or chance or mixed universe there is a causal relationship between every point and at least one other point in that universe.

 

So if one point only were changed then the relationship would become false.

 

The block universe does not admit of relationships between points or events.

 

Michel123456, I like your comments +1

[koti]

Let me rephrase...the two are mutually exclusive...you cannot have a tinkering agent and a block universe.

I agree. Plus I rather not involve the the agent in this at all.

 

In all honesty, we would probably not be here discussing this subject if it was not for the fact that the idea of a block universe has some serious scientific credibility. I am not saying we should just sit back and accept it...that is not how science works...plus it is far more interesting to deliberate on it in this fashion.

I agree that it is intriguing - I'm enjoying this deliberation.

Skipping my unscientific affront to this theory, I can't seem to find any serious scientific credibility behind it. If you put me against a wall I'd be more keen to lean over the Moving Spotlight theory which derives from the block universe but as opposed to it, states that only the present moment is definitely present. The key words here are "against a wall" though.

[sethoflagos]

 

Let me rephrase...the two are mutually exclusive...you cannot have a tinkering agent and a block universe.

I agree. Plus I rather not involve the the agent in this at all.

 

 

 

 

If absolute determinism were possible, I'm not sure we can avoid the agent.

It would give us the potential power to predict the future; and the power to predict all possible alternative futures that could be realised by tinkering with the initial boundary conditions (our present); and hence, the power to change the future, perhaps to our benefit through some minimum calculated action in the present.

It becomes the time reversal of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox.

In, short, we become the agent.

But here's the counter paradox.

If we could exploit absolute determinism to change the future in this way, then there can be no absolute determinism, Different parties would engage in a frantic evolutionary technological arms race to gain some measure of control over their destiny. In short, each successive absolute deterministic path is annihilated by destructive interference in proportion to the evolutionary development of predictive power.

This is what life does.

It evolves, and in doing so, it alters the future.

My own philosophical view? Existence is not absolutely predetermined, but neither is it entirely unpredictable. It's somewhere in between that approximately corresponds to 'absurd'. Not exactly a scientific concept, but one pretty well established in philosophical thought.

Edited August 26, 2016 by sethoflagos

[Memammal]

koti:

Skipping my unscientific affront to this theory, I can't seem to find any serious scientific credibility behind it. If you put me against a wall I'd be more keen to lean over the Moving Spotlight theory which derives from the block universe but as opposed to it, states that only the present moment is definitely present. The key words here are "against a wall" though

For now let me just deal with this as (unfortunately) I have other matters to attend to. Please go back to my earlier post, find and follow that link to my other (lengthy) post in the other thread re this subject and read it. You will notice that the so-called moving spotlight theory is actually pretty much the same as the block universe, i.e. we observe this huge and ever-existing block universe as if we walk around in the dark with a spotlight observing bits of detail as the light illuminates it ("slice by slice"). The same post also makes mention of the many credible scientific support for the block universe. Let me add to that the contemporary notion put forward by some behavioural scientists, neurologists and philosophers that free will may very well be an illusion and that our mind is merely automated brain responses governed by unique interactions between our genes and our environments (both potentially deterministic).

 

You asked earlier about how it was possible for this block universe to come into being, how long it would have taken, or something along those lines. That kind of question illustrates your paradigm of thinking. Because of the fact that time is part and parcel of this four dimensional block, it has no *conventional* "beginning", no "end" and no "duration". The Big Bang, for example, is just one of many "events" situated at another coordinate.

 

PS. I will try to deal with any outstanding issues at a more opportune time.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Memammal

[studiot]

 

You asked earlier about how it was possible for this block universe to come into being, how long it would have taken, or something along those lines. That kind of question illustrates your paradigm of thinking. Because of the fact that time is part and parcel of this four dimensional block, it has no "beginning", no "end" and no "duration". The Big Bang, for example, is just one of many "events" situated at another coordinate.

 

There is also no cause and no effect in such a four dimensional block, and therefore no determinism and no chance.

 

Another way to put this is to observe that the relations between the points in such a block are not part of the block itself, but can be extracted from it or are external to it.

[Memammal]

I was quickly back to insert one word in my last edit (*conventional* in the second last paragraph). @ studiot, I was battling with your refusal to accept "determinism" as part of the block universe, but I am starting to realise that I might have misinterpreted your application thereof. In you last post above and in relation to cause and effect, yes, there is no determinism and no change. In the context of the block universe being done and dusted (so to speak) and from an eternalist point of view, it is difficult to not view it is deterministic though...conventionally speaking...but I get your point.

[studiot]

I was quickly back to insert one word in my last edit (*conventional* in the second last paragraph). @ studiot, I was battling with your refusal to accept "determinism" as part of the block universe, but I am starting to realise that I might have misinterpreted your application thereof. In you last post above and in relation to cause and effect, yes, there is no determinism and no change. In the context of the block universe being done and dusted (so to speak) and from an eternalist point of view, it is difficult to not view it is deterministic though...conventionally speaking...but I get your point.

 

I think we are both now agreed that the block universe has its merits, but also its shortcomings.

 

Another one to consider is granularity.

 

Relativity is a theory of continuum mechanics and continuous functions thereon.

 

Quantum mechanics is the mechanics of a granular universe.

 

It is not certain whether space and/or time are granular at some level.

[Memammal]

A couple of loose ends:

 

To me the block universe is based on a wrong concept of how time behaves.

In the block universe, all events are "existing" in the past, the present, the future.

IOW all spacetime coordinates are occupied by events "once for all".

IMHO it is not correct.

 

For example, in your example with the "external agent", what could prevent the "External Agent" to make a change in the past? He could if he wanted, there is no "physical law" that could prevent him to do that.

What I believe (I cannot prove it, so far) is that the spacetime coordinates are not occupied by events "once for all".

I believe that things translate from coordinate to coordinate and create events. IOW that if the "External Agent" wanted to change something that happened to the Earth on the 25th of August 2016, he simply couldn't, because the Earth is not there anymore.

There are no 2 Earths, one in the present and one in the past. There is only one single Earth changing coordinates in spacetime.

The block universe proposes many now's...or a moving now...opposed to a universal now. It refers to an embedded, immutable sequence of events at different coordinates (refer to studiot's comments re no causal relationships in a block universe). As such the model "precludes" a scenario where an external agent changes anything in the past...or (hypothetically speaking) even if it changes something it won't have any repercussions. This kind of thing simply cannot occur in a block universe because the universe has already taken its course (which is why I argued that a block universe and an external tinkerer are mutually exclusive). And if you (or the external agent) manage to relocate yourself to a different coordinate as in the example above, you will simply observe a different now...complete with the Earth in place...which does not imply two Earths, only two "now's".

 

sethoflagos wrote:

 

If absolute determinism were possible, I'm not sure we can avoid the agent.

It would give us the potential power to predict the future; and the power to predict all possible alternative futures that could be realised by tinkering with the initial boundary conditions (our present); and hence, the power to change the future, perhaps to our benefit through some minimum calculated action in the present.

It becomes the time reversal of the https://en.wikipedia...dfather_paradox.

In, short, we become the agent.

But here's the counter paradox.

If we could exploit absolute determinism to change the future in this way, then there can be no absolute determinism, Different parties would engage in a frantic evolutionary technological arms race to gain some measure of control over their destiny. In short, each successive absolute deterministic path is annihilated by destructive interference in proportion to the evolutionary development of predictive power.

Even if we can predict the future, we cannot change it. Refer to my comments above. We cannot change course. Also...by implication there is no grandfather paradox within the block universe.

I think we are both now agreed that the block universe has its merits, but also its shortcomings.

Yes, although I am not sure if I agree that these are shortcomings per se. The application of the model basically closes the window on all sorts of strange possibilities...like the grandfather paradox.

Another one to consider is granularity.

Relativity is a theory of continuum mechanics and continuous functions thereon.

Quantum mechanics is the mechanics of a granular universe.

It is not certain whether space and/or time are granular at some level.

I need to consider the implications hereof.

 

Lastly, here is the full extract from my previous post that I kept on referring to throughout this thread that would hopefully provide some sort of oversight of the block universe:

I appreciate the fact that the block universe concept, at face value, seems to contradict our existing paradigm of time. With the block universe the present is an objective property, to be compared with a moving spotlight. By the passage of time more of the world comes into being; therefore, the block universe is said to be growing. The growth of the block is supposed to happen in the present, a very thin slice of spacetime, more of spacetime is continually coming into being [Source]. Perhaps core to the understanding of the block universe is eternalism, a philosophy of time whereby all points in time are equally real (opposed to the conventional idea that only the present is real). Eternalism is the view that each spacetime moment exists in and of itself and find inspiration from the way time is modeled as a dimension in the theory of relativity, giving time a similar ontology to that of space. It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block", as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time [Source]. As such it requires a change in our perception of "time passing" to that of a metaphor for the continuous human experience of some expected future events becoming directly experienced qualia, while experienced qualia becoming just objects of memory [Source]. Here is another way of looking at it: Modern physics suggests that we can look at the entire history of the universe as a single four-dimensional thing. That includes our own personal path through it, which defines our world line. This seemingly conflicts with our intuitive idea that we exist at a moment, and move through time. Of course there is no real conflict — just two different ways of looking at the same thing. There is a four-dimensional universe that includes all of our world line, from birth to death, once and for all; and each moment along that world line defines an instantaneous person with the perception that they are growing older, advancing through time [Source]. In short, many now’s opposed to a moving now. As such we observe different glimpses of the universe as our spotlight catches a different now, or spacetime slice, which gives the illusion of a changing universe. This MIT article on a recent book, “Objective Becoming” by Brad Skow, provides a short, yet eloquent oversight of what I have just tried to convey.

 

In “This Idea Must Die; Scientific Theories That Are Blocking Progress” there are a number of references to how our conventional paradigm may hinder our scientific understanding. In “Essentialist View Of The Mind” Lisa Barrett writes: In physics, before Einstein, scientists thought of space and time as separate physical quantities. Einstein refuted that distinction, unifying space and time and showing that they’re relative to the perceiver. Even so, essentialist thinking is still seen every time an undergraduate asks, “If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?” In “The Big Bang Was The First Moment Of Time” Lee Smolin states: What concerns me is the other meaning of Big Bang, which is the further hypothesis that the ultimate origin of our universe was a first moment in time, at which our universe was launched from a state of infinite density and temperature. According to this idea, nothing that exists is older than 13.8 billion years. It makes no sense to ask what was before that, because before that there wasn’t even time. The main problem with this second meaning of Big Bang is that it’s not very successful as a scientific hypothesis, because it leaves big questions about the universe unanswered… There is, however, a chance for science to answer these questions, and that’s if the Big Bang was not the first moment of time… For there to have been a time before the Big Bang, the Hawking-Penrose theorem must fail. But there is a simple reason to think it must: General relativity is incomplete as a description of nature, because it leaves out quantum phenomena… There is robust evidence from quantum cosmology models that the infinite singularities forcing time to stop in general relativity are eliminated…which allows time to continue to exist before the Big Bang, deep into the past. In “The Universe Began In A State Of Extraordinarily Low Entropy” Alan Guth argues: There’s an important problem, therefore, which is over a century old: to understand how the arrow of time could possibly arise from time-symmetric laws of evolution. The arrow-of-time mystery has driven physicists to seek possible causes within the law of physics we observe, but in vain. The laws make no distinction between the past and the future… The standard picture holds that the initial conditions for the universe must have produced a special low-entropy state because one is needed to explain the arrow of time. We argue, to the contrary, that the arrow of time can be explained without assuming a special initial state, so there is no longer any motivation for the hypothesis that the universe began in a state of extraordinarily low entropy. The most attractive feature of this idea is that there’s no longer a need to introduce any assumptions that violate the time symmetry of the known laws of physics. The basic idea is simple: We don’t really know if the maximum possible entropy for the universe is finite of infinite, so let’s assume it’s infinite. Then, no matter what entropy the universe started with, the entropy would have been low compared to its maximum. That’s all that’s needed to explain why the entropy has been rising ever since! He uses a metaphor of gas in a box (finite) compared to gas with no box where all particles will eventually start moving outwards and the gas will continue indefinitely to expand into the infinite space, with the entropy rising without limit. He continues: An arrow of time has been generated, without introducing any time-asymmetric assumptions. An interesting feature of this picture is that the universe need not have a beginning or an end.

 

Since the brain presumably perceives time through information processing of external stimuli, not by extrasensory perception, and obeys the laws of causality, it is hard to see how the flow of time, whether it exists or not, could make any subjective difference: all conscious beings are built to perceive time as a chain of events, whether or not it occurs as such… Eternalism addresses these various difficulties by considering all points in time to be equally valid frames of reference—or equally "real", if one prefers. It does not do away with the concept of past and future, but instead considers them directions rather than states of being; whether some point in time is in the future or past is entirely dependent on which frame of reference you are using as a basis for observing it. Since an observer at any given point in time can only remember events that are in the past relative to him, and not events that are in the future relative to him, the subjective illusion of the passage of time is maintained. The asymmetry of remembering past events but not future ones, as well as other irreversible events that progress in only one temporal direction (such as the increase in entropy) gives rise to the arrow of time. In the view suggested by eternalism, there is no passage of time; the ticking of a clock measures durations between events much as the marks on a measuring tape measures distances between places. Eternalism has implications for the concept of free will, in that it proposes that future events are as immutably fixed and impossible to change as past events. Eternalism makes two assumptions, which are separable. One is that time is a full-fledged real dimension. The other is immutability. The latter is not a necessary consequence of the first. A universe in which changes are possible may be indistinguishable from the fully deterministic many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which there are multiple "growing block universes". [Source]

 

In Buddhism, a special term Dharmadhatu is translated as 'total field of events and meanings' or 'field of all events and meanings.' Here the 'Block Universe' seems to be encompassing not only every possible event in the physical universe but also having a psychological component. [Source]

 

Eternalism takes its inspiration from physics, especially the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, in which the relativity of simultaneity is used to show that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment. According to presentism this is impossible because there is only one present moment that is instantaneous and encompasses the entire universe. [Source]

 

Hrvoje Nikolić argued that a block time model solves the black hole information paradox. [Nikolic H. (2009). "Resolving the black-hole information paradox by treating time on an equal footing with space". Phys. Lett. B 678 (2): 218]

 

In a scientific paper entitled “Is there An Alternative To The Block Universe View?” Vesselin Petkov shows that the block universe view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. The paper concludes: In this sense special relativity alone appears to provide a definite proof of the block universe view. One may argue that the arguments discussed here are insufficient for rejecting the presentist view since those arguments demonstrated that presentism contradicts only special relativity, not the other established theories (quantum mechanics, for instance). Such a position could hardly be defended because if a view contradicts the experimental evidence it is definitely wrong. There is just one way to prove that the presentist view does not contradict the relativistic effects – to demonstrate that the experiments which confirm the kinematic consequences of special relativity can be explained if it is assumed that the world is three-dimensional.

 

I assume that most of the objections raised against the block universe model have been dealt with in the above. If not, I will try to revert to any outstanding issues that come to the fore.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Memammal

[sethoflagos]

 

 

I assume that most of the objections raised against the block universe model have been dealt with in the above. If not, I will try to revert to any outstanding issues that come to the fore.

 

The eternalist model certainly has a certain mathematical neatness to it. However, your excision of my reference to evolutionary arms races is telling, as I've since discovered that that was raised by Popper in his discussion with Einstein as an example of the model's apparent absurdity. Maybe I've read something about this in the dim and distant past. It seems to remain an open and valid objection,

 

Once, in an attempt to get my head around QM, an image arose in my head of a transistor radio (yes, this was a long time ago!) floating in a far future infinite space of low temperature radiation. And how QM might attempt to make sense to this isolated instant by an act of creation in reverse, inventing one, perhaps the only(?) past that could explain that particular scenario.

 

Such a long range time reversed causality is admittedly, far-fetched in the extreme, But it does away with a few philosophical problems such as the anthropic principle.

 

And what you end up with is a block universe with human consciousness sailing through the advancing entropy time line in its pre-ordained destiny to create a transistor radio,

 

Contrast this with a strict growing block universe with a zero width time slice of 'now' which denies any quantum advanced waves impacting the past, and by logical extension, an indeterminate future.

 

Coincidently, I raised a topic on John G. Cramer's Transactional Interpretation about a week ago. Kastner ("The Quantum Liar Experiment Kastner". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 41) seems to believe that some form of this is necessary for the eternalist model.

 

So it may come down to how far back in time an advanced quantum wave can project. Somewhere between the absolute end members of zero and the lifetime of the universe.

 

Maybe a little smeared out muddiness around an absolute present would help solve some issues.

[studiot]

 

 

Contrast this with a strict growing block universe with a zero width time slice of 'now' which denies any quantum advanced waves impacting the past, and by logical extension, an indeterminate future.

 

 

Quantum theory presents its own mathematical difficulties to a block universe in the uncertainty principle, which is due to the non cummutativity of the operators.

 

Incidentally this non commutativity is also present in some classical mechanics.

[Memammal]

The eternalist model certainly has a certain mathematical neatness to it. However, your excision of my reference to evolutionary arms races is telling, as I've since discovered that that was raised by Popper in his discussion with Einstein as an example of the model's apparent absurdity. Maybe I've read something about this in the dim and distant past. It seems to remain an open and valid objection,

I did not intend to ignore your reference and I thought that I dealt with it. The implications of the standard block universe are, simply put - the universe and all events, past, present and future have occurred and are immutable, i.e. the future has already happened. Popper, in his discussion with Einstein, referred to evolution (natural selection) which he regard as being irreconcilable with a (deterministic) block universe. Only, as I have already explained, that is not necessarily the case. Natural selection is genetic adaptation to changing environments, but it could very well be a deterministic "change" as both factors (so-called "causes") might have been "predetermined", i.e. the "effect" is a foregone conclusion and the randomness thereof, or chance, illusionary.

 

Note that my reference to "deterministic" agrees with this definition: In mathematics and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state. This, in essence, describes the standard block universe.

 

Your example entailed exploiting the future, which is a non-event in the standard block universe as the future has already taken place. Any perceived paradox is therefore flawed and illusionary. For example, you may think you are exploiting or changing the future but anything that you do, or attempt to do, has in fact already happened.

 

You raised some very interesting points in your post that deserve further discussion. Some of them appear to be somewhat similar to same Popper's arguments for indeterminism in a block universe (or open-end, or growing block universe). I acknowledge that there are many philosophical alternatives. Even determinism has quite a few varieties of the theme, some with far reaching implications, and may therefore justify an entire discussion on its own.

 

PS. Just so that we are all on the same page - my interpretation of the (standard) block universe implies determinism as per the definition given above (in my second paragraph, i.e. the outcome is inevitable) as well as eternalism.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Memammal