[ExI] Is there an alternative to the block time view?

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2025, 6:28 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>
> > (Splitting off this topic from a previous thread)
> >
> >       >       Do you think this is true? And since I am not a physicist,
> I make no claim, but
> >       >       just wanted to bring this to your attention.
> >       >
> >       > It is true they there remains a consistent notion of causality
> embedded within
> >       > the 4D structure of spacetime, but it is wrong when it says
> relativity remains
> >       > consistent with an objective passage of time.
> >       >
> >       > See this for a more detailed explanation of why relativity is
> incompatible
> >       > with a passage of time: https://philpapers.org/rec/PETITA
> >
> >       I'm sorry, but I am not skilled enough and do not have time enough
> to argue this
> >       point. When it comes to relativity, causality and the passage of
> time, I have to
> >       let other list members who are way more skilled physicists than I
> am step in and
> >       continue the discussion from here. I can only say that based on
> what I see, it
> >       does not seem like it is settled.
> >
> > It has been argued that Einstein's relativity rules out two conceptions
> of time found in the philosophy of time. Those three
> > possibilities are:
> >  *  presentism (only a single point in time, the present, is real, past
> and future states are non-existent and have no reality).
> >  *  possibilism (the past and present are real, but the future is
> undetermined and not set in stone. Once the present catches up to a
> >     future time, it then becomes part of the eternal static past).
> >  *  eternalism (a.k.a. "block time", all points in time, past, present,
> and future, are equally real. There is no objective present,
> >     nor any objective flow of time. "present" is a word only with local,
> indexical meaning, like the word "here")
> > See diagram:
> https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Three-Conceptions-of-Time.png
> >
> > According to these arguments, relativity (even just special relativity)
> rules out presentism and possibilism, and establishes
> > eternalism as the correct theory in the philosophy of time.
>
> I'm hesitant to get into this. I'm not familiar enough with the topic which
> means that in order for me to do you justice, I would probably have to
> spend
> a lot time on it, and that would reduce my replies to a snails pace.
>
> Therefore, I can only conclude, that the question seems far from settled,
> based
> on a quick glance on the wikipedia page.
>
> One fun quote I found:
>
> "Avshalom Elitzur vehemently rejects the block universe interpretation of
> time.
> At the Time in Cosmology conference, held at the Perimeter Institute for
> Theoretical Physics in 2016, Elitzur said: "I’m sick and tired of this
> block
> universe, ... I don’t think that next Thursday has the same footing as this
> Thursday. The future does not exist. It does not!


That seems to be more of an emotional reaction than a rational one. Like
how Tegmark describes the opposition to many worlds consisting mainly of
physicists saying "I hate it!"

Where are the reasons/arguments?


Ontologically, it’s not
> there."[33] Elitzur and Shahar Dolev argue that quantum mechanical
> experiments
> such as the Quantum Liar[34] and the evaporation of black holes[35]
> challenge
> the mainstream block universe model, and support the existence of an
> objective
> passage of time. Elitzur and Dolev believe that an objective passage of
> time and
> relativity can be reconciled, and that it would resolve many of the issues
> with
> the block universe and the conflict between relativity and quantum
> mechanics.[36]



Notice that they frame it as they "believe that an objective passage of
time can be reconciled with special relativity."

Without getting into any arguments, a surface reading of that sentence
implies that special relativity *requires a reconciliation* in order to be
made compatible with an objective passage of time.

In other words, the default interpretation is that they're incompatible.
Otherwise, no reconciliation would be required to make them compatible.


Additionally, Elitzur and Dolev believe that certain quantum
> mechanical experiments provide evidence of apparently inconsistent
> histories,
> and that spacetime itself may therefore be subject to change affecting
> entire
> histories.[37]"
>

This delves into the multiverse which is a separate discussion. As I see
it's all branches of the multiverse exist in a timeless sense. So there is
not merely one block universe, but an infinite collection of block
universes for all possible histories. Observer uncertainty within this
multiverse can explain otherwise hard to explain quantum phenomenon, like
delayed choice experiments, without having to assume retrocausality or any
other kind of history altering effects.


> But I am in no position to judge at the moment, so I'm afraid I have to
> disappoint you by remaining agnostic on the philosophical issues, while
> being
> firmly oriented towards time as we know it, in my every day life. ;)
>


If you would like a quick introduction to relativity and how (and why) it
modifies our conventional conception of time, I might (shamelessly) suggest
my video on the subject:

https://youtu.be/QC52vRmtQoU

If you watch it at 2X it will only take 35 minutes. ��

I am sure it will provide you some nice food for thought, even if it
doesn't settle your opinion one way or the other.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250301/c4b341be/attachment.htm>