6

I've always treated eternalism and the B theory of time as largely synonymous and thought they just refer to the perspective of viewing the universe as a single static entity with "slices" or "instants".

I read here https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/30362/27054 that eternalism is a metaphysical theory and the B theory of time is a semantic theory, but I'm not exactly sure what that means in this context. What would an eternalist but non-[B theory] viewpoint look like, for instance?

  • 3
    It is a very legalistic distinction in that A/B theories regulate which claims can be legitimately made about time, while presentism/eternalism are concerned with the nature of time itself. So technically, one could combine eternalism (future events already exist) with A theory by using some extra property of "moving present" to ground tense intutitions, but that is just confusing and almost never done. – Conifold May 30 '17 at 23:42
  • 1
    Hi. I find the claim that the B theory is "semantic" rather than "metaphysical" strange, and probably wrong. McTaggart's essay, which originated the B theory notion, was about metaphysics, not semantics. One subtle point is that, at least for McTaggart himself, the B theory was not a theory of time at all. He believed that only the A theory was recognizable as a theory of time. And that if the A theory fails (as he also believed, and argued for) then time just does not exist. – Ram Tobolski May 31 '17 at 19:47
3

Special Relativity could be considered an eternalism that does not admit a B-Theory of time.

Spacetime is a single 4-dimensional object. So this is an eternalism. But simultaneity is not the same across different locations, so there is no B-series.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.