Hot answers tagged

11

If time is entirely running backward, no, because our memories would be destroyed rather than created as it ran. As a consequence, in any given moment (which is all that we can actually perceive) everything would appear as it would for time running forward.


5

I don't know what it means for time to be running backward. Time doesn't run and it is going nowhere. The idea of time running backward comes from the scientific representation of time as a numerical variable, and of the passage of time as an increase of the value of this variable. This suggests a scenario where this value would instead decrease. However, ...


4

Short version I would argue that Durkheim seemed to think that the a priori character of space as a unitary frame across all rational beings was a threat to the socially determined plurality of representations of space his empirical approach showed and tried to capture. This, I would argue further, is a misinterpretation since it confused socially determined ...


4

You must realize that "common sense" views about the operation of the physical world are of no use at all when considering the earliest times in the big bang. In that regime (of order ~ one Planck time) the concept of time itself loses its physical meaning i.e., it makes no physical sense to talk about time intervals shorter than the Planck time (...


3

I'm not sure if Dunnes' claim had a more logical ground, but from modern science like GR, spacetime should be better understood not as some real ontological absolute existence or substance like a container or a stage, but as a kind of base manifold illusion perceived from external quotient relation between mass and its affine connection fields. There was a ...


3

There are several questions here and dozens of possible answers. I suggest reading up (via SEP) on presentism, eternalism, the problem of change, persistence, moving spotlight theory, dispositions, powers, Cartwright on laws, Hume on laws, and causation w/in epistemology and metaphysics. There are a range of views and summarizing them here is unnecessary ...


3

here is a very condensed summary of the process of getting the scientific community to seriously entertain your new theory. you must familiarize yourself with everything already accomplished in that field of study. If you cannot demonstrate your knowledge & mastery of that field, no one in it will have any reason to take you seriously. And whatever your ...


2

No, except if you are willing to apply some twists to his writings. From late antiquity scholastics adopted a distinction between "perpetuity" and "eternity"; much has been written on the topic but there are good introductions to the topic e.g. Siniossoglou (2005) Time, Perpetuity and Eternity in Late Antique Platonism. Roughly put &...


2

The problem will all paradoxes of this particular sort is actually a problem of language: we don't have a good way (in spoken language or specialized languages like mathematics) to conceptualize tensors. The paradoxes work by slicing movement into a series of discrete, static positions separated by instantaneous movements between those positions, as though ...


2

Yes, we could. In addition to the above, this has a cognitive aspect. The usual illustration of entropy is a" disordering" process that can be visualized relative to what we are used to seeing, a bit like Hume's idea of induction as our habituation to the sun rising daily, that's it. So reversals of entropy are sometimes illustrated by coffee and ...


2

Short Answer 'Theory' is used by both scientists and philosophers, and the nature of space and time is still very much the domain of the philosophy of science, as opposed to science proper. Long Answer According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the vernacular 'theory' comes from Latin: 1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from Late Latin theoria ...


1

I seem to recognise that quote, it is from either Wikipedia or my web site, I wrote both. Dunne's argument was that, in a four-dimensional block spacetime, such as Minkowski space, there was no unique moment of "now". On any given timeline, any "now" would have to be chosen arbitrarily. But clocks tick away steadily and we experience time ...


1

Technically speaking, the term 'hypothesis' refers to a claim derived from a theory, particularly one that is subject to testing. A theory is (as a rule) too broad and general to be tested in and of itself. A hypothesis becomes an exemplar of the theory — an expression of the theory as applied to a specific context — which can then be put into practice. For ...


1

This is something St. Augustine wrestled with in Book 11 of his Confessions. He concluded that the only time we really perceive is the present. I'm not sure what would count as a proof that the past exists. Our own memories about the past are often flawed and incomplete. We all often forget or misremember our own pasts. Think of The Mandela Effect. I don't ...


1

Imagine that time is nothing more than difference or change. If every single particle kept its location, there would be no time. This falls within how B-series proponents look at time. Well what if some particles just moves so quick our brains can't see the changes? Nothing moves infinitely quick. There is a speed limit given by SR and GR. Each snapshot can ...


1

We don't know time is continuous at small scales. But I don't think anyone claims it is. You have asked several questions. But Is time real? does not seem to be one of them (1) Is time continuous at small scales? Experience tells us time seems to be continuous at large scales, but that might just be a consequence of it being divided into very small frames ...


1

Your comments "I do not believe in anything until it has strong and concrete evidence, especially experimental evidence" and "I believe in B-theory because it is a physical fact about the universe and it has experimental evidence (general/special relativity" Do not agree with: "A-theorists are aware of these criticisms, and there are ...


1

In the discussion about time in *Physics, bk IV, with "sphere of the whole", Aristotle is referring to the theory of Celestial spheres and in particular to the outermost one, that contains everything. [§14, 223b13] time is measured by motion [...] time is thought to be the movement of the sphere, viz. because the other movements are measured by ...


1

There’s something a little strange about your framing. Linear time is a dimension, but that doesn’t mean temporally extended bodies are travelling - we don’t think of a Cube as multiple copies of a square created as squares move through space, but rather it is its own three-dimensional shape that happens to have a square cross-section. What you see as “a ...


1

'Going' backwards in time, would subjectively appear exactly like going forwards in time, because time IS the spreading out of information, so to 'go' backwards would be to withdraw information about you from the world, and information about the world - ie, forgetting. This is premised on the idea such 'going' is even possible, which implies time as a ...


1

In absolute sense there is nothing called Time. Time is an illusion. The term, 'Advaita' (Non-dual) itself denies even the slightest difference that might arise when we say oneness; since there must be a second thing to say oneness. 'To experience advaita' in this life itself is possible; assures this vedanta. Then, as you mentioned, there must never be two ...


1

Human beings tend to accept that everything must be traced back to something else, or an origin, starting point; on the contrary, we can very easily accept the fact that something may exist and proliferate forever in the future. Why is that? Perhaps (an intuitive/implicit) understanding (of) the concept of entropy helps (some) humans accepting world views ...


1

19th Century proponents of Time as a fourth physical dimension included Gustav Fechner (under the pseudonym of Dr. Wises) and C.H. Hinton. The idea was popularised by H.G. Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine. Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein soon gave it its modern formulation. It is motivated by the idea of a "block Universe", of a ...


1

To understand Time is a physical entity OR Mathematical dimension We need to understand the Dimension first: Dimension: It can be defined as the measure of a particular property of an entity. Basic dimensions: Mass, Length, Time, Temperature etc. We can clearly make a distinction for spatial dimension; Length is just a mathematical dimension but certainly ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible