The Infiniteness of Time

[Steve3007]

I don't want to get bogged down in 'O' level physics, but in an X versus Y graph, the slope of the graph is the rate of change of Y with respect to X. ^dy/_dx. That slope can be positive (going up) or negative (going down) or zero (horizontal). If y represents position and x represents time then ^dy/_dx represents velocity because velocity is rate of change of position with respect to time.

[The Beast]

In the “present”, the transformation of reality by consciousness is done by attenuating the former into words, symbols or math. The frame of time is a sequential answer attenuated from a spectrum. It obviously contains many irrational functions due to the imperfection of the stratum. A symbolic form has the capability of ten thousand learned words. See the chart and learn the words. The same is said for math or the exquisite time spent in reading the posts. If reality is what the observer is then if the observer is gone then reality, is a philosophical marionette.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The claim "nothing is happening" is logically impossible. (...i.e. can't make the claim if claims can't happen!).

That statement didn't happen. The statement "nothing happens" does not entail the happening of that statement itself.

So did you make this ("nothing happens") claim? ...or not?

Technically, the question is meaningless without a reference frame.

From a reference point roughly corresponding to the year 100,000,000 BCE near the center of the Milky Way, the Big Bang banged, I made that claim, and the Sun exploded.

If we want to instead talk about things in the more accurate fundamental context of the unchanging block universe that encompasses all of 4D spacetime (including the Big Bang and the death of the Sun), then the whole conversation including that claim timeless exists in the unchanging block universe, as if it the whole block universe was an unplayed unchanging DVD in a reality all by itself with no DVD players.

The statement "nothing happens", this whole conversation, the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, and the death of the Sun all exist in the unchanging 4D block universe.

How can events exist as something "unchanging"?

Calling them "events" may be a bit of misnomer, but they exist in the 4D block universe like movie scenes on an unplayed unchanging DVD movie.

It is logically impossible for 'events' to exist as "unchanging" (un-happening) data. It is precisely the "happening" of these events that make them "exist" in the first place.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean by "happening". Are you using the word to mean "creation"?

If so, then perhaps I can say it like this:

If the events you consider to be in past "happened" (whatever that means), then the events you consider to be in future "happened" too.

I don't know what reference frame you are using, so I will call is Reference Frame X.

A = the so-called 'events' that are in the past according to Reference Frame X.
B = the so-called 'events' that are in the future according to Reference Frame X

C = A "happened"
D = B "happened"

If C, then D.


If you are claiming that A and B must have been 'created' or such to exist, then fine. I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with that.

The point is that past-ness and future-ness don't exist, but are relativistic fictions.

I could be wrong but it seems like you are trying to posit some kind of "conscious present(s)" and assert that things are "happening" (whatever that means) inside of those 'conscious present(s)'. If so, I don't necessarily disagree, but those kind of assertions would transcend current physics and presumably would require disproving solipsism.

If I was to venture to guess what you are trying to say or get at (noting that you would know much better than I so it's a sloppy endeavor on my part), my best bet is that you are trying to say something like the following: Your own personal conscious experience of this conversation is incompatible with the idea that the conversation is not happening (for you in your own personal relative here-and-now in your own personal relativistic Newtonian-like space and time that emerge in relation to that personal subjective here-and-now).

I am saying that we can't experience anything if experiences can't happen, ...therefore we can't logically claim "experiences don't happen".

My response to this will be very different if you are talking about "first-person subjective conscious experiences", meaning (from your perspective) something I don't have if solipsism is true.

It would seem the word "happen" might mean something very different if you mean to refer (1) to something that is "happening" in a first-person subjective conscious way within the alleged conscious experience of to some alleged conscious being versus (2) something physically "happening" (i.e. changing in the block universe thereby violating determinism among other problems).

Assuming for a moment you are right that there is some kind of real time and something is "happening" in/over it (for you at least), if all consciousness anywhere suddenly stopped existing, would that "happening" to which you refer also stop happening?

In any case, I have written down my claims about time in a more structured manner in the following topic:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Needless to say, I'd more than welcome your feedback.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Steve3007, regarding your points with the 2D graph and block time model, if Einstein hand never come up with SR and GR, and if the empirical evidence instead indicated that Newtonian Mechanics were correct, meaning if simultaneity was objective instead of relative and if time-ness and space-ness were fundamentally real and distinguishable., then I would agree with you totally.

However, there are important reasons that the time-and-space model of classical physics must be replaced with timeless spacetime.

A better analogy would be the difference between using a 2D map versus a 3D globe to make a map of the Earth.

Using a 2D map to map the Earth is analogous to using a non-block-model to map spacetime. It just doesn't work.

Does that mean you would be foolish to use a fundamentally 2D map for practical purposes even though you know the Earth is not flat like the map falsely indicates? Of course not, especially at certain very narrow scales and in certain very narrow, where experienced reality matches our intuitions, which is not a coincidence but a matter of evolution. We evolved over millions of years to picture the Earth as flat and the physics as classical, but both are wrong.

There sometimes seems to be not much that me and RJG agree on, but I agree with the thrust of his argument against Scott here. I appreciate Scott's points about General Relativity/The Block Universe and the point that, within that model, the notion of a universal time and the fundamental separation of the dimensions representing time and space don't apply. But to conclude that things like time, change and stuff-happening are illusions is clearly silly.

If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that via reducio ad absurdum we can conclude that one of premises must be false.

Essentially, yes. If we have a model, e.g. General Relativity/The Block Universe, and if we think that model is telling us something like "change doesn't happen" then since change clearly does happen either it's not an accurate model or we've misinterpreted it.

GR isn't saying that per se.

As I was using the words, "change" means violating determinism, at least in terms of the actual physics, ignoring anything going on 'consciously in consciousnesses' whatever that would mean.

Those statements I made to RJG about "happening" were based on two assumption with which I don't necessarily agree but I assumed for the sake of argument:

(1) that if there is no "change" (i.e. violations to physical determinism in terms of the physics of 4D spacetime) then there is no "happening" at all in any conceivable sense word
(2) the assumption that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful

I don't necessarily agree with or even precisely undestanding those two statements, but I temporarily accepted them as assumptions for the sake of argument, and so my other comments and replies in this topic were made in the context of those two assumptions.

I would certainly recommend throwing out those two assumptions long before throwing out Einsteinian physics, namely SR and GR.

Here you lose me again...

In this topic, I was making statements in the context of assumptions I don't actually agree but simply stated I would temporarily accept for the sake of argument. It's possible that caused some confusion. Regardless, I have written down my views on time in a more structured independent and complete way without the aforementioned assumptions, which hopefully make it more clear:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

I would of course love your feedback on that.

[RJG]

The statement "nothing happens", this whole conversation, the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, and the death of the Sun all exist in the unchanging 4D block universe.

How can events exist as something "unchanging"?

Calling them "events" may be a bit of misnomer, but they exist in the 4D block universe like movie scenes on an unplayed unchanging DVD movie.

How can movie scenes exist as something "unchanging"?

-- Movie scenes that don't happen are not movie scenes.
-- Conversations that don't happen are not conversations.
--"Happenings that don't happen" are oxymorons! (logical impossibilities).

Even if we break the movie scenes into smaller scenes, the smaller scenes are just smaller events/happenings. And a "non-happening happening" is still logically impossible.

This universe is not 'static'; it is 'dynamic'. Change undeniably happens. Time undeniably exists.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The statement "nothing happens", this whole conversation, the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, and the death of the Sun all exist in the unchanging 4D block universe.

How can events exist as something "unchanging"?

Calling them "events" may be a bit of misnomer, but they exist in the 4D block universe like movie scenes on an unplayed unchanging DVD movie.

How can movie scenes exist as something "unchanging"?

The "movie scenes" exist as data on the unplayed unchanging DVD.

Even if a DVD player attached to a screen plays the DVD, the DVD itself doesn't (necessarily) change.

But Einstein's block universe can be understood using the metaphor/analogy of an unchanging unplayed DVD that is all that exists. You can just use the metaphor that there is no DVD player, and there is no screen, and there is only the unchanging unplayed DVD.

-- Movie scenes that don't happen are not movie scenes.
-- Conversations that don't happen are not conversations.
--"Happenings that don't happen" are oxymorons! (logical impossibilities).

I don't know what the above three sentences mean or what you are trying to say exactly.

Namely, I don't know what you mean by the word "happen" and "happenings". Are you using the word 'happened' as a synonym for 'created'' and 'happening' as synonym for 'creation'?

If so, then let me re-state what I wrote in my earlier post:

If the events you consider to be in past "happened" (whatever that means), then the events you consider to be in future "happened" too.

I don't know what reference frame you are using, so I will call it Reference Frame X.

A = the so-called 'events' that are in the past according to Reference Frame X.
B = the so-called 'events' that are in the future according to Reference Frame X

C = A "happened"
D = B "happened"

If C, then D.

In other words, if any of it "happened", then it all "happened", whatever that means.

Change undeniably happens.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "happens".

Also, I generally interpret 'change' in this context as necessarily meaning a violation of determinism (e.g. divine intervention via a transcendental entity). It's not clear to me how that would create "time" or that it would, but indeed it would be so magical, mystical, and supernatural that it opens Pandora's Box in terms of what it could or would allegedly mean if the so-called future or so-called past could be changed.

What you would call the future already exists. If what you would call the future (or past) suddenly changes, then that would violate determinism.

[RJG]

How can events exist as something "unchanging"?

Calling them "events" may be a bit of misnomer, but they exist in the 4D block universe like movie scenes on an unplayed unchanging DVD movie.

How can movie scenes exist as something "unchanging"?

The "movie scenes" exist as data on the unplayed unchanging DVD.

But "data" (of the movie scene) is not the same as the movie scene itself. How does the "data" change into a movie scene if change does not exist?

-- Movie scenes that don't happen are not movie scenes.
-- Conversations that don't happen are not conversations.
--"Happenings that don't happen" are oxymorons! (logical impossibilities).

I don't know what the above three sentences mean or what you are trying to say exactly.

I am saying that movie scenes and conversations are actions (events). You say they 'exist' but they exist as non-actions (non-events); actions exist as just "data". So how can an action exist as a non-action??? How can X=~X?

What does that "data" look like???

Is it static??? - If so, then how can it be an action/event?

"Data" is one thing and "action" is another. Two different animals!

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

How can events exist as something "unchanging"?

Calling them "events" may be a bit of misnomer, but they exist in the 4D block universe like movie scenes on an unplayed unchanging DVD movie.

How can movie scenes exist as something "unchanging"?

The "movie scenes" exist as data on the unplayed unchanging DVD.

But "data" (of the movie scene) is not the same as the movie scene itself. How does the "data" change into a movie scene if change does not exist?

If I understand the question, you are asking how the 4D physical data that is the entirety of timeless spacetime turns into your/RJG's own alleged unique conscious experience and/or your/RJG's own alleged unique conscious present; is that what you are asking?

If so, I would make three points:

1. I would argue that the word "turn into" (or 'change') is a misnomer in that context. To go back to the analogy, a DVD player does not (necessarily) change the DVD by playing a would-be scene from it. It doesn't turn the DVD into a movie, per se, but generates a playing movie/scene that exists in addition to and separate from the DVD, and each DVD player generates its own seperate movie/scenes even if they are all playing the same unchanging DVD.

2. Unless you are positing solipsism, then it is important to remember that then there are presumably countless if not infinite consciousnesses(es) across all of objectively timeless 4D spacetime. What you posit about the consciousness of April-25th-2021-RJG must be extrapolated to all humans (and other conscious creatures) across all of 4D spacetime, noting that simultaneity is relative so a creature that April-25th-2021-RJG consciously perceives as existing in its conscious present simultaneity with RJG would itself potentially see RJG's distant future as existing in its present; meaning you can perceive it as existing in your present while it sees your distant future existing it its present and your past existing in its future. Because of the relativity simultaneity, it's important to be very precise about what reference frame is being used when making any time-oriented claims (e.g. whether something exists in a past and shall be spoken about with a past tense, or exists in the future according to some reference point or reference frame).

3. Assuming any kind of real 'present' at all that doesn't encompass all of spacetime (i.e. including would-be past and would-be future) is either a fictional construct based on a made-up reference frame or it is a meta-scientific metaphysical claim, and in that way transcendental and likely unscientific, which doesn't necessarily mean its false. In other words, someone's answer--or some other answer--to the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Observer Problem is probably correct.

What does that "data" look like???

Is it static??? - If so, then how can it be an action/event?

Yes, the data (e.g. the unplayed movie scenes, or pseudo-scenes) stores on an unchanging unplayed DVD is static.

To the best of my memory, I didn't use the word "action" in this context; you did. However, we can use the words pseudo-event, pseudo-action, and pseudo-scene to refer to the would-be events/scenes/movies that exist as static data on the unplayed unchanging DVD that includes the entirety of 4D spacetime including but not limited to the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, all humans ever, and the death of the Sun.

[Terrapin Station]

How can events exist as something "unchanging"?

Calling them "events" may be a bit of misnomer, but they exist in the 4D block universe like movie scenes on an unplayed unchanging DVD movie.

How can movie scenes exist as something "unchanging"?

The "movie scenes" exist as data on the unplayed unchanging DVD.

But "data" (of the movie scene) is not the same as the movie scene itself. How does the "data" change into a movie scene if change does not exist?

If I understand the question, you are asking how the 4D physical data that is the entirety of timeless spacetime turns into your/RJG's own alleged unique conscious experience and/or your/RJG's own alleged unique conscious present; is that what you are asking?

If so, I would make three points:

1. I would argue that the word "turn into" (or 'change') is a misnomer in that context. To go back to the analogy, a DVD player does not (necessarily) change the DVD by playing a would-be scene from it. It doesn't turn the DVD into a movie, per se, but generates a playing movie/scene that exists in addition to and separate from the DVD, and each DVD player generates its own seperate movie/scenes even if they are all playing the same unchanging DVD.

2. Unless you are positing solipsism, then it is important to remember that then there are presumably countless if not infinite consciousnesses(es) across all of objectively timeless 4D spacetime. What you posit about the consciousness of April-25th-2021-RJG must be extrapolated to all humans (and other conscious creatures) across all of 4D spacetime, noting that simultaneity is relative so a creature that April-25th-2021-RJG consciously perceives as existing in its conscious present simultaneity with RJG would itself potentially see RJG's distant future as existing in its present; meaning you can perceive it as existing in your present while it sees your distant future existing it its present and your past existing in its future. Because of the relativity simultaneity, it's important to be very precise about what reference frame is being used when making any time-oriented claims (e.g. whether something exists in a past and shall be spoken about with a past tense, or exists in the future according to some reference point or reference frame).

3. Assuming any kind of real 'present' at all that doesn't encompass all of spacetime (i.e. including would-be past and would-be future) is either a fictional construct based on a made-up reference frame or it is a meta-scientific metaphysical claim, and in that way transcendental and likely unscientific, which doesn't necessarily mean its false. In other words, someone's answer--or some other answer--to the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Observer Problem is probably correct.

What does that "data" look like???

Is it static??? - If so, then how can it be an action/event?

Yes, the data (e.g. the unplayed movie scenes, or pseudo-scenes) stores on an unchanging unplayed DVD is static.

To the best of my memory, I didn't use the word "action" in this context; you did. However, we can use the words pseudo-event, pseudo-action, and pseudo-scene to refer to the would-be events/scenes/movies that exist as static data on the unplayed unchanging DVD that includes the entirety of 4D spacetime including but not limited to the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, all humans ever, and the death of the Sun.

You keep commenting where you're assuming block time. RJG wasn't talking about block time. And block time is obviously incorrect. Why are you holding on to a belief in it?

[Terrapin Station]

When I asked you about block time earlier, I thought you were answering "well, under the assumption of the block time picture" for some reason--because RJG was framing the thread as something about it, but that's not the case. The block time picture is wrong. There's no reason to keep talking about it, unless we want to talk about how off-track theorizing can get.

[Atla]

@Steve3007, regarding your points with the 2D graph and block time model, if Einstein hand never come up with SR and GR, and if the empirical evidence instead indicated that Newtonian Mechanics were correct, meaning if simultaneity was objective instead of relative and if time-ness and space-ness were fundamentally real and distinguishable., then I would agree with you totally.

However, there are important reasons that the time-and-space model of classical physics must be replaced with timeless spacetime.

A better analogy would be the difference between using a 2D map versus a 3D globe to make a map of the Earth.

Using a 2D map to map the Earth is analogous to using a non-block-model to map spacetime. It just doesn't work.

Does that mean you would be foolish to use a fundamentally 2D map for practical purposes even though you know the Earth is not flat like the map falsely indicates? Of course not, especially at certain very narrow scales and in certain very narrow, where experienced reality matches our intuitions, which is not a coincidence but a matter of evolution. We evolved over millions of years to picture the Earth as flat and the physics as classical, but both are wrong.

There sometimes seems to be not much that me and RJG agree on, but I agree with the thrust of his argument against Scott here. I appreciate Scott's points about General Relativity/The Block Universe and the point that, within that model, the notion of a universal time and the fundamental separation of the dimensions representing time and space don't apply. But to conclude that things like time, change and stuff-happening are illusions is clearly silly.

If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that via reducio ad absurdum we can conclude that one of premises must be false.

Essentially, yes. If we have a model, e.g. General Relativity/The Block Universe, and if we think that model is telling us something like "change doesn't happen" then since change clearly does happen either it's not an accurate model or we've misinterpreted it.

GR isn't saying that per se.

As I was using the words, "change" means violating determinism, at least in terms of the actual physics, ignoring anything going on 'consciously in consciousnesses' whatever that would mean.

Those statements I made to RJG about "happening" were based on two assumption with which I don't necessarily agree but I assumed for the sake of argument:

(1) that if there is no "change" (i.e. violations to physical determinism in terms of the physics of 4D spacetime) then there is no "happening" at all in any conceivable sense word
(2) the assumption that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful

I don't necessarily agree with or even precisely undestanding those two statements, but I temporarily accepted them as assumptions for the sake of argument, and so my other comments and replies in this topic were made in the context of those two assumptions.

I would certainly recommend throwing out those two assumptions long before throwing out Einsteinian physics, namely SR and GR.

Here you lose me again...

In this topic, I was making statements in the context of assumptions I don't actually agree but simply stated I would temporarily accept for the sake of argument. It's possible that caused some confusion. Regardless, I have written down my views on time in a more structured independent and complete way without the aforementioned assumptions, which hopefully make it more clear:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

I would of course love your feedback on that.

Change is probably impossible, this should be the logical default view. Change is probably just an everyday convention, but fundamentally a supernatural idea. All spatiotemporal past, present, and future exist within the block universe all at once. And the dimensions of this block universe are probably circular, if you could go in a straight line long enough, not only would you end up where you started in space, but also in time.

It's simply a fact of life that humans are organisms that need to exist in a direction of (at least locally) increasing entropy, that's how we can evolve, grow, learn, form memories etc. Humans are bound to a direction within the 4D block universe, these moments stitched together may create the appearance of change.

[Terrapin Station]

@Steve3007, regarding your points with the 2D graph and block time model, if Einstein hand never come up with SR and GR, and if the empirical evidence instead indicated that Newtonian Mechanics were correct, meaning if simultaneity was objective instead of relative and if time-ness and space-ness were fundamentally real and distinguishable., then I would agree with you totally.

However, there are important reasons that the time-and-space model of classical physics must be replaced with timeless spacetime.

A better analogy would be the difference between using a 2D map versus a 3D globe to make a map of the Earth.

Using a 2D map to map the Earth is analogous to using a non-block-model to map spacetime. It just doesn't work.

Does that mean you would be foolish to use a fundamentally 2D map for practical purposes even though you know the Earth is not flat like the map falsely indicates? Of course not, especially at certain very narrow scales and in certain very narrow, where experienced reality matches our intuitions, which is not a coincidence but a matter of evolution. We evolved over millions of years to picture the Earth as flat and the physics as classical, but both are wrong.

There sometimes seems to be not much that me and RJG agree on, but I agree with the thrust of his argument against Scott here. I appreciate Scott's points about General Relativity/The Block Universe and the point that, within that model, the notion of a universal time and the fundamental separation of the dimensions representing time and space don't apply. But to conclude that things like time, change and stuff-happening are illusions is clearly silly.

If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that via reducio ad absurdum we can conclude that one of premises must be false.

Essentially, yes. If we have a model, e.g. General Relativity/The Block Universe, and if we think that model is telling us something like "change doesn't happen" then since change clearly does happen either it's not an accurate model or we've misinterpreted it.

GR isn't saying that per se.

As I was using the words, "change" means violating determinism, at least in terms of the actual physics, ignoring anything going on 'consciously in consciousnesses' whatever that would mean.

Those statements I made to RJG about "happening" were based on two assumption with which I don't necessarily agree but I assumed for the sake of argument:

(1) that if there is no "change" (i.e. violations to physical determinism in terms of the physics of 4D spacetime) then there is no "happening" at all in any conceivable sense word
(2) the assumption that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful

I don't necessarily agree with or even precisely undestanding those two statements, but I temporarily accepted them as assumptions for the sake of argument, and so my other comments and replies in this topic were made in the context of those two assumptions.

I would certainly recommend throwing out those two assumptions long before throwing out Einsteinian physics, namely SR and GR.

Here you lose me again...

In this topic, I was making statements in the context of assumptions I don't actually agree but simply stated I would temporarily accept for the sake of argument. It's possible that caused some confusion. Regardless, I have written down my views on time in a more structured independent and complete way without the aforementioned assumptions, which hopefully make it more clear:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

I would of course love your feedback on that.

Change is probably impossible, this should be the logical default view. Change is probably just an everyday convention, but fundamentally a supernatural idea. All spatiotemporal past, present, and future exist within the block universe all at once. And the dimensions of this block universe are probably circular, if you could go in a straight line long enough, not only would you end up where you started in space, but also in time.

It's simply a fact of life that humans are organisms that need to exist in a direction of (at least locally) increasing entropy, that's how we can evolve, grow, learn, form memories etc. Humans are bound to a direction within the 4D block universe, these moments stitched together may create the appearance of change.

You can't have an appearance of change without there actually being change. You can't "go in a straight line" or evolve or grow or learn, etc. without change.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

RJG wasn't talking about block time. And block time is obviously incorrect. Why are you holding on to a belief in it?

I disagree that "block time is obviously incorrect". In fact, I think the opposite; I think the block spacetime model is obviously correct. However, you may be right that it is off-topic in this particular thread. Instead, you can see my full argument and attempt to refute it if desired in the following topic:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.


***

Change is probably impossible, this should be the logical default view. Change is probably just an everyday convention, but fundamentally a supernatural idea. All spatiotemporal past, present, and future exist within the block universe all at once. And the dimensions of this block universe are probably circular, if you could go in a straight line long enough, not only would you end up where you started in space, but also in time.

It's simply a fact of life that humans are organisms that need to exist in a direction of (at least locally) increasing entropy, that's how we can evolve, grow, learn, form memories etc. Humans are bound to a direction within the 4D block universe, these moments stitched together may create the appearance of change.

I agree.

I suspect many confusions stem from a conflation between (1) time versus (2) what some could call a "conscious present" (i.e. consciousness itself or something that emerges from consciousness and its alleged interactions with the rest of the universe/reality). Thus, someone making that false conflation would likely misinterpret Einstein's physics as denying consciousness rather than merely denying time.

The spacetime model and Einstein's physics prove that time and space are reducible to timeless spacetime, but that is completely different subject than alleged "conscious presences" in or transcending spacetime. To refuse the reduction of space and time into timeless spacetime is as counter-science, and in my opinion as absurd, as refusing to accept the reduction of electricity and magnetism into electromagnetism.

[Terrapin Station]

I disagree that "block time is obviously incorrect". In fact, I think the opposite; I think the block spacetime model is obviously correct. However, you may be right that it is off-topic in this particular thread. Instead, you can see my full argument and attempt to refute it if desired in the following topic:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

The simple fact that you're suggesting that I look at an argument of yours and then attempt to refute it is already a more than sufficient refutation of "block time" insanity. Seriously, it's one of the most idiotic things ever suggested as a serious ontological stance. It's fine as an instrumentalist approach to doing equations where time doesn't matter, but it shouldn't be reified into anything more.

[Atla]

@Steve3007, regarding your points with the 2D graph and block time model, if Einstein hand never come up with SR and GR, and if the empirical evidence instead indicated that Newtonian Mechanics were correct, meaning if simultaneity was objective instead of relative and if time-ness and space-ness were fundamentally real and distinguishable., then I would agree with you totally.

However, there are important reasons that the time-and-space model of classical physics must be replaced with timeless spacetime.

A better analogy would be the difference between using a 2D map versus a 3D globe to make a map of the Earth.

Using a 2D map to map the Earth is analogous to using a non-block-model to map spacetime. It just doesn't work.

Does that mean you would be foolish to use a fundamentally 2D map for practical purposes even though you know the Earth is not flat like the map falsely indicates? Of course not, especially at certain very narrow scales and in certain very narrow, where experienced reality matches our intuitions, which is not a coincidence but a matter of evolution. We evolved over millions of years to picture the Earth as flat and the physics as classical, but both are wrong.

Essentially, yes. If we have a model, e.g. General Relativity/The Block Universe, and if we think that model is telling us something like "change doesn't happen" then since change clearly does happen either it's not an accurate model or we've misinterpreted it.

GR isn't saying that per se.

As I was using the words, "change" means violating determinism, at least in terms of the actual physics, ignoring anything going on 'consciously in consciousnesses' whatever that would mean.

Those statements I made to RJG about "happening" were based on two assumption with which I don't necessarily agree but I assumed for the sake of argument:

(1) that if there is no "change" (i.e. violations to physical determinism in terms of the physics of 4D spacetime) then there is no "happening" at all in any conceivable sense word
(2) the assumption that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful

I don't necessarily agree with or even precisely undestanding those two statements, but I temporarily accepted them as assumptions for the sake of argument, and so my other comments and replies in this topic were made in the context of those two assumptions.

I would certainly recommend throwing out those two assumptions long before throwing out Einsteinian physics, namely SR and GR.

Here you lose me again...

In this topic, I was making statements in the context of assumptions I don't actually agree but simply stated I would temporarily accept for the sake of argument. It's possible that caused some confusion. Regardless, I have written down my views on time in a more structured independent and complete way without the aforementioned assumptions, which hopefully make it more clear:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

I would of course love your feedback on that.

Change is probably impossible, this should be the logical default view. Change is probably just an everyday convention, but fundamentally a supernatural idea. All spatiotemporal past, present, and future exist within the block universe all at once. And the dimensions of this block universe are probably circular, if you could go in a straight line long enough, not only would you end up where you started in space, but also in time.

It's simply a fact of life that humans are organisms that need to exist in a direction of (at least locally) increasing entropy, that's how we can evolve, grow, learn, form memories etc. Humans are bound to a direction within the 4D block universe, these moments stitched together may create the appearance of change.

You can't have an appearance of change without there actually being change. You can't "go in a straight line" or evolve or grow or learn, etc. without change.

Of course you can, but there is no "you" that remains constant while traveling through an apparently changing world.