Thread: No such thing as time

Just ran across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._E._McTaggart

In The Unreality of Time (1908), the work for which he is best known today, McTaggart argued that our perception of time is an [illusion][1], and that time itself is merely ideal1. He introduced the notions of the "A series" and "B series" interpretations of time, representing two different ways that events in time can be arranged. The A series corresponds to our everyday notions of past, present, and future. The A series is "the series of positions running from the far past through the near past to the present, and then from the present to the near future and the far future" (p. 458). This is contrasted with the B series, in which positions are ordered from earlier to later, i.e. the series running from earlier to later moments.

McTaggart argued that the A series was a necessary component of any full theory of time, but that it was also self-contradictory and that our perception of time was, therefore, ultimately an incoherent illusion.

[edit] The Necessity of the A series
The first, and longer, part of McTaggart's argument is his affirmative answer to the question "whether it is essential to the reality of time that its events should form an A series as well as a B series" (p. 458). Broadly, McTaggart argues that if events are not ordered by an A as well as a B series then there cannot be said to be change. At the centre of his argument is the example of the death of Queen Anne. This event is a death, it has certain causes and certain effects, it is later than the death of Queen Elizabeth etc., but none of these properties change over time. Only in one respect does the event change:

"It began by being a future event. It became every moment an event in the nearer future. At last it was a present event. Then it became past, and will always remain so, though every moment it becomes further and further past. Thus we seem forced to the conclusion that all change is only a change in the characteristics imparted at to events by their presence in the A series" (p. 460).

Despite its power and originality this half of McTaggart's argument has, historically, received less attention than the second half.

[edit] The Incoherence of the A series
What is most often presented as McTaggart's attempted proof of the incoherence of the A series (the argument of pages 468-9) appears in the original paper only as a single part of a broader argument for this conclusion, but it can be extended to have general application. According to the argument, the contradiction in our perception of time is that all events exemplify all three of the properties of the A-series, viz. being past, present and future. The obvious response is that while exemplifying all three properties at some time, no event exemplifies all three at once, no event is past, present, and future. A single event is present, has been future, will be past, and here there is, it seems, no contradiction.

McTaggart's great insight is that this ascent will apparently give rise to a 'vicious circle' or 'infinite regress'. On the one hand, the response depends upon the A-series to make sense. To distinguish the properties of being present, having been future and going to be past requires a conception of time divided into past, present and future, and hence of the A-series.

"Accordingly the A series has to be pre-supposed in order to account for the A series. And this is clearly a vicious circle" (p. 468).

The same difficulty can be represented as a 'vicious infinite series' (infinite regress). One can construe the response above as "constructing a second A series, within which the first falls, in the same way in which events fall within the first" (p. 469). But even if the idea of a second A series within which the first falls makes sense (and McTaggart doubts it does, p. 469), it will face the same contradiction. And so, we must construct a third A series within which the second falls. And this will require the construction of a fourth A series and so on ad infinitum. At any given stage the contradiction will appear; however far we go in constructing A series, each A series will be, without reference to a further A series containing it, contradictory. One ought to conclude, therefore, that the A series is indeed contradictory and, therefore, does not exist.

right. It probably says in the article some where that almost nobody actually takes his argument seriously. I'm an "A-Theorist" myself if you want to read about it. I don't think that I'm quite a standard one though.

I essentially reject his argument that the A-series is inconsistent by saying that the A-properties (or is it attributes? can't remember) are not an intrinsic property of the time but only relative locators. So it's no problem to have them be different from one time to another.

Well i could have guessed that.

There is only movement, no time. Objects shift positions in the universe.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Well i could have guessed that.

There is only movement, no time. Objects shift positions in the universe.

But then how do they move? isn't time just the difference between two states of the universe?

But once you reach the second state the first one ceases to exist. So there can be no difference between them, since there is only one.

where are when you are between the two states?

in another state. Its just like matter, it can be divided ad infinitum.

I'm not sure that matter can do that. I'm not sure that time can do that either.

Well, if strings are real, then what are they made of? Just another smaller particle. And that particle is made of something else.

We cant possibly conceive a particle of matter that is made of nothing

String theory is highly theoretical and, honestly, universities have stopped hiring string theorists because they don't have any fundamental principles, they don't have any equations (only power series expansions of equations that might not exist) and they don't have any predictions and they've been at it for 30 years, reformulate all the time without getting anywhere and have nothing but a lot of very pretty mathematics, a very nice idea and a killer PR campaign.

But string theory takes them as being fundamental. The standard model takes quarks as being fundamental. Atomism makes sense but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

But i mean the concept is still there. There cant be a particle that doesn't consist of anything. Whether or not strings are real

I apply that same concept to come up with the idea that time doesnt exist

Quantum Field Theory, which the standard model is based on, considers particles to be local instantaneous field interactions. A photon is just the electromagnetic field interacting with itself for instance. So Fields would be fundamental. But as far as particles go, it's quarks, leptons (like electrons, positrons, etc) and gauge bosons (like photons, gluons and the proposed graviton).

lol i know this is annoying but what is the quark made of?

etc etc

I just told you

where does the EM field come from?

I was never good at math and such

No body knows. I guess we're in the philosophy forum. It's basically atomism vs. that other view that scientists don't really believe in these days so I don't know its name.

To me it seems reasonable that atomism is correct and there being fundamental units of time, space, mass, energy, etc. If you feel otherwise, I guess we just disagree.

You may be right but we have to take it one level at a time for the time being. Maybe after we've looked at more, a pattern will emerge and we can make real statements but right now, everything seems to point towards atomism.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

lol i know this is annoying but what is the quark made of?

etc etc

The quark isn't made of anything. It's as small and as basic as you can go. Why does it have to be made of something smaller?

Because, if it cant be made of anything, then how can it be considered "something" or "a thing"?

Originally Posted by Avatarus

i was implying.


i was simply saying that time exists, which is fact, and then i gave my reason for why i once believed it didnt but also highlighting where the confusion for many was coming from.

people can understand that time exists but they, of course not meaning us, sometimes dont realise that time is a governing factor like gravity, its not something thats born in matter.

for example a rock can be heavier or lighter without 'changing' its structure. much like perceived time can move faster or slower without 'changing' the observer.

?

Er, I meant LOWER your probability of any one event occurring. I was tired ;_;

The rest of your post made me go 'wat' though.

Time is a property of space. What are you talking about?

Sometimes i wonder why i bother.
Thats just a general reflection on this whole 'philosophy' forum.

I wish it was the days of the true philosophers before science was uncovered, people didnt get bogged down wth stupid details because they never had any, all they had was rhetoric and conjecture.

Im not getting dragged into science fair debate when im looking for a bit of philosophical back and forth. My Bad, i know. bonne nuit

Originally Posted by Avatarus

the faster you travel the slower times moves, this is a science fact.
so the question becomes what is the measurement used that we call time?

is it something that all atoms contain or is it a governing factor like gravity?

i believe in the latter.

Is it not a fact that all atoms contain a small amount of gravity? Thus, your statement is tautological.

Originally Posted by Avatarus

Sometimes i wonder why i bother.
Thats just a general reflection on this whole 'philosophy' forum.

I wish it was the days of the true philosophers before science was uncovered, people didnt get bogged down wth stupid details because they never had any, all they had was rhetoric and conjecture.

Im not getting dragged into science fair debate when im looking for a bit of philosophical back and forth. My Bad, i know. bonne nuit

You mentioned science in your very first sentence.

Don't be a hypocrite.

Furthermore, do not forget that having science has furthered our knowledge far greater than what the ancients could have. They could only theorize but never empirically demonstrate. Only Noetic sciences will argue otherwise and they are fringe pseudo-science. Are you saying it is better to bicker, speculate, and spew conjecture rather than know and critically scrutinize?

~