[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Home]
Re: Re: a note about time
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Yes, with hindsight determinism is quite the wrong term. As for your points on relativity I really don’t know enough to comment (although I did get a copy of Einstein’s selected papers for Christmas, so I’m sure I will come back to this), but one way out would be to claim that the problem is epistemological rather than metaphysical. Two people disagree, but one of them is in fact correct, even though whichever one it is that is correct is unknowable. Not very convincing I’ll admit, but maybe something to think about. You are quite right in saying that my conclusion is by definition true. I flagged it up because I think it is an amusing little curiosity rather than a major problem, although I think it may have some implications for the way that modal and temporal concepts interact. I agree it seems more natural to think of time as an additional property of the universe but that may just lead one out of the frying pan and into the fire. There are problems then with reconciling time with change. That said I am coming round to that view myself.
X
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Wilson <kw503@york.ac.uk>
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Date: 03 Jan 2006 12:11:49 +0000
Subject: Re: a note about time
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'the universe being at time t', but if
a 'time' is just a particular configuration of all the matter and energy
the universe then you'd also need to provide a definition of simultaneity.
According to the special theory of relativity, observers travelling at
different speeds will disagree about which events are simultaneous, and
there is no 'objective' frame of reference that can be used to resolve the
matter.
Also, if by determinism you mean that things could not have been different
at any particular time, then your conclusion is true by definition.
However, if you take it as meaning that the state of the universe at time
t+1 can be precisely predicted from its state at time t, then the scenario
you describe could (I think) still be non-deterministic. Just because the
universe was at a particular state at time t is not to say that it could
not have been different (where 'could have been' is cashed out in terms of
some counter-factual theory of causation, such as David Lewis's possible
worlds explanation, mad though it is), and this is true of both
deterministic and non-deterministic universes. Of course, you might then
want to say that because things are different, the alternate state no
longer represents the same 'time', which seems peculiar, but perhaps this
is because the word 'time' is now being used in a slightly different sense?
In general, it seems more natural to think of a time as being an additional
property of the universe rather than its actual state. Otherwise, if the
universe were to reach the same state more than once then you would have to
say that it did so 'at the same time', which seems wrong.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Lowe and say that although 'time'
may exist (as a process), there are no such things as 'times' and we should
exclude them from our ontology. (And as for a completely random suggestion
as to what time is: could it be something to do with the way that the
possible becomes actual? Just a thought...)
- Keith
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml