A critique of B theory of time

 Critique of B theory of time

In the B theory of time, it is said this is some of the motivations for thinking time travel is possible is time has no inherent directionality, so theoretically at least you could move “forward” or “backwards” in time.

However, if we take B theory of time seriously, if we take a theoretical fundamental particle 14.8 billion years in the later than direction, which for arguments sake comprises my 4D block (P2 in figures 1.1 and 1.2) in the present T1. If it were possible to travel back in time to say 50 years in the later than direction, before I was born, my “parts” that make my 4D block are now in potentially multiple different locations or blocks of other objects/individuals (see figures 1.1 and 1.2). More bizarrely, if I could travel in the past, does my 4D block then perdure in now two separate locations?



So, it seems at least on the face of it, this would contain at least a paradox and more realistically a contradiction, as the things that constitute my 4D block, can’t simultaneously be in two separate locations.

Could time travel be possible on an A theory of time? Typically time is understood to be flowing in one direction in the forward direction, always flowing to the future. However, there doesn’t seem to be any inherent restriction that time couldn’t be “rewound” as it were, meaning if it were possible, we might be able to look back in time, yet have no way to alter times history.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A critique of Symmetry Lost: By Peter Fritz, Tien-Chun Lo, and Joseph C. Schmid

Formal Proof: The RMOA At Best Establishes ¬□g in w0 Objective: My aim to prove that if g (an MGB exists) is metaphysically possible (◇g), the RMOA’s premises P1 (□(g → □g)), P2 (♢g), and P2* (♢¬g) in KT/S4 at best establish ¬□g (it is not necessary that God exists) in the actual world (w0), not ¬g (God does not exist in w0). The derivation of ¬g in w0 is formally valid but metaphysically overreaching, as ◇g implies g is possible in w0, making ¬g possibly false. The conclusion ¬g in w0 requires an unjustified assumption about w0’s metaphysical status, limiting the RMOA’s conclusion to ¬□g. Definitions and Notation: g: An MGB exists, with properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and Omni benevolence. w0: Actual world. w1: A possible world where g holds (for P2). w2: A possible world where ¬g holds (for P2*). ◇p: p is possible (true in some accessible world). □p: p is necessary (true in all accessible worlds). R(w, w’): Accessibility relation (w accesses w’).  KT: Modal logic with ref...
Read more

Is It Fair to Be Judged for Adam’s Sin? A Christian Reflection

A common objection to Christianity is the claim that it is unfair for human beings to be held responsible for Adam’s sin, or to be judged for not loving a God who set up such a system in the first place. The concern feels intuitive; how can the actions of someone who lived so long ago truly represent me? However, the Christian story is far more nuanced and far more hopeful than this objection assumes. Adam as Representative: A Historical Figure and a Type of Humanity In Scripture, Adam functions both as the first human being and as a representative of humanity as a whole. His very name Adam, simply means man or humanity (Genesis 5:2). This dual role suggests that Adam is both: 1. Historically significant — the ancestral starting point of humanity. 2. Typologically significant, a picture of what any human being is like when faced with moral choice. Paul explicitly develops this representative role in Romans 5: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death throug...
Read more

Can Non-resistant Non-belief be compatible with Atheism?

 In my rebuttal of Schellenberg’s Divine Hiddenness argument  I show that:  1. His ultimism doesn't logically entail perfect love. 2. That general (natural theology) and special (the evidence for Jesus Christ) revelation are sufficient for a belief in God. 3. Temporary hiddenness is compatible even within Schellenberg’s framework and only perpetual hiddenness is incompatible with God. My contention in this post is to suggest that the claim, no God exists or it is unlikely God exists, better known as atheism is incompatible with the claim they are a non-resistant non-believer (NRNB). A NRNB is Schellenberg’s notion for those who would believe, had they sufficient evidence to believe such a proposition. He (Schellenberg) gives numerous cases of apparent NRN-Belief; such as those who never even heard of Jesus or a personal God, say for instance 10,000 years ago, or individuals that are truly seeking, yet for no lack of trying, do not believe. I do not want to go over the sam...
Read more