Atheist kids these days...

[sologdin]

Block Universe Theory

a little fast & loose with the term theory, though.

[Francis Buck]

Isn't the very idea of decisions nullified when you have no passage of time?

Is it? Why?

This kinda hits on what I'm desperately trying to articulate. All of these things that "happen", no matter what they are (chemical processes, the expansion of the universe, conscious creatures making decisions)...they do "happen". It's not like they haven't occurred. But they were still always going to occur, and already have. We, as conscious creatures, suffer from a side-effect of reality in which we only perceive these things as happening in succession, because for some reason that's how consciousness works. I know that sounds like a lame explanation, but look at this way: To me, it's similar to the way, say, ancient China thought they were basically the entire world. Or when we thought Earth was the center of the universe. I think time, in particular the concept of "time flowing", is an extremely anthropocentric (or, more likely, sentience-centric) way of thinking. Which is why it's so damn hard to talk about. Our brains aren't built to really understand this shit, in the same way that we can't imagine a brand new color (nor can we describe what a color looks like to a blind person). We can grasp the concept of it, but not the execution, so-to-speak.

So, to your answer question Sci (I think, I don't really know), timelessness has no apparent effect on decision making, because time is something conscious beings construct to make decisions. "Time" is a made-up idea we're attributing to a reality we do not fully understand (again, like solidness, but much more extreme and ingrained -- even essential -- to our consciousness). It's a fundamental method of interacting with reality.

[Sci-2]

@Solo: What's wrong with using the word theory there?

@Francis:

So, to your answer question Sci (I think, I don't really know), timelessness has no apparent effect on decision making, because time is something conscious beings construct to make decisions. "Time" is a made-up idea we're attributing to a reality we do not fully understand (again, like solidness, but much more extreme and ingrained -- even essential -- to our consciousness). It's a fundamental method of interacting with reality.

I sort of get this, though if you're correct why consciousness would arise to perceive time, or even why the universe would behave consistently with a unidirectional arrow of time, escape me.

[Gillio]

Guys I'm really enjoying this discussion, though I've little to add!

re time, I've always thought our perception of time fluctuates with experiences, a year being forever to a child, but flying past to an adult; a boring lesson drags, the time to complete an exam goes to quickly, not sure if this ties in anywhere, though.

[TheSwordmaker]

i didnt readmuch of the thread but is this actually about atheism because if it is this is the right thread for me :cheers:

[TerraPrime]

i didnt readmuch of the thread but is this actually about atheism because if it is this is the right thread for me :cheers:

It is about atheism.

But honestly, you're not making a good entrance by simply stating you hadn't been bothered to read even the first 10 posts.

[IheartTesla]

We, as conscious creatures, suffer from a side-effect of reality in which we only perceive these things as happening in succession, because for some reason that's how consciousness works.

Two things: The universe existed long before consciousness. And there are physical laws that explicitly involve the passage of time.

[Francis Buck]

Two things: The universe existed long before consciousness. And there are physical laws that explicitly involve the passage of time.

I don't get your point.

[Nas!]

Interesting that this thread came to be, as I can only date Athiests. God-Lovers and people outside 'the industry' just don't interest me. I'm not sure why, but it really cuts down on the number of people in my dating pool, I have to say. If only life weren't so complicated. Sad face emoticon.

[Gears of the Beast]

Interesting that this thread came to be, as I can only date Athiests. God-Lovers and people outside 'the industry' just don't interest me. I'm not sure why, but it really cuts down on the number of people in my dating pool, I have to say. If only life weren't so complicated. Sad face emoticon.

If the issue never came up at all I wouldn't really give a fuck whether they believe in Jesus, Yahweh or Cthulu but if they're all preachy and it actually impacts things they do then I can see what you mean. I wouldn't set up atheism as a prerequisite for dating me.

[delete this account pls]

Call me harsh but I think Snowden should definitely be charged with treason.

[Sci-2]

@Gillio: There's this paper by a guy named Valera - which I admittedly didn't finish (yet?)- that I think goes into the importance of how we perceive time's passage with respect to human consciousness.

Will try to find it.

Two things: The universe existed long before consciousness. And there are physical laws that explicitly involve the passage of time.

I don't get your point.

IheartTesla -> Doesn't seem like either of the things you state contradict Francis's idea, which seems to actually be [a] variation on Block Universe Theory. Apparently some people think it's the best way to view reality:

Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?

This paper pursues two aims. First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve the debate on whether the world is three-dimensional or four-dimensional. The argument advanced in the paper is that if the world were three-dimensional the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly the experiments confirming them would be impossible.

It's late, so I'm not going to read this paper now but comments from physicists and physics aficionados is most welcome....largely because I suspect I won't understand much of it.

The stuff I posted earlier about train tracks is a mix between Block Universes and Many Worlds. Can't recall who came up with that idea either.

[TheSwordmaker]

It is about atheism.

But honestly, you're not making a good entrance by simply stating you hadn't been bothered to read even the first 10 posts.

um i understand this but i skimmed it because i dont have time to read all 13 pages :ack:

[sologdin]

reading is hard.

[TheSwordmaker]

reading is hard.

:agree: honestly it is sometimes

[Balefont]

reading is hard.

No, reading is tricky. The Great Maverick says so.

[Lummel]

and apparently superfluous

[Errant Bard]

I respect those who read, but I was raised in a non-reading culture, and I don't believe in reading myself.

[Francis Buck]

Francis's idea, which seems to actually be [a] variation on Block Universe Theory. Apparently some people think it's the best way to view reality:

It's funny, i've heard of Block Universe Theory before, never actually knew what it was or looked it up. But after reading some about it (including a bit of the very interesting paper you posted), it would appear that, yes, I do support Block Universe Theory. Or at least, I support Eternalism -- never knew that was a thing either.

The one point that stood out in particular, and was kinda what I was trying (and mostly failing) to get at with all the solidness analogies and the other mumbo jumbo, was the idea that because of the way our brains work, we have a natural inclination to think of the past and the future as "non-existent". That's part of why time-travel is so instinctively paradoxical (aside from all the, you know, actual paradoxes) -- our common sense says that the past doesn't exist, or that it's "gone". I think this idea in particular is really, really anthropocentric (or, again, sentience-centric), and doesn't have much bearing on how reality actually works.

@Solo: What's wrong with using the word theory there?

I'm now curious about this as well.

ETA: Solo, I'm assuming you're referring to the inherent (as of yet) untestability of it, like string theory?

[Errant Bard]

[...] this idea in particular is really, really anthropocentric (or, again, sentience-centric), and doesn't have much bearing on how reality actually works.

Hmm, how do you define reality without perception?