Post to the Forum!

« | Main | »

March 13, 2012

Comments

James Grindeland

Many people play the relativity card as a reductio against A-theories. There then comes to be a kind of stalemate: A-theories and anti-scientific, while B-theories are practically unbelievable.

However, the following video aims to reconcile A-theory with Einstein's relativity theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUB7d8MnPvM. Does it work?

zara

Wow that was odd. I just wrote an amazingly long thoughts but after I frequented submit my thoughts didn't appear. Grrrr... well I'm not composing all that over again. Anyway, just recommended to say amazing blog!

M. Polo Camacho

The experience of time in perception is most interesting, I think. Been reading some literature on timing mechanisms in psychology (Simon Grondin, mostly) and find that there is something to be said about discrete cognitive mechanisms constructing our perception of time, albeit at the second and microsecond level.

Richard Hanley

Just a clarification. The A-series and B-series are not the same as what have come to be called the A and B-theories of time. For instance, the A-series is supposed to entail the B-series; whereas the A-theory and the B-theory are supposed to be incompatible.

So which distinction are you referring to?

Marcus Morgan

The idea of internal space gets back to Kant and his internal categories (being awareness) and to Einstein and his internal properties (being masses). It is a relative view, and the external is an absolute, as by Newton (a void for all massive spaces) and Darwin (reproduction for all aware beings).

Newton enables a view of the internals from the outside, to a framework of absolutes, regardless of the fact that each internal sees the world from its perspective. Thus masses have absolute laws, properties, and so on, even though measured relatively and inevitably distorted within that absolute.

Einstein's enclosed view prevents analysis of any absolute mechanical interfaces of particles and fields producing relative views, as his space is continuous and without such interfaces in void (as Newton might see them). You are most welcome to read my entire treatise in my book The Human Design (non spiritual) http://home.iprimus.com.au/marcus60/1.pdf

Marcus Morgan

My sincere apologies, please substitute time for space in the above explanation. In my theory, they are inextricably bound as separate phenomena, as the internal and external spaces and times of awareness and cosmology.

Valdi Ingthorsson

Just a clarification about R. Hanleys comment. Even though it is perhaps true that the A- and B-series are not the same as the A- and B-theories, then this is not because the theories are incompatible while the series are compatible. The story is a little more complicated. The A- and B-series refer to two ways that events can be ordered, either in succession from the far future to the distant past (A-series), or as earlier than and later than (B-series). The A-theory then says that these two ways are compatible, i.e. that if events are ordered as an A-series then they are also ordered as a B-series; future things are later than present things, and past things earlier than present things. So the A-theory holds that events are ordered like an A-series and a B-series. However, they also claim that unless the events are ordered like an A-series they are not strictly speaking ordered as a B-series because the terms 'earlier than' and 'later than' would not be applicable to a series of events that held permanent positions in time. The B-theory however denies that the B-series requires the A-series and holds that events in time are only ordered as a B-series, in particular because the proponents of the B-series tend to think that the A-series is contradictory.

The comments to this entry are closed.