• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Block Universe Theory

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Vedanta holds that desh-kala (space-time) is imagined in non dual unchanging consciousness. Is modern physics approaching the same view? Below is a summary of Block Universe Theory


.........

If you find the idea of time travel mind-bending, get a load of the 'block universe'

What I do tomorrow makes tomorrow the way it is, and the way it always has been. What I do in the past makes the past time the way it is, and always has been.

If I travel to the past, I am part of the past. Importantly, I was always part of the past.

The events in the block are there for all time: they do not change. So, as a time traveller, it's not as though I suddenly appear at a past time. It's always been the case that I am located at that past time.

Nothing a time traveller does changes anything in the block. Instead, what the traveller does at any time makes that time, and later times, the way they are.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Vedanta holds that desh-kala (space-time) is imagined in non dual unchanging consciousness. Is modern physics approaching the same view?
Though I do not believe in 'non-dual unchanging consciousness", dimensions and time fold and unfold. I believe existence and non-existence are only phases of 'what exists' (in Hindu parlance, 'Brahman'). When it folds up, dimensions and time are gone.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Vedanta holds that desh-kala (space-time) is imagined in non dual unchanging consciousness. Is modern physics approaching the same view? Below is a summary of Block Universe Theory


.........

If you find the idea of time travel mind-bending, get a load of the 'block universe'

What I do tomorrow makes tomorrow the way it is, and the way it always has been. What I do in the past makes the past time the way it is, and always has been.

If I travel to the past, I am part of the past. Importantly, I was always part of the past.

The events in the block are there for all time: they do not change. So, as a time traveller, it's not as though I suddenly appear at a past time. It's always been the case that I am located at that past time.

Nothing a time traveller does changes anything in the block. Instead, what the traveller does at any time makes that time, and later times, the way they are.
Quantum mechanics is inconsistent with the deterministic block universe theory. For any observer, the future does not exist apart from a mind-numbingly large set of probability states given by the current quantum state. Its another of the places where QM and GR contradict one another.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Vedanta holds that desh-kala (space-time) is imagined in non dual unchanging consciousness. Is modern physics approaching the same view? Below is a summary of Block Universe Theory


.........

If you find the idea of time travel mind-bending, get a load of the 'block universe'

What I do tomorrow makes tomorrow the way it is, and the way it always has been. What I do in the past makes the past time the way it is, and always has been.

If I travel to the past, I am part of the past. Importantly, I was always part of the past.

The events in the block are there for all time: they do not change. So, as a time traveller, it's not as though I suddenly appear at a past time. It's always been the case that I am located at that past time.

Nothing a time traveller does changes anything in the block. Instead, what the traveller does at any time makes that time, and later times, the way they are.

I believe this is going beyond the knowledge of contemporary view of physics and cosmology with subjective philosophical/theological assumptions.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Quantum mechanics is inconsistent with the deterministic block universe theory. For any observer, the future does not exist apart from a mind-numbingly large set of probability states given by the current quantum state. Its another of the places where QM and GR contradict one another.

Thank you. I understand that many physicists are opposed, particularly Lee Smolin.

A Debate Over the Physics of Time | Quanta Magazine

However, there are others who seem to agree and even are working towards reconciliation with QM.

The quantum theory of time, the block universe, and human experience

My interest is limited to the question as to how will physics eventually incorporate human awareness in an unified model. Is it possible?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you. I understand that many physicists are opposed, particularly Lee Smolin.

A Debate Over the Physics of Time | Quanta Magazine

However, there are others who seem to agree and even are working towards reconciliation with QM.

The quantum theory of time, the block universe, and human experience

My interest is limited to the question as to how will physics eventually incorporate human awareness in an unified model. Is it possible?
I don't know, since the future is open ended :p . Depends on how long we survive as a species I suppose.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Hmmm...I've not heard it called the 'block universe', but most of modern cosmology considers the universe as spacetime with causality happening *within* this four dimensional structure.

So, I'm not really sure what is new here.

As for QM, it is possible to have a *very strict* determinism be consistent with QM, but it at the level of the precise interactions are completely determined along with the geometry of spacetime. It is ALL determined in that model (which I do not advocate, by the way).
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
Vedanta holds that desh-kala (space-time) is imagined in non dual unchanging consciousness. Is modern physics approaching the same view? Below is a summary of Block Universe Theory


.........

If you find the idea of time travel mind-bending, get a load of the 'block universe'

What I do tomorrow makes tomorrow the way it is, and the way it always has been. What I do in the past makes the past time the way it is, and always has been.

If I travel to the past, I am part of the past. Importantly, I was always part of the past.

The events in the block are there for all time: they do not change. So, as a time traveller, it's not as though I suddenly appear at a past time. It's always been the case that I am located at that past time.

Nothing a time traveller does changes anything in the block. Instead, what the traveller does at any time makes that time, and later times, the way they are.



"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Einstein

I personally believe that there should be words for two types of time, time which flows and time as viewed as four-dimensional. I believe in both.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I know of no modern physical cosmology that include consciousness in their models.

Like shunyadragon said, your block universe model is more of philosophical or religious view than that of science.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Vedanta holds that desh-kala (space-time) is imagined in non dual unchanging consciousness. Is modern physics approaching the same view? Below is a summary of Block Universe Theory


.........

If you find the idea of time travel mind-bending, get a load of the 'block universe'

What I do tomorrow makes tomorrow the way it is, and the way it always has been. What I do in the past makes the past time the way it is, and always has been.

If I travel to the past, I am part of the past. Importantly, I was always part of the past.

The events in the block are there for all time: they do not change. So, as a time traveller, it's not as though I suddenly appear at a past time. It's always been the case that I am located at that past time.

Nothing a time traveller does changes anything in the block. Instead, what the traveller does at any time makes that time, and later times, the way they are.


Have you ever tried to help someone and no matter how you tried nothing worked out? You will not be allowed to interfere with the lessons of another. Often times they must go through the struggle in order to learn and if you take that struggle away, they will not learn.

Your Block idea basically describes the results, however it is a bit more fluid. This block can exist within free will. On the other hand, just like the person trying to stop someone else's lesson, the time traveler will have limits. After all, God isn't going to allow lessons to be changed on a mass scale over a large amount of time. Hopefully, when one acquires the knowledge of time travel capabilities, one will also arrive at the knowledge not to tapper too much with the perfection laced within it all.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Have you ever tried to help someone and no matter how you tried nothing worked out? You will not be allowed to interfere with the lessons of another. Often times they must go through the struggle in order to learn and if you take that struggle away, they will not learn.

Your Block idea basically describes the results, however it is a bit more fluid. This block can exist within free will. On the other hand, just like the person trying to stop someone else's lesson, the time traveler will have limits. After all, God isn't going to allow lessons to be changed on a mass scale over a large amount of time. Hopefully, when one acquires the knowledge of time travel capabilities, one will also arrive at the knowledge not to tapper too much with the perfection laced within it all.

Please elaborate.
 

Riju

Rijju
I know of no modern physical cosmology that include consciousness in their models.
Like shunyadragon said, your block universe model is more of philosophical or religious view than that of science.

There is surely a need to understand some aspects of subjective experience of flow of time from POV of physics. Objectively, time does not pass, physics reveals no such phenomenon.

Some people do pay attention to such fringe concerns.

The quantum theory of time, the block universe and human experience
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5073/1/Transtemporal_Phenomenal_Consciousness.pdf
 

Riju

Rijju
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Einstein

I personally believe that there should be words for two types of time, time which flows and time as viewed as four-dimensional. I believe in both.

Nicely said. Please see the previous post of mine.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There is surely a need to understand some aspects of subjective experience of flow of time from POV of physics. Objectively, time does not pass, physics reveals no such phenomenon.

Some people do pay attention to such fringe concerns.

The quantum theory of time, the block universe and human experience
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5073/1/Transtemporal_Phenomenal_Consciousness.pdf

It still remains you are approaching this from a philosophical perspective for an explanation of the relationship of consciousness and subjective human experience with our physical existence, which does not reflect the objective verifiable evidence of the physical nature of our universe.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
There is surely a need to understand some aspects of subjective experience of flow of time from POV of physics. Objectively, time does not pass, physics reveals no such phenomenon.

Some people do pay attention to such fringe concerns.

The quantum theory of time, the block universe and human experience
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5073/1/Transtemporal_Phenomenal_Consciousness.pdf
Fringe or not fringe, you forget neither physical science (physics, chemistry, Earth science and astronomy), nor life science deal with the WHO questions. These sciences only deals with WHAT & HOW questions.

These sciences of nature (hence Natural Science is combine of physical science and life science together), required any explanations or knowledges to be subjected to some strict requirements:
  1. Falsifiability
  2. Scientific Method
  3. Peer Review
Scientific Method involved a whole heap of steps that it must follow, but in the nutshells, these are -

(A) formulating the hypothesis (explanations, mathematical models, predictions) and
(B) testing (eg observation via evidence discovering/gathering or test results from experiments) and analysis of the evidences.​

Evidence should be observable/detectable, quantifiable, measurable, testable/verifiable/refutable.

Without evidence that support any falsifiable hypothesis or falsifiable scientific theory, then they are merely unsubstantiated claims/specifications.

Trying to introduce a time traveler into these sciences are purely philosophical speculations than anything else.

Do you remember what I said about science requiring evidence?

Well this, Block Universe Theory (BUT), would fall under the unsubstantiated speculation.

It isn’t a scientific theory, despite the suffix “Theory” attached to the end of “Block Universe”, because 3 requirements (eg Falsifiability, Scientific Method, Peer Review) of Scientific Theory must be met. And BUT doesn’t meet them.

And since it cannot meet the Falsifiability requirement, therefore BUT doesn’t even has “Hypothesis” status.

So where does that leave Block Universe Theory?

Well, does BUT meet the requirements to be a THEORETICAL model?

Theoretical models, like theoretical physics or theoretical astrophysics (eg String Theory, M-Theory, Supersymmetric String Theory (or shortened to Superstring Theory), Multiverse models, Oscillating Universe model, etc) are not science, but have the potential of being “science”, are mathematically feasible (proofs), hence the word “theoretical”.

Theoretical science isn’t science, because a theoretical model isn’t testable or not based on evidence. As I said repeatedly science require evidence, theoretical models don’t have evidence, but it does have maths, hence proof...hence a theoretical model is a proof-based model.

Proof is a logical or mathematical model in the form of equation, formula or constant/metric.

A theoretical model rely on proof, meaning trying to find solution in maths, not in evidence.

So to give you a real world example. Theoretical physicists have been working on trying to two current fundamental scientific theories - General Relativity & Quantum Physics - into one unified theory - the Theory of Everything (ToE).

You would know these attempts at reaching ToE as String Theory and Superstring Theory. They have been unsuccessful...so far.

There have been some theoretical models that have become science (hence, scientific theories), like General Relativity, the Big Bang theory, more recently Higgs Boson.

It took almost 50 years for to discover the Higgs boson. Peter Higgs came up with the Higgs mechanism back in 1964. This particle was discovered in 2012-13 during the experiments with Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

Anyway, does the Block Universe Theory meet the theoretical status?

From the look of atanu’s links at the OP, then the answer is “no”.

What you’d call fringe science, I would call it pseudoscience.
 

Riju

Rijju
It still remains you are approaching this from a philosophical perspective for an explanation of the relationship of consciousness and subjective human experience with our physical existence, which does not reflect the objective verifiable evidence of the physical nature of our universe.

That is odd.
 

Riju

Rijju
Anyway, does the Block Universe Theory meet the theoretical status?

From the look of atanu’s links at the OP, then the answer is “no”.

What you’d call fringe science, I would call it pseudoscience.

It is surely not pseudoscience. It flows out of Einstein’s theory of relativity. There is a discussion between Karl Popper and Einstein regarding the implications.

EarlierI has linked a paper on the subject and I am delinking it.

The quantum theory of time, the block universe, and human experience
...
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It is surely not pseudoscience. It flows out of Einstein’s theory of relativity. There is a discussion between Karl Popper and Einstein regarding the implications.

EarlierI has linked a paper on the subject and I am delinking it.

The quantum theory of time, the block universe, and human experience
...

I would not necessarily consider it pseudoscience, but it is based on a great deal of Philosophical speculation concerning the relationship of Quantum Mechanics to consciousness.

What is lacking is the objective verifiable evidence of this relationship.
 
Top