Experiencing Time by Simon Prosser

[Philosophy Now]

Heather Dyke passes time reading about a denial of the passing of time.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/124/Experiencing_Time_by_Simon_Prosser

[jayjacobus]

Humans invented time to track events, schedule activities and time tasks. Analyzing the reference to time doesn't analyze real time. The a series is an index. What's wrong with that? We find the index of events useful for planning. While the index may be fixed, where we are on the index is not fixed. The b series is a sequence. Seeing events in a sequence is useful as well. The sequence may be fixed but, again, where we are in the sequence is not.

But using the a series and the b series is looking at time as a whole. The whole is seen not to be dynamic but the present is dynamic and, if it weren't, there would not be any past or future. What is happening in the present is motion and change. Motion and change are not time but are the results of time (real time). Real time is real. All other times are memories or projections. Real time needs an explanation because all other times come from real time. Approaching real time from the a series or the b series makes real time dependent on those series when of course real time is not dependent on any series. Motion and change are dependent on the last states and the current impact of energy.

[jayjacobus]

The article says, “if no physical system can detect the passage of time, then neither can the human mind” (p.35).

But this is not true. A clock shows the present time and also the relation of the present time to past and future times. Moreover, the brain must do the same showing both the present time (state) and at least one other time (state in memory?) Prosser doesn't seem to recognize how memory can reveal past moments and even a whole sequence of moments. The duration of now is hard to determine because the brain apparently creates a duration that is subject to varying conditions. Either that or the mind interprets what the brain produces in varying ways.

But it is not the human mind that produces duration but the brain.

[Noax]

Ms Dyke seems to provide more of a synopsis than a review in this article.
The exception is in calling it an extended (and opinionated) defense of Prosser's position.

Prosser argues for what he calls B-theory (or perdurance). A/B-series are just different ways to reference moments in time, but are not philosophical stances in themselves. Called B-theory, not B-series, usually implies such a stance as this author seems to be taking.

Prosser's arguments about the detectors for time flow sound fairly primitive. I've seen better arguments for perdurance than the ones put forth in this synopsis here.

Two comments, mostly on Prosser's position and not Heather's reporting of it:

Prosser further argues that, on any acceptable view of the relation between mind and body, “if no physical system can detect the passage of time, then neither can the human mind” (p.35).

If he says this, Prosser is admitting a bias for relationship of mind supervening on the physical. This is fine, but the arguments only hold weight when considered in this light. The arguments are invalid for say a dualistic relationship. I hold his positions myself, but don't label them as the 'only acceptable views".

[detector arguments analysis] arguably deals quite a blow to the A-theory,

Perhaps, but nonexistence of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. It applies to flowing time as much as it does to god and teapots.

[jayjacobus]

[detector arguments analysis] arguably deals quite a blow to the A-theory,

Perhaps, but nonexistence of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. It applies to flowing time as much as it does to god and teapots.

Rivers flow, pendulums swing, cars move, planets orbit but time seems to have a constant action. I think that time has a repetitive action. Do I have evidence? No, but why not?

[jayjacobus]

When Ms. Dykes says, "Whether we think of it as an A-series or a B-series, the entire history of the universe contains the very same physical events in the very same order.", the physical events are at real time. The memories of the physical events are memories of sounds, images and sometimes odors but there is no memory of energy or mass. So there is no way way to determine the mass and energy of a truck (or any other object) just from the memory. Instead of physical events she should say representations of physical events.

[jayjacobus]

When Ms. Dykes says, "Whether we think of it as an A-series or a B-series, the entire history of the universe contains the very same physical events in the very same order.", the physical events are at real time. The memories of the physical events are memories of sounds, images and sometimes odors but there is no memory of energy or mass. So there is no way way to determine the mass and energy of a truck (or any other object) just from the memory. Instead of physical events she should say representations of physical events.

If the post seems to be nitpicking, it's not. When we consider the past we are considering memories and records of the past. We are not referencing anything physically present. We are considering portrayals of the past. The portrayals exist. The past is not present.

By constructing the fourth dimension, the physicists put the portrayals in the fourth dimension. But the fourth dimension is not discernible so what value are the portrayals? The portrayals in the fourth dimension are not physical events and not discernible. In fact when people people reference the past they are referencing the memories and records that exist in the present. They are not referencing the fourth dimension which they can't discern.

Just to beat a dead horse, dates do not index the physical universe. They index the record of past states of the universe. What they index is not physical but a portrayal of what was once physical but is not now. Space-time comes from the index of dates so space-time refers to non-physical references as well. The logic that puts physical anything in the fourth dimension is not logically sound.

[jayjacobus]

He, Prosser, thinks that there is no objective distinction between past, present and future, and that time is not dynamic.

I will tell him the difference: In the present a person has an image of a physical event. For the past a person has an image of an immaterial event.

In addition the present is active which means dynamic.

[jayjacobus]

Perhaps the A series is seeing the wake of the ship leading to the ship and the B series sees the ship creating the wake of the ship. The present wake does lead to the ship but the past ship creates the wake. Are the past ship and the present ship two different ships? I don't think so. I think they are the same ship at two different states (times).