[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > The key point I think is that both the A-theorists and the B-theorists
> > > are partially right.
> > The B-series is easily compatible with the A-series. The point
> > about a block universe is that there is no A-series,
> > not that there is a B-series. This asymmetry makes the
> > situation unlike W/P duality.
> My point was that the philosophers could be wrong ;) i.e a block
> universe does *not* have to mean that there is no A-series.
A block universe is *defined* as a B series without an A series.
> pointing out the possibility that that there could be *both* a block
> universe *and* an A-Block. ]
There *can* be a B series and an A series. You get the
B series for free with the A series. You don't get
the a series for free with the B series.
> I pointed out that this could be possible
> if time had several different components or dimensions associated with
Heard of Dunne?
> If both a block universe and an A-series is possible, then the
> philosophy debate over whether time flows or not would be exactly like
> the debate over whether light is particles or waves.
No, because the situation is not symmetrical.
> Every-one thought
> it had to be one or the other, but it turned out to be both.
> Analogously, every-one thinks time is *either* an A-series *or* a
> B-series, but I'm saying it *can* be both.
Everyone knows it can be both. A block universe is B only,
a dynamic universe is A+B.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at