None of them are evidence based as you've been mislead by the preferences of others who have strapped such interpretations to useful epicycles.

The language and metaphor that we use to talk about the concept(s) of time is multifaceted coming from all parts of one's personal experiences incorporating our most deeply held phenomenological biases. Visual experiences motivate the idea of thinking of time as similar to a film strip in that there is an already existent future waiting to be projected while the past has long since been done away with (spot-light view of time). That or we think of time as similar in nature to a substance that has a beginning and end to itself without any change except the illusory irrelevant scanning of our eyes across the length of such a block (the block view of time). Then our own experiences involving cultural biases seem to motivate other philosophies of time such as the growing block from talk of the past as already having happened (it being 'behind' us) while leaving the future unwritten.

I'm fearful that this implies that the choice of one's language is then not a matter of ontology but pragmatic, aesthetic, choice depending on your intentions as to what you desire to do with it. Block theories of time are favored by those of mathematical bents because they allow us to freeze the world into determinate, precise, states to record down mathematical relations among the curves within it. While esoteric philosophies emphasizing the irreducibility of the language of change or who talk about 'rivers of time' rather than film strips will be favored among those closest to Human experience.

That's so interesting. Thank you for sharing your insights about time. According to physicists, time is not on its own, it exists as spacetime.

Time is definitely negative, and there is a relationship between the negative and the positive.

Time is definitely negative, and there is a relationship between the negative and the positive. — Barkon

I don't understand what you mean. Please explain how time is negative.

The only thing we do with time is relate to it.

The only thing we do with time is relate to it. — Barkon

I have never related to time. In what way do you relate to time?

if I asked you 'how long did it take you to make this post', you would then express a relation to time, '10 seconds', from your own perspective of its negativity.

if I asked you 'how long did it take you to make this post', you would then express a relation to time, '10 seconds', from your own perspective of its negativity. — Barkon

I agree that I can measure how much time it takes to do something but how is that negative? 10 seconds is just an amount of time.

you are measuring ticks on a clock, in relation to time.

How is it negative?

If things are expressed in relation to it, but not of it, then it only follows that it is an opposite, negative part of all of the universe.

Not convinced. Time doesn't exist on its own. It exists as spacetime.

ok.

There's also the view according to those like Rovelli who believe in neither presentism or eternalism (as described in his aptly named Neither Presentism nor Eternalism) which rejects the concept of global simultaneity while also affirming temporal becoming as fundamental. I'm actually partial to that idea and it seems like the view that most aligns with what we understand about physics (particularly relativity). I think other physicists mentioned here like RTW Arthur also subscribe to the same idea so it's not particularly new either.

There are some who seem to argue that because the relativity of simultaneity runs counter to the concept of a global time which presentism relies on then a version of eternalism as you've described it must be true, though honestly I think that's a bit of a stretch. Relativity certainly does show that there isn't a global time (assuming we don't introduce a hidden one ourselves arbitrarily) but it doesn't show that time is just another dimension of space. Of course some have suggested that some other form of eternalism is supported by relativity, one where all times "exist equally", but I don't really have an idea what that could mean. There's actually a whole problem in the philosophy of time behind it called the triviality problem which I won't go into here but does suggest that the presentists and eternalists may be talking over each other for the past several decades.

Thank you for the link to the interesting article.

Block theories of time, which posit that past, present, and future exist simultaneously as an unchanging 4-dimensional block, serve as useful conceptual models. However, they may not accurately depict time's fundamental metaphysical reality. The only objective reality, in my view, is the ever-changing present moment. Our sense of the past stems from memory representations, and similarly, our notion of the future arises from imaginative faculties extrapolating potential states based on current knowledge, without objective existence until actualized.

The apparent persistence of past and future is an illusion created by the continuity of conscious experience. As conceived, the past and future are mental reconstructions and projections rather than objectively existing realms within reality's fabric.

Essentially, while valuable conceptual tools, block theories may reflect human cognitive tendencies to construct temporal narratives more than time's underlying metaphysical nature.

If the past still exists, why can't we visit it and change it? — Truth Seeker

a) That would be tampering with the evidence and divine justice forbids.
b) we don't have the time, because we are always busy being present.

Which theory of time is the most evidence-based? — Truth Seeker

Whatever is evident is given as the present; this can include present memory of the past and, allegedly, the more rare foretelling of prophecy. That is all the evidence.

The only objective reality, in my view, is the ever-changing present moment. — punos

I think the ever-changing present moment is a subjective reality because this is what we experience, nanosecond by nanosecond. How can this be objective?

a) That would be tampering with the evidence and divine justice forbids. — unenlightened

What divine justice? How do you know that there is a "divine justice"? What about everything that has ever happened is just?

I think the ever-changing present moment is a subjective reality because this is what we experience, nanosecond by nanosecond. How can this be objective? — Truth Seeker

While our conscious experience of the present moment is inherently subjective, there exists an objective present reality that underlies and gives rise to these subjective experiences. The objective present encompasses the totality of all physical states and interactions occurring in the universe at any given instant, governed by the laws of physics. In contrast, the subjective present refers to the physiological states and interactions within an individual, governed by biological and psychological laws.

This objective present reality exists independently of any observer's perception. Objectivity implies the ability for multiple observers to independently verify phenomena, despite subjective means of perception. Phenomena like the passage of time, existence of space, and presence of matter are considered objective, as they can be independently verified.

Compared to block theories of time positing the simultaneous existence of past, present, and future, the concept of an objective present reality underlying subjective experiences is more parsimonious and aligned with our lived experiences. It acknowledges the objective reality of the present while recognizing the inherently subjective nature of conscious experiences, without requiring the metaphysical assumption of a pre-existing block of spacetime containing all temporal moments.

What divine justice? How do you know that there is a "divine justice"? What about everything that has ever happened is just? — Truth Seeker

Divine justice is usually conceived as tautological. Think "I made the world and I make the rules, so I can do what I like." Tautologies, of course, do not require evidence; whatever happens in the world is evidence of Divine justice. You, for example, will probably come to a bad end for asking such an impertinent question. Or, if Divine justice is tempered with Divine mercy, you may be forgiven. This is the great thing about God, it explains everything, and by looking at creation one can discern His character. It is so useful to any thinker who, when asked impossible questions can happily respond "God knows!"

Thank you for explaining. I agree.

What divine justice? How do you know that there is a "divine justice"? What about everything that has ever happened is just?
— Truth Seeker

Divine justice is usually conceived as tautological. Think "I made the world and I make the rules, so I can do what I like." Tautologies, of course, do not require evidence; whatever happens in the world is evidence of Divine justice. You, for example, will probably come to a bad end for asking such an impertinent question. Or, if Divine justice is tempered with Divine mercy, you may be forgiven. This is the great thing about God, it explains everything, and by looking at creation one can discern His character. It is so useful to any thinker who, when asked impossible questions can happily respond "God knows!" — unenlightened

Sounds like faith, rather than fact. How can the abundance of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world be considered just? I think all the Gods are either imaginary and evil or real and evil. I am an agnostic because I can't know for sure.

If I didn't have a duty of care to others, — Truth Seeker

Sounds like faith. :naughty:

Sorry, I have been winding you up. It was not a serious comment in the first place, I was just amused by your religious phobia.

If I didn't have a duty of care to others,
— Truth Seeker

Sounds like faith. :naughty:

Sorry, I have been winding you up. It was not a serious comment in the first place, I was just amused by your religious phobia. — unenlightened

It's not faith - just circumstances. No apology is needed. I don't have a religious phobia.

Every species came into existence as a result of genetic mistakes. We are all mistakes of nature. It explains our flawed biology and the fact that 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct.

Quoting ChatGPT 3.5:

Here are several examples of design flaws in various organisms:

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in Mammals:

Description: This nerve, which controls the muscles of the larynx (voice box), takes a lengthy and circuitous route from the brain down into the chest, looping around the aorta (or subclavian artery on the right side), and then back up to the larynx.
Flaw: The detour is particularly extreme in giraffes, where the nerve travels an additional 15 feet down the neck before looping back up, instead of taking a more direct route from the brain to the larynx.

Human Spine:

Description: The human spine is a column of vertebrae that supports the body’s weight and protects the spinal cord.
Flaw: The spine is prone to issues such as herniated discs, scoliosis, and back pain because it evolved from a structure that supported a quadrupedal stance, not a bipedal one. The S-shaped curve in humans puts a lot of stress on the lower back.

Human Eye:

Description: The human eye has a retina that is inverted, meaning that light has to pass through layers of cells and blood vessels before reaching the photoreceptors.
Flaw: This setup creates a blind spot where the optic nerve exits the eye because no photoreceptor cells are located there. Some cephalopods, like octopuses, have more optimally structured eyes without this blind spot.

Prostate Gland in Males:

Description: The prostate gland surrounds the urethra just below the bladder.
Flaw: As men age, the prostate tends to enlarge, which can constrict the urethra and cause urinary problems. This placement and potential for growth cause discomfort and health issues.

Human Pharynx:

Description: The pharynx is a passageway that serves both the respiratory and digestive systems.
Flaw: The shared pathway for food and air increases the risk of choking. Unlike in some other animals, the crossover of these pathways can lead to fatal accidents if food enters the trachea instead of the esophagus.

Pandas' Thumb:

Description: Giant pandas have a modified wrist bone (the radial sesamoid) that functions as a thumb.
Flaw: This "thumb" is not a true opposable digit and is much less efficient than the thumbs of primates. It is an example of an evolutionary workaround rather than an optimal solution, allowing pandas to grasp bamboo but with less dexterity.

Vestigial Structures:

Description: These are remnants of organs or structures that had a function in early ancestors but are now either useless or repurposed.
Flaw: Examples include the human appendix, which is prone to inflammation and infection (appendicitis), and the pelvic bones in whales, which are remnants from when their ancestors walked on land.

These examples highlight how evolutionary processes often result in structures and systems that are not optimally designed but rather are modified versions of pre-existing anatomy adapted to new purposes.

The human birth canal presents several design challenges that can make childbirth difficult and risky for both the mother and the baby. Here are the primary issues associated with the "bad design" of the human birth canal:

Pelvic Structure and Bipedalism:

Description: Humans are bipedal, meaning we walk on two legs. This mode of locomotion requires a pelvis that is shaped differently from that of quadrupeds.
Flaw: The human pelvis has evolved to support upright walking, resulting in a relatively narrow birth canal. This narrowness makes it more difficult for the baby to pass through during birth, increasing the risk of complications.

Large Fetal Head:

Description: Human babies are born with relatively large heads to accommodate their well-developed brains.
Flaw: The combination of a large fetal head and a narrow birth canal can lead to obstructed labor, where the baby's head cannot pass through the pelvis easily. This situation can necessitate medical interventions such as cesarean sections.

Twisting Path:

Description: The human birth canal has a complex, curved path that the baby must navigate during delivery.
Flaw: Unlike in many other mammals, where the birth canal is more straightforward, the twisting path in humans requires the baby to rotate during birth. This rotation can add to the difficulty and duration of labor.

Risk of Birth Injuries:

Description: The strain on the mother’s body and the baby during passage through the birth canal can lead to injuries.
Flaw: For the mother, this includes tearing of the perineum, pelvic floor damage, and postpartum hemorrhage. For the baby, there is a risk of shoulder dystocia, where the baby's shoulders get stuck, leading to potential nerve damage or fractures.

Evolutionary Trade-offs:

Description: The evolutionary changes in the human pelvis and birth canal are a result of trade-offs between bipedal locomotion and the need to give birth to large-brained infants.
Flaw: These trade-offs have not led to an optimal solution for childbirth, creating a scenario where human childbirth is significantly more dangerous and painful compared to other mammals.

High Maternal and Infant Mortality:

Description: Historically, and even today in areas with limited access to medical care, the complications arising from the birth canal design have resulted in high maternal and infant mortality rates.
Flaw: The need for medical intervention during childbirth, such as the use of forceps, vacuum extraction, and cesarean sections, underscores the inefficiency and danger posed by the current design of the human birth canal.

These challenges highlight how the evolutionary adaptations for bipedalism and increased brain size have led to significant difficulties in human childbirth, reflecting a complex balance of competing anatomical requirements rather than an optimized design.

Every species came into existence as a result of genetic mistakes. — Truth Seeker

You do recognise that this is strictly nonsensical. don't you? There can be no mistake unless there is a plan. :scream:

Every species came into existence as a result of genetic mistakes.
— Truth Seeker

You do recognise that this is strictly nonsensical. don't you? There can be no mistake unless there is a plan. :scream:

Yes, there can be mistakes when copying genes. When a gene is copied correctly, there is no mistake. When it is copied incorrectly, there is a mistake.

If a gene is copied correctly then there is no mistake. If it is copied incorrectly then there is a mistake. — Truth Seeker

"Exactly", I will allow, but "correctly" implies that the gene was "correct" in the first place, which by hypothesis it never was.

Flaws imply design. You might want to put that to your mechanical chat-buddy, which appears to have a few design flaws of its own.

"correctly" implies that the gene was "correct" in the first place

No, it doesn't imply anything. It simply means that a sequence such as ATCG was copied by mistake as ACCG or ATTG, etc.

OK, one more little try.

Evolution relies on what you call 'mistakes' as you well enough know. And the rate of copying 'mistakes' evolves itself because 'error correcting genes' are also a thing. Thus 'mistakes' or as I like to call them 'variations' are more common in some parts of the genome than others.