Commentary: Physical time within human time

Abstract

A Commentary on Physical time within human timeby Gruber, R. P., Block, R. A., and Montemayor, C. (). Physical time within human time.

Commentary: Physical time within human time

“…Gruber et al ( 2022 ) and Buonomano and Rovelli ( 2023 ) (and many other participants in the debate) share the view known as the “Block Universe,” according to which different times and their contents are similar to different places and their contents—all equally real; indeed, one way to think of times is to identify them with special regions of spacetime (e.g., achronal Cauchy surfaces), but many of those who subscribe to this view tend to believe that objects persist over time by enduring —by being “wholly present” (or “multilocated”)—at many instantaneous spacetime regions. Denying this latter claim does not amount to denying persistence altogether [here, I disagree with Gruber et al ( 2022 ) and side with Miller and Wang ( 2022 )]. It does add more to the analogy between time and space: Objects may persist through time much like rivers persist through space, by having distinct parts at different times.…”

“…Part of the problem lies in the substantive disagreement about what temporal experience involves in the first place (Skow, 2015;Prosser, 2016;Callender, 2017;Phillips, 2017;Sullivan, 2018;Sattig, 2019;Miller and Wang, 2022). At some approximation, which appears to be adopted by Gruber et al and Buonomano and Rovelli, there are three core aspects to our manifest image of time: (i) the notion of a unique objective present (the "time of our lives"), (ii) the perception of time flow, and (iii) an asymmetry between the past and future directions of time: We think of the past as fixed and of the future as open, and we have memories of the former but not of the latter.…”

“…persist over time by enduring-by being "wholly present" (or "multilocated")-at many instantaneous spacetime regions. Denying this latter claim does not amount to denying persistence altogether [here, I disagree with Gruber et al (2022) and side with Miller and Wang (2022)]. It does add more to the analogy between time and space: Objects may persist through time much like rivers persist through space, by having distinct parts at different times.…”

Commentaries for ‘Physical Time Within Human Time’

“…For Aerts reality should not be thought of as the content of our actual present experience, but "encompasses all our 'possible' experiences". Using a different tactic, the non-veridicality of time is expressed strongly by Romero (2023) in another Special Issue on these two target papers. For him temporal properties like change and becoming are not properties of physical events, but of the consciousness of the events.…”

Commentary: “Physical time within human time” and “Bridging the neuroscience and physics of time”

“…As a final illustration, consider GBM's stance on persistence. Miller and Wang ( 2022 ) helpfully point out that the block universe may well be compatible with endurantism and that perdurantism is in any case also a view of persistence. They further conjecture that GBM's view may be that there is no (unchanging core) persisting self.…”