Skip to main content

Time: The A Team

LeeSmolinAtHarvard.JPG

Philosophers who discuss the nature of time sometimes talk of the "A series" view versus the "B series" view. Here's the Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series

The terminology goes back to the work of Scottish Hegelian McTaggart, writing a little more than a century ago. But the 21st century meaning of the labels may be a bit different from what McTaggart had in mind.

"A-series" includes any view to the effect that the intuitive non-philosophic notion of time is more-or-less correct --there is a moving "now" and things that weren't real yesterday will become real tomorrow when the moving "now" gets there. The "B-series" view (again, in my imperfect understanding) is the view that there is only a single block universe already including tomorrow and next century etc. -- and the moving "now" is an illusion.

McTaggart's work neatly coincided (in whatever time is) with Albert Einstein's, though McTaggart seems not to have been influenced by contemporary physics. As Einsteinian physics became widely known, McTaggart's B-series seemed to many to be a clear statement of its philosophic consequences, and it has been widely adopted. A-series folks have been on the defensive ever since, especially in academia.

Lately, though, some A-series folks have been making some noise, suggesting a desire to play offense. Tim Maudlin represents the philosophy department and Lee Smolin represents the physics department within this incipient rebellion. That's a photo of Smolin, above.

Here's a link to a paper by Maudlin: http://philpapers.org/rec/MAUTTA-2

Maudlin isn't really arguing, if I understand him, that Einstein was wrong. He seems to be saying that A series could be rendered consistent with special relativity, though it would apparently involve some as yet undone spade work. Instead of spatializing time, Einstein could be re-worked to temporalize space.  Or something like that. I'm clearly out of my depth here, though I'll keep floundering rather than seeking the safety of the kiddie pool where I belong.

Maudlin's ally Smolin, again speaking with the qualification "if I understand correctly", does want to say that Einstein was wrong in important respects. Here's the Amazon page for his book, Time Reborn.

Here's the Wikipedia page on Smolin. He is certainly credentialed: a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Harvard University in 1979, postdoc research at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (Einstein's old stomping grounds, I believe) , and various high-level professorships.  If anyone in the world can criticize Einstein without being hopelessly out of his depth, it would be someone with that resume.

Anyway, those who know me will have figured out by now that all my sympathies are with the A team.

Comments

  1. There's a chance you're qualified for a complimentary $1,000 Amazon Gift Card.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…