“Respond to one of these prompts and be clear about which one you are referring to:
PROMPT #1: A-Theory vs. B-THEORY. Consider this argument: “”The subjective A-theory is inferior to the objective B-theory. For the subjective A-theory does not allow us to give a completely objective account of time descriptions. But the objective B-theory does allow us togive a subjective account of time descriptions.”” Critically discuss this argument.
PROMPT #2: UNCHANGED WORLD. Could there be a world in which there was time, but never any change at all? Explain your answer.
PROMPT #3: FUTURE TIME TRAVEL. Even if backward time travel were possible, you could not change the past. But how about forward time travel? Could you change the future if you traveled into the future? If future time travel were possible, would you do it? Explain your answers.
PROMPT #4: NATURE OF TIME. Is the question of the nature of time a question to be answered by philosophy, or a question to be answered by physics? Explain your answer.
PROMPT #: FATALISM. Suppose you were Osmo and you found the book describing your past and future life in a local library. Would you adopt a fatalistic attitude and why?
And please also provide critical feedback to these two people’s posts.
PROMPT #3: FUTURE TIME TRAVEL
I think it is possible to change the future. Unlike going back to the past, there will not be an issue with the causal loops or grandfather paradox. Since it is the fact that things that are supposed to happen in the future still haven’t happened from the perspective of “”present””, a time traveler is capable of changing the event in the future. However, there will be an issue: retrocausality. Even though this theory hasn’t yet proved, if it were to be true, then effect can precede its cause in time, meaning that a something that happens later actually causes an earlier event in time. Thus, even the time traveler were to try changing the future action, it has already caused an earlier event to happen and that event has happened; thus it is impossible to change the later event. Yet, at the same time, this theory breaks the law of The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that time is driven as we experiment it. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is still capable of changing the future. Also, if future time travel is possible, I would like to travel to three years from now and see what I am doing, but it’s unlikely that I try to change something in the future even it is possible. I believe that I should just follow what will be waiting for me.
In my view, the question of the nature of time is a question to be answered by Physics. The key differentiator between Physics and Philosophy in this case is that Physics is rooted in real world experimentation, and that Philosophy is rooted in a logical process in which the mental processes of humans play a major role. Although Philosophy is needed for answering many of the worlds most important questions, the nature of time has to do with the fundamental nature of the physical fabric of reality, which makes it a question best answered by Physics. Because philosophy is not rooted in real world experimentation, the assumptions that are made have more potential to be untrue. Philosophical assumptions ultimately stem from human reasoning, and are therefore subject to human intuition. We know from fields such as quantum mechanics that many of the most fundamental aspects of the universe are actually deeply counterintuitive, rendering any system that relies more than necessary on human intuition to be unideal.
A substantive post is generally >150 words and introduces a new idea or is a meaningful response toanother person’s post. When responding to another person’s post, please either expand the thought, addadditional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why.