McTaggart on Time (Part 1/2)

[@marcopinuelas8889]

great explantion about a-series and b-series. my professor explained it in a more convoluted way and it took me while to decipher it. you cleared up everything i was doubtful about. thanks!

[@15PinkDiamonds]

great video! helped me organize for my midterm coming up :)

[@unclerandy398]

Wished I watched this incredible video before I wasted 3 hours on lectures lol

[@miguelfonseca1104]

earlier you got one fact incorrect. The nature of existence was published in 1921 and 1927 (it was two volumes, the second one after his death with the help of C.D Broad). the year 1908 was when mctaggart first published independently his argument for the unreality of time. This argument was later included in the nature of existence.

[@Amaterasu_990]

Love the graphics!

[@velintangardzhiev8616]

Talk more about his conception on "..the immortal souls and love between them.."?

[@wyattschirrick6437]

What is the song used at the end? Sounds like some black metal

[@DrBowersOfficeHours]

It's my college band, and yeah we certainly aimed to sound like black metal. Here's a link to the song, "Nocturnal Grace": drive.google.com/file/d/1qFVDcxWpftMPHR5p84BvJFtePQjBTbkE/view?usp=sharing

[@OrionMitchell]

Props for making your video future proof.

[@kgcolor]

Great vid

[@samnader]

Awesome Vid

[@OfficialAlgathonix]

Thank you god

[@cannos09]

both make sence but im confused on how either theory conflicts

[@DrBowersOfficeHours]

+Nicholas Haley Thank you! I'm glad they both make sense. The A-series and the B-series do not conflict. They are compatible. The A-theorist, in fact, believes in an A-series *AND* a B-series. An A-theorist thinks that events are ordered in a certain way, on a timeline, *AND* that, in addition to this, there is a fact about which moment is the objective *present*, i.e. the "moving now." So the A-theorist believes in both an A-series *AND* a B-series. However, the B-theorist is different. The B-theorist believes in a B-series. She thinks that events are laid out in a certain order--some earlier and some later than others. However, the B-theorist does *NOT* believe in an A-series. She does not think there is such a thing as an objective present, or a "moving now," or anything like that. The B-theorist does not believe in both an A-series *and* a B-series; the B-theorist only believes in the B-series. So, to sum up, it's like this. I wanted to show that the A-series and the B-series are *different*. I was not trying to show that they are incompatible, or that they conflict. They don't conflict. However, the A-THEORY and the B-THEORY *DO* conflict. The A-theory accepts the reality of an A-series *and* a B-series, while the B-theory accepts only the reality of a B-series, while denying the reality of an A-series. This was a good question; thanks!

[@cannos09]

+Dr. Bowers' Office Hours thanks alot! your really good at explaining the details of these two theories!

[@brunoadipietro9912]

+Nicholas Haley I think I can help you, Nicholas (and I hope it is not to late for that, haha!). In the A-Series, time comes to us. I mean: the future is coming to the present, and once it became present, it starts going further away in the past. Is like we stand still, watching, and time goes by. In the B-Series, however, is the opposite: we go further and further into time, 'cause it is fixid. I mean: my next birthday is fixed at a position, witch for me is in the future, but for it does not have time at all, it is just there. I am going to it, not the opposite. Got it? I hope I helped, hehe!

[@thamaster6196]

The way I see it, the conflict is that between a static and a non-static ontology. B-theorists advocate a completely static and unchanging ontology. The objects and relations that make up the ontology never change, they are forever locked in place, whereas A-theorists imagine an ontology which, somehow, is in some sort of "flux". It also seems important to A-theorists that the future is somehow "undecided" or "open", whereas everything is already fixed according to B-theorists, including the future. So questions about determinism are related. (However, also according to B-theorists there could be true *subjective* indeterminism, if for instance the many-worlds-interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct). My view is that it may be possible to describe the Reality using both a static or a non-static ontology. But any information that can be encoded in a non-static ontology must be possible to encode in a static ontology, hence the static ontology should be a safe bet. And, because there are for certain many problems with A-theory, a B-theoretic ontology is by far the best and simplest way of doing ontology. Thanks Dr Brower for a terrific video!

[@pilleater]

AxA

[@metatron4890]

I want a four dimensional cat.

[@Raymot1]

Get rid of the damn music, please!

[@dreamadream8322]

😥😣😣😣

[@synthetic_paul]

Mctaggart was such a dweeb

[@Phantomrasberryblowe]

Paul Sintetos U mad bro?