A vs B Theory of Time in science?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

To say that God exists outside of time already falls into the trap of the antiquated notion of absolute time. Time is not a singular thing. The correct way to say it is to say that God exists outside the space-time structure of the physical universe.

But neither do I believe that God exists within some alternate space-time structure or alternate time. God is not just a being who exists in an alternate universe. But this still doesn’t justify saying that God exists outside of time. Just because God’s existence is not bound within some external space-time structure doesn’t mean God exists outside of time.

Would you, for example, say that God exists outside of intelligence? To be sure God isn’t confined to intelligence any more than God is confined to some space-time structure. Surely God uses intelligence, right? Likewise God uses time… as… He… chooses.

Therefore it is foolish to think God cannot do the same sort of things what we can do which logically require a measure of time. But it does negate the sensibility of asking what God was doing for an infinite time before creation? Such a question falls into trap of the antiquated notion of absolute time which is something science has already discarded.

But that is theology of course… back to science…

@mitchellmckain

It just means the universe is not like a motion picture composed of a sequence of frames or instances (that is not how space-time is structured in the physical universe).

I was expecting someone to ask… well then what is the universe like if it is not like a sequence of instances??? There is the standard answer of Minkowski space-time which draws this picture of a cone separating past and future.

But I doubt that does the job of replacing the idea of the universe as a sequence of instances (like a movie film).

Well… the film is a good approximation at a particular place in space-time like a tangent approximates a curve at a point of the curve. So what you do is carry out the usual sort of succession of approximation where you put together all the tangent lines at every point of a curve. In this case you put a movie film in every inertial frame at every point of space time and you refine the patchwork by adding more and more such films at more such points and inertial frames.

@Paulm12

As for why natural selection has issues under B theory, the issue is all species would be equally old and ageless as the static spacetime block itself. As a result, no development of species can actually occur under B-theory. Evolution is usually defined as change over time, which implies A-theory via survival and reproduction (the order and progression of which is important). If B-theory is true, biologists need to come up with some other metaphysical mechanism for how species “progress.” This is difficult because it would seem causality itself would be out the window (or at least need to be seriously rethought). In other words, time does not seem to be a causal factor evolution under B theory.

That would be like saying there is no changes as you move westward in the United States. And to say the mechanisms for change in evolution don’t work is like saying there cannot be any reasons for the changes as you move west in the United States.

In the B theory you just see time as being like a dimension of space. It is not an eradication of time but just doesn’t see how it is different from a spatial dimension. It is like a drawing of an evolution tree – all drawn out on the same piece of paper. And the reasoning for why those changes still work just fine. If the B-theory ignores anything it is not the changes in time but the many other possible ways that evolution could have played out – those don’t fit on such a evolution tree paper.