The metaphysical distinctions between the time theories presented and issues regarding representing temporal notion’s diagrammatically

1. Objective:
Outline the Sections 1-3 of Storrs McCall’s ‘Objective Time Flow’.
Storrs McCall, ‘Objective Time Flow’, Philosophy of Science, 43, 1976: 337-48.
Focus:
The metaphysical distinctions between the time theories
presented and issues regarding representing
temporal notion’s diagrammatically.

2. 1. The Mind-Dependence Theory of Temporal Becoming
Objective vs. Subjective
Grünbuam’s Mind Dependency.

3. t
Departure Point: Minkowski’s diagram (p338)
No segmentation of time: Past; Present; Future Future
‘Events simply occur in space-time in the sense of
having spatiotemporal locations.’ Subjective Present
Not Anisotropic
Past
Grunbaum’s Observer: splits

4. Contrasts to Reichenbach:
Seemingly objective
‘Physical opposed to psychological’
Future, Probabilities
Becoming = Becoming determined (339)
Split: Probabilities vs. Actualities.
Grunbaum’s Response: ‘being determined is a
relative matter.
Past, Actualities
Fails to identify unique present but many.
Becoming= Becoming attribute-specific (340)

5. 2. An Objective Model of
Temporal Becoming
If independent of observer must be
ontological not epistemological.
Models = ‘Universe Pictures’
A. Traditional Minkowskian View
B. Distinguished Branch Theory
C. Multiple Reality Theory
D. Dynamic Theory

6. Must be ‘dynamic’ to represent time flow
A-C are static.
A model: does not change universe picture
(assuming temporal progression) (341)
indifferent to determinism and indeterminism.
(one or the other depending if right sort of function
connections)

7. Theory B is an indeterministic model, like all
remaining.
Each Branch a 4D Minkowskian manifold.
One is “distinguished” -> Actual history of the
Universe -> Model A.

8. Photographic Plate
(341) (x)
(t + t)
(t)
Abstract choices Slit
represented by lines:
No value attributed by Past Path of
distance between lines. Photon
Not restricted by light cone
3D added complication

9. Theory C lacks ‘actual branch’ (342)
All equally real
Phase know as universe means all
Basis for Everett-Wheeler interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics

10. A-C all static.
Only D has many Universe pictures
Varies with time. (t)  (t + t)
Therefore, what is one paper is a
frame
All others before have not been
frames

11. Form never changes. Just moving point
A B C

12. Shows a number of frames but
cannot demonstrate them as a
series which negate one another.

13. 3. Relativistic Time-Flow
Theory D is as yet incomplete (343)
How do you attribute arbitrary event to past or future?
1. Special Relativity Light Cone Split

14. 2. Relative to each moment in time ->
spacelike
hyper-surface orthogonal to the time axis
at that it divides.
t
(Frame)

15. Rotation vs. Translation Along
regarding Lorentz transformation
We might think of the universe as a bush from which
we cut an infinite number of brooms, one for each
frame-time.
Misrepretational- Model restricts future construction.
Relative to perspective not observer.
Less of an object…time dependant.

16. Diagrammatical representation
points:
Limitations of static graphs
Frame vs. entirety
Issue of spatial values representing
temporal values
Added complications of diagrams being
perceived as 3D