(February 11, 2018 at 7:45 am)Khemikal Wrote: You're a contingent being because your existence has dependencies. If you are a contingent being you cannot be a necessary being...however, that you are not a necessary being does not imply that you are a contingent being. In your case you happen to be so..but not because you don't exist at all points in time.
Consider this, if a being came into existence tomorrow with no existential dependencies, it would not have existed at all points in time, and it wouldn't be a contingent or necessary being. Another example..consider a being that has existed at all points in time but did have an existential dependency. A pan pyschic whatsit that was born at the very instant of the big bang. This would be a contingent being despite it's temporal or spacial distribution.
The difference between necessity and contingency in beings is simple. One depends on some x to exist whereas the other does not. I'll drop a mention here..that I don't intend his to be a counterargument to your thoughts on the wider cosmos or eternal blocks of reality or relaionships between multiple universes..only as a suggestion that whatever you're talking about isn't what other people are talking about when they use the terms in contraposition.
I guess it depends then on what is meant by contingency. I am going along with how Steve defined it earlier, and to be fair, this is one of the definitions that I've seen in some of the articles on necessity vs. contingency. Anyhow, if contingency is not simply about having the possibility of both existence and non-existence, and more about dependencies, then my argument doesn't apply.
