It's not in agreement with it because the standard dictionary definitions of "past", "present" and "future" in which we are using are different to the space-time definition of time that Einstein uses.

Just like science has divided atoms into smaller parts even though atoms are by definition indivisible in the original sense of the word.

I don't know what confuses you about my 3rd and 4th paragraphs. They were unnecessary anyway. I was just predicting disagreement and trying to shoot it down before it got there but that was all that got addressed anyway.

The important part is this:

Quote:The past existed when it was present but no longer does. The future will exist when it is present but it isn't yet. The present is all that exists at any point in time.

This makes logical sense. Theory of relativity can't disagree with it by redefining things. Science redefines and remodels concepts in order to get stuff done easier. Just like by redefining atoms to include something that actually contains smaller parts... that doesn't change the fact that "atom" in the original sense of the word is something that is indivisible so to talk about an atom in the original sense of the word and say it can be divided would make no sense. It's easier for science to simply change the definition and work with that rather than constantly try to keep up with original definitions even if they're less useful models. In the same way... when we're using the dictionary definitions of "past", "present", and "future" it makes no sense to say the past and future exist. It only makes sense to say they used to and will exist respectively. But that's not a complex or useful model for relatively theory. Doesn't change the logical and philosophical truth of the matter. Science deals with how we experience reality rather than reality itself. Science is phenomenological not philosophical.

No it has nothing to do with what we observe. Even if we didn't exist the past would still be by definition what existED (used to but no longer exists), the future would be what WILL exist (but doesn't exist yet) and the present will be what EXISTS currently (past, future and present senses of the word that are true by definition respectively).

The way the theory of relativity talks about all times existing equally... that's using definitions of time that are different to our normal standard definitions of time. In the normal standard definitions that most people use what hasn't happened yet hasn't happened yet.... what has happened happened before but is no longer happening and what is is happening currently is what it is happening. Using the normal definitions of the words in English Presentism is tautologically true.

Now I'm logging out of AF for the day. Hope my post was helpful.

(April 29, 2017 at 4:52 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: It's not in agreement with it because the standard dictionary definitions of "past", "present" and "future" in which we are using are different to the space-time definition of time that Einstein uses.

Just like science has divided atoms into smaller parts even though atoms are by definition indivisible in the original sense of the word.

I don't know what confuses you about my 3rd and 4th paragraphs. They were unnecessary anyway. I was just predicting disagreement and trying to shoot it down before it got there but that was all that got addressed anyway.

The important part is this:

Quote:The past existed when it was present but no longer does. The future will exist when it is present but it isn't yet. The present is all that exists at any point in time.

This makes logical sense. Theory of relativity can't disagree with it by redefining things. Science redefines and remodels concepts in order to get stuff done easier. Just like by redefining atoms to include something that actually contains smaller parts... that doesn't change the fact that "atom" in the original sense of the word is something that is indivisible so to talk about an atom in the original sense of the word and say it can be divided would make no sense. It's easier for science to simply change the definition and work with that rather than constantly try to keep up with original definitions even if they're less useful models.

No it has nothing to do with what we observe. Even if we didn't exist the past would still be by definition what existED (used to but no longer exists), the future would be what WILL exist (but doesn't exist yet) and the present will be what EXISTS.

The way the theory of relativity talks about all times existing equally... that's using definitions of time that are different to our normal standard definitions of time. In the normal standard definitions that most people use what hasn't happened yet hasn't happened yet... what has already happened happened but isn't happening yet. What is happening is what it is happening. Using the normal definitions of the words in English Presentism is tautologically true.

Now I'm logging out of AF for the day. Hope my post was helpful.

I understand now what you're saying. You're going with the dictionary definitions and arguing from the perspective of an insider within your timeline. From that perspective, sure, presentism is the case. But this is not typically what other presentists and eternalists argue about. Or at least, this is the first time I see presentism argued from such a perspective.

No that's not what I'm doing at all. I said presentism is true even if I myself and no one else exists. So it's definitely not from inside my timeline. It's the theory of relativity (which is science, not philosophy) that requires relative observers.... philosophical and logical truths don't require observers.

I'm arguing philosophy. This is exactly what presentists and eternalists argue about... but not the relativity part (that's science not philosophy) which is why I argued against it when you brought it up because it's not relevant because, like you just agreed, it's different definitions of the words and a different model of time (for a starters it models our experience of time rather than reasons about time itself).

The problem is that science doesn't deal with reality it deals with the experience of reality. Which is incredibly useful and gets results but still doesn't touch logical or philosophical truths that are tautologically true.

The eternalists would say there's a contradiction in what I'm saying because they say that by saying the past existed I'm saying the past EXISTS as in EXISTS NOW in the past. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it existed when it wasn't the past but doesn't exist anymore because it's passed. The eternalist would also say that I'm contradicting myself by saying that the future doesn't exist yet because they say that by saying that I'm saying the future EXISTS as in EXISTS NOW in the future. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the future is by definition that which does NOT exist yet AND it can't ever exist because as soon as it becomes present and is able to exist it will by definition no longer be the future.

They think that because some people like to express in words "the future is by definition that which does not exist yet" by instead putting it like this: "the future doesn't exist now it exists in the future" then that means that myself and other presentists are contradicting themselves. That's utter bullshit because that laymen expression is flat out incorrect. The future is not that which exists ( as in "exists now") in the future. That *is* a contradiction. By being a presentist I'm obviously not saying the future exists not now but in the future because presents say that no times but the present exist. The point is... as soon as the future comes.. it's no longer the future and it doesn't exist at all until it becomes something it is not. So... it doesn't exist at all. Only the present exists.

It's impossible for the future or past to be present. That's the same thing as saying it's impossible for the future or past to exist. They will exist or did exist but do not exist. That's the whole point.

Okay so I decided to hang around on AF while I spectate Mafia so I might as well answer this in the meantime.... but I'm not gonna post outside Mafia again today. I'm logged off of AF other than Mafia for the day now

P.S. Anybody who thinks that special relativity or any other essentially purely scientific, phenomenological and synthetic truths of fact that require observers are relevant to ultimately purely tautologically true philosophical, noumenological and analytic truths of reasoning that don't require observers at all are simply making a category error.

Hope this post helped.

(April 29, 2017 at 5:19 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: No that's not what I'm doing at all. I said presentism is true even if I and no one else exists. So it's definitely not from inside my timeline. It's the theory of relativity (which is science, not philosophy) that requires relative observers.... philosophical and logical truths don't require observers.

So what do you mean by "presentism is true"? You seem to be implying there's only one broad present moment at a time, or am I misunderstanding you again?

Quote:I'm arguing philosophy. This is exactly what presentists and eternalists argue about... but not the relativity part (that's science not philosophy) which is why I argued against it when you brought it up because it's not relevant because, like you just agreed, it's different definitions of the words and a different model of time (for a starters it models our experience of time rather than reasons about time itself).

You can't argue independently of science and expect your argument to be sound, though. In fact, philosophers of time have brought up the theory of relativity as support for eternalism, and presentists have taken the time to address the currently accepted science of time. So presentists and eternalists also argue about the science, and not just pure philosophy.

Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism...multaneity

Quote:The eternalists would say there's a contradiction in what I'm saying because they say that by saying the past existed I'm saying the past EXISTS as in EXISTS NOW in the past. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it existed when it wasn't the past but doesn't exist anymore because it's passed. The eternalist would also say that I'm contradicting myself by saying that the future doesn't exist yet because they say that by saying that I'm saying the future EXISTS as in EXISTS NOW in the future. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the future is by definition that which does NOT exist yet AND it can't ever exist because as soon as it becomes present and is able to exist it will by definition no longer be the future.

What if I told you both sides are correct here? And that it's a matter of perspective? Socrates no longer exists in one sense, but he does exist at a time point different from your present time point.

Also, referring to THE past or THE future as a singular absolute thing ignores the relativity of time and the multiple timelines implied by the science of time. You should perhaps refer to ANY past or ANY future rather than just THE past or THE future.

Quote:They think that because some people like to express in words "the future is by definition that which does not exist yet" by instead putting it like this: "the future doesn't exist now it exists in the future" then that means that myself and other presentists are contradicting themselves. That's utter bullshit because that laymen expression is flat out incorrect. The future is not that which exists ( as in "exists now") in the future. That *is* a contradiction. By being a presentist I'm obviously not saying the future exists not now but in the future because presents say that no times but the present exist. The point is... as soon as the future comes.. it's no longer the future and it doesn't exist at all until it becomes something it is not. So... it doesn't exist at all. Only the present exists.

You're sort of repeating yourself here.

Quote:It's impossible for the future or past to be present. That's the same thing as saying it's impossible for the future or past to exist. They will exist or did exist but do not exist. That's the whole point.

What THE future are we talking about, though? What THE past? And plus, I don't feel comfortable with ignoring the idea that all time points are real according to modern science. I mean, you say this philosophical debate has nothing to do with the science, but I can't help but feel like it needs to be considered here.

See my bolded part in my previous post as it is a true statement which means that science is not relevant here. Logical tautologies are as absolutely 100% sound as a premise can get and presentism is based on premises that are logical tautologies so presentism is absolutely sound just as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "a square has four sides" or "A=A" is. Science can be almost certainly sound but not quite certainly (because scientific evidence isn't absolute proof) but tautological premises are absolutely 100% certainly sound.

Do you accept that science cannot measure what is beyond the experience of time (i.e. phenomenological time) and thereby cannot address time itself (i.e. noumenological time) because it requires observers that cannot transcend the phenomenological world in order to address the noumenological world by their very nature of their being observers?

What do I mean presentism is true? I mean that the claim presentism makes is true: the present is all that exists. The past existed and the future will exist but they don't exist.

Yes I repeat myself a lot. That's not relevant. If I say "A=A" a million times it doesn't change the fact that A=A.

I paraphrase myself a lot because I get frustrated in my failure to explain my point and/or the other person(s)'s failure to understand my point. So I try and make the same point in multiple wordings hoping that one of them will get through.

(April 29, 2017 at 7:11 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: See my bolded part in my previous post as it is a true statement which means that science is not relevant here. Logical tautologies are as absolutely 100% sound as a premise can get and presentism is based on premises that are logical tautologies so presentism is absolutely sound just as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "a square has four sides" or "A=A" is.  Science can be almost certainly sound but not quite certainly (because scientific evidence isn't absolute proof) but tautological premises are absolutely 100% certainly sound.

I don't disagree with this, but you're missing the point. While it is tautologically true that the future does not exist yet, and that the past existed but no longer does, this is only the case if you go with the standard dictionary definitions for words such as "exist".

But the disagreement, when it comes to the linguistic part of the debate, seems to be based on differences in the adoptions of definitions for words like "exist". It seems many eternalists are looking to science to define for them the existence of moments in time, whereas presentists are basing their linguistic argument on the standard dictionary definition for "exist". And this difference in definition adoptions is what's leading eternalists to accuse presentists of contradicting themselves linguistically when it comes to the matter of the existence of "the past" or "the future", while presentists insist they are not contradicting themselves.

As I suggested in my previous post, perhaps both sides are correct, each adopting different perspectives.

Quote:Do you accept that science cannot measure what is beyond the experience of time (i.e. phenomenological time) and thereby cannot address time itself (i.e. noumenological time) because it requires observers that cannot transcend the phenomenological world in order to address the noumenological world by their very nature of their being observers?

As far as observations go, perhaps not. But as you know, science is also philosophical (not just observational) and makes use of logic to formulate theories. But even using pure philosophy, how can one really be sure they've come to the right conclusion regarding the nature of time? The present exists by definition (tautologically true), but what is the present?

Quote:What do I mean presentism is true? I mean that the claim presentism makes is true: the present is all that exists. The past existed and the future will exist but they don't exist.

This is still not clear enough for me as an answer. Scientifically speaking (not linguistically speaking), do you believe that only one present moment exists "at a time"?

Quote:Yes I repeat myself a lot. That's not relevant. If I say "A=A" a million times it doesn't change the fact that A=A.

But it also doesn't bring anything new to the table, and I am also not logically disputing "A=A" or that, using your definitions, neither the past nor the future exists.

It's funny how the past and future don't exist in the present, yet they are the reason for all decisions made in the present.

(April 29, 2017 at 8:12 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(April 29, 2017 at 7:29 am)Mathilda Wrote: The simulation theory would explain how we live in a reality where Trump is the US president. I often feel like we are in a TV series which envisages an alternative history with viewers thinking, yeah it could have turned out that way but it really wasn't likely to.

We could easily be in a Black Mirror episode.

We did have a prime minister who once fucked a pig ...

Why free will is an illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMVE0fN_Y4s

The creator of such a simulation surely would not have programmed Trump's hairdo, the platypus, or Graham Kerr the Galloping Gourmet. Tiny Tim ? Who would have thought of that?

Arguing against intelligent design, Tyson once pointed out that our waste excreting organs would not be adjacent to our favorite recreational zones but many disagree. So, I guess the jury is still out.