(December 10, 2017 at 8:26 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(December 10, 2017 at 5:03 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Finite in terms of?

Size.

Hmm, I might want to get back to you on that one at a later time.

Quote:

Quote:Anyhow, forget universe and substitute it with existence, because as far as theists are concerned, not even existence (apart from their God) can be eternal. So if there was no beginning to time, how did we reach the present?

Yes, indeed, substitute it with existence.

The universe began but existence didn't. And existence as a whole MUST be eternal. And the universe can't be (if we assume the big bang is the beginning of it).

Quote:I know the theist side suffers major problems regardless, but Im curious about the presentist responses, or do you believe their argument is not worth response?

I think presentism is the only theory of time that ultimately makes sense if we put science aside (because I don't think science is relevant if we're talking about what something must be beyond our ability to test reality empirically).

Ok, but I don't feel like you're actually trying to address the objection that I've been stating to you on behalf of theists. Maybe it's lack of interest, or you're not prepared at this stage to address it? But I think I was pretty clear on what I was curious about.

(December 11, 2017 at 10:26 am)Grandizer Wrote: Ok, but I don't feel like you're actually trying to address the objection that I've been stating to you on behalf of theists. Maybe it's lack of interest, or you're not prepared at this stage to address it? But I think I was pretty clear on what I was curious about.

No . . . not lack of interest. Didn't I address it? Weren't you talking about theistic eternalism? I addressed it by arguing against eternalism. We already know theism is stupid. What am I missing? I'm not playing dumb, or lacking interest here, I'm genuinely not sure what you think I'm missing.

(December 11, 2017 at 10:03 am)SteveII Wrote:

(December 10, 2017 at 2:49 am)Grandizer Wrote: Most of you have heard the argument from the theist side that an infinite series of past events cannot be possible because to be infinite in the negative direction would be to not have a beginning at all, no starting point from which you can then trace a line from that point to the present. Yet, here we are experiencing the present. So, according to the theist, there seems to be some logical contradiction going on here.

Eternalism (typically associated with the B-theory of time) has an answer to this, which is that time is not how we intuit it to be. Given eternalism, there is no series of past events occurring in a "time-flowing" manner. Rather, all "past events" still presently exist along with present (and with "future") events. So, it seems to me, that no purportedly impossible tracing of the line from "no beginning" to the present has to occur.

But I was wondering how a presentist atheist would answer to this problem. Assuming time actually does flow, with future eventually becoming present, and present flowing into the past, how do you logically trace a line (as a hypothetical eternal being) from "no beginning" to the present point?

By line, I mean in the loose casual sense of the word, not the strictly mathematical definition of it.

There is a fundamental flaw in your question. You think that eternalism avoids the problem of past infinite series of events. It does not.

Under eternalism, there is no series of events happening, not in a time-flowing sense. Past moments and future moments are just as real as present moments, in the same way that the USA is just as real as Canada.

Quote:Tell me, on your version of eternalism philosophy of time, do you think causality is a feature of reality? Is entropy a thing? Is the universe expanding? Are you the same person on December 11 as the person on December 10?

Yes (but not in the sense you might be thinking of), yes (see Sean Carroll for that one), yes, yes/no (depending on the angle you're looking at this, and how you are defining the self).

---

(December 11, 2017 at 10:21 am)wallym Wrote: Here's the thing with the origins of the universe:  It's above your paygrade.  At best, all you can do is just parrot what some fancy mathematician/physicist says.  And it's not like you're checking their math to make sure you agree with their conclusion.  You just pick a person who seems really smart, and decide they are who you agree with. 

I don't have to do mathematics or physics. I am mainly doing some logic and philosophy, which almost any human being is capable of doing with enough interest and motivation.

I only bring up the science when others force me to bring up the science, and I never speak with authority on these matters. I let scientists do the talking.

Quote:Just have a bit of humility, and when the topic of the origin of the universe comes up, shrug your shoulders and say "who the fuck knows?"  Because the answer to that is both not you and not the theist making whatever argument they are making.

I never said I know what caused the origin of the universe, if it did have an origin. You're strawmanning me here.

Quote:The alternative, is that you take a stance that you can only sort of understand, because you're just some random person watching youtube videos, and smart theists like Steve as seen above, can 'score points' on you, because there's no way for you to speak on the topic with any authority.

No, asshole, I did not just simply watch YouTube videos. I've read articles and book chapters on the philosophy of time as well. Go do your sociopath character undermining speech elsewhere, dickhead.

---

(December 11, 2017 at 10:29 am)Hammy Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 10:26 am)Grandizer Wrote: Ok, but I don't feel like you're actually trying to address the objection that I've been stating to you on behalf of theists. Maybe it's lack of interest, or you're not prepared at this stage to address it? But I think I was pretty clear on what I was curious about.

No . . . not lack of interest. Didn't I address it? Weren't you talking about theistic eternalism? I addressed it by arguing against eternalism. We already know theism is stupid. What am I missing? I'm not playing dumb, or lacking interest here, I'm genuinely not sure what you think I'm missing.

My bad. Ok, how did we reach the present from no beginning, according to presentism?

(December 11, 2017 at 10:30 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 10:03 am)SteveII Wrote: There is a fundamental flaw in your question. You think that eternalism avoids the problem of past infinite series of events. It does not.

Under eternalism, there is no series of events happening, not in a time-flowing sense. Past moments and future moments are just as real as present moments, in the same way that the USA is just as real as Canada.

Quote:Tell me, on your version of eternalism philosophy of time, do you think causality is a feature of reality? Is entropy a thing? Is the universe expanding? Are you the same person on December 11 as the person on December 10?

Yes (but not in the sense you might be thinking of), yes (see Sean Carroll for that one), yes, yes/no (depending on the angle you're looking at this, and how you are defining the self).

You didn't answer the question. Are the timeslices  causally related? In other words, can we put the timeslices in an order based upon causal principles? If we can do that, you have a problem with past infinite causation. 

Regarding you yesterday and today. If Dec 10th's Grandizer commits a crime, should Dec 11th's Grandizer be punished for it? Why?

(December 11, 2017 at 10:58 am)SteveII Wrote: You didn't answer the question. Are the timeslices  causally related? In other words, can we put the timeslices in an order based upon causal principles? If we can do that, you have a problem with past infinite causation.

I still don't think you understand what eternalism is or implies. There are connections between moments of time, but the connections are not temporal because all the connected "regions" are already there. The USA and Canada, generally, are connected to each other. There is a link there, even though they share different spatial coordinates (different spaces, locations). Now, whether you could say they're causally related or not is another topic of discussion that isn't just something only relevant to eternalism. I think causality is a tricky thing to pinpoint, because I have a hard time (philosophically, not scientifically) differentiating between cause and preceding event.

Quote:Regarding you yesterday and today. If Dec 10th's Grandizer commits a crime, should Dec 11th's Grandizer be punished for it? Why?

Again, this is not a topic that is only relevant to eternalism. This has more to do with the self, what makes you you, and is the self an illusion, and all the implications. I don't want to get into all that in this thread. You can make new threads for each of these topics.

(December 11, 2017 at 10:30 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 10:21 am)wallym Wrote: Here's the thing with the origins of the universe:  It's above your paygrade.  At best, all you can do is just parrot what some fancy mathematician/physicist says.  And it's not like you're checking their math to make sure you agree with their conclusion.  You just pick a person who seems really smart, and decide they are who you agree with. 

I don't have to do mathematics or physics. I am mainly doing some logic and philosophy, which almost any human being is capable of doing with enough interest and motivation.

I only bring up the science when others force me to bring up the science, and I never speak with authority on these matters. I let scientists do the talking.

Quote:Just have a bit of humility, and when the topic of the origin of the universe comes up, shrug your shoulders and say "who the fuck knows?"  Because the answer to that is both not you and not the theist making whatever argument they are making.

I never said I know what caused the origin of the universe, if it did have an origin. You're strawmanning me here.

Quote:The alternative, is that you take a stance that you can only sort of understand, because you're just some random person watching youtube videos, and smart theists like Steve as seen above, can 'score points' on you, because there's no way for you to speak on the topic with any authority.

No, asshole, I did not just simply watch YouTube videos. I've read articles and book chapters on the philosophy of time as well. Go do your sociopath character undermining speech elsewhere, dickhead.

I didn't realize you read book chapters.  I take it all back.  Keep applying logic and intuition without the math and science to counter-intuitive concepts rooted in math in science.  If there ever was a recipe for success, that's probably it.

(December 11, 2017 at 10:30 am)Grandizer Wrote: My bad. Ok, how did we reach the present from no beginning, according to presentism?

Because existence is eternal . . . as in, it had no beginning or end.

What I'm against is temporal eternalism. The view that all times exist equally at the same time . . . which is incoherent nonsense. The present is all that is present. The past and the future are always absent. They are not what exists but what did exist and will exist respectively. Temporal presentism is the view that only the present exists. I hold that view.

Existence itself has no beginning or end. Existence itself as a whole is eternal. Time isn't. Time is either illusory as a whole or the present is all that exists.

(December 11, 2017 at 11:21 am)wallym Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 10:30 am)Grandizer Wrote: I don't have to do mathematics or physics. I am mainly doing some logic and philosophy, which almost any human being is capable of doing with enough interest and motivation.

I only bring up the science when others force me to bring up the science, and I never speak with authority on these matters. I let scientists do the talking.


I never said I know what caused the origin of the universe, if it did have an origin. You're strawmanning me here.


No, asshole, I did not just simply watch YouTube videos. I've read articles and book chapters on the philosophy of time as well. Go do your sociopath character undermining speech elsewhere, dickhead.

I didn't realize you read book chapters.  I take it all back.  Keep applying logic and intuition without the math and science to counter-intuitive concepts rooted in math in science.  If there ever was a recipe for success, that's probably it.

What concepts "rooted in math in science"? Metaphysics can be studied without advanced knowledge in mathematics or knowing rocket science. In some cases, you can reach logical conclusions without the need to do any advanced experimental science.

---

(December 11, 2017 at 11:33 am)Hammy Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 10:30 am)Grandizer Wrote: My bad. Ok, how did we reach the present from no beginning, according to presentism?

Because existence is eternal . . . as in, it had no beginning or end.

I know you believe that. But what I'm asking you is how did we reach the current present if there was no starting point to time from which we can metaphorically trace a line from it to the present moment?

An analogous question: Is it possible to count from negative infinity to any integer (integer by integer, as in: -infinity, ..., -4, -3, -2, -1, ...), provided you have always existed eternally? It seems like by saying that it is possible, then we are treating it as a number as opposed to a concept.

(December 11, 2017 at 11:11 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 10:58 am)SteveII Wrote: You didn't answer the question. Are the timeslices  causally related? In other words, can we put the timeslices in an order based upon causal principles? If we can do that, you have a problem with past infinite causation.

I still don't think you understand what eternalism is or implies. There are connections between moments of time, but the connections are not temporal because all the connected "regions" are already there. The USA and Canada, generally, are connected to each other. There is a link there, even though they share different spatial coordinates (different spaces, locations). Now, whether you could say they're causally related or not is another topic of discussion that isn't just something only relevant to eternalism. I think causality is a tricky thing to pinpoint, because I have a hard time (philosophically, not scientifically) differentiating between cause and preceding event.

Quote:Regarding you yesterday and today. If Dec 10th's Grandizer commits a crime, should Dec 11th's Grandizer be punished for it? Why?

Again, this is not a topic that is only relevant to eternalism. This has more to do with the self, what makes you you, and is the self an illusion, and all the implications. I don't want to get into all that in this thread. You can make new threads for each of these topics.

I didn't mention time/temporal. Stop bringing it up (and the USA and Canada). Your OP specifically said that eternalism answers the problem of a past infinite.  Yes or no--can the timeslices be ordered according to causal principles? Hint: it's not "tricky to pinpoint". If the answer is yes, tell me why you don't have the same problem presentism  has.  

I think the persistence of the 'self' is relevant to whether the B Theory of time is coherent. But I will drop it for now.

(December 11, 2017 at 11:44 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 11:21 am)wallym Wrote: I didn't realize you read book chapters.  I take it all back.  Keep applying logic and intuition without the math and science to counter-intuitive concepts rooted in math in science.  If there ever was a recipe for success, that's probably it.

What concepts "rooted in math in science"? Metaphysics can be studied without advanced knowledge in mathematics or knowing rocket science. In some cases, you can reach logical conclusions without the need to do any advanced experimental science.

---

(December 11, 2017 at 11:33 am)Hammy Wrote: Because existence is eternal . . . as in, it had no beginning or end.

I know you believe that. But what I'm asking you is how did we reach the current present if there was no starting point to time from which we can metaphorically trace a line from it to the present moment?

An analogous question: Is it possible to count from negative infinity to any integer (integer by integer, as in: -infinity, ..., -4, -3, -2, -1, ...), provided you have always existed eternally? It seems like by saying that it is possible, then we are treating it as a number as opposed to a concept.

Hammy, you said time is illusory or only present exist? I think I get what youre saying. Dont worry about the challenge then. I think its not an issue in your case.

---

(December 11, 2017 at 12:04 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 11:11 am)Grandizer Wrote: I still don't think you understand what eternalism is or implies. There are connections between moments of time, but the connections are not temporal because all the connected "regions" are already there. The USA and Canada, generally, are connected to each other. There is a link there, even though they share different spatial coordinates (different spaces, locations). Now, whether you could say they're causally related or not is another topic of discussion that isn't just something only relevant to eternalism. I think causality is a tricky thing to pinpoint, because I have a hard time (philosophically, not scientifically) differentiating between cause and preceding event.


Again, this is not a topic that is only relevant to eternalism. This has more to do with the self, what makes you you, and is the self an illusion, and all the implications. I don't want to get into all that in this thread. You can make new threads for each of these topics.

I didn't mention time/temporal. Stop bringing it up (and the USA and Canada). Your OP specifically said that eternalism answers the problem of a past infinite.  Yes or no--can the timeslices be ordered according to causal principles? Hint: it's not "tricky to pinpoint". If the answer is yes, tell me why you don't have the same problem presentism  has.  

I think the persistence of the 'self' is relevant to whether the B Theory of time is coherent. But I will drop it for now.

I dont know what makes a cause a cause as opposed to preceding event. Do you? I would love to hear what you have to say about this.

That said, let me say "yes" anyway. Whats the problem?