RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
April 29, 2017 at 4:52 pm
(This post was last modified: April 29, 2017 at 5:01 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
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:
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.
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.
