Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[Edwardo Piet]

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.