Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[GrandizerII]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.