Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[GrandizerII]

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.

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?

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"?

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.