Presentism and Infinite Chain of Past Events

[Edwardo Piet]

So when you say nothing can't exist.  What are we talking about?  If you define it, then it becomes something.

No, because its definition is "not something".

Of course we can't know anything about the reality of nothing... because nothing is not part of reality. It would make no sense if it was.

Whatever nothing is, it isn't something. At all.

"Nothing" is a word we use to refer to a complete absence of something.

Of course the scientists are going to redefine it and equivocate (well, not necessarily equivocate . . . that seems to mostly be a Lawrence Krauss thing). That's what scientists do when they're doing their science ... because having accurate labels isn't the most important thing. Having useful labels is the most important thing. If their model helps them get the science done, then that's what matters to them. And rightfully so. They're scientists . . . not philosophers.

I am really tired of the red herring of science being brought into philosophy though. As far as I'm concerned science is completely irrelevant to this thread. When we're asking about whether existence as a whole is infinite or not . . . and when we're talking about presentism and eternalism . . . aren't we doing the philosophy of noumena rather than the science of phenomena? These aren't empirically verifiable questions about how we experience reality, they are analytical ponderings about how reality really is independent of our experience . . . right?

If this is just about science then what is there to debate? The correct answer is: Whatever the scientific consensus is.

It frustrates me when people get science and philosophy mixed up.

Sure it would be fine if we were only talking about phenomena . . . but people seem to be equivocating back and forth between noumena and phenomena without realizing it. As per fucking usual.