Since I haven't left the state yet, let me just respond to the main points in your overall argument.
There's empirical science, but then there's theoretical science. The science of time isn't just about time as experienced, but also the nature of time as it is. Relativity implies all moments of time are real ... ontologically.
Sorry, but not relevant.
Too much stretching going on here just to belittle eternalists. Eternalism is based on the modern science of time, presentism is not. If you accept the science, then you have to concede the soundness of eternalism in contrast to presentism which insists some unsound "absolute present" exists to the exclusion of some unsound "absolute past" and unsound "absolute future". So maybe you should ask yourself who really is arguing about Atlantis.
Time is real under eternalism. It's the flow of time that's the illusion.
Science makes use of logic. It's not just observations.
We can talk about moments of time that we don't ever experience. Under eternalism, they exist for real.
(April 30, 2017 at 11:38 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Well, why am I happy to bite that bullet? Because science isn't actually addressing time it's addressing how we experience it and it's simply a more useful model to speak that way for the purposes of science... but it is an entirely different question because one question presupposes the existence of conscious observers and the other doesn't. One question is regarding phenomena and scientific models and how we experience time and the other question is regarding noumena and definitions and the question of what time itself is with or without people to experience it. Two completely different questions. The former is falsifiable by observers doing science and the latter is tautologically entailed by recognition that the opposite is logically contradictory (and it simply won't suffice to change the subject without realizing you're doing it...)
There's empirical science, but then there's theoretical science. The science of time isn't just about time as experienced, but also the nature of time as it is. Relativity implies all moments of time are real ... ontologically.
Quote:The Eternalists are like the Compatabilists that change the subject in the free will debate (although less annoying simply because unlike the subject of free will the mistake is not a morally important one).
Sorry, but not relevant.
Quote:Eternalists are correct in what they say but irrelevant and changing the subject when it comes to Time Itself ™ just as Compatabilists are correct in what they say but irrelevant and changing the subject over Free Will ™. But, unlike Eternalists and Compatabilists, Presentists and Incompatabilists are both correct in what they say AND actually addressing the relevant questions that are asked regarding those respective subjects.
Too much stretching going on here just to belittle eternalists. Eternalism is based on the modern science of time, presentism is not. If you accept the science, then you have to concede the soundness of eternalism in contrast to presentism which insists some unsound "absolute present" exists to the exclusion of some unsound "absolute past" and unsound "absolute future". So maybe you should ask yourself who really is arguing about Atlantis.
Quote:Maybe there is no Time Itself ™ or Free Will ™ and all there is is the experience of time and the experience of free will and those things don't exist objectively, (not 'really')? Well, maybe so but once again that's a different question entirely than addressing a question that is already beginning with those things at the very premise of the respective question at hand. And... in all honesty.... you can't have an experience of something that doesn't exist at all. It would at least have to exist as experiences. It's possible for something to exist without anywhere there to experience it... but it's not possible for there to be anyone to experience something if nothing at all exists. Experience necessarily presupposes existence but existence doesn't necessarily presuppose experience.
Time is real under eternalism. It's the flow of time that's the illusion.
Quote:Scientific truths require observers but logical truths don't. Scientific truths have to be discovered by scientists but logical truths are truths in and of themselves even if there were never any logicians or philosophers there to recognize them. Why? Because all science has to presuppose is the world of phenomena because that's the world that science tests... but philosophy and logic also deal with noumenal concepts and questions outside of that.
Science makes use of logic. It's not just observations.
Quote:And this is similar to how we fail to realize that we talk about our own thoughts and actions as being identical to our experience of them...but we don't actually talk about our selves separate from our experience authoring those experiences of those selves. Such a self isn't there to talk about.
We can talk about moments of time that we don't ever experience. Under eternalism, they exist for real.
