On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:38 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:36 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:18 PM Bruce Kellett < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course they differ: in one case you have a purely local concept of >>>>>> the present; in the other case you require some global notion of a >>>>>> "present", which cannot even be uniquely defined. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> What exists? >>>>> >>>>> A: *naive presentism*: only a 3-dimensional space evolving in time >>>>> (some particular "slice" of spacetime exists, which constantly changes) >>>>> B: *local-presents*: Events, each in their position in space time, >>>>> each in their own present time >>>>> C: *block-time*: Events, each in their position in space time >>>>> >>>>> We both agree relativity rules out A. But I struggle to see the >>>>> difference between B and C (ontologically speaking), unless you are >>>>> proposing the view that the only thing that exists is a single event (I >>>>> don't think you are though). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are of the order of 10^80 protons in the visible universe. One >>>>> does not confuse this fact by imagining that there is only one >>>>> proton...... >>>>> >>>>> I think your problem with the ontology of the strictly local "present" >>>>> is that you still have in you mind some notion of an absolute, external >>>>> time, in which all these "presents" exist. Your description of "block >>>>> time" >>>>> in C above makes precisely this mistake. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am only asking what exists in your theory, given you reject the >>>> notion of the present as a global space-like hyperplane. >>>> >>> >>> The universe exists -- an infinity of present moments. Nothing exists >>> timelessly because that is incoherent. >>> >>> >> So what defines this the set of present moments? Does it include all >> events in spacetime? Or only some of them? >> > > Why would you leave any out? > > If you include all events as as present moments, and say that they all exist, then how is this different from the block-time view (which says only that all points in time exist and are real)? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
