On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:09 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:38 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:36 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:18 PM Bruce Kellett < >>>>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>>>>> 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)? > They differ in exactly the same was a 10^80 protons differs from one proton. The block-time view claims that all moments exist timelessly and simultaneously. As well as being inconsistent with the relativity of simultaneity, the notion is incoherent. Bruce -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
