> On 19 Dec 2018, at 23:36, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:18 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > From: Jason Resch <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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.
Is not the block-universe timeless? Are not the physical laws supposed to be timeless? Is not 333’s oddness timeless? Even out of the category of things to which the notion of time can be applied. Of course, you *assume* a primary physical universe. To use such a strong ontological hypothesis to prevent the testing of a simpler theory, which do not assume anything like that, is a poor use of philosophy. It is just saying to people that there is nothing interesting there. You are saying that your case is so true that there is no need for an investigation. It is an invalid appeal to the argument per authority to prevent the search of the truth. Bruno > > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
