On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:13 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]> 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. > > > > Is not the block-universe timeless? > No. The concept of "timeless" involves an underlying time -- it means "unchanging in time". Are not the physical laws supposed to be timeless? > No. Is not 333’s oddness timeless? > Category error. > 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. > No, it is a sensible way to get useable results. > It is just saying to people that there is nothing interesting there. > Yes, investigation shows that there is nothing to see here. > You are saying that your case is so true that there is no need for an > investigation. > No, I am not saying anything of the sort. All theories need to be tested, revised and improved. > It is an invalid appeal to the argument per authority to prevent the > search of the truth. > You are one to speak about appeals to authority..... That is all you ever do. You do not provide evidence, you provide authorities, and tell us to go and read the authoritative texts...... 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]. 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.
