> On 20 Dec 2018, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:13 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On 19 Dec 2018, at 23:36, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[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? > > No. The concept of "timeless" involves an underlying time -- it means > "unchanging in time”.
I don’t see this at all. Proof? > > Are not the physical laws supposed to be timeless? > > No. Then I am not sure I understand what you mean by physical (or not) law. > > Is not 333’s oddness timeless? > > Category error. Good. As I said, that is why I prefer the name: “out of time”. > > 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. But that is not the goal here, which is in understanding. > > It is just saying to people that there is nothing interesting there. > > Yes, investigation shows that there is nothing to see here. Which investigation? References? Sorry Bruce, but physics use an identity mind-brain which does not make sense with Mechanism. > > 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. OK. But physics miss all prediction, without using a principle of unicity which does not work with Mechanism. Physics is incomplete in that regards. Arithmetic *is* complete for this. > > 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…… I gave a proof, and of course references. That is usual in science. You appeal to a philosophical conviction, and present it as it was true. In science, we never claim truth. Especially in metaphysics. 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.
