Platt, Craig --
[Platt]: > Whatever the time, the change occurs in the present. [Craig]: > No, change occurs over time. [Platt]: > Past and future changes are only recognized in the present. [Craig]: > No, again. Yesterday, I recognized many changes. [Platt]: > Regardless of when a change occurs, the present is always present. [Craig]: > No, the present will soon be past. There it goessss... [Platt]: > Unless you can time travel, you are always in the present moment. [Craig]: > I was, but I moved on. [Platt]: > The present is a constant where nothing stays put. [Craig]: > The present is constantly changing that why it never stays put. Time is an intriguing concept, and your exchange demonstrates that it can be viewed in more than one way. I guess I side with Craig on this issue because I define awareness of the "present" as not just today, or this moment, but as the "infinitesimal now" -- an interval that represents a static "snapshot" of reality that we can label state "Y". Theoretically, all change occurs on either side of this snapshot: i.e., the past (states "A to X") and the future (state "Z"). And by intellectually integrating these states, we experience reality as a process that moves from A to Z. But because change itself is relative in an S/O world, it makes little difference whether objects change with respect to the subject, or the subject changes with respect to its objects. The result in either case would be perceived as "change". For example, in the 'block universe theory' proposed by Minkowski and later named by William James, reality is a single block of space/time and it is awareness (our mental perspective) that divides the block into a past part, a present part, and a future part. I copied two paragraphs on the subject of Time from "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" that are relevant to your disagreement: "Philosophers of time are deeply divided on the question on what sort of ontological differences there are among the present, past and future. There are three competing theories. Presentists argue that necessarily only present objects and present experiences are real; and we conscious beings recognize this in the special 'vividness' of our present experience. According to the growing-universe theory, the past and present are both real, but the future is not. The more popular theory is that there are no significant ontological differences among present, past and future. This view is called 'eternalism' or 'the block universe theory.' ... "In 1969, Sydney Shoemaker presented an argument to convince us of the understandability of time existing without change, as Newton's absolutism requires. ...But philosophers of time argued that even if time's existing without change is understandable, the deeper question is whether time does exist without change." You can find more fascinating ideas on time and time travel at this site, http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/time.htm#H3 Regards, Ham moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
