Quoting Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 Thanks for the analysis of time, Ham. The key phrase for me is, ". . . 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." The "single block of space/time" is precisely what I am referring to when I suggest "The present never changes." Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
