Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Suicide Machine Argument

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:09:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.

The argument is from Stephen Hales' "No Time Travel for Presentists," Logos & Episteme I, 2 (2010). In the paper, Hales' argues (as no doubt has been made obvious) that time travel to the past (and present, perhaps) is impossible if presentism is true. That's because if the present is all that exists (the past existed but exists no longer and future does not exist but it will), then time traveling to the past entails going out of existence, as the past does not exist. Thus, Hales thinks, a time-travel machine that allow individuals to "travel to the past" is really nothing but a suicide machine.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:37:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:09:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.

The argument is from Stephen Hales' "No Time Travel for Presentists," Logos & Episteme I, 2 (2010). In the paper, Hales argues (as no doubt has been made obvious) that time travel to the past (and future*, perhaps) is impossible if presentism is true. That's because if the present is all that exists (the past existed but exists no longer and future does not exist but it will), then time traveling to the past entails going out of existence, as the past does not exist. Thus, Hales thinks, a time-travel machine that allow individuals to "travel to the past" is really nothing but a suicide machine.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:43:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:09:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.

The argument is from Stephen Hales' "No Time Travel for Presentists," Logos & Episteme I, 2 (2010). In the paper, Hales' argues (as no doubt has been made obvious) that time travel to the past (and present, perhaps) is impossible if presentism is true. That's because if the present is all that exists (the past existed but exists no longer and future does not exist but it will), then time traveling to the past entails going out of existence, as the past does not exist. Thus, Hales thinks, a time-travel machine that allow individuals to "travel to the past" is really nothing but a suicide machine.

If it is true, then would "time-travel" be possible? How would you define it? How would it take you out of existence?

I don't know what "presentism" is though.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:49:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:43:56 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:09:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.

The argument is from Stephen Hales' "No Time Travel for Presentists," Logos & Episteme I, 2 (2010). In the paper, Hales' argues (as no doubt has been made obvious) that time travel to the past (and present, perhaps) is impossible if presentism is true. That's because if the present is all that exists (the past existed but exists no longer and future does not exist but it will), then time traveling to the past entails going out of existence, as the past does not exist. Thus, Hales thinks, a time-travel machine that allow individuals to "travel to the past" is really nothing but a suicide machine.

If it is true, then would "time-travel" be possible? How would you define it? How would it take you out of existence?

I don't know what "presentism" is though.

Presentism just is the thesis that only the present exist. That the past did exist but does no longer and that the present does not exist but will exist. It is an A-theory of time. It is contrasted with eternalism, which holds that all times, say, Socrates drinking hemlock, the present moment of sitting at your computer, and the rainstorm tomorrow are all equally real, they are just indexical.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:50:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not sure if Presentism would even allow Time Travel to occur. After all, in order to travel to a place that place must exist.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:55:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:50:00 PM, medv4380 wrote:
I'm not sure if Presentism would even allow Time Travel to occur. After all, in order to travel to a place that place must exist.

Ya, that's the "Nowhere Argument".

P1. If someone time travels, s/he travels to the past or future.

P2. The past and future do not exist.

P3. No one travels to what does not exist.

C: No one time travels.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 2:59:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:55:16 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:50:00 PM, medv4380 wrote:
I'm not sure if Presentism would even allow Time Travel to occur. After all, in order to travel to a place that place must exist.

Ya, that's the "Nowhere Argument".

P1. If someone time travels, s/he travels to the past or future.

P2. The past and future do not exist.

P3. No one travels to what does not exist.

C: No one time travels.

P1 granted. P2, if presentism is true, I guess this is true. P3, that's the most likely to be incorrect in this scenario. It seems right to me, but I'm not certain.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:07:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:43:56 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
How would you define it?

I forgot to address this. Time travel could be roughly defined like so: travel in which the arrival time is later or earlier than the departure time. Putting aside, of course, the fact that regular old travel (say, driving from Colorado to California) involves an arrival time that is later than the departure time.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:22:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:07:29 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:43:56 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
How would you define it?

I forgot to address this. Time travel could be roughly defined like so: travel in which the arrival time is later or earlier than the departure time. Putting aside, of course, the fact that regular old travel (say, driving from Colorado to California) involves an arrival time that is later than the departure time.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 4:54:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't get is what exactly the theory means by saying the past 'no longer exists.' Obviously the past had an effect on the present, so it exists in that since, and obviously it is not still occurring. It seems like the only thing this theory is addressing is whether you can travel in time, and it says you can't. Not much to discuss.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:31:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@natoast it's a philosophical argument, and a fairly standard one. Depending on which one you pick A Time, or B Time you'll have to change how your approach other arguments. For example, the Kalam Argument hinges on an A Time model, and is pretty much void if time is really B Time. That doesn't leave the people who use the Kalam Argument out to dry though. They have to change to the Libnitz "Why is there something instead of nothing?" argument if they want to proceed, or defend A Time.

Personally I don't believe ether is correct, and subscribe to a Hybrid AB Time.
Christopheratheist
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:51:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:09:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.


Just thinking of the top of my head here: -

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists.
P2. If the present is relative to the individual.
C. Time travel is possible.

Ok so I am not much of a Philosopher.
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 9:38:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 2:09:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.

The argument is from Stephen Hales' "No Time Travel for Presentists," Logos & Episteme I, 2 (2010). In the paper, Hales' argues (as no doubt has been made obvious) that time travel to the past (and present, perhaps) is impossible if presentism is true. That's because if the present is all that exists (the past existed but exists no longer and future does not exist but it will), then time traveling to the past entails going out of existence, as the past does not exist. Thus, Hales thinks, a time-travel machine that allow individuals to "travel to the past" is really nothing but a suicide machine.

If Presentism is true, time travel would clearly be impossible. That's a whole lot of text circling this simple and pointless idea.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 10:57:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 8:51:22 PM, Christopheratheist wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:09:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.


Just thinking of the top of my head here: -

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists.
P2. If the present is relative to the individual.
C. Time travel is possible.

Ok so I am not much of a Philosopher.

To be fair, P2 isn't expressing a complete thought. But I think I know what you mean; that "the present" simply is just indexical to the individual. The presentist would disagree; he maintains that temporal becoming is an objective feature of existence. That there is an objective difference between the past, present and future. The past existed but does no longer, the present currently exists, and the future will exist but doesn't right now.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 10:58:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 9:38:56 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 2:09:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.

The argument is from Stephen Hales' "No Time Travel for Presentists," Logos & Episteme I, 2 (2010). In the paper, Hales' argues (as no doubt has been made obvious) that time travel to the past (and present, perhaps) is impossible if presentism is true. That's because if the present is all that exists (the past existed but exists no longer and future does not exist but it will), then time traveling to the past entails going out of existence, as the past does not exist. Thus, Hales thinks, a time-travel machine that allow individuals to "travel to the past" is really nothing but a suicide machine.

If Presentism is true, time travel would clearly be impossible. That's a whole lot of text circling this simple and pointless idea.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I wouldn't dismiss the issue as closed so eagerly. The dialogue on the matter between philosophers continues on, with no signs of stopping. I'm sure you could find some interesting replies that argue for the compatibilism of time-travel and presentism.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 12:39:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Philosophers should not contemplate time travel without first studying Physics. Gravity and motion both affect Time, which is proof that it exists. Therefore, the past and future presumably exist. Therefore, Presentism is false or at least impractical for use in real life.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:26:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@APB
That's an assumption of some in Physics. This is usually a mistaken understanding of what Relative Time is.

Forward time travel is the most common example since reverse travel has never been observed.

Lets say we have an Observer on the earth.
They experience 1000 years of time while watching a Traveler go around a black hole and back.
The traveler experiences 1 year.

If presentism is correct then the traveler will appear to be present in every moment of the observer.
But you say the Traveler only experienced 1 year so they traveled into the "future".
However, according to Physics the Traveler will appear to be present in every moment of the Observer.
The Traveler never vanishes from time to appear at a future time. Assuming they don't actually enter the black hole, and that's lala land in physics world.
What occurred is that the CLOCKS for the observer and traveler run differently.
They are both always in the Present.

The only way Physics presents as a valid way to prove time travel is possible or impossible is to have Two colliding black holes, or Two black holes create a worm hole. Since we are unable to get to or examine that kind of destructive force we are left with Philosophy trying to hash it out with reason.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 8:40:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Posted: 1 day ago
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.

The Fool: it"s not an argument like that. Its three sets of conditionals.

A: Presesntism is true
B: Only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].
C: time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.
D: time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.
1.A->B
2.A->C
3.A->D
The Fool: Something tells me that is not what you mean.

Here lets me just fixer up, just a bit here.

1.Only Now exist [Presentism Thesis].
Corollary: Future and past don"t exit.

2.If you travel to the past it is not now.

3.Therefore you can"t travel to the past. (it doesn"t exist to travel to)

The Fool: There, now it is Fool Proof.

""The argument is from Stephen Hales' "No Time Travel for Presentists," Logos & Episteme I, 2 (2010). In the paper(Save the Trees), Hales' argues (as no doubt has been made obvious) that time travel to the past (and present, perhaps) is impossible if presentism is true. That's because if the present is all that exists (the past existed but exists no longer and future does not exist but it will), then time traveling to the past entails going out of existence, as the past does not exist. Thus, Hales thinks, a time-travel machine that allow individuals to "travel to the past" is really nothing but a suicide machine.

The Fool: It"s a Nonsense machine. Regardless the past exist as past, the Necessary condition to have any memory, or for there to be movement, or demarcation (information) of any sort is that the universe is transitory, that is there is continuous connection of somesort through out it. Yet If we move down a line it wouldn't make sense to say, that the previous part of the line seize to exist.

More over I don't understand people who think that something IN the framework of time, and thus always determined in time can get out side of it. (Some timeless state) Change it(good luck), and then go back in whence they please.

Therefore if they are not on crack, then I must assume that they use the term "Time" to mean something else, somewhere they are not. But if this is true we should think them timeless, but they are not gods.

On a side note, It is often a habit of people to become so specialized in their discipline that they become naive of the most simplest holistic understanding that any fool can understand.

Insofar as something is the past, it exist as the past, of course not now, because to say now is to talk about an opposing context.

Its like saying we have a set called Time where there is [A,B,C] and then saying, that A does not exist in B.

Where A is the Past, B is the Present, and C is the Future. No Kidding, . But Now only makes sense in the context of the past and the future. And so if one goes they all do. And so much for the conception of time altogether.

For if the past does"t exist @ All. Then it does not exist that you have read this text, just now. Now.. .. Now. Not that part either. Nor will it exist in the future that you had or have read it.

Nor would it exist to talk about.

When someone talks about something happening, it would be sound to always say "No it didn't" And always be right.

If someone says that something will happen it would always be true that it won't.

And so oh Oh. I think so.
<(8J)

Fool..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 11:25:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 8:40:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Posted: 1 day ago
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1. If Presentism is true, then only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].

P2. If Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.

C: Therefore, if Presentism is true, then time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.

The Fool: it"s not an argument like that. Its three sets of conditionals.

A: Presesntism is true
B: Only the present exists [Presentism Thesis].
C: time-travel to the past entails no longer existing in the present.
D: time-travel to the past entails going out of existence.
1.A->B
2.A->C
3.A->D
The Fool: Something tells me that is not what you mean.

Here lets me just fixer up, just a bit here.

1.Only Now exist [Presentism Thesis].
Corollary: Future and past don"t exit.

2.If you travel to the past it is not now.

3.Therefore you can"t travel to the past. (it doesn"t exist to travel to)

The Fool: There, now it is Fool Proof.

""The argument is from Stephen Hales' "No Time Travel for Presentists," Logos & Episteme I, 2 (2010). In the paper(Save the Trees), Hales' argues (as no doubt has been made obvious) that time travel to the past (and present, perhaps) is impossible if presentism is true. That's because if the present is all that exists (the past existed but exists no longer and future does not exist but it will), then time traveling to the past entails going out of existence, as the past does not exist. Thus, Hales thinks, a time-travel machine that allow individuals to "travel to the past" is really nothing but a suicide machine.

The Fool: It"s a Nonsense machine. Regardless the past exist as past, the Necessary condition to have any memory, or for there to be movement, or demarcation (information) of any sort is that the universe is transitory, that is there is continuous connection of somesort through out it. Yet If we move down a line it wouldn't make sense to say, that the previous part of the line seize to exist.

More over I don't understand people who think that something IN the framework of time, and thus always determined in time can get out side of it. (Some timeless state) Change it(good luck), and then go back in whence they please.

Therefore if they are not on crack, then I must assume that they use the term "Time" to mean something else, somewhere they are not. But if this is true we should think them timeless, but they are not gods.

On a side note, It is often a habit of people to become so specialized in their discipline that they become naive of the most simplest holistic understanding that any fool can understand.

Insofar as something is the past, it exist as the past, of course not now, because to say now is to talk about an opposing context.

Its like saying we have a set called Time where there is [A,B,C] and then saying, that A does not exist in B.

Where A is the Past, B is the Present, and C is the Future. No Kidding, . But Now only makes sense in the context of the past and the future. And so if one goes they all do. And so much for the conception of time altogether.

For if the past does"t exist @ All. Then it does not exist that you have read this text, just now. Now.. .. Now. Not that part either. Nor will it exist in the future that you had or have read it.

Nor would it exist to talk about.

When someone talks about something happening, it would be sound to always say "No it didn't" And always be right.

If someone says that something will happen it would always be true that it won't.

And so oh Oh. I think so.
<(8J)

Fool..

I continue to enjoy these posts. Someone posts some nonsense, but the Fool corrects, refutes and then dances around the aforementioned nonsense in a triumphantly condescending way. Quite literally makes me smile every single time.
Tsar of DDO
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:31:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 5:26:01 PM, medv4380 wrote:
@APB
That's an assumption of some in Physics. This is usually a mistaken understanding of what Relative Time is.

Forward time travel is the most common example since reverse travel has never been observed.

Lets say we have an Observer on the earth.
They experience 1000 years of time while watching a Traveler go around a black hole and back.
The traveler experiences 1 year.

If presentism is correct then the traveler will appear to be present in every moment of the observer.
But you say the Traveler only experienced 1 year so they traveled into the "future".
However, according to Physics the Traveler will appear to be present in every moment of the Observer.
The Traveler never vanishes from time to appear at a future time. Assuming they don't actually enter the black hole, and that's lala land in physics world.
What occurred is that the CLOCKS for the observer and traveler run differently.
They are both always in the Present.

The only way Physics presents as a valid way to prove time travel is possible or impossible is to have Two colliding black holes, or Two black holes create a worm hole. Since we are unable to get to or examine that kind of destructive force we are left with Philosophy trying to hash it out with reason.

It's semantics. The observers are in different frames of reference, so they measure time differently, and thus cannot be said to coexist at the exact same time because they're on different times. At any rate, time has observable effects on stuff and no test will disprove its existence, so Presentism is unusable except in wangsty threads like this one.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 8:58:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 2:31:02 AM, APB wrote:
It's semantics. The observers are in different frames of reference, so they measure time differently, and thus cannot be said to coexist at the exact same time because they're on different times. At any rate, time has observable effects on stuff and no test will disprove its existence, so Presentism is unusable except in wangsty threads like this one.

No, I'm not using semantics. You're attempting to and failing.

1) Two things Exist in the same time if they can interact. aka Coexist
2) I exist on earth in an Earth Frame
3) A GPS satellite exists in an Orbital Frame
4) Clocks in the satellite frame run differently compared to the Earth frame.
5) I interact with the GPS satellite with my phone.
C) The Satellite and I must coexist in the same Time

If your semantics were correct then relativistic effect wouldn't be measurable. Two object couldn't interact until their clocks caught up to each other, and there are already plenty of real world tests that proves that isn't how it works.

The only thing relativity does is change the speed of all the clocks in the Reference Frame. There is no vanishing out of one existence and popping into another.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 6:22:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 8:58:25 AM, medv4380 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 2:31:02 AM, APB wrote:
It's semantics. The observers are in different frames of reference, so they measure time differently, and thus cannot be said to coexist at the exact same time because they're on different times. At any rate, time has observable effects on stuff and no test will disprove its existence, so Presentism is unusable except in wangsty threads like this one.

No, I'm not using semantics. You're attempting to and failing.

1) Two things Exist in the same time if they can interact. aka Coexist
2) I exist on earth in an Earth Frame
3) A GPS satellite exists in an Orbital Frame
4) Clocks in the satellite frame run differently compared to the Earth frame.
5) I interact with the GPS satellite with my phone.
C) The Satellite and I must coexist in the same Time

If your semantics were correct then relativistic effect wouldn't be measurable. Two object couldn't interact until their clocks caught up to each other, and there are already plenty of real world tests that proves that isn't how it works.

The only thing relativity does is change the speed of all the clocks in the Reference Frame. There is no vanishing out of one existence and popping into another.

We can debate the technicalities of Relativity all day long and it won't make a spot of difference. We can measure time. We can observe the effects of time on stuff. We can observe the effects of stuff on time. Whether time actually exists, and whether it began 13.7 billion years ago or last Thursday, has no relevance to how we use it. Until Presentism makes testable predictions, it's of no use to anybody.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:35:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 6:22:31 PM, APB wrote:
We can debate the technicalities of Relativity all day long and it won't make a spot of difference. We can measure time. We can observe the effects of time on stuff. We can observe the effects of stuff on time. Whether time actually exists, and whether it began 13.7 billion years ago or last Thursday, has no relevance to how we use it. Until Presentism makes testable predictions, it's of no use to anybody.

The Law of Causality is predicted only by Presentism.

For making such a bold claim that we can measure time you sure don't understand the Eternalism argument using Relativity. That particular argument boils down to Time not existing at all.

Now you can ether believe that the Speed of Light Dictates a Present, or you can believe that a Present Dictates that there is a limit to the speed of light. Which is the cause and which is the effect is still in question.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:53:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:35:25 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 6:22:31 PM, APB wrote:
We can debate the technicalities of Relativity all day long and it won't make a spot of difference. We can measure time. We can observe the effects of time on stuff. We can observe the effects of stuff on time. Whether time actually exists, and whether it began 13.7 billion years ago or last Thursday, has no relevance to how we use it. Until Presentism makes testable predictions, it's of no use to anybody.

The Law of Causality is predicted only by Presentism.

For making such a bold claim that we can measure time you sure don't understand the Eternalism argument using Relativity. That particular argument boils down to Time not existing at all.

Now you can ether believe that the Speed of Light Dictates a Present, or you can believe that a Present Dictates that there is a limit to the speed of light. Which is the cause and which is the effect is still in question.

Your comment makes no sense because you are using jargon incorrectly. Please rephrase.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:26:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:53:20 PM, APB wrote:
Your comment makes no sense because you are using jargon incorrectly. Please rephrase.

How about you put your Position into a debate and issue a challenge, and we'll see who can make the more convincing argument.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 10:19:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 3:26:59 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:53:20 PM, APB wrote:
Your comment makes no sense because you are using jargon incorrectly. Please rephrase.

How about you put your Position into a debate and issue a challenge, and we'll see who can make the more convincing argument.

I don't know how to do that. Why don't you challenge me?