Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

How thick is the present?

 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:12:44 PMPosted: 3 years agoIf the present objectively exists, then does it have any duration? If so, then you can split it up into three parts (beginning, middle, end). The present within the present would have duration, so that present can also be split up into its own separate past, present, and future corresponding to the specific parts. However, if that present within the present, within the present has have duration as well, then it too can be split up to have a beginning, middle, and end (thus its own past, present, and future). This is absurd though, because not only does it lead to an infinite regress; it also leads to the conclusion that the present has all three A-Properties (which is logically impossible under A-Theory). If the present has no duration at all, then there is literally no gap between what we would call the past and the future, meaning the present cannot exist. If you drew a diagram that was a box, and you were asked to draw a line to represent the present, no matter how thin the line, it would have duration. However, no duration at all means there is nothing doing any dividing, meaning no present objectively exists.Since a present with duration leads to absurdities, and a present with no duration entails no actual present at all, then Presentism is impossible. Am I wrong?
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:18:23 PMPosted: 3 years agoYes, very wrong.
 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:21:59 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 8:18:23 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Yes, very wrong.Nice bare assertion fallacy. You do know that your comment is absolutely fruitless without an explanation, right? Please explain where I am wrong...
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:22:54 PMPosted: 3 years agoYou are the present. How thick are you? LOL
 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:24:40 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 8:22:54 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:You are the present. How thick are you? LOLI am the present? What does that even mean? Lol.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:25:54 PMPosted: 3 years agoTo quote C.S. Lewis: "the present is the point at which time touches eternity." Think about it.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:26:48 PMPosted: 3 years agoSorry about the joke by the way. Irresistible.
 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:29:51 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 8:25:54 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:To quote C.S. Lewis: "the present is the point at which time touches eternity." Think about it.To quote Paul Davies: "Physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entirety " a timescape, analogous to a landscape " with all past and future events located there together " Completely absent from this description of nature is anything that singles out a privileged special moment as the present or any process that would systematically turn future events into the present, then past, events. In short, the time of the physicist does not pass or flow." Think about it.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:31:57 PMPosted: 3 years agoI told you to think about it, not post some quote by a physicist in response.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:35:27 PMPosted: 3 years agoWould you say water flows, RT?
 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:37:09 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 8:35:27 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Would you say water flows, RT?Nope. I'm a B-Theorist, meaning I don't believe in mutability or motion in the way it is mostly conceived of.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:38:18 PMPosted: 3 years agoSo what does water do?
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:44:01 PMPosted: 3 years agoI think B-Theory is a load of nonsense thought up to eliminate the concept of God by the way. Especially considering that quote. Have you any evidence for it?
 Posts: 3,748 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:44:39 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 8:12:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:If the present objectively exists, then does it have any duration? If so, then you can split it up into three parts (beginning, middle, end). The present within the present would have duration, so that present can also be split up into its own separate past, present, and future corresponding to the specific parts. However, if that present within the present, within the present has have duration as well, then it too can be split up to have a beginning, middle, and end (thus its own past, present, and future). This is absurd though, because not only does it lead to an infinite regress; it also leads to the conclusion that the present has all three A-Properties (which is logically impossible under A-Theory). If the present has no duration at all, then there is literally no gap between what we would call the past and the future, meaning the present cannot exist. If you drew a diagram that was a box, and you were asked to draw a line to represent the present, no matter how thin the line, it would have duration. However, no duration at all means there is nothing doing any dividing, meaning no present objectively exists.Since a present with duration leads to absurdities, and a present with no duration entails no actual present at all, then Presentism is impossible. Am I wrong?No, you are not even wrong."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:44:49 PMPosted: 3 years agoWell, I'm not utterly opposed to it, but I see no reason to take it as a given.
 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:45:27 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 8:38:18 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:So what does water do?The same thing everything else does; exist tenselessly eternally. The idea of time and change is just an illusion of under my view.
 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:46:58 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 8:44:49 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Well, I'm not utterly opposed to it, but I see no reason to take it as a given.Don't take it as a given. Study up on the metaphysics of time. Presentism and B-Theory are the most commonly discussed, but there are other theories of time (Moving Spotlight Theory, Growing Block Theory, and Shrinking Block Theory).
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:49:52 PMPosted: 3 years agoI asked you for proof. But anyway, even under B-Theory there's a present, dude. Deny it at your own peril. If there's a boulder coming at you, you get out of the way now.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:53:35 PMPosted: 3 years agoI take it the A-Theory of time deals strictly with the deterministic also? or can be used in a more spiritual sense?
 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 8:57:23 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 8:49:52 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:I asked you for proof.Where is your proof for A-Theory? Also, B-Theory posits that there is no objective present moment, and that all moments are equally real (1000 years ago, and 1000 years from now is just as real as what you would experience as your subjective "now"). So, what evidence supports this? For one, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity (under a Minkowskian framework, which is how it is always formulated due to the fact it is the most scientifically feasible interpretation). This shows that time is relative to an observer or a specific object in motion, meaning, there is no objective present. Also, quantum mechanics proves retro-causality. However, something at t1 can only be caused by something at t2 in the future, if the future exists. Thus, science essentially confirms B-Theory.But anyway, even under B-Theory there's a present, dude.This means you don't even know what B-Theory is "dude". B-Theory denies the existence of an ontologically existing present moment.Deny it at your own peril. If there's a boulder coming at you, you get out of the way now.I'll deny it, because there is evidence against it.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:01:28 PMPosted: 3 years agoDude, Einstein did not disprove God or free will, just discovered like an upper limit to matter's progression through the universe. And I don't know anything at all about quantum physics, but if it had disproved God I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it. Also, I'm an agnostic.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:02:36 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 9:01:28 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Dude, Einstein did not disprove God or free will, just discovered like an upper limit to matter's progression through the universe. And I don't know anything at all about quantum physics, but if it had disproved God I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it. Also, I'm an agnostic.or he defined matter's progression through the universe rather.
 Posts: 5,818 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:02:48 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 9:01:28 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Dude, Einstein did not disprove God or free will, just discovered like an upper limit to matter's progression through the universe. And I don't know anything at all about quantum physics, but if it had disproved God I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it. Also, I'm an agnostic.how the fvck does god have to do with thisEpsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:03:53 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 9:02:48 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:At 8/6/2013 9:01:28 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Dude, Einstein did not disprove God or free will, just discovered like an upper limit to matter's progression through the universe. And I don't know anything at all about quantum physics, but if it had disproved God I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it. Also, I'm an agnostic.how the fvck does god have to do with thisB-Theory is the elimination of free will.
 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:04:47 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 9:01:28 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Dude, Einstein did not disprove God or free will, just discovered like an upper limit to matter's progression through the universe.B-Theory doesn't disprove God.And I don't know anything at all about quantum physics, but if it had disproved God I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it. Also, I'm an agnostic.Dude, B-Theory doesn't disprove God. I know a couple Christian B-Theorists.
 Posts: 5,818 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:04:52 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 9:03:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:At 8/6/2013 9:02:48 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:At 8/6/2013 9:01:28 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Dude, Einstein did not disprove God or free will, just discovered like an upper limit to matter's progression through the universe. And I don't know anything at all about quantum physics, but if it had disproved God I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it. Also, I'm an agnostic.how the fvck does god have to do with thisB-Theory is the elimination of free will.ahhhh... free will is definitely existent just not completely existentEpsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
 Posts: 9,469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:05:22 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 9:03:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:At 8/6/2013 9:02:48 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:At 8/6/2013 9:01:28 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Dude, Einstein did not disprove God or free will, just discovered like an upper limit to matter's progression through the universe. And I don't know anything at all about quantum physics, but if it had disproved God I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it. Also, I'm an agnostic.how the fvck does god have to do with thisB-Theory is the elimination of free will.Not if you are a compatibilist. Also, if it is, so what? I guess we don't have free will.
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:06:00 PMPosted: 3 years agoDude, you just stated that the entirety of our lives are already laid out for us pretty much. It doesn't disprove God, but us.
 Posts: 587 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:06:18 PMPosted: 3 years agoEven if temporal transpiration is illusory, that transpiration still exists phenomenologically. It remains legitimate to physically describe the experience of a spacetime-bound instruments which perform spacetime-bound measurements; those measurements still, in principle, describe something that is real about the world: its appearance to those instruments. And the appearance of the world is exactly as it appears."The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
 Posts: 11,060 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/6/2013 9:07:16 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 8/6/2013 9:05:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 9:03:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:At 8/6/2013 9:02:48 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:At 8/6/2013 9:01:28 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Dude, Einstein did not disprove God or free will, just discovered like an upper limit to matter's progression through the universe. And I don't know anything at all about quantum physics, but if it had disproved God I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it. Also, I'm an agnostic.how the fvck does god have to do with thisB-Theory is the elimination of free will.Not if you are a compatibilist. Also, if it is, so what? I guess we don't have free will.Where's your proof? And oh, we've already written the universe and are just living it eternally or what? We're God? When did it start? What? Doesn't make sense bro.