Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

@ Rational Thinker

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 6:14:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism by Simon Saunders
[http://users.ox.ac.uk...]

Why Does Time Seem To Pass? by Simon Prosser
[http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...]

Presentism And Relativity by Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen (you will like this one, as the entire paper is essentially about William Lane Craig's arguments)
[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...]

Either way, I am kind of leaning towards A-Theory more as of late. However, I still believe Presentism is false. The Moving Spotlight Theory is the most likely version of the A-Theory of time based on certain experiments in Quantum Mechanics (which is still A-Theory).
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 6:38:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 6:14:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism by Simon Saunders
[http://users.ox.ac.uk...]

Why Does Time Seem To Pass? by Simon Prosser
[http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...]

Presentism And Relativity by Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen (you will like this one, as the entire paper is essentially about William Lane Craig's arguments)
[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...]

Either way, I am kind of leaning towards A-Theory more as of late. However, I still believe Presentism is false. The Moving Spotlight Theory is the most likely version of the A-Theory of time based on certain experiments in Quantum Mechanics (which is still A-Theory).

Interesting. What has made you lean away from B-Theory?

And how has your adopting the MPT affected your thoughts on the Kalam? You still hold its untenable, I presume? MPT seems to have elements of both A & B theory. Supposing, however, that your commitment to MPT leads to you see the Kalam as contextually unsound, how do you respond to Craig's rendition of the Leibnizian Cosmological argument which need not presume that an A-theory of time is true to be successful?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:01:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 6:38:33 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:14:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism by Simon Saunders
[http://users.ox.ac.uk...]

Why Does Time Seem To Pass? by Simon Prosser
[http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...]

Presentism And Relativity by Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen (you will like this one, as the entire paper is essentially about William Lane Craig's arguments)
[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...]

Either way, I am kind of leaning towards A-Theory more as of late. However, I still believe Presentism is false. The Moving Spotlight Theory is the most likely version of the A-Theory of time based on certain experiments in Quantum Mechanics (which is still A-Theory).

Interesting. What has made you lean away from B-Theory?

Sargon made an argument that the Cosmic Microwave Background actually serves as a preferred reference frame, which goes against the Minkowski space-time view that there is no preferred reference frame. Plus, Special Relativity (under a Minkowskian framework) implies that there is no simultaneity between two spatially separated objects, but Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's Inequalities show simultaneity between two distant photons. I am aware of some objections to these, but I'm not sure what I am more convinced by. Thus, Sargon made me doubt B-Theory.


And how has your adopting the MPT affected your thoughts on the Kalam?

That's a good question! To be honest, I have no idea... I actually messaged ReasonableFaith to try to get an answer with regards to how this theory of time would effect Craig's argument, but received no response.

You still hold its untenable, I presume?

I held the Kalam untenable before I even knew what B-Theory was.

MPT seems to have elements of both A & B theory.

Yes. It is similar to B-Theory because the past, present, and future all exist. It is still A-Theory by default though, as it is a tensed theory of time.

Supposing, however, that your commitment to MPT leads to you see the Kalam as contextually unsound,

I wouldn't say I'm committed (I change my position all the time based on new information). Also, as I said, I have no idea how the MST effects the Kalam. Time is tensed, but the past, present, and future all exist; its a tricky one. I only adhere to it now because I honestly believe it is the most plausible, not because I feel it effects the Kalam negatively. B-Theory would do a much better job of refuting the Kalam than the MST I would suppose.

how do you respond to Craig's rendition of the Leibnizian Cosmological argument which need not presume that an A-theory of time is true to be successful?

Well, if the universe doesn't come into being, and the universe is immutable (motion requires temporal becoming), it is hard to see how there could be any good argument for the universe being contingent. At the very least, it wouldn't be as obvious that the universe is contingent without the universe coming into being, and mutability being the case.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:26:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The best argument for A-Theory, in my opinion, is that time seems to flow. Why is it such a good argument? Well, there seems to be a sky. However, the feeling of temporal becoming is much more obvious that the sky (you don't have to look up to see time flow). You wouldn't doubt the sky without a very strong argument, why doubt temporal flow? Thus, I believe the ball is in the B-Theorist's court to prove their position. The only reason I thought B-Theory was so strong is because it is supported by Special Relativity, but the Neo-Lorentzian view gets around it (with a lot of Ad Hoc work though). Even though I feel the Minkowskian view fits Einstein's theory more comfortably, I don't think that is enough to throw away temporal becoming. Plus Sargon's arguments were just icing on the cake for me to doubt it.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 9:31:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here are some things to think about:

I'm skeptical of using any physical model to argue one way or the other. The best physical models we have right now are scales. General relativity works on the scales of the "big things". Quantum mechanics works on the scales of "small things". They certainly work well in their respective areas, but given the fact that they are theories about scales, I don't see how the implications of one can be interpreted as demonstrating something about reality itself. People say that different measurements of simultaneity entail that A-theory is false. While I disagree with the underlying interpretation, even if we granted this argument, I don't see how it poses a danger to the A-theory. Special relativity works on its scales and doesn't necessarily represent reality as a whole. Physics doesn't have a theory that works for all scales, so I don't see any way to make a universal claim based on SR.

I'm not even sure if Einstein's definition of time was the same as the philosophical one. I could be wrong about this, but I remember reading in Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, and other physics books, that Einstein took our idea of time and made it empirically testable. He had to change what "time" meant in order to begin experiments on it. His definition of time was not "time", per se, but an operational definition of time. While science can do its experiments on this definition, it's a stretch to say that this has implications on the philosophical, non-operational view of time. Perhaps he's just using different terminology than we do when we think of time.

If I was asked to identify the best argument for A-theory, it would be Saul Kripke's New Theory of Reference in the philosophy of language.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 12:47:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:01:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:38:33 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:14:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism by Simon Saunders
[http://users.ox.ac.uk...]

Why Does Time Seem To Pass? by Simon Prosser
[http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...]

Presentism And Relativity by Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen (you will like this one, as the entire paper is essentially about William Lane Craig's arguments)
[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...]

Either way, I am kind of leaning towards A-Theory more as of late. However, I still believe Presentism is false. The Moving Spotlight Theory is the most likely version of the A-Theory of time based on certain experiments in Quantum Mechanics (which is still A-Theory).

Interesting. What has made you lean away from B-Theory?

Sargon made an argument that the Cosmic Microwave Background actually serves as a preferred reference frame, which goes against the Minkowski space-time view that there is no preferred reference frame. Plus, Special Relativity (under a Minkowskian framework) implies that there is no simultaneity between two spatially separated objects, but Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's Inequalities show simultaneity between two distant photons. I am aware of some objections to these, but I'm not sure what I am more convinced by. Thus, Sargon made me doubt B-Theory.

Interesting. I'll have to read up to recall what Minkowskian, Lorentzian, et al. mean. Craig probably discusses them in his Time & Eternity.


And how has your adopting the MST affected your thoughts on the Kalam?

That's a good question! To be honest, I have no idea... I actually messaged ReasonableFaith to try to get an answer with regards to how this theory of time would effect Craig's argument, but received no response.

You still hold its untenable, I presume?

I held the Kalam untenable before I even knew what B-Theory was.

MPT seems to have elements of both A & B theory.

Yes. It is similar to B-Theory because the past, present, and future all exist. It is still A-Theory by default though, as it is a tensed theory of time.

Supposing, however, that your commitment to MPT leads to you see the Kalam as contextually unsound,

I wouldn't say I'm committed (I change my position all the time based on new information). Also, as I said, I have no idea how the MST effects the Kalam. Time is tensed, but the past, present, and future all exist; its a tricky one. I only adhere to it now because I honestly believe it is the most plausible, not because I feel it effects the Kalam negatively. B-Theory would do a much better job of refuting the Kalam than the MST I would suppose.

how do you respond to Craig's rendition of the Leibnizian Cosmological argument which need not presume that an A-theory of time is true to be successful?

Well, if the universe doesn't come into being, and the universe is immutable (motion requires temporal becoming), it is hard to see how there could be any good argument for the universe being contingent. At the very least, it wouldn't be as obvious that the universe is contingent without the universe coming into being, and mutability being the case.

Wouldn't the opponent of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument thereby commit himself to the supposition that the universe exists necessarily (that is to say that there is no such possible world in which the universe does not exist)? That seems unintuitive to me at face-value.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 12:50:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:26:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The best argument for A-Theory, in my opinion, is that time seems to flow. Why is it such a good argument? Well, there seems to be a sky. However, the feeling of temporal becoming is much more obvious that the sky (you don't have to look up to see time flow). You wouldn't doubt the sky without a very strong argument, why doubt temporal flow? Thus, I believe the ball is in the B-Theorist's court to prove their position.

That's right. Likewise, perhaps, with our beliefs in the reality of the external world, the belief in the reality of minds other than ours, the belief that the past wasn't created 5 minutes ago with appearance of age, or our belief in free-will. There may be arguments that seem to lead us to the conclusion, that, say we have no free will or that the external world does not exist, but this conclusion sits squarely at odds with our apprehension of our believing that we have free will or that the external world actually exists.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 7:08:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 12:50:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:26:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The best argument for A-Theory, in my opinion, is that time seems to flow. Why is it such a good argument? Well, there seems to be a sky. However, the feeling of temporal becoming is much more obvious that the sky (you don't have to look up to see time flow). You wouldn't doubt the sky without a very strong argument, why doubt temporal flow? Thus, I believe the ball is in the B-Theorist's court to prove their position.

That's right. Likewise, perhaps, with our beliefs in the reality of the external world, the belief in the reality of minds other than ours, the belief that the past wasn't created 5 minutes ago with appearance of age, or our belief in free-will. There may be arguments that seem to lead us to the conclusion, that, say we have no free will or that the external world does not exist, but this conclusion sits squarely at odds with our apprehension of our believing that we have free will or that the external world actually exists.

Look up, that damm sun is moving around us I tell ya. It's funny what we apprehend ain't it.

Hey looks intelligently designed to me.......
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 9:26:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 12:47:16 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:01:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:38:33 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:14:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism by Simon Saunders
[http://users.ox.ac.uk...]

Why Does Time Seem To Pass? by Simon Prosser
[http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...]

Presentism And Relativity by Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen (you will like this one, as the entire paper is essentially about William Lane Craig's arguments)
[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...]

Either way, I am kind of leaning towards A-Theory more as of late. However, I still believe Presentism is false. The Moving Spotlight Theory is the most likely version of the A-Theory of time based on certain experiments in Quantum Mechanics (which is still A-Theory).

Interesting. What has made you lean away from B-Theory?

Sargon made an argument that the Cosmic Microwave Background actually serves as a preferred reference frame, which goes against the Minkowski space-time view that there is no preferred reference frame. Plus, Special Relativity (under a Minkowskian framework) implies that there is no simultaneity between two spatially separated objects, but Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's Inequalities show simultaneity between two distant photons. I am aware of some objections to these, but I'm not sure what I am more convinced by. Thus, Sargon made me doubt B-Theory.

Interesting. I'll have to read up to recall what Minkowskian, Lorentzian, et al. mean. Craig probably discusses them in his Time & Eternity.



And how has your adopting the MST affected your thoughts on the Kalam?

That's a good question! To be honest, I have no idea... I actually messaged ReasonableFaith to try to get an answer with regards to how this theory of time would effect Craig's argument, but received no response.

You still hold its untenable, I presume?

I held the Kalam untenable before I even knew what B-Theory was.

MPT seems to have elements of both A & B theory.

Yes. It is similar to B-Theory because the past, present, and future all exist. It is still A-Theory by default though, as it is a tensed theory of time.

Supposing, however, that your commitment to MPT leads to you see the Kalam as contextually unsound,

I wouldn't say I'm committed (I change my position all the time based on new information). Also, as I said, I have no idea how the MST effects the Kalam. Time is tensed, but the past, present, and future all exist; its a tricky one. I only adhere to it now because I honestly believe it is the most plausible, not because I feel it effects the Kalam negatively. B-Theory would do a much better job of refuting the Kalam than the MST I would suppose.

how do you respond to Craig's rendition of the Leibnizian Cosmological argument which need not presume that an A-theory of time is true to be successful?

Well, if the universe doesn't come into being, and the universe is immutable (motion requires temporal becoming), it is hard to see how there could be any good argument for the universe being contingent. At the very least, it wouldn't be as obvious that the universe is contingent without the universe coming into being, and mutability being the case.

Wouldn't the opponent of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument thereby commit himself to the supposition that the universe exists necessarily (that is to say that there is no such possible world in which the universe does not exist)? That seems unintuitive to me at face-value.

It only seems unintuitive to you because you already presuppose God created the universe. The universe being necessary raises no problems for me, maybe you can explain the issue you have with the idea.

Additionally, you are confusing logical necessity with factual necessity. If something is logically necessary, then that means it would be logically impossible for that thing not to be (and it exists in every possible world). However, if something is factually necessary, that simply means it is not causally dependent on anything, and anything that is causally dependent, would be dependent on it. The universe wouldn't have to be logically necessary to satisfy the problems of cosmological arguments, just factually necessary.

Also, what makes a God more intuitively necessary than a universe? Remember, this discussion assumes B-Theory is true.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 8:23:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:01:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:38:33 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:14:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism by Simon Saunders
[http://users.ox.ac.uk...]

Why Does Time Seem To Pass? by Simon Prosser
[http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...]

Presentism And Relativity by Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen (you will like this one, as the entire paper is essentially about William Lane Craig's arguments)
[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...]

Either way, I am kind of leaning towards A-Theory more as of late. However, I still believe Presentism is false. The Moving Spotlight Theory is the most likely version of the A-Theory of time based on certain experiments in Quantum Mechanics (which is still A-Theory).

Interesting. What has made you lean away from B-Theory?

Sargon made an argument that the Cosmic Microwave Background actually serves as a preferred reference frame, which goes against the Minkowski space-time view that there is no preferred reference frame. Plus, Special Relativity (under a Minkowskian framework) implies that there is no simultaneity between two spatially separated objects, but Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's Inequalities show simultaneity between two distant photons. I am aware of some objections to these, but I'm not sure what I am more convinced by. Thus, Sargon made me doubt B-Theory.


And how has your adopting the MPT affected your thoughts on the Kalam?

That's a good question! To be honest, I have no idea... I actually messaged ReasonableFaith to try to get an answer with regards to how this theory of time would effect Craig's argument, but received no response.

Craig's definition of begins to exist seems to only work with a presentist view of time.

You still hold its untenable, I presume?

I held the Kalam untenable before I even knew what B-Theory was.

MPT seems to have elements of both A & B theory.

Yes. It is similar to B-Theory because the past, present, and future all exist. It is still A-Theory by default though, as it is a tensed theory of time.

Supposing, however, that your commitment to MPT leads to you see the Kalam as contextually unsound,

I wouldn't say I'm committed (I change my position all the time based on new information). Also, as I said, I have no idea how the MST effects the Kalam. Time is tensed, but the past, present, and future all exist; its a tricky one. I only adhere to it now because I honestly believe it is the most plausible, not because I feel it effects the Kalam negatively. B-Theory would do a much better job of refuting the Kalam than the MST I would suppose.

how do you respond to Craig's rendition of the Leibnizian Cosmological argument which need not presume that an A-theory of time is true to be successful?

Well, if the universe doesn't come into being, and the universe is immutable (motion requires temporal becoming), it is hard to see how there could be any good argument for the universe being contingent. At the very least, it wouldn't be as obvious that the universe is contingent without the universe coming into being, and mutability being the case.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 8:36:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 8:23:38 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:01:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:38:33 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:14:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism by Simon Saunders
[http://users.ox.ac.uk...]

Why Does Time Seem To Pass? by Simon Prosser
[http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...]

Presentism And Relativity by Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen (you will like this one, as the entire paper is essentially about William Lane Craig's arguments)
[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...]

Either way, I am kind of leaning towards A-Theory more as of late. However, I still believe Presentism is false. The Moving Spotlight Theory is the most likely version of the A-Theory of time based on certain experiments in Quantum Mechanics (which is still A-Theory).

Interesting. What has made you lean away from B-Theory?

Sargon made an argument that the Cosmic Microwave Background actually serves as a preferred reference frame, which goes against the Minkowski space-time view that there is no preferred reference frame. Plus, Special Relativity (under a Minkowskian framework) implies that there is no simultaneity between two spatially separated objects, but Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's Inequalities show simultaneity between two distant photons. I am aware of some objections to these, but I'm not sure what I am more convinced by. Thus, Sargon made me doubt B-Theory.


And how has your adopting the MPT affected your thoughts on the Kalam?

That's a good question! To be honest, I have no idea... I actually messaged ReasonableFaith to try to get an answer with regards to how this theory of time would effect Craig's argument, but received no response.

Craig's definition of begins to exist seems to only work with a presentist view of time.

Well, that's not entirely true. His definition is:

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e's existing at t is a tensed fact." [http://www.reasonablefaith.org...]

All theories that are A-Theory are tensed theories of time, so Presentism isn't required to satisfy Craig's definition.


You still hold its untenable, I presume?

I held the Kalam untenable before I even knew what B-Theory was.

MPT seems to have elements of both A & B theory.

Yes. It is similar to B-Theory because the past, present, and future all exist. It is still A-Theory by default though, as it is a tensed theory of time.

Supposing, however, that your commitment to MPT leads to you see the Kalam as contextually unsound,

I wouldn't say I'm committed (I change my position all the time based on new information). Also, as I said, I have no idea how the MST effects the Kalam. Time is tensed, but the past, present, and future all exist; its a tricky one. I only adhere to it now because I honestly believe it is the most plausible, not because I feel it effects the Kalam negatively. B-Theory would do a much better job of refuting the Kalam than the MST I would suppose.

how do you respond to Craig's rendition of the Leibnizian Cosmological argument which need not presume that an A-theory of time is true to be successful?

Well, if the universe doesn't come into being, and the universe is immutable (motion requires temporal becoming), it is hard to see how there could be any good argument for the universe being contingent. At the very least, it wouldn't be as obvious that the universe is contingent without the universe coming into being, and mutability being the case.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 9:13:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would like to get a response to Dr. Craig about an argument (split into two sub-arguments) I made against Presentism:

P1A: If retro-causality is a real phenomenon, the future is real

P2B: Retro-causality is a real phenomenon

CA: Therefore, the future is real

---

P1B: If the future is real, Presentism is false

P1B: The future is real

CB: Therefore, Presentism is false

Sub-argument A is logically valid, but why think the premises are true? Well, P1A should be easy to establish, because if something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then this could only happen if the future is real. Because something that plays no part of reality or never has; has no causal ability. So if an effect occurs "now" that is "retro-caused", then this means that that the cause exists in the future and must exist, or else the retro-causal relationship couldn't even take place. At any time retro-causality occurred, and included an effect that was a "now" at a certain point, the future was real and existed for that causal process to even have potential. If an effect occurred right "now" that was "retro-caused", that implies that the future exists, because how could something that is non-existent, and never played a part in reality have causal powers? That's a metaphysical impossibility, it couldn't. It would be like saying the non-existent person sneezed. So, I think that P1A is way more than reasonable than its negation because an effect that is "retro-caused" "now" clearly implies the future. What about P2A? Well, experiments in quantum mechanics show retro-causality is a real phenomenon [http://www.popsci.com...], thus P2A is scientifically justified. Since the conclusion follows logically, then the future exists.

Sub-argument B is logically valid, but why believe the premises? Well, P1B is true by definition. Presentism is the view that only the present is real, so if the future plays a part of reality, then this self-evidently contradicts Presentism. P2 is true because it is the conclusion to sub-argument A, and that conclusion was shown to be true. The conclusion to sub-argument B is true, because is follows logically from the premises. Thus, Presentism seems to be false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 9:20:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
(Correction)

*P1A: If retro-causality is a real phenomenon, the future is real

P2A: Retro-causality is a real phenomenon

CA: Therefore, the future is real
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 9:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I remember thinking about hitler, and how I view him as non existent cause he exists in the "past". And the "past" doesn't really exist. It exists in memories or as stories but it doesn't really exist in the same sense as the "now" exists.

But then it occurred to me that some one living a thousand years from now would look at me as not existing as from their point of view I exist in the "past" and the past doesn't exist.

Now I am pretty damm sure I exist. This lead me to believe that all time frames are equally real.

I think the problem is that we our stuck in our own time frame so we only consider that as the "real" and thus the "now. And everything that is not part of our "now" does not really exist....

What this means from an overall stand point...........hitler exists. But hang on, that can't be right, he is dead, long dead he doesn't exist. Well if that is your view to the person a thousands years from now you don't exist either............your dead, long dead.

But you do exist..............even though you are dead...........long dead.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 10:49:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 8:36:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 8:23:38 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:01:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:38:33 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:14:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism by Simon Saunders
[http://users.ox.ac.uk...]

Why Does Time Seem To Pass? by Simon Prosser
[http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...]

Presentism And Relativity by Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen (you will like this one, as the entire paper is essentially about William Lane Craig's arguments)
[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...]

Either way, I am kind of leaning towards A-Theory more as of late. However, I still believe Presentism is false. The Moving Spotlight Theory is the most likely version of the A-Theory of time based on certain experiments in Quantum Mechanics (which is still A-Theory).

Interesting. What has made you lean away from B-Theory?

Sargon made an argument that the Cosmic Microwave Background actually serves as a preferred reference frame, which goes against the Minkowski space-time view that there is no preferred reference frame. Plus, Special Relativity (under a Minkowskian framework) implies that there is no simultaneity between two spatially separated objects, but Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's Inequalities show simultaneity between two distant photons. I am aware of some objections to these, but I'm not sure what I am more convinced by. Thus, Sargon made me doubt B-Theory.


And how has your adopting the MPT affected your thoughts on the Kalam?

That's a good question! To be honest, I have no idea... I actually messaged ReasonableFaith to try to get an answer with regards to how this theory of time would effect Craig's argument, but received no response.

Craig's definition of begins to exist seems to only work with a presentist view of time.

Well, that's not entirely true. His definition is:

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e's existing at t is a tensed fact." [http://www.reasonablefaith.org...]

All theories that are A-Theory are tensed theories of time, so Presentism isn't required to satisfy Craig's definition.

It seems in order for something to begin to exist, it must satisfy all of the requirements. MST fits with 4, but not with 1 or 2. If the past, present, and future exist equally, then e exists regardless of the now.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 10:54:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 10:49:24 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 8:36:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/23/2013 8:23:38 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:01:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:38:33 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/22/2013 6:14:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:52:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What books/sources/papers/etc. on the nature of time can you recommend (if possible that are both espousing and critical of, say, B-Theory)?

I just picked up WLC's Time And Eternity and am looking forward to giving it a read (though, as Craig notes, one must "warm up" the mind before launching into discussion of God + time as those topics alone are complex yet combined they are immensely complex). Have you ever given it a read, by any chance?

I ask all this because I've noted your interest in discussion of the nature of time.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism by Simon Saunders
[http://users.ox.ac.uk...]

Why Does Time Seem To Pass? by Simon Prosser
[http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...]

Presentism And Relativity by Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen (you will like this one, as the entire paper is essentially about William Lane Craig's arguments)
[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...]

Either way, I am kind of leaning towards A-Theory more as of late. However, I still believe Presentism is false. The Moving Spotlight Theory is the most likely version of the A-Theory of time based on certain experiments in Quantum Mechanics (which is still A-Theory).

Interesting. What has made you lean away from B-Theory?

Sargon made an argument that the Cosmic Microwave Background actually serves as a preferred reference frame, which goes against the Minkowski space-time view that there is no preferred reference frame. Plus, Special Relativity (under a Minkowskian framework) implies that there is no simultaneity between two spatially separated objects, but Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's Inequalities show simultaneity between two distant photons. I am aware of some objections to these, but I'm not sure what I am more convinced by. Thus, Sargon made me doubt B-Theory.


And how has your adopting the MPT affected your thoughts on the Kalam?

That's a good question! To be honest, I have no idea... I actually messaged ReasonableFaith to try to get an answer with regards to how this theory of time would effect Craig's argument, but received no response.

Craig's definition of begins to exist seems to only work with a presentist view of time.

Well, that's not entirely true. His definition is:

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e's existing at t is a tensed fact." [http://www.reasonablefaith.org...]

All theories that are A-Theory are tensed theories of time, so Presentism isn't required to satisfy Craig's definition.

It seems in order for something to begin to exist, it must satisfy all of the requirements. MST fits with 4, but not with 1 or 2. If the past, present, and future exist equally, then e exists regardless of the now.

That is actually a good point. I suppose the MST wouldn't really fit to well with Craig's definition.