Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Proof Eternalism is Correct

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3487
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by Fooloso4 » October 21st, 2018, 6:53 pm

devans99:
Presentism posits that only now exists; And therefore only now has always existed.
Here you persist in repeating the claims you falsely attribute to presentism. Repeating false claims does not make them true and only proves your willingness to deceive or be deceived.

This repeats the pattern of your last topic.

devans99
Posts: 130
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by devans99 » October 22nd, 2018, 3:44 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 6:53 pm
devans99:
Presentism posits that only now exists; And therefore only now has always existed.
Here you persist in repeating the claims you falsely attribute to presentism. Repeating false claims does not make them true and only proves your willingness to deceive or be deceived.

This repeats the pattern of your last topic.
My claim is true; its all explained here:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presentism/

devans99
Posts: 130
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by devans99 » October 22nd, 2018, 3:49 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 6:49 pm
Devans99:
Right so according to Presentism, time has a NO start, so the rest of my proof follows…
It does not follow from the denial that there is a start of now that it is not the case that always only now exists.
So you are saying now only existed but in the past more than now existed?

Fooloso4 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 6:49 pm
Presentism is the believe that only now exists; hence if Presentism is false, more than now exists; past and present exist, so Eternalism is true.
But you have not shown that presentism is false. Presentism and eternalism are not the only options. In addition, you don't say anything about the future and eternalism. One can hold that the past existed but no longer does, the present exists but did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future, and that the future does not exist.

Once again, all of these concepts of time, including eternalism, present problems. To pretend or worse to delude yourself that you have proven that eternalism is correct is self-deception.
"One can hold that the past existed but no longer does" - Presentism
"the present exists but did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future" - Presentism
"and that the future does not exist" - Presentism

Eternalism is the believe that past, present and future all exist.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3487
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by Fooloso4 » October 22nd, 2018, 11:19 am

devans99:
My claim is true; its all explained here:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presentism/
Where does the article say that only now has ever existed? That is either your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what the article says. What it says is that only now exists. It rejects the use of the past tense 'existed'.
So you are saying now only existed but in the past more than now existed?
We went over this already. Presentism says only now exists. The past does not exist. More than what now exists does not exist.
"One can hold that the past existed but no longer does" - Presentism
No. Presentism denies the existence of the past.

Pointing to problems of presentism does not prove that eternalism is correct for it too has problems.

Unless you have something new and substantive to say I see no point in going round and round. This is the second topic dealing with this. I am not going to play a part in its endless repetition.

devans99
Posts: 130
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by devans99 » October 22nd, 2018, 12:02 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 6:49 pm
Devans99:
SORRY I MEANT:

Right so according to Presentism, time has a NO start, so the rest of my proof follows…
It does not follow from the denial that there is a start of now, that it is not the case that always only now exists.
IE you imply 'always only now exists' which is the only possible sensible position for a Presentist to hold. And 'always only now exists' implies time had no start, hence the rest of my proof follows...

Fooloso4 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 6:49 pm
Devans99:
Presentism and eternalism are not the only options.
What other options are there?

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3487
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by Fooloso4 » October 22nd, 2018, 12:20 pm

Round and round. I'm done.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2864
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by Burning ghost » October 22nd, 2018, 12:41 pm

Physical time is quite “bendy.” The term “exist” is the most problematic when trying to talk about this.

Physically speaking (as in humanly speaking) the past has gone so it no longer exists. Memories may exist of the past and thoughts exist of the future. The contention for me is understanding the “present,” and what the hell it means.

From a moral position if the past “exists” - is physically there, but for whatever natural machinatoin we cannot knowlingly access it - then does it follow that “fatalism” is a necessary view to attach to it?

I find time to be the most tricky subject there is in terms of how we apply any real understanding to such a concept given that we essentially/necessarily define ourselves by our spaciotemporal existence.
AKA badgerjelly

devans99
Posts: 130
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by devans99 » October 22nd, 2018, 3:51 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 22nd, 2018, 12:41 pm
From a moral position if the past “exists” - is physically there, but for whatever natural machinatoin we cannot knowlingly access it - then does it follow that “fatalism” is a necessary view to attach to it?
My proof agrees with Einstein's Relativity and Einstein always though that past, present future are all real and free will is an illusion.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2864
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by Burning ghost » October 22nd, 2018, 4:17 pm

devans99 wrote:
October 22nd, 2018, 3:51 pm
Burning ghost wrote:
October 22nd, 2018, 12:41 pm
From a moral position if the past “exists” - is physically there, but for whatever natural machinatoin we cannot knowlingly access it - then does it follow that “fatalism” is a necessary view to attach to it?
My proof agrees with Einstein's Relativity and Einstein always though that past, present future are all real and free will is an illusion.
Yeah, but do you think you’ve actually answered the question you quoted? I don’t see how you did and if not what am I meant to make of this response?
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 23rd, 2018, 6:25 am

devans99 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 4:47 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 4:28 pm


I think you have a lot more work to do.
Points 2 and 3 ASSUME eternalism, which you fallaciously use to deny presentism.
Eternalism also implies endlessness. Since you can not (in fact never) prove that reality shall never end, you cannot assert the truth of eternalism.
Point 2 follows from point 1 only; Presentism posits that only now exists; And therefore only now has always existed. I am not assuming anything.

Point 3 follows from point 2; if now has always existed, there can be no start to time

Eternalism does always not imply endlessness; the word has two meanings: eternal in time implies endlessness/infinity and is impossible. The way I mean it is eternal outside time which is a finite state.
Why could the PRESENT not begin and end?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 23rd, 2018, 6:26 am

What makes you think the eternal can begin and end?

devans99
Posts: 130
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by devans99 » October 23rd, 2018, 6:57 am

Thanks for the feedback guys. I have noticed an error in my proof... so I've given a revised version below. Sorry about that.


Proof Eternalism is Correct

First we prove that time has a start:

- The universe follows rules that our described by mathematics. Negative infinity does not exist mathematically. Proof: there is no number X such that X< all other numbers because X-1<X. Hence eternity (in time) is impossible

- If time did not have a start then an actual infinity of time has passed so far which is impossible

- Imagine an eternal being; impossible to exist; he would have no start in time so would not exist. Being is possible we therefor conclude Eternal is not

- If the universe has been around for ever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now. But the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium

Next, disprove the most common form of Presentism:

1. Presentism posits that only now exists
2. Therefore only now always existed
3. Therefore time did not have a start
4. But if you take away the start (Monday) does the rest of the week still exist?
5. No, so time has a start
6. Hence Presentism is false
7. Hence Eternalism must be true

The above prove does not cover Presentism combined with a start of time, so we prove Eternalism twice via two separate argument:

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So something must have always existed
3. But time has a start
4. So something must exist outside of time
5. We exist in that something so we exist outside of time


1. Time has a start
2. Something timeless must have existed before time
3. We are part of that timeless something

Existing outside of time is equivalent to Eternalism

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 169
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by Papus79 » November 28th, 2018, 12:44 am

GI/GO
devans99 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 7:30 am
1. Presentism posits that only now exists
Starts with a claim by people laying fuzzy assertions on fuzzy definitions.
devans99 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 7:30 am
2. Therefore only now always existed
Partial refutation of said fuzzy assertions with their own internal logic.
devans99 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 7:30 am
3. Therefore time did not have a start
Incendiary refutation of said fuzzy assertions with their own internal logic.
devans99 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 7:30 am
4. But if you take away the start (Monday) does the rest of the week (Tuesday...) still exist?
5. No, so time has a start
Reminds me of some form of either things have always existed or always will. It's probably 'always will' but we don't know the 'what', and as far as I can tell Heraclitus was right that change is the one thing we can bank on and that's probably change for the better, change for worse, change for change.
devans99 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 7:30 am
6. Hence Presentism is false
If you think of every time ever having existed being a previous now, and every moment yet to be a future now it means we're back to square one - blinking at the panorama of information from all previous ages and guesses toward the future like most people who haven't naval-gazed long enough to spool themselves around a fragmentary idea.
devans99 wrote:
October 21st, 2018, 7:30 am
7. Hence Eternalism must be true
I'm still not sure whether existence of particles and their relative position is necessary to say that there' one moment and then there's another. It could be that no one's there to experience it (would have to be the case with no particles) but I think its fair to say that stuff has always existed and always will and if there's a reason for that not to be the case its some bit of forensics out in the multiverse that's beyond anyone's reach or pay grade on this planet these days.

Also, the people I've come in contact with who'd say that time doesn't exist don't quite phrase it like 1), there more likely to say that if one is outside the direct flow of it that it's closer to a geometric object that's all connected and even explorable from deeper places of mind. It's easiest to maybe imagine that from a deterministic/Newtonian sort of unfolding but such simplicity is probably not the case. It reminds me that I need to look into Brian Greene's assertion of indeterminism and figure out which experiments make them certain that you couldn't eternally play back five minutes like security camera footage.

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 169
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by Papus79 » November 28th, 2018, 12:53 am

Burning ghost wrote:
October 22nd, 2018, 12:41 pm
Physically speaking (as in humanly speaking) the past has gone so it no longer exists. Memories may exist of the past and thoughts exist of the future. The contention for me is understanding the “present,” and what the hell it means.
It's smudged by our senses always relating what happened a fraction of a second in the past and to think about it the sense of congruity we have is really an amazing illusion. I'm forced to consider the 'present' to just be a complex vector of activity that we find ourselves riding the edge of at all times, it's never just one moment but more like a traveling wave or blur.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2864
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Proof Eternalism is Correct

Post by Burning ghost » November 28th, 2018, 2:51 am

Papus79 wrote:
November 28th, 2018, 12:53 am
Burning ghost wrote:
October 22nd, 2018, 12:41 pm
Physically speaking (as in humanly speaking) the past has gone so it no longer exists. Memories may exist of the past and thoughts exist of the future. The contention for me is understanding the “present,” and what the hell it means.
It's smudged by our senses always relating what happened a fraction of a second in the past and to think about it the sense of congruity we have is really an amazing illusion. I'm forced to consider the 'present' to just be a complex vector of activity that we find ourselves riding the edge of at all times, it's never just one moment but more like a traveling wave or blur.
Well, yeah ... but ... what can we SAY about this in better detail? This is precisely why I like Husserl’s general approach to the problem of subjectivity. His approach to time is quite complex/vague.
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply