Scott wrote:I am denying the existence of time.
RJG wrote:Was there a "before" posting and a "after" posting of these words?
Scott wrote:No, not really.
We can analogously think of these would-be events as if they exist as scenes on an unchanging unplayed DVD in a reality/universe that contains no DVD player and nothing but that unchanging DVD, which is thus an eternal reality without change or time.
Scott wrote:The unplayed DVD is analogously the eternal unchanging 4D block universe, timeless and unchanging.
If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that, because you have a conscious experience that appears to be happening, something must be happening (i.e. some kind of transcendental change is occurring), meaning there must be something transcendental to the unchanging 4D block universe, such that the deterministic physical description of the eternal 4D block universe is incomplete. Is that what you are saying?RJG wrote: ↑April 16th, 2021, 4:54 pm Okay, I don't disagree here, but this is just static data. Nothing happens at this point. But in reality stuff happens, which means this analogy is not complete, the events/scenes on DVD needs to be "played" for stuff to happen, otherwise we wouldn't be here "playing out the scene" of talking about this topic.
If so, I would agree except for the fact that we might be working under the assumption that consciousness is not fundamental, not transcendental, and not physically forceful, in which case the best most parsimonious candidate to potentially explain the apparent transcendentality and apparent change is excluded.
Under normal conditions, I would not favor the illusionary theory of conscious, a theory which is argued by Daniel Dennett. However, if I am forced as a premise/assumption to non-parsimoniously assume that consciousness is not fundamental, not transcendental, and not physically forceful (not things I would normally assume), then I might thus be stuck favoring a Dennett-style theory of consciousness, in other words rejecting your assertion that "something is happening".
In other words, I believe that if time is relative, then change is incompatible with determinism, at least assuming there is nothing transcendental to the otherwise deterministic part of the universe (thus meaning the deterministic part of the universe is all that there is, only an unchanging DVD and no player).
In the paragraph above, I use the phrase "otherwise deterministic part of the universe" to refer to the unchanging DVD, which in Einstein's physics is an unchanging timeless 4D block universe.
If there is nothing transcendental to that unchanging DVD, then presumably ipso faco Dennett would be correct to deny your appeal to conscious experience as proof that something is happening.
Personally, I favor the logic of Descartes over Dennett on this matter (i.e. Cogito Ergo Sum), and thus I would instead prefer to assume there is something transcendental to the 4D block universe. In which case, there may be no change within the 4D block universe itself but rather the change you seem to experience is a change in the relationship between the transcendental DVD player (e.g. your consciousness) and the block universe. To me, that's the most parsimonious way to explain the appearance of transcendental happenings (i.e. your conscious experience). However, if we exclude transcendentality, then I fear we are left with Dennett's theory instead.
I don't consider myself a dualist. I believe you can have a DVD and a DVD player in a monistic reality. Heck, I have them both in my living room right now, and it doesn't seem like any dualism is going on in there. In other words, I think we can preserve monism while still allowing for the possibility that consciousness may be transcendental, fundamental, or physically forceful.
Scott wrote:Additionally, we can imagine the DVD is a video game not a movie, such that the unchanging data could be played in all sorts of different ways.
Not necessarily because I used the phrase "could be".
I am not saying there is a DVD player.
The point is that the DVD itself does not contain information about how to play it. The DVD doesn't have rules or information regarding how to turn the data into a series of frames, and it doesn't have rules or information regarding what order those frames need to go in. It doesn't have time. To get time(s), you need something transcendental (i.e. one or more DVD players), but assuming you have multiple DVD players, each player would bring its own relative emergent time because the relative emergent time is created by the player's transcendental organizing of the info on the DVD along with its transcendental experience/display of that information. Thus, any kind of apparent time is transcendentally relative to that player and that player's changing relationship to the unchanging DVD.
Again, I am not saying there is a DVD player, but simply illustrating how the DVD (i.e. unchanging 4D spacetime) has no dimension of time and how nothing is really happening in that DVD because the DVD is unchanging. To get real 'happening' requires something transcendental to the unchanging 4D block universe, and that at best only gives relative emergent non-fundamental time that depends on the transcendental player.
I am not suggesting that. You might be, but I am not.
You are the one who keeps insisting something is really happening. If it is, then it must be transcendental to the unchanging DVD.
I am not a dualist.
I am confident in my belief objective time does not exist, I am confident in my belief that relative time is at best emergent and non-fundamental if not just an utterly fictional illusion, and I am agnostic about the idea that "something is happening" or that "change exists". If your assertion that something beyond the physical 4D block universe is happening and thus it is magical or such, then I am at most agnostic about that if not willing to disbelieve it in the name of parsimony.
I don't believe in anything supernatural or paranormal.
I do believe in consciousness and what I would call "conscious presence", but that is "presence" not in time (i.e. not a 0-D point in 1-D time) but rather a 4-D here and now in timeless 4-D spacetime. As such, it's not clear what the word "presence" means exactly and if it is even the best word for what is really going on if anything is really going on. There's a lot I don't know, and about that kind of stuff I'm generally agnostic. Maybe something is happening; maybe it's not. Either way, time is not real, and spacetime is clearly timeless, which importantly means simultaneity is relative.
RJG wrote:In other words, was there a point in spacetime that these words were not posted on this forum and then another point in spacetime when it was posted?
Scott wrote:What do you mean by a "point" in spacetime? (Please note, that spacetime is 4D and timeless.)
I still don't understand the question. What does it mean for a place/spot stored as data on a DVD to be after another place/spot?RJG wrote: Sorry, I didn't mean "point" in the literal 0D sense, I mean the "place" in spacetime. If we were to use the DVD analogy, then it is the place (spot) on the DVD which contains the event prior to you posting "I am denying the existence of time." and then the place on the DVD which contains the event just after you posted these words.
It all exists on the timeless unchanging DVD already, and there is no objective order to it all. There isn't even a way to objectively slice the 4D data into 3D frames, let alone objectively order those frames into some proper order. There's infinite ways to translate the 4D data into a series of 3D frames. What data gets played/accessed before or after or at the same as some other data would be up to a transcendental DVD player to decide, if such a thing even exists, and each transcendental DVD player could play the unchanging DVD any one of the infinite ways, if such transcendental DVD players even exist.
The places/spots in 4D spacetime do not have 1D order to them.
Scott wrote:Needless to say, if you assume that happening/change is real, and I argue that it is not, then my arguments will contradict your assumptions.
Indeed, I don't see anything logically contradictory in Einstein's block universe model.RJG wrote: Yes, agreed. From my view, happening/change is logically impossible to deny, whereas from your view, it is not, ...hence our disconnect.
If you want to appeal to yours (and my) shared apparently transcendental experience (i.e. consciousness) as proof that something transcendental to the 4D block universe must exist to explain that transcendental experience, I am open to that argument.
However, if we non-parsimoniously assume consciousness is not fundamental, not transcendental, and not physically forceful, then I think that argument fails, or perhaps even contradicts itself. In other words, if we non-parsimoniously assume consciousness is not fundamental, not transcendental, and not physically forceful, then I refuse to believe there is a DVD player (i.e. something transcendental to the unchanging DVD that is timeless 4D spacetime).
I'd quicker accept Daniel Dennett's arguments about consciousness than reject Einstein's physics. However, if I can keep Einstein's and reject (or at least remain agnostic about) Dennett's, then that's the route I would choose.