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 am2. Therefore only now
always existed
Partial refutation of said fuzzy assertions with their own internal logic.
devans99 wrote: ↑October 21st, 2018, 7:30 am3. 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 am4. 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 am6. 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 am7. 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.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me