Well yea, since the OP opens with: "If the mind is immaterial:" The post asks to explore the viability of the alternate POV where there are two separa...
I've stayed out, and I find the arguments by unenlightened to be on point. Nevertheless, the discussion seems to have turned to how materialism explai...
Near as I can tell, you mean something like 'coordinate time' when using the phrase 'relativistic time'. Coordinate time and physical (proper) time is...
Actually, you never really defined what you mean by 'relativistic time'. You say physical time is that which clocks measure. I think physics would say...
I might not. You're the one making the suggestion and then driving your own assertions to obvious nonsense conclusions. Exactly so. So maybe try it wi...
I think I'm up to that explanation, which, from a physicalist point of view, can be explained through entropy and evolution, but almost nobody actuall...
Not movement. I refer to the rate at which the present moment progresses into say a moment one second hence. No device measures this, and the subjecti...
For one, 'infinite' is not an amount, and 'literal infinite' is no different than 'infinite'. I would instead find it unintuitive to suggest that ther...
Miller writes this: Now either Miller has no understanding of the position, or she's talking about something completely different. The view denies the...
I can think of at least 3 things very wrong with this statement. For one, what's the difference between X being half Y and X being eternally half Y? I...
What is both finite and infinite? The length of AB is finite, and is never infinite. The number of points that can be described along AB is not finite...
Case in point: I don't think the typical eternalist would assert a motionless landscape. An object is here at time zero, and over there at time 1, thu...
Bijection has nothing to do with length. That just indicates that no line segment necessarily has more or less individual points than another. Length ...
Only actual antirealist position I can think of is outright nihilism, and from what I understand of that, no, minds and bodies (not even ones own) exi...
Since this topic was resurrected, I want to point out the contradiction of antirealism, defined in the OP as "denial of the existence of an objective ...
I think the philosophical preference of a physicist, one who knows what he's talking about, typically has better grounding than a similar opinion from...
Is it always 'because God says'? Take some moral rule X. Is X a rule because God says, or does God say because X is really wrong? The former denies ob...
My stance on this topic is well known. While an eternalist, I've started an advocatus diaboli thread on the old PF defending presentism. There's no fa...
Sounds like the truth of any set of propositions being equated to the mutual validity of the propositions. I'm pretty open to that, although it seems ...
Not really my place to define God, despite me being raised that way. What's that got to do with logic and infinite regress? My philosophy is currently...
Kant is seemingly wrong then, because uncaused events have been demonstrated (well beyond Kant's time), although there are interpretations that posit ...
What does 'original cause' mean? Most effects (I can think of no exceptions) are a combination of countless causes, the absence of which would likely ...
Free will, as it is usually defined, means that Dewey, being possessed by a supernatural demon and thus under remote control, has free will. Bob does ...
I stated this in my prior reply to you. So free will is making your own choices. That's pretty different than the usual definition, I know, but when p...
I don't find it obvious. I mean, I don't think I have a keyboard, so if it turns out I do, I have no clue as to what has one and what doesn't. Under p...
Don't mind if I do. Does all life have this? Does a dandelion have a keyboard? It would be like a keyboard attached to a solar sidewalk light: Not ver...
Maybe it would be better to let a proponent of free will do the defining of it then. I'm a proponent of it, but my definition is very different than t...
I know this post is 3 years old, but this seems like a the sort of definition that makes me consider free will to be something undesirable. I am stand...
If they're separated, their computation of each other's ages is a frame dependent thing, but I agree that the answers agree in the two frames where ea...
I agree that dismissing acceleration altogether is wrong. We seem to take apart Lincoln's dismissal of the 3-person scenario the same way. I would hav...
I looked at the comments first, and the common complaint is that he speaks to you as a child through the first 12 minutes, and then suddenly blurts th...
You were told incorrectly. This can be verified here on Earth where two clocks are kept at identical speed but one experiences far greater continuous ...
Where above did I assert that self-consistency made an argument true? I didn't, which means I'm not incorrect, or at least you've not pointed out wher...
Out of curiosity, why? What difference would it make if the truth of that bit was knowable one way or the other? I agree with the prior post about thi...
We're talking about the same thing, just slightly different wording,. I'm not trying to make it consistent with your perspective. Where ever did I say...
I've queried a few 'live physicists' about a couple points (not this one), and most of them don't know their philosophy very well, and might have diff...
I can think of countless counterexamples to pretty much everything asserted in the OP. Distance is not an issue. The moon causes tides without touchin...
The view to which I refer (positing no preferred moment in time) was probably not something Aristotle was aware of. The argument you outline assumes t...
You cannot back this assertion. Science has done no such thing, especially since what I called a bias (the lack of a present moment) is strictly a phi...
jgill bumps an excellent example of an invalid argument which in this case begs two different conclusions by assuming them both true in order to concl...
It make sense to those that understand it. I'm sorry that you're apparently not one of them. Your contradictions come from twisting my statements out ...
Not possible. Beyond a certain distance away, the Hubble expansion prevents any object from being stationary relative to something over here. Seems co...
Kind of by definition, yes. I think it safe to use such a definition. Doesn't follow the way it is worded. Give the above definition, try: "if thought...
Wrinkles in fabric are not movement, so 'clearly' hasn't exactly been spelled out. I didn't say nothing moves. Your refusal to understand the view isn...
The speed (not velocity) of light is constant. Each photon has a different frame dependent velocity. Light does not define a valid reference frame, so...
If there are only two objects in the universe moving relative to each other, a third object might be stationary relative to one of them, but it would ...
It isn't a premise at all, but rather a conclusion from a different premise, one a thousand years old, that time is a 4th dimension, even if the 'spac...
Comments