noAxioms

You misunderstand me. Stanford eternalism entry says that 1917 say, "exists right now", tempting one to imply that 1917 and 'now' are simultaneous. Et...

I think it legal to use these tenses, but the reference point must be explicit, lacking an objective present. So from 1910's present, WWI will happen....

I'm on record for not liking the way Stanford words that whole section. My interpretation of that statement (You also edit out the disclaimer that exp...

I didn't say that, unqualified like that. Stanford qualifies the difference. If it states that there is an ontological present, then it is not any for...

They are existing in an ontological sense, but not a temporal sense. I don't like to reference the present when speaking of ontological sense since it...

Agree with the post. I've said elsewhere that it reduces to temporal realism vs. idealism.

'Simultaneous' is a temporal term, not an ontological one. So Earth, 2045 and 1945 both exist (exist now in an ontological sense), but there is no sim...

It does indeed say that, with the note that Socrates is not currently present. So there's a difference, and they are apparently allowing the use of an...

Eternalism is not an assertion that all times 'currently exist'. No, events are still ordered if within each others' light cones. My parents were born...

Let me bold some:There is no present, no present objects, since no reference has been specified. So you can say that Napoleon presently exists at Eart...

Very well then, but use of relative terms to describe a non-relative concept is inevitably going to run into inconsistencies like that.

Yes, the most distant objects are from the longest time ago. The CMB is the oldest thing visible. It is a wall beyond which nothing can be seen, at le...

No, not simultaneously. Each moment is its own time (they're not simultaneous any more than each location is the same place). It's just that no partic...

Entropy? Distant places look younger. There are no quazars nearby since they've all burned out. Really distant galaxies don't have stars yet. Also the...

I find the idea more plausible than not. If Earth now gets clobbered by a big asteroid, it will eject tons of life into space, plenty to drops some se...

Yes, I said it was Newton. I also said that equation went unaltered by relativity. Zero force still means zero acceleration, in any frame.

F=MA. No force means no acceleration. That's a Newton equation, and relativity didn't even need to modify that one. The twin paradox can be illustrate...

All this is utterly wrong. The stay-home person is not accelerating in the frame of the rocket twin. It takes force to accelerate, and no force is bei...

I know you're anti-science, but what does that statement even mean??? Agustino, I would have said that scientific time is the time in scientific equat...

Have not read all the replies, but the language in the OP is summarized by that snippet. One is a materialist or a philosopher. It seems that material...

It apparently does matter if you give meaning to the distinction between the Paris we know being real or a simulation. If a thing cannot be a simulati...

Sorry for slow reply. Been busy and I wanted to not post this until I reviewed it a couple times. I don't consider BIV to require it. There is a mind,...

My assumption is no dualism, not necessarily true, but hardly a wild assumption. I consider BIV to be dualism, essentially a mind being fed lies about...

You've not defined the problem. The odds of having the best poker hand at a given time is 1/number-of-players, and that does not equate to the odds of...

OK, no argument with it being a possibility. It is the expressing of the odds of this possible situation as 50/50 that I didn't understand. If you are...

My reasoning assumes no BIV, a separate thing that experiences a sensory stream that is not the same sort of thing that is the experiencer. It assumes...

That winning streak happens or it doesn't. 50/50, right? Or am I misunderstanding your stance that you stood by since you were 7?

Granted. I must reword then. This whole set of logic presupposes that what things are is the instantiation, or execution, of whatever physics makes de...

This whole set of logic presupposes that what we are is the instantiation, or execution, of whatever physics makes us up. But a simulation of thing X ...

My thoughts are that I'd like to play poker with you.

If this were so, the red shift would be greatest towards the mass that is pulling everything in since acceleration would be greatest there. Smaller re...

You seem to be unclear on the difference between evidence and proof. Yes, there is no disproof of idealism, but evidence abounds. It is also illogical...

Didn't say it was. So you've repeatedly asserted. You are free to deny any evidence that does not convenience your faith. I think hidden variable inte...

Probabilistic is not undetermined. For that matter, determined does not mean determinable. Agree with TMF here, sort of. The world is for the most par...

Yes. The math makes sense in all of them, else they'd not be valid interpretations, but rather disproved hypotheses.

The primary one that drove Einstein which is relativity of simultaneity. There seems to be no ontological status difference between different times of...

Have not heard this. Hmm, climate change makes it rain less on certain forests and increase fire risk? This is just a guess. Any global warming makes ...

It is trivial to disprove such epistemology even given a simpler natural law that is not probabilistic. Determinism is not a claim of what can be know...

And you repeat the mistake again. Determinism makes no claim of predictability, and lack of predictability is zero evidence against determinism. Is th...

They don't claim predictability though, and your arguments are against that perceived claim of predictability. What 'clear' evidence have you against ...

Who is clinging to these old ideas of perfect predictability? Anybody who knows their mathematics, never mind their physics? Or is your stance that la...

Quite the opposite. Natural law is derived from QM, not the other way around. In a pure Newtonian set of physical rules, this is true. QM does not say...

While I do think the situation can be reduced to particle physics, at no point in that view is there a 'thing' which does an 'action'. There is never ...

Will try to take the time to watch that. Would prefer a transcript. <edit> Will be looking through the atlantic link instead. Far better. I tend to ag...

Found a pretty comprehensive article on the problem. Goes on for 5 pages and leaves few stones unturned, including the accretion suggested this thread...

So look to the biologists for answers. As a side note, I visited the Alaskan rain forest and also a small patch of woods just outside that zone which ...

3 is worded entirely differently. You've not stated that F cannot see that F is consistent, nor that humans can prove that F is consistent. So nothing...

All the responses so far seem to revolve around a good-female partner. In absence of her suitability as a partner, what might be meant by a 'good woma...

I stand corrected. It really was about an imaginary or conceptual god. From a strictly logical standpoint, the argument seems to fall apart since it r...

To state that God is the greatest being imaginable is to state up front that God is imaginary. Surely an existing god would be greater than the limits...