I'm not shooting the philosopher. Having studied a lot of philosophy in my day, I've seen what I feel are some ways that it can go wrong, and have exp...
Personally, I would not refer to time as measured by a clock as "physical time". I would call it "clock time" or some such. Time as measured by a cloc...
I don't understand your argument. We should not be making any metaphysical conclusions based on how computers are typically used today. As for the "co...
This is not true. A programming language that supports doing mathematical calculations with rational numbers will typically not force you to ever conv...
Yes, I have agreed as much. The problem is that Tegmark is making a contentious premise in his argument, and therefore, we cannot be sure of his concl...
I certainly don't agree that with Zelebg, but this assertion of yours is wrong. Computers can and do represent rational numbers at times with perfect ...
Sure, but so what? Nothing interesting results from this. If you want to get to the interesting question, let's take Max Tegmark's argument that in ou...
I have an SB in Philosophy. I never studied Philosophy of math. (Though I did take a class on Paradox and Infinity taught by George Boolos.) In my edu...
You made an argument with a false premise. Consequently, you have not proven your conclusion. This is Logic 101. No. Faces can differ in details that ...
Does space flow towards the north pole? And yet there is a spacial "arrow" that points towards the north pole. And the state of things that are "here"...
You can't fit all the required information about even a single particle on any finite-sized pixelated page because some of the values associated with ...
I have not said that time has a "preferred directionality". I have said that you can remember the past and not the future. Which direction is "preferr...
That may very well be true, But that doesn't mean (1) That I have the time or interest to pursue their particular theories. I already spent enough of ...
I don't assume that time flows from ordered to disordered states. In fact, since I have stated that eternalism is true, I have stated that time doesn'...
I'v presented more than a bit of evidence that they do to the intelligent layperson. I've also proven that they are also used this way by at least eno...
I think the issue here is that the terms like "motionless" and "static" are ambiguous and emotionally laden when talking about something like eternali...
I don't think you understand how philosophy works. You pointed me at something that putatively needs to be explained, and I provided my putative expla...
My boss has a PhD in linquistics. I was just using him as another piece of evidence in how the word "fact" is used by a layperson. In general, linguis...
It's been a long time since I studied special relativity (we spent several weeks on it in Physics 101), but IIRC, relativity doesn't provide a forward...
The appearance of motion is something that is represented in your brain. Where else would there be an appearance of motion? Since physics is the same ...
I've never heard of such a distinction. Are you talking about the difference between theoretical and experimental science? I am quite familiar with th...
I understand this. The second law of thermodynamics is not even fundamental law. It is stochastic. For an eternalist, I should not think that this is ...
Another possible response from eternalists is the "spotlight theory". It's in Miller's article, so you can read more about it there. Under the spotlig...
Eternalists have such accounts: Time is real. It is locally ordered. (I word it this way just to account for Special Relativity.) For every point in l...
You asked how things like bodily functions can work under eternalism. They work under eternalism for the same reason they work under presentism. I.e.,...
You just don't understand these metaphysical distinctions. As I mentioned physical law is identical under both of them. If you don't believe me, write...
You need to read Miller again. Presentism and eternalism are metaphysical theses. They do not affect physical law. Physical law is exactly the same wi...
There is no need. I have read the article by Katie Miller and she has done a perfectly good job of explaining all the issues. I agree with everything ...
No offense, but I think that you have taken what has been written at a superficial level and haven't done the work to actually understand it. If you d...
I don't have time to read Miller right now. I have actual work to do, which is towards trying to cure cancer. So please forgive me if I'm erring on th...
I don't really know what to say. It works exactly the same. The only difference is whether you consider the past and future to not exist, which is pre...
I don't understand your question. In an eternalist world, I exist right now, as I am typing this, and I can remember events that happened before right...
The eternalist account is that at every point in time, a cognitive entity can remember events from the past and cannot remember events from the future...
Actually, I don't give a shit about his word usage. The only reason that I acted pedantically to him is that he has recently been unrelentingly pedant...
Because the way that entropy works implies that people (and computers, animals, etc.) will remember the past and not the future, where the past is def...
Maybe that argument isn't a strawmen against the kind of position held by certain theists, but that argument is a strawman to anything that I or Parfi...
He's rude and mocking, for one. He's also tilting at strawmen, other than maybe Leibnitz's work. But in this day and age, Leibnitz's philosophizing is...
Alas, I'm not sure where the confusion is arising. If you believe that GR entails eternalism, the forward direction of time is given straight-forwardl...
I have a degree in Philosophy from MIT. I was trained that when you want to address questions that are important to normal people, then you have to us...
This is more evidence for eternalism if you ask me. E.g., why is it that "metaphysical time" just happens to agree with the arrow of time placed by th...
Thanks for pointing me at this paper, but (1) I'm with Feynman that this guy was an obnoxious ass, and (2) nobody gets far in my book by dismissing Pa...
Comments