Jump to content


- - - - -

Characteristic of Truth


  • Please log in to reply
214 replies to this topic

#201 Big Blooming Blighter

Big Blooming Blighter

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,989 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Rob

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:45 PM

I am, quite frankly, at a loss as to what premises Pearl and Borer are relying on to conclude a logical consistency between relativity and presentism.

By its very nature, as Misialowski has fleshed out, relativity is logically inconsistent with presentism. There cannot be multiple inertial frames in a presentist system: presentism allows only for one frame, and it is not dependent on any observer, nor any observational state.


If Pearl has in mind a further alternative, aside from eternalism and presentism, it would be conducive to discourse if he were to lay it out.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince of a Thousand enemies. And when they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you; digger, listener, runner, Prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.

#202 Michael S. Pearl

Michael S. Pearl

    Galilean

  • Administrators
  • 1,380 posts
  • LocationFolsom, Louisiana

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:08 PM

View PostBig Blooming Blighter, on 21 January 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

I am, quite frankly, at a loss as to what premises Pearl and Borer are relying on to conclude a logical consistency between relativity and presentism.
You are at a loss both because I do not defend presentism and because I do not either claim or conclude that there is "a logical consistency between relativity and presentism."

Do you comprehend why it is that relativity is insufficient for a conclusion of eternalism?

View PostBig Blooming Blighter, on 21 January 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

If Pearl has in mind a further alternative, aside from eternalism and presentism, it would be conducive to discourse if he were to lay it out.
If relativity is insufficient (and it is) for there to be an eternalism conclusion that necessarily follows from relativity theories, and if presentism is, by the assorted definitions put forth for it, incompatible with relativity, then the realm of possibility has been limited. This limitation is critically relevant for those who think that theories of time resembling the likes of presentism and eternalism and A-theory and B-theory are in some way essential (rather than merely interesting). I do not yet find such theories to be essential; therefore, my contribution "conducive to discourse" for those with any reason for concentrating on theories of time is the limits referred to that follow from the provided insufficiencies of the presentism and eternalism concepts.

Michael
Love, by its very nature, is unworldly, and it is for this reason rather than its rarity that it is not only apolitical but anti-political, perhaps the most powerful of all anti-political human forces. -Hannah Arendt

#203 Big Blooming Blighter

Big Blooming Blighter

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,989 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Rob

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:58 PM

View PostMichael S. Pearl, on 21 January 2011 - 04:08 PM, said:

View PostBig Blooming Blighter, on 21 January 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

I am, quite frankly, at a loss as to what premises Pearl and Borer are relying on to conclude a logical consistency between relativity and presentism.
You are at a loss both because I do not defend presentism and because I do not either claim or conclude that there is "a logical consistency between relativity and presentism."

Do you comprehend why it is that relativity is insufficient for a conclusion of eternalism?

View PostBig Blooming Blighter, on 21 January 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

If Pearl has in mind a further alternative, aside from eternalism and presentism, it would be conducive to discourse if he were to lay it out.
If relativity is insufficient (and it is) for there to be an eternalism conclusion that necessarily follows from relativity theories, and if presentism is, by the assorted definitions put forth for it, incompatible with relativity, then the realm of possibility has been limited. This limitation is critically relevant for those who think that theories of time resembling the likes of presentism and eternalism and A-theory and B-theory are in some way essential (rather than merely interesting). I do not yet find such theories to be essential; therefore, my contribution "conducive to discourse" for those with any reason for concentrating on theories of time is the limits referred to that follow from the provided insufficiencies of the presentism and eternalism concepts.

Michael

OK, so it would be accurate to believe you suppose or support a third alternative?

What do you have in mind, in terms of a system that is logically equivalent to neither presentism nor eternalism?
All the world will be your enemy, Prince of a Thousand enemies. And when they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you; digger, listener, runner, Prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.

#204 Michael S. Pearl

Michael S. Pearl

    Galilean

  • Administrators
  • 1,380 posts
  • LocationFolsom, Louisiana

Posted 21 January 2011 - 05:39 PM

View PostBig Blooming Blighter, on 21 January 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

OK, so it would be accurate to believe you suppose or support a third alternative?

What do you have in mind, in terms of a system that is logically equivalent to neither presentism nor eternalism?
I think that the previously noted limitations necessitate alternative approaches. While time-theorizing is sometimes interesting, I have yet to see it as essential inasmuch as I think there are other, frankly more basic, ways to consider "reality". I think that the determinateness/indeterminateness perspective is one such way (and that relates to parts of what I wrote in On the Cosmological Argument, particularly in Part 5, as I recall). It is interesting that Peterson and Silberstein come close to just such a realization (even if they do not realize or appreciate that they have done so). But, for those who, for whatever reason, prefer the time-theory approach, the first question to consider is whether the presentism-eternalism dichotomy is (necessarily) exhaustive.

Michael
Love, by its very nature, is unworldly, and it is for this reason rather than its rarity that it is not only apolitical but anti-political, perhaps the most powerful of all anti-political human forces. -Hannah Arendt

#205 Big Blooming Blighter

Big Blooming Blighter

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,989 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Rob

Posted 21 January 2011 - 05:49 PM

I think, since McTaggert critiqued the A- and B-theories about a century ago, people haven't seen the dichotomy as exhaustive.

However, I think, now 'Presentism' is becoming, or has become, a catch-all for the idea that only the present exists, where 'Eternalism' is becoming/has become a catch-all for the concept that there is an ontologically basic future and past (indexically speaking).
All the world will be your enemy, Prince of a Thousand enemies. And when they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you; digger, listener, runner, Prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.

#206 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,418 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 11:24 PM

The presentism/eternalism divide is not exhaustive. There is also possibilism (the growing block view) which leads to absurdities. There is also, in the linked paper that Michael found to be "wretched," a discussion of other possibilities, such as point-presentism and a Neo-Lorentzian interpretation, which the authors nicely rebut.
"History, which is a simple whore, has no decisive moments but is a proliferation of instants, brief interludes that vie with one another in monstrousness."

-- Benno von Archimboldi :twisted:

#207 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,418 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 11:30 PM

View PostBig Blooming Blighter, on 21 January 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

I am, quite frankly, at a loss as to what premises Pearl and Borer are relying on to conclude a logical consistency between relativity and presentism.

I doubt we'll be seeing any more of Borer. It appears he needed a pretext to bail out of a discussion in which he understood that he was in way over his head; and that pretext was my calling him an "idiot." The fact that he insinuated that I was insane (twice) and immoral in his various posts, seems not to have any impact on his sense of aggrieved persecution.

Edited by davidm, 21 January 2011 - 11:30 PM.

"History, which is a simple whore, has no decisive moments but is a proliferation of instants, brief interludes that vie with one another in monstrousness."

-- Benno von Archimboldi :twisted:

#208 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,418 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 11:39 PM

View PostMichael S. Pearl, on 21 January 2011 - 04:08 PM, said:

Do you comprehend why it is that relativity is insufficient for a conclusion of eternalism?

Why?
"History, which is a simple whore, has no decisive moments but is a proliferation of instants, brief interludes that vie with one another in monstrousness."

-- Benno von Archimboldi :twisted:

#209 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,418 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 11:46 PM

It's funny that my post in which I called Robert an "idiot" has been deleted.

Are the posts in which he twice insinuated that I was insane, and called into question my morality, going to be deleted too?

Fat chance, eh?

So, Michael, why is the paper to which I linked "wretched"?

Edited by davidm, 21 January 2011 - 11:47 PM.

"History, which is a simple whore, has no decisive moments but is a proliferation of instants, brief interludes that vie with one another in monstrousness."

-- Benno von Archimboldi :twisted:

#210 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,418 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 11:50 PM

BTW, I thought we were supposed to have only "community moderation" here.

Oh, well! :lol:
"History, which is a simple whore, has no decisive moments but is a proliferation of instants, brief interludes that vie with one another in monstrousness."

-- Benno von Archimboldi :twisted:

#211 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,418 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 11:56 PM

And, of course, what is especially interesting, is that I just made a long, thoughtful post on Breadworld which of course has been ignored, but deleting my "idiot" comment was the priority of the day. But not deleting Borer's insinuations that I am immoral and insane. :lol:

Blighter, get into chat.  B)

Edited by davidm, 21 January 2011 - 11:54 PM.

"History, which is a simple whore, has no decisive moments but is a proliferation of instants, brief interludes that vie with one another in monstrousness."

-- Benno von Archimboldi :twisted:

#212 BDS

BDS

    Guiduccian

  • Members
  • 987 posts

Posted 22 January 2011 - 12:31 AM

View Postdavidm, on 21 January 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:



Are the posts in which he twice insinuated that I was insane, and called into question my morality, going to be deleted too?


MUCH madness is divinest sense  
To a discerning eye;  
Much sense the starkest madness.  
’T is the majority  
In this, as all, prevails.          
Assent, and you are sane;  
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,  
And handled with a chain.

E. Dickinson

BDS, halfway through the new Emily Dickinson biography, by Lyndall Gordon.  Emily has just died, and her relatives are lining up to battle over her poems.  Her brother's mistress, Mabel Todd, gets the rights to them (I think), ahead of Susan Gilbert Dickinson, Austen Dickinson's wife and Emily's best friend (some have speculated they were lovers. and Austen had to seek sex outside of marriage).  

The new ground for the book is that Gordon thinks Dickinson had epilepsy, which would explain her reclusive lifestyle, since epilipsy was a disgraceful condition, especially for women.  I'll report on the appropriate board when I finish.
The years like great black oxen tread the world, and God the herdsman goads them on behind, and I am broken by their passing feet. -- W.B. Yeats

#213 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,418 posts

Posted 22 January 2011 - 01:02 AM

What's going to be done about this post? The clear implication that I am insane/deranged?  :blink:

View PostRobert J Borer, on 21 January 2011 - 01:04 AM, said:

Btw, you also failed to answer my question: Are you able to distinguish between dreams and reality?

"History, which is a simple whore, has no decisive moments but is a proliferation of instants, brief interludes that vie with one another in monstrousness."

-- Benno von Archimboldi :twisted:

#214 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,418 posts

Posted 22 January 2011 - 01:19 AM

Let's sum up here.

Will someone who thinks relativity is insufficient to establish eternalism and refute presentism respond, in careful detail, to my Breadworld post? And will someone show why the "Defense of Blockworld" scholarly paper to which I linked is "wretched," and explain why it is wretched in detail?
"History, which is a simple whore, has no decisive moments but is a proliferation of instants, brief interludes that vie with one another in monstrousness."

-- Benno von Archimboldi :twisted:

#215 Da Fire

Da Fire

    lowly monk

  • Members
  • 262 posts

Posted 23 January 2011 - 01:43 AM

You guys have been talking about the same stuff for too long.  :]] It sounds like bickering spouses, and they know they just can't enough of each other. Hahaha....   Posted Image
"Once the quote ends the interpretation begins." My main website: http://www.HeartRealization.com God Only Is.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users