214 replies to this topic

[Big Blooming Blighter]

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.

[Michael S. Pearl]

Big 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?

Big 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

[Big Blooming Blighter]

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

Big 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?

Big 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?

[Michael S. Pearl]

Big 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

[Big Blooming Blighter]

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).

[davidm]

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.

[davidm]

Big 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.

[davidm]

Michael 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?

[davidm]

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.

[davidm]

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

Oh, well!

[davidm]

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.

Blighter, get into chat.  

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

[BDS]

davidm, 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.

[davidm]

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

Robert 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?

[davidm]

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?

[Da Fire]

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....