And it isn't; or rather, its needs are far outweighed by those of the woman. — Banno
Fascinating.
Anyway Inis if you're finished doing your very incompetent Russian troll anti-EU thing, please run along, you have convinced no-one of anything except your own foolishness. And it's getting boring. — Baden
The topic is Brexit not anti-Macron protests in Paris or a downturn in the Eurozone economy (economic growth occurs in cycles, you know that right?). So, what is the relevance of this? — Baden
Suppose that the metaphysics behind the b theory of time is true, and all events exist tenselessly, then what does that mean for causation? — Walter Pound
What does that mean for the debate over determinism, compatibilism, libertarian free will, and indeterminacy? — Walter Pound
If you want to make specific arguments over how 4 dimensionalism or eternalism or moving spotlight theory affect the notions of causation or free will or whatever, I welcome the conversation! — Walter Pound
More lies. Germany is expected to do best of the three you mentioned with 1.7%. France is expected to outperform Italy (1.6%), the UK will now no longer outperform Italy (1.2%) (still assuming soft Brexit), Italy is still growing (1.3%). So technically you don't know what you're talking about. — Benkei
The same data I used with totally different figures. Do you have a reading disability that I need to take into account when communicating with you? — Benkei
Really???
Here's your latest official statistic (Nov 2018) on this issue: — ssu
The overall number of EU citizens coming to the UK continues to add to the population as 74,000 more EU citizens came to the UK than left.
How many EU countries are there? How many are in the G7? Spoiler, 28 and 3 — Benkei
Based on what information because the "data on migrants and benefits is incomplete, fragmented and not routinely available"? — Benkei
Isn't personhood the main issue. If we take that out of the discussion then the opponent pro-lifers vanish into thin air. The pro-choicers win without even lifting a finger. — TheMadFool
I meant pass an Act of Parliament to revoke Article 50 if a deal is not approved. — Michael
The ECJ ruled that:
... where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State ... to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner ... — Michael
I was optimistic that Parliament would veto a no deal Brexit and revoke Article 50 when it became clear that a deal won't be made. But then yesterday they voted against giving themselves the authority to do that. Crazy. — Michael
Although hopefully they change their minds before it's too late. — Michael
I said Ok, Ok, and now Ok. I was wrong, there is no such thing as causality in physics - I bend to your overwhelming knowledge on the subject. Not really sure what level of victory you are looking for. — Rank Amateur
no matter how you cut it, you are saying that from nothing - there was something - that was not caused. Can't see how with that understanding - you can rule out a an un-created creator. It seems you are ruling it out as a possibility - simply because you want to rule it out. — Rank Amateur
Check Sean Carroll's debate with William Lane Craig. Carroll shows one of them (Guth I think) saying it's a misuse of the theorem. — MindForged
OK? Aside from the broad misuse of that theorem, "there was a first moment of time" doesn't lend anymore weight to there being a God or not. — MindForged
I think the real point is that it's a model that does not require anything god-like to explain any particular aspect of it. Atheism-compatible, in other words. — MindForged
Why couldn't the same be said about the flow of time? What makes that an "incoherent misconception"? — Luke
I don't buy your distinction. What is the passage of time supposed to be relative to? And where is your proof? — Luke
I never said there was no time, but eternalism says there is no passage. — Luke
So what? Eternalists claim that temporal passage is an illusion. — Luke
Prove it. I'll go first: — Luke
Motion is a problem for eternalism because temporal passage is an illusion — Luke
It seems odd to call it "change" when nothing actually changes. — Luke
The disagreement between us seems to be that you (and some others) are speaking from a physics point of view, whereas I am speaking from a philosophy of time point of view. In philosophy of time, eternalism is an ontological theory (about existence) which says that all times equally exist and objective temporal passage is an illusion. — Luke
We cannot percieve them because they were not part of these set conditions that moulded us. — Susu
And that just seems to be a deliberate dodge of the question. — prothero
The eternalist stance (as I understand it is the past, the present and the future all have equal ontologic status. They all exist and are real in the same manner. — prothero
The problem is virtually no one actually believes that. — prothero
One can not empirically directly demonstrate the continuing reality of the past — prothero
Under presentism, there is no hypersurface or light cone, both 4 dimensional concepts. So if you seek information about any of the simultaneous events that make up your present, you have to wait for the information to come to you, at which time the information is no longer about the present. — noAxioms
Thats already inherent in the notion of "observation" isn't it? Or are you arguing that gaining any information is impossible? — Echarmion
I think I can observe things in the present. — Andrew M
We know relativity as a consequence of theorizing about what is observed (in our reference frame). — Andrew M
For the "eternalists" and "block universe" advocates on the thread.
I want to know the status of "dinosaurs"? Are they truly extinct and vanished from the universe (except for their bones and descendants)?
Or are they still moving and inhabiting the earth in their region of the 4D space time block and the only reason we can't get back there is because our timeline won't curve enough to take us back? — prothero
Yes. The way I would state it is that our knowledge (of reality) is reference-frame dependent. In my reference frame, I make a distinction between the past, present and future. Per that distinction, other people and many other things exist, but dinosaurs do not exist. Similarly, while each person has their own reference frame (and thus present), dinosaurs do not exist for them either.
So I think on that view, presentism, relativity and realism are compatible. — Andrew M
Your present is not necessarily 'the present'. In fact, quite unlikely to be. Presentism is safe from this sort of argument in my opinion. — noAxioms