You seem to be interpreting presentism as a denial of relativity. But I haven't seen anyone claim that. I certainly don't. — Andrew M

As I mentioned earlier, you can be a presentist if you deny an objective observer-independent reality, or deny relativity.

But if you prefer an objective reality and take scientific knowledge seriously, you are confronted by situations like the following:

If you pass someone in the street, your present, among other things, includes that person. You consider that person to be real, and equally subject to the laws of physics. If this person is real, and independent of you and your present, relativity tells you that she also has her own present, which is as real to her as your present is to you. Your presents are not the same. Presentism is false.

Because it is talking about "the flow of time, or passage through space-time," rather than motion. There is no difference in dynamics between eternalism and presentism. In fact, there is no physical difference, period. The difference is entirely metaphysical and has to do with metaphysical notions, such as the objective present, the passage of time, the existence of past and future, etc. — SophistiCat

Nope. Presentism is falsified by several well known experiments, including time-dilation, twin paradox, and the fact that your GPS actually works.

That would have to involve reifying time in an odd way (that's completely without justification in my view). — Terrapin Station

I'm puzzled why an expert general relativist like yourself wastes your time on this forum rather than publishing your views in Nature.

That's not true. — karl stone

Your constant fabrications have become tedious.

Cameron voted against an EU referendum in 2011.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2011-10-24-372-commons/mp/10777

Have you worked out yet how to account for eternalism's lack of motion, or are you still ignoring that eternalism has this problem? — Luke

There is no "lack of motion" in eternalism, so yes I ignore fictitious problems.

Why do you think there is no motion under eternalism, particularly if that were the case, no one would advocate it?

And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. — karl stone

Cameron voted against a referendum in 2011.

So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013, — karl stone

Because UKIP were at 10% in the polls.

The desire for this referendum does not originate with the people. It originates within the Tory Party. — karl stone

Actually, the campaign for an EU referendum can be traced back to 2011 when the cross-party People's Pledge group was formed. They took no position on EU membership, other than it should be put to the people.

In 2011 a petition of 100,000 signatures calling for an EU referendum was handed into Downing Street.

Anyway, the subject of the thread implies that one's interpretation of time has anything to do with the possibility of time travel. Assuming time travel is to the past, as is typically assumed, it is impossible, period. A-theory has nothing to do with that. — noAxioms

The question of whether closed time-like curves exist in our universe is still open, Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture notwhithstanding.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08100-1

So, physicists are really studying time-travel into the past. A-theory says they are wasting their time. They aren't.

Such a concept would involve sending information to the past, and that has never been possible under any valid interpretation of physics. — noAxioms

You are mistaken, see the above link and references therein.

Besides, the Dutch pay per capita (that means per person) a lot more to the EU than the British do (Benkei has explained), so again a questionmark on your crying about payments to EU. — ssu

And in return the Dutch enjoy a surplus in trade of EUR 200 billion with the EU.

The UK pays vast amounts to maintain a deficit.

Sounds similar to when we had the join EU debate in this country. — ssu

You never had a "join EU debate" and your 2006 referendum was cancelled because the result would have been the same as in France and Netherlands.

David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose. — karl stone

You have zero evidence for your baseless fantastical claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/donald-tusk-warned-david-cameron-about-stupid-eu-referendum-bbc

Minus the rebate, — Benkei

The £14 billion includes the rebate.

David Cameron campaigned for Remain.

It is called a preferred reference frame, or at least a preferred foliation (an objective ordering of events). Presentism must assume such a thing, but the existence of a preferred foliation does not necessarily imply the existence of a present (a preferred moment). — noAxioms

I think it's worse than that. Presentism cannot assume a preferred foliation of something it claims does not exist. Presentism cannot admit spacetime or foliations, and has to treat scientific theories such relativity as useful fictions.

Anyway, under the preferred foliation, there is a fixed amount of time between any two moments in time, and frames which do not correspond to this preferred frame are simply not representative of the absolute ordering of events. Hence clocks are all wrong because they're all dilated, some more than others. — noAxioms

Alternatively, presentism may dispense with an observer independent objective reality.

A handy list of Brexit campaign lies to awaken you from your delusions.

"£4300 cost to families/households" if UK votes Leave. This was concocted by dividing a fictitious GDP reduction by the number of households. Even the method is a lie.
https://www.strongerin.co.uk/4300_the_cost_of_brexit_to_uk_households#pq4TJxSsT3135rzx.97
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

Cameron threatened refugee camps in South East of England.
https://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-08/prime-minister-warns-brexit-could-see-refugee-camps-in-south-east-england/
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/le-touquet-treaty-affects-refugees-calais/

Leaving the Single Market would mean UK would have no access to it.
https://www.strongerin.co.uk/brexit_campaigners_have_conceded_uk_outside_the_eu_wouldn_t_have_access_to_the_single_market#SGf4kJiDzB9huysh.97

If UK voted Leave there would be an "instant DIY recession" according to Osbourne. The recession would be precipitated by just the vote!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-to-create-instant-diy-recession-warns-george-osborne-a7042886.html

If the UK votes Leave there will be an immediate Emergency Budget with £30 billion in new taxes and spending cuts.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/osborne-predicts-30bn-hole-in-public-finance-if-uk-votes-to-leave-eu

UK would be "Back of the Queue" for a trade deal with USA.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

In Obama's defence, it was Cameron who requested he say it.
https://news.sky.com/story/cameron-personally-requested-obamas-back-of-the-queue-brexit-warning-11423669

The possibility of an EU Army is a dangerous fantasy, the UK was told.


100,000 Banking jobs to be lost.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/brexit-would-lead-to-loss-of-100000-bank-jobs-says-city-a3124661.html

Cameron claims Turkey joining EU "not remotely on the cards". Not until the year 3000 anyway.


Cameron, in order to instil fear, said he would invoke Article 50 on 28th June, if he lost the referendum.


Risk of interest rate rises, according to Mark Carney.
https://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-26/carney-warns-brexit-could-lead-to-interest-rate-rise/

How do you know this? Fact is, you don't. — karl stone

I know it because I know many people who voted Leave, and through the extensive research done by polling organisations. e.g.

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain — karl stone

That is the opposite of the truth. Cameron was a staunch Remainer, campaigned strongly for remain, and there are literally 100s of videos on youtube that captured the historical record. e.g.



British people don't want to be part of a burgeoning fascist state with its own army.

Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption. — karl stone

The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy.

Also, there was not a single argument to Remain, other than fear mongering, and that's not really an argument.

When the UK can chart its own destiny, make its own trade deals, set its own taxes and regulations, escape the protectionist tariff barriers, it will once again become an economic powerhouse and a bulwark against the burgeoning totalitarianism engulfing Europe.

Yes. I want you to stop misrepresenting the facts all the time by cherry picking data and spreading misleading or false information. On the UK contribution: — Benkei

OK So the membership fee is closer to £14billion.

The deficit in traded goods is still £95billion.

EU still takes £4billion in fish from UK waters.

EU citizens still take £4billion in benefits.

And UK is still on track to leave the burgeoning fascist state that is the EU on 29th March.

From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved. For instance, for the Netherlands, where I live, it can have an effect of up to 1.2% of GDP. That's 10 billion EUR in costs. — Benkei

I get it. Uk must pay £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and suffer a £95billion deficit in traded goods, so your country can benefit to the tune of EUR10billion?

Anything else you want?

Meanwhile Dalia Grybauskaitė hints she might veto Brexit notice period extension. She wants no-deal.

Can you give an example of a factual disagreement? — Andrew M

Literally everything in relative motion inhabits a different present. These presents become more strikingly in disagreement as relative speeds increase and with distance. A classic example of this is Penrose's Andromeda Paradox, inappropriately named, because it is not a paradox.

A presentist need not deny observer-independent reality. Instead they are describing reality from a preferred reference frame - their own — Andrew M

And someone else can describe reality from a different reference frame and they both disagree. They don't just disagree on the time, but disagree on the factual state of affairs in their relative presents.

If there exists an observer-independent presentist reality, how can "descriptions" of it be different?

Presentism and Eternalism are two different metaphyscial interpretations of the same empirical data. Since time travel would be an empirical experience, it should in principle make zero difference whether presentism or eternalism is assumed. Under current empirical physics, both metaphysical views forbid time travel to the past, and neither forbids forward travel. Hence I see little point in needing to assume one metaphysical stance when discussing if a physical act is possibility or not. — noAxioms

Eternalism isn't metaphysical if it's part of our best physical theories. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics tell us that the universe as a whole is at rest. This was realised early on in GR but took a while to be understood in QM.

This means that presentism isn't metaphysical either, it's just wrong.

What is metaphysical, however, is the claim that an objective observer-independent Reality exists. If you take the view that reality is observer-dependent, then presentism may be rehabilitated, but at what cost? Alternatively, you could take the view that our philosophy of time need not be compatible with our scientific theories. That seems even worse!

Even if there were no clocks, the present still "exists" and change still happens and therefore time (a derivative concept of change) passes. If there were no change there would no time. — prothero

We know that an objective present cannot exist because the clocks disagree. All there can be are relative presents.

And presentism cannot explain why this happens, whereas eternalism has a fully worked out scientific theory called General Relativity, which explains it.

I don't see how the reading on the clock has anything to do with whether or not the present exists. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps you don't, but you cannot explain, given an objective present, why the clocks diverge.

Yes they do, all other factors being equal. — noAxioms

Really? How does GMT+1 manage to remain +1 to GMT if the time zones run at different rates?

Anyway, here's the YouTube video's I'm raving about: — Wallows

And to think this was the sort of thing that used to be on TV.

Clocks around the world have 24 different times representing the different time zones. Before agreement clocks in different towns had different times, rail travel made synchronizing clocks necessary, etc. The time reading on any particular clock has nothing to do with presentism or with the philosophical notion of time. — prothero

Why do clocks on the earth and in orbit run at different rates?

Clocks in different time zones don't run at different rates.

That has been done many different times and many different ways and the result is the same, clocks run at different rates under the influence of gravity and acceleration. The time reading on a clock however has nothing to do with presentism. Time is not fundamental, what is fundamental is change and process, and the rate at which a clock runs, or humans age, varies with gravity and acceleration. There is a fundamental misunderstanding about what time is (a derived concept from change) and what clocks do (they are processes that run at different rates under different conditions). — prothero

How does gravity alter the rate of clocks under presentism?

How can the present be at different times under presentism?

You do like cherry picking your statistics don't you? How's GDP growth doing as compared to other countries and the GDP projection? — Benkei

The IMF is fairly upbeat about UK GDP growth.

https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/imf-uk-will-fastest-growing-european-g7-country-brexit/

Are both clocks at the present when they are reunited? The time displayed on the clocks is irrelevant to presentism, so long as the clocks always remain at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

If the "Present" existed, then the clocks would read the same.

Then why the heck have you been quoting figures relating to trade and profit? Have you completely lost your mind? — S

The Brexit vote was about sovereignty and democracy. Everyone expected an immediate economic hit. This was assured by the government, Bank of England, and even Barack Obama.

Well, the economic catastrophe didn't happen. Rather than an immediate loss of 500,000 - 800,000 jobs on voting Leave, as Mark Carney promised, instead UK enjoys the highest rate of employment since before entering the EEC. Rather than economic collapse, UK is now projected to be the fastest growing European G7 country after Brexit. The ONS has just released very encouraging economic figures on job, wages, and borrowing.

Nevertheless #ProjectFear continues to rumble on, so I choose to confront it with reality.

I agree, and I've never said otherwise. What I've said is that, according to my view of presentism, no other times but the present time exist, and time travel can only be viewed from an eternalist or B theory perspective of time. — Luke

How about doing a simple time dilation experiment? Synchronise atomic clocks, and take one on a flight around the world. When the clocks are reunited, they no longer agree on the time. How is that possible under presentism?

False — Benkei

Well I'll list the exclusions from that EU directive, and then we'll see if a single market in services exists:


Financial services,
banking,
credit,
insurance,
reinsurance,
occupational pensions,
personal pensions,
securities,
investment funds,
payments,
investment advice.

Also excluded are:


telecoms,
healthcare,
audiovisual,
taxation,
transportation.


So no single market in services exists. The most that can be said is that a single market in some services exists.

There exists separate EU legislation to deal with many of the areas above, but much of it, particularly in the area of financial services, is achieved via mutual recognition agreements between individual member states.

You've shown that you can selectively quote statistics. Well done. But how about an economic forecast? Are you capable of that? Are you an economist? Can you quote any credible sources with favourable economic forecasts? And what's the consensus on this? — S

I defer to Project Fear for economic fore casts, but nevertheless, as part of basic economic theory, open free-trading democracies always prevail.

Brexit was nothing to do with money.

Not any spacetime structure that's correct, though. I'm not saying that it's not a popular belief that time travel is possible, but the belief rests on not understanding what time really is. — Terrapin Station

But the Multiverse structure is correct.

My point was that the figure you quote, that 8% (although it's actually 7.4%) is relating to goods only, at the exclusion of services, and I've also pointed out that you don't quote the equivalent statistic for non-EU countries, leaving us with nothing to compare it to. That is cherry picking, another informal logical fallacy. — S

There is no Common Market in services. There is no Customs Union in services. The UK pays what it does in return for access to the Common Market in goods. £13billion in return for a £95billion deficit is unsustainable.

There is no Common Market in Services.

I was using your figures. According to which you are wrong. Which is an odd position to be in. — Baden

They aren't my figures. Latest reporting from the government indicates that only 43% of UK trade, and falling, is with EU.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/articles/whodoestheuktradewith/2017-02-21

He also quotes statistics relating to goods only, which excludes services. I wonder why this could be? — S

It is the government that reports that trade with EU accounted for 43% of UK economy in 2016.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/articles/whodoestheuktradewith/2017-02-21

650+622=1272
622/1272=0.49
Therefore 49% of UK trade is with the EU not 44%. — Baden

Well, figures go up and down. ONS reported 43% for 2016, the BBC claims 44% is the 2015 figure. The fact remains that UK trades more with the rest of the world, and it trades profitably with them. It does not have to pay £13billion to do this, give away £4billion in fish, or pay £4billion in benefits for the privilage.

You cherry-picked the statistics again. 44% represents exports only. 53% of all imports come from the EU. — Baden

No.

According to the Office for National Statistics, UK total trade with the EU was £622billion in 2017, which includes imports, exports, goods and services.

Trade with the Rest of the Words was £650billion, which includes exports, imports, goods and services.