I smell a begging argument coming on. You did this fairly large post, but then never actually get around to this point until the last couple sentences.I wanted to lay out my view of why Eternalism logically precludes motion. — Luke
You can add me to that list. At noon, the mug has coffee in it. At 1pm the mug is in the dishwasher. How is that not motion of the mug?Some members of this site, including SophistiCat and @Douglas Alan have previously claimed that Eternalism does not preclude motion.
Somewhere between noon and 1 obviously (in my example). Every moment of it in fact, since at no time is any object actually stationary, what with Earth spinning and accelearting and all.In that case, my question is: when does motion occur according to Eternalism?
There's the begging I smelled. Everything here are A-series references which assumes the conclusion you're trying to demonstrate.It cannot be at the present moment, because motion or temporal passage at the present moment implies the A-Theory, making it not Eternalism, but the Moving Spotlight theory instead. So, does Eternalist motion occur in the past or the future somehow?
"It cannot be at the present moment, because motion or temporal passage at the present moment implies the A-Theory, making it not Eternalism, but the Moving Spotlight theory instead. So, does Eternalist motion occur in the past or the future somehow?"
- Luke
There's the begging I smelled. Everything here are A-series references which assumes the conclusion you're trying to demonstrate. — noAxioms
Moving spotlight (and pretty much the rest of your list) has a preferred moment. Eternalism does not.Please enlighten me as to the difference between Eternalism and the Moving Spotlight theory. — Luke
I implied no such thing. I said there is movement. I made no reference to temporal passage, which again is a term only meaningful to views that posit a preferred moment.You seem to be implying that temporal passage is possible under Eternalism? How so?
You seem to be implying that temporal passage is possible under Eternalism? How so? — Luke
The difference with presentism is mostly that an eternalist wants to say that the past and future are equally real as the now, whereas for a presentist only the now exists. — ChatteringMonkey
Presentism is not just about existence; it also entails the A-Theory and the reality of temporal passage. — Luke
What do you mean with the reality of temporal passage? — ChatteringMonkey
I disagree that presentism entails the reality of passage, because presentism might interpret the word "now" as being an indexical that cannot refer to the same set of affairs twice. If that is the case, then temporal passage cannot be referred to. — sime
I tend to agree that a true presentist who rejects the existence of the past and future would be unable to judge which time is present. However, in reality, I think we are all able to ascertain this and can talk meaningfully about temporal passage. But this is not the focus of this discussion — Luke
For similar reasons I disagree that a denial of passage of time involves the denial of past and future, since "past" and "future" can similarly be interpreted as indexicals.
We can say that the state of the river has changed relative to the state of a photograph. But if the state of the river is also our notion of "the present", then we can no longer say that the river has changed relative to the present. — sime
I believe that McTaggart was making a similar deflationary argument when he concluded the unreality of the A series. — sime
See the OP section on The Passage of Time. — Luke
If B-theorist eternalist are right, and we are beings that only experience one moment in time, then we would experience the block-universe as passage of time. — ChatteringMonkey
You say that a denial of passage need not involve a denial of the past and future, but if "the state of the river is also our notion of "the present", then isn't this a denial of past and future? This seems to imply that we have no 'notion' of past or future states by which to judge that the present has changed. — Luke
But that passage is not real, right? Eternalist's don't believe that time really passes, right? So, I want to know how motion is supposedly accounted for under Eternalism (by those who believe that Eternalism admits of motion). — Luke
But the block-universe incorporates motion, in space and time? Isn't it a given that things change in space and time in a 4-dimensional block-universe? — ChatteringMonkey
If understood indexically, the past is always the past and the future is always the future, for yesterday is always yesterday, and tomorrow is always tomorrow.... — sime
How can it be, when B-theorist eternalists reject the reality of temporal passage? — Luke
What do you thing that dimension signifies otherwise? — ChatteringMonkey
Do you consider Eternalism and the Moving Spotlight theory to be equivalent? — Luke
But yesterday was a different day to today, just as tomorrow will be.
. — Luke
Existence only. — Luke
No, the moving spotlight theory give a special metaphysical status to the present — ChatteringMonkey
Yeah but existence in the block-universe is defined in four dimensions, that is probably what you are not realising? — ChatteringMonkey
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.