But time is fundamental to the universe - the speed of light (speed=distance/time) speed limit is a fundamental law that governs everything in the universe. The law applies whether change or no so time is fundamental to the fabric of the universe.I think, that we do not observe time itself, we only observe change — ChatteringMonkey
But time is fundamental to the universe - the speed of light (speed=distance/time) speed limit is a fundamental law that governs everything in the universe. The law applies whether change or no so time is fundamental to the fabric of the universe. — Devans99
Question begging.Because eternal is impossible — Devans99
This shows a total lack of understanding of what it is to be eternal. Eternity is not unending time. It is being at once. Hence anything eternal is unchanging and timeless. So, the idea of an eternal being being engaging in a time-sequenced operation is a contradiction in terms.Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe and you notice he is counting. — Devans99
This displays the same confusion between time and eternity.Take any physical system with a clock/timer. Make the system Eternal. What does the clock read? — Devans99
A continuation of the same error.Assume time is eternal. — Devans99
Relativity is a theory about the space-time continuum. Eternity is timeless.Relativity suggests the existence of multiple presents, whereas Presentism demands one present — Devans99
Yes, but this observation is irrelevant to notion of a timeless present.Time clearly passes — Devans99
This shows confusion about the mathematical nature of infinity. Positive and negative infinity are not numbers but process limits.Negative infinity does not exist mathematically — Devans99
As far as I know, there is no generally accepted view that the universe has been around forever. So, who are you arguing against?If the universe has been around for ever — Devans99
It is hard to respond to this, as you have not defined what you mean by "presentism." According to the SEP:Presentism is just so depressing — Devans99
Presentism is the view that only present things exist (Hinchliff 1996: 123; Crisp 2004: 15; Markosian 2004: 47–48). So understood, presentism is an ontological doctrine; it’s a view about what exists (what there is), absolutely and unrestrictedly. — David Ingram & Jonathan Tallant
That is true only if there are a finite number of possible worlds.4. Assume time is eternal. If it can happen it will happen. An infinite number of times. No matter how unlikely it was in the first place! So all things happen an infinite number of times.
Positive and negative infinity are not numbers but process limits. — Dfpolis
As far as I know, there is no generally accepted view that the universe has been around forever — Dfpolis
Your arguments do not seem to address this view. The seem to be aimed against the idea of infinite time, which few if any hold in the era of big bang cosmology. — Dfpolis
That is true only if there are a finite number of possible worlds. — Relativist
1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed — Devans99
Would you care to elaborate on why you think this? (Starting from the SEP defintion.)Presentism implies that things have been around for ever — Devans99
What do you mean by "eternalism"?Eternalism by contrast usually posits a definite start of time. — Devans99
Yes, but that does not mean that the cause must exist in time. — Dfpolis
6. So time must be real, permanent and finite — Devans99
Presentism implies that things have been around for ever: IE only now exists and now has always existed IE now has existed for an eternity. — Devans99
Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all existence in time is equally real, as opposed to presentism or the growing block universe theory of time, in which at least the future is not the same as any other time. Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places, and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time.
I do not see how this follows from the premises. First, what does "permanent" mean in this context? Second, time is a measure. For it to actually exist requires a measuring operation, which requires a measuring agent. So, you seem to be proving too much. Third, you have made no argument that precludes change from going on forever. — Dfpolis
There are infinitely many possible initial energy levels. — Relativist
I never understood how consciousness is accounted for by eternalism — JupiterJess
I also don't understand point 9. Eternalism sounds more depressing — JupiterJess
1. What exactly is an eternal being? He has no start in time (no birthday so does not exist). Ask him how he came about. He cannot tell you. So he can’t exist. Because eternal is impossible
ANSWER: It is non-sequitur that one without a birthday does not exist. Maybe he always existed. Maybe he is existence itself. If so, then it is non-sequitur and counter-intuitive that existence itself, has to have assigned to it, a period of non-existence prior to it. — BaldMenFighting
2. Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe and you notice he is counting. You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’. What number is he on?
ANSWER: Never heard this question before but l do like it, bravo!
Essentially, the Eternal being is beyond time, he is pure existence, no becoming, no deceasing. Actual infinity = everything present. Nothing remaining, hence no change, no death, no becoming (change = something new)
Within himself, he sets up a virtual machine and steps down, say, an eternal frequency, via a series of transformers (these are known as Intelligences, some call them archangels, l don't know if they exist or not but this is prominent in classical and mediaeval thought).
f = 1/t
if f = infinity, t = 0, time does not exist
as f is stepped down, we have various spheres where time, and thus reality (physicality relates to spatial dimensions, right? Which related to time) are felt differently
Btw it's absurd that you will meet eternity in the world. The world is within him, and that includes you. — BaldMenFighting
4. Assume time is eternal. If it can happen it will happen. An infinite number of times. No matter how unlikely it was in the first place! So all things happen an infinite number of times. So all things are equally likely. Reductio ad absurdum. Time is not eternal
ANSWER: It is non-sequitur that given infinite time, a thing will happen. Consider that an infinity of its not-happening would also happen, by the same token. So it's absurd to think this, and because it's non sequitur, l believe the absurdity is in the idea that anything can happen, rather than in infinity existing. — BaldMenFighting
5. Relativity suggests the existence of multiple presents, whereas Presentism demands one present
ANSWER: I've no idea what presentism & relativity are but if that is what they are, then great!
However, please regard the answer to your point #2, there would be at least 2 presents - one that of the Infinite being, which is the eternal present, and then there's the present that we feel, in our fake virtual machine reality, staged within that infinite being. — BaldMenFighting
6. Time clearly passes. Time cannot have started passing infinity long ago because there is no way to get to today (IE -oo +1 = -oo)
ANSWER: I believe the reply to your point #2 explains this. You have actual infinity where time does not pass, and within that, some virtual machines operating virtual realities such as ours, where time flows. I guess t=00 in those realities would be observed as Big Bang type events, which are backed up by modern science by the way — BaldMenFighting
7. The universe follows rules that are described by mathematics. Negative infinity does not exist mathematically; there is no number X such that X< all other numbers because X-1<X. Hence the universe is not Eternal
ANSWER: I don't understand this, sorry, maybe explain deeper?
At least though, we can agree that the universe is not eternal. — BaldMenFighting
Do you know what presentism is??? These six points all seem to argue against an infinite past, which is not something asserted by presentism. They also seem to be variations of the same nail, so to speak, but nevertheless a nail in a different coffin.1. What exactly is an eternal being? He has no start in time (no birthday so does not exist). Ask him how he came about. He cannot tell you. So he can’t exist. Because eternal is impossible
2. Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe and you notice he is counting. You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’. What number is he on?
3. Take any physical system with a clock/timer. Make the system Eternal. What does the clock read?
4. Assume time is eternal. If it can happen it will happen. An infinite number of times. No matter how unlikely it was in the first place! So all things happen an infinite number of times. So all things are equally likely. Reductio ad absurdum. Time is not eternal
7. The universe follows rules that are described by mathematics. Negative infinity does not exist mathematically; there is no number X such that X< all other numbers because X-1<X. Hence the universe is not Eternal
8. If the universe has been around for ever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now. But the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium so time had a start — Devans99
Suggests, yes, but not asserts. It works either way. This point is actually about presentism.5. Relativity suggests the existence of multiple presents, whereas Presentism demands one present
This one seems to argue for presentism.6. Time clearly passes. Time cannot have started passing infinity long ago because there is no way to get to today (IE -oo +1 = -oo)
The majority find the alternative more depressing.9. Presentism is just so depressing why would anyone want to believe in it anyway?
Do you know what presentism is — noAxioms
I find none of them valid — noAxioms
No, presentism does not assert a lack of start to time. Maybe it started with the big bang, or maybe it was created by the prime mover.The existence of only the present means time did not have a start, which means that things have been around eternally. Hence some of my arguments. — Devans99
Yes, but only two of your 'nails' (5 & 6) talk about that, and one of them argues for it, not against it.- Presentism it means the past and future don't exist, only now. — Devans99
Both presentists and eternalists might give different answers to this question. It is a different topic. You seem primarily concerned with arguing against an infinite past. Talk to the cosmologists. They have theories on both sides of that fence.- Has 'now' existed always?
Time is real either way, whether it flows or is a dimension, or whether it is finite or infinite.- No. Implies a start of time. Implies time is real. Implies Presentism does not hold.
- Yes. Implies an infinite past.
You haven't presented much logic. There is a series of what seem like begging assertions, and I question the assertions, not the logic that connects them. I don't personally hold to presentism, but I've never seen a falsification test for it. I've seen them proposed, but you're not attempting even that.If you have a fault with my logic, please tell me what rather than just saying I'm wrong.
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.