There are probably different versions of presentism, but I don't think presentism necessarily entails eternal beings and some of the implications you seem to think it has.

I think it's just the view that time does not exist as a seperate metaphysical dimension, but is merely a usefull fiction that measures change.

Clocks measure change.

It doesn't make sense to speak of 'eternal' and 'for ever' in any real sense if time does not exists.

The best argument for it is, I think, that we do not observe time itself, we only observe change. So you have to make an extra metaphysical assumption if you want to believe that time exists as a real dimension.

And finally, I don't think it's necessarily depressing if time would not exist, in fact the idea that all moments in time allready exist simultaniously, which some say is an implication of relativity, seems far more depressing to me.

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.

Are you sure the universe is not eternal? Of course you have offered no definition of eternal, merely asserted "it's impossible." Now, if you're making an argument, and you define eternity that way, then you get to have your argument - but who can you possibly expect to care?

Better if you gave a good deal of thought to your context and tried to understand what eternity could mean in your context. For example, if "universe" is broadly understood as the container that contains everything, then, either it is eternal, or there comes a time when everything that is, isn't. What happened to it? Where did it go? It is to say that the universe isn't anymore. Of course that leaves the space it occupied, yes?

Kant pretty much disposed of these and similar arguments. But you want to revive them, plant your flag, and claim the territory as your own. If nothing else, it's time you made your "claims" in some more rigorous form than you have been to date. As it is you're spending most of your time over the line in nonsense and unsupported assertions, ultimately a waste of time.

What kind of 'presentism' are we talking about here? In the philosophy of time, 'presentism' is the view that only the present exists. While the past once existed, it no longer exists. And the future will exist, but doesn't presently exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_presentism

Most of the numbered points in the O.P. don't seem to address this. They look to me like ideas suggesting that the universe must have only had a finite duration since its origin.

What kind of 'presentism' are we talking about here? — yazata

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.

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

It's fundamental to our descriptions of the universe maybe, but I don't see why the law couldn't be reformulated in terms of change. Maybe there is allways change, even in 'empty' space, which doesn't seem to be at odds with current understanding of quantum fluctuations in empty space.

Even if time is emergent from change, my 9 arguments against Presentism still hold; time emerges with the characteristics required by Presentism or Eternalism (the second I would argue).

Because eternal is impossible — Devans99

Question begging.

Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe and you notice he is counting. — 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.

Take any physical system with a clock/timer. Make the system Eternal. What does the clock read? — Devans99

This displays the same confusion between time and eternity.

Assume time is eternal. — Devans99

A continuation of the same error.

Relativity suggests the existence of multiple presents, whereas Presentism demands one present — Devans99

Relativity is a theory about the space-time continuum. Eternity is timeless.

Time clearly passes — Devans99

Yes, but this observation is irrelevant to notion of a timeless present.

Negative infinity does not exist mathematically — Devans99

This shows confusion about the mathematical nature of infinity. Positive and negative infinity are not numbers but process limits.

If the universe has been around for ever — 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?

Presentism is just so depressing — Devans99

It is hard to respond to this, as you have not defined what you mean by "presentism." According to the SEP:

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

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. You also seem to be confusing infinite time with eternity, which makes me wonder if you see your arguments as aimed at the notion of an eternal God.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean? Please explain 'time emerges with the characteristics required by Presentism or Eternalism'.

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.

That is true only if there are a finite number of possible worlds.

Positive and negative infinity are not numbers but process limits. — Dfpolis

Exactly. Limits tend to but never reach actual infinity. Actual Infinity should be undefined in mathematics.

As far as I know, there is no generally accepted view that the universe has been around forever — Dfpolis

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed

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

Presentism implies that things have been around for ever - for an eternity (hence many of my arguments)

Eternalism by contrast usually posits a definite start of time.

That is true only if there are a finite number of possible worlds. — Relativist

I think a finate universe but infinite time is sufficient for ‘if it can happen it has happened an infinite number of times’

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed — Devans99

Yes, but that does not mean that the cause must exist in time. For example, the laws of nature operate to bring about various physical changes, but there is no evidence they change. As time is a measure of change, it cannot be predicated of what is intrinsically unchanging. So, what is unchanging and timeless can effect what is changing and temporal. Thus, "always" (which quantifies time) is unjustified.

Presentism implies that things have been around for ever — Devans99

Would you care to elaborate on why you think this? (Starting from the SEP defintion.)

Eternalism by contrast usually posits a definite start of time. — Devans99

What do you mean by "eternalism"?

Using terms without saying what you mean by them can only lead to confusion.

Yes, but that does not mean that the cause must exist in time. — Dfpolis

I did not say it should exist in time. The full argument goes:

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed
3. If base reality is permanent it must be timeless
4. So base reality must be timeless (to avoid the infinities) and permanent
5. Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality
6. So time must be real, permanent and finite


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.

Eternalism is defined here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

6. So time must be real, permanent and finite — Devans99

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. Thermodynamic equilibrium does not imply changeableness. In fact there is a theorem in statistical mechanics that says if we if we wait long enough, any closed system will return arbitrarily close to any previous state.

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

I think you misunderstand presentism. It simply denies actual existence to the future and possibly the past. So, what you say is not implied by presentism. Also, you continue to confuse eternity with infinite time.

Wikipedia says:

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 think you are confusing these views.

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

Time is real, permanent and finite: our universe and our time are embedded in base reality so each of our moments past, present or future maps to a point in base reality. We inherit the permanence quality of base reality.

Time exists independently of any measuring operation. The speed of light (speed =distance/time) speed limit is a fundamental law of the universe and it means time is part of the fabric of the universe.

I believe time has an end because I’m an eternalist and a finitist. The non-existence of the actually infinite is discussed here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4073/do-you-believe-in-the-actually-infinite

Infinite time doesn't necessarily ensure repeating. Assume repeated big bangs but the initial energy level at the beginning of inflation can be any real number between two boundaries. There are infinitely many possible initial energy levels. The probability of starting with exactly the same number twice is zero.

If that's not obvious, consider that sequence of universes (from this day forward) has a 1:1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers - so it has a cardinality of aleph0, while the set of possible energy levels is 1:1 with the set of real numbers, which has cardinality aleph1.

There are infinitely many possible initial energy levels. — Relativist

But energy comes in quanta so there must be finitely many initial energy levels?

So given infinite time but not space, everything should repeat endlessly?

1. You have not said what you mean by "permanent" in this context.
2. In claiming that time is not a measure, you show an inadequate grasp of the relevant physics. Your view was falsified when special relativity was confirmed.
3. As you make vague and inadequately argued claims, I think I will not respond to you further.

Yeah this sounds more like eternalism (the view that all points in time and real and eternal).

Anyway while I'm here, I never understood how consciousness is accounted for by eternalism. For example is there still a me from 13 years ago having a conscious phenomenal experience of -let's say- diving into a pool and swimming right now?
That really doesn't sound right to me.

I never understood how consciousness is accounted for by eternalism — JupiterJess

You have a distinct consciousness for each moment in time. No shared experiences between the different consciousness’s.

Eternalism has problems but less problems than Presentism I feel. Presentism is simple and natural, but there are too many paradoxes with it...

Sorry I just re-read your OP and I understood it a lot better now.
When you're using "eternal" in the OP you mean as in the change of events being infinite.
Well I don't these points are an issue. For example if there is a cycle to the universe then it could be certain things are erased and start over are various points. The eternal being is a good question but it's possible the idea of "counting" is just a useful human construct that is applicable to finite thermodynamic things only (like respiration) and so is not applicable to eternal beings.
I also don't understand point 9. Eternalism sounds more depressing.

I also don't understand point 9. Eternalism sounds more depressing — JupiterJess

Eternalism is positive in that we and all of our moments have some form of permanent existence. Whether we actually get to experience stuff again is another question (but one can hope). With Presentism, the past has gone for ever...

Good catch, and I concede that as long as there are no universe-variables whose variability is continuous, then you're right.

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.



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.



3. Take any physical system with a clock/timer. Make the system Eternal. What does the clock read?

ANSWER: Unsure what this is saying but maybe previous answer answers it?



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.



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.



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



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.



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

ANSWER: Right , so this actually supports point #6 of yours



9. Presentism is just so depressing why would anyone want to believe in it anyway?

ANSWER: If presentism = bound to this plane of existence then evenso, it can be fab, for example if it is filled with good things, but evenso l think there are higher, and lower, realities, as per my answer to Point #2

Thanks for the reply!

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

I don't think you can exist within time without a start, that would make you undefined. God(s), if they exist, exist outside of time and are finite in spacial extent.

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

Im not sure I understand your argument, could you expand?

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

This is a well known paradox with eternal time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

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

I do agree there is a real possibility we are in a virtual machine. Time must of been created; it can't of existed Eternally. How do you create something like time? Virtualisation is the only solution I can think of.

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

Actual Infinity is not allowed in the material world (discussed at length here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4073/do-you-believe-in-the-actually-infinite).

I believe base reality would be timeless but finite.

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

To model eternal time mathematically, we need -infinity to represent past eternal
-infinity is a quantity less than all other quantities
But -infinity - 1 < -infinity
So -infinity is not a quantity
So we can't represent eternal time mathematically

I've not read all the replies, but wanted to comment on my first impression of the OP:

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

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.
I find none of them valid. Mathematics supports an infinite past, just like it supports an infinite set of integers in both directions.

5. Relativity suggests the existence of multiple presents, whereas Presentism demands one present

Suggests, yes, but not asserts. It works either way. This point is actually about 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)

This one seems to argue for presentism.

9. Presentism is just so depressing why would anyone want to believe in it anyway?

The majority find the alternative more depressing.

Do you know what presentism is — noAxioms

- Presentism means the past and future don't exist, only now.
- Has 'now' existed always?
- No. Implies a start of time. Implies time is real. Implies Presentism does not hold.
- Yes. Implies an infinite past.

So I think Presentism logically leads to an infinite past....

I find none of them valid — noAxioms

If you have a fault with my logic, please tell me what rather than just saying I'm wrong.

OK, yazata pointed out the same thing. Your reply:

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

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 posts by Dfpolis point out most of the misconceptions you hold with presentism, and lack of awareness of its alternaitive eternalism which simply states that there is no present moment.

- Presentism it means the past and future don't exist, only now. — Devans99

Yes, but only two of your 'nails' (5 & 6) talk about that, and one of them argues for it, not against it.

- Has 'now' existed always?

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.

- No. Implies a start of time. Implies time is real. Implies Presentism does not hold.
- Yes. Implies an infinite past.

Time is real either way, whether it flows or is a dimension, or whether it is finite or infinite.
If it flows, it will probably stop. There is no forward flow of time given heat death, so it was probably thermodynamically bounded at the other end as well.

If you have a fault with my logic, please tell me what rather than just saying I'm wrong.

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.