1. What exactly is an eternal being? — Devans99

I consider myself to be an eternal being: From the non-presentist viewpoint (the one your title claims to be arguing for), I didn't start to exist, nor will I cease to exist. And yet I have a birthday and count a finite number of seconds from that moment until the moment I make this post.

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

Point 6 asserts that time clearly passes. I'd argue this is true for both Presentism and Eternalism:

There is clearly some distinction between present, past and future, because we can tell the difference. So the world must be Presentist or it must be a flavour of Eternalism where there is some sort of 'now' cursor(s) that allow us to recognise the present. So either way, time passes.

Time is real either way — noAxioms

By 'time is real' I mean past, present, future all exist (time is a dimension).

I still think Presentism implies time had no start. I've expanded my argument so hopefully you can see the logic better:

1. Presentism means the past and future don't exist, only now.
2. Has 'now' existed always?
3. No. Implies a start of time.
4. Implies time was created.
5. Implies time is something substantial and physical
6. Implies Presentism does not hold

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. — noAxioms

As I understand special relativity, it is stipulated that simultaneity is dependent on the frame of reference. There appears to be two approaches to this assertion. One is that there are multiple presents, depending on frame of reference, the other that there is no such thing as the present. So I do not see how you can make special relativity consistent with presentism.

Point 6 asserts that time clearly passes. I'd argue this is true for both Presentism and Eternalism: — Devans99

Umm... No. There is nothing that 'passes' under eternalism. Maybe you should read up on it,

There is clearly some distinction between present, past and future, because we can tell the difference.

Thus asserts the presentists, and you seem to be one, despite all your 'nails'. I would say that there is no moment that holds a distinction as 'present', and the existence of a present moment is in no way empirically distinct from the lack of it, so not at all clear.

So the world must be Presentist or it must be a flavour of Eternalism where there is some sort of 'now' cursor(s) that allow us to recognise the present. So either way, time passes. — Devans99

There is no flavor of eternalism that recognizes a 'now'. The lack of it is the primary premise. There are only temporal relationships between some pairs of events.

I think your mistake is that you intend to argue against an infinite past, and you mistakenly associate 'presentism' with the view.

2. Has 'now' existed always?
3. No. Implies a start of time. — Devans99

Begging. You're just asserting your conclusion here.

4. Implies time was created.

Logical contradiction. For it to be created, it must not have existed at some point, and later it existed. There is no 'and later' if time is not already there. Creation is a temporal verb.

6. Implies Presentism does not hold

Presentism doesn't assert that the preferred moment was started at some time in the finite past or was always there. It just asserts that it is currently this moment. As I said, you are clearly a presentist arguing against an infinite past, which is a valid position. But you need to find different labels for your views.

As I understand special relativity, it is stipulated that simultaneity is dependent on the frame of reference. There appears to be two approaches to this assertion. One is that there are multiple presents, depending on frame of reference, the other that there is no such thing as the present. So I do not see how you can make special relativity consistent with presentism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, multiple approaches (I count three), or interpretations of time, but they are no presents, or one present. No view has multiple presents.

One is 4D spacetime (no present), and the latter is 3D space that changes in time. Eternal vs Present view. They both work, but the present view demands a preferred foliation (which typically corresponds to an inertial frame only locally) and only one frame, coupled with a current event, defines local events that currently exist. The spacetime view says all events exist equally, and is pretty much how Minkowski and Einstein envisioned things.

The third interpretation is 4D with preferred foliation, but no preferred current moment. This corresponds to something like Lorentz Ether theory (LET). That interpretation, lacking an assertion of a 'now', also is grouped under eternalism, but there is an LET interpretation that posits in addition a preferred present, at which point the view becomes straight presentism.

There is no flavor of eternalism that recognizes a 'now' — noAxioms

If both the following hold true:

- Einstein's Relativity is correct
- There is something that distinguishes 'now' from 'past' and 'future'

Then we need a flavour of eternalism that distinguishes 'now'. A cursor-like mechanism would work fine.

Logical contradiction. For it to be created, it must not have existed at some point, and later it existed. There is no 'and later' if time is not already there. Creation is a temporal verb. — noAxioms

Change and Time are not the same thing. Change maybe possible without time. If time does have a start, then it must of been created in a timeless environment (or perhaps a different 'time' to ours).

So I still think that Presentism implies time did not have a start:

1. Assume Presentism is true
2. Assume time had a start
3. Implies time was created
4. Implies time is something substantial and physical. Past, present, future all real
5. Implies Presentism is false. Reductio ad absurdum.
6. So 'Presentism is true' and 'time had a start' cannot both be true

Yes, multiple approaches (I count three), or interpretations of time, but they are no presents, or one present. No view has multiple presents. — noAxioms

Suppose "now", the present, is the principle which defines what is happening, the events which are occurring, presently. "Simultaneous" implies that numerous events, are occurring at the same time. The different events are necessarily at different places, if they are at the same time. Under the precepts of special relativity, depending on the frame of reference, the events which are occurring simultaneously, now at the present, vary. Therefore the interpretation of now varies according to the frame of reference, such that we can have multiple presents. There is no interpretation of special relativity which renders "one present", because this implies a preferred frame of reference, which is strictly excluded by special relativity.

They both work, but the present view demands a preferred foliation (which typically corresponds to an inertial frame only locally) and only one frame, coupled with a current event, defines local events that currently exist. — noAxioms

Special relativity specifically disallows a preferred frame of reference, that is the fundamental principle of "relativity". So any interpretation of time which uses such a preferred foliation is inconsistent with special relativity..

You say: 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.
This is all non-sequitur. In the Bible (the O.T.) God is called "Ehieh" or "I Am That I Am". I believe this means "Pure existence". The Qur'an states he does not beget nor was begotten. So therefore the largest religions on earth have it that God was not born. If you can prove this is logically absurd, then you would change the world. In theory.

I say: As regards Gods necessarily being finite ... that is about as non-sequitur as one gets! Unless you typoed and meant "Infinite".



Previous stated:

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


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

You are phrasing God as a growing thing, because infinity can be seen, relative to us, as an ever growing quantity, right? Think of infinity, add 1 to it, infinity is already past that now, so add another 1, infinity is already past that now, etc.
So you put a human right next to God, and you have God growing before that person's eyes (= God is counting higher and higher).

What l'm saying is, this is an absurd scenario because:
- God is actual infinity. Implicit in that is: he is beyond time (he is everything, there is no change), he is pure existence (he is everything, he is, therefore, is-ness itself, he is pure existence), there is no becoming (he is everything, there is nothing to change to, there is nothing new to be done), there is no passing away, no decrease (he is everything, plus also passing away = change, but as l just remarked, there is no change with actual Infinity).
- Therefore God will not be counting before your eyes
- And also you, as an infinitely small part of him that is actually an illusion, not positively existing beside him, cannot converse directly to him, because the finite cannot be juxtaposed directly to the infinite which spawned it, it is logically absurd (l've used this to decry trinitarian christianity to little effect, but l'm correct, it is fact, it is logically absurd for infinity to bodily enter the finite world, such that God is born in the world, and it is by the same token logically absurd for a person to interview God while God is counting (the counting being doubly absurd as explained above).


I then go on to explain how we came to exist when God = no change.

Actual infinity = infinite energy
E = energy, h = Planck's constant, f = frequency, t = time
E = hf (though h may no longer apply at God's level, we can still suppose that E is proportional to f)
Infinite E = something constant x f
therefore f = infinite

That is God's reality, pure existence, no gaps between the frequency peaks (l guess the frequency = fluctuation between existence and non existence = level of realness of a thing)

To create our reality, he would have stepped down that frequency into something finite.

The medieval philosophers (and l think the classical ones), i.e. the neoplatonists and illuminationists, held that creation was done in several stages, called Spheres, Intelligences (named after the beings that performed the task - because God will not touch anything finite), Emanations.

The intelligences are like transformers, stepping down frequency instead of voltage (like stepping down AC voltage? l don't know).

The first intelligence directly contacts infinity, and steps it down to finite frequency. This itself is unthinkable and a complete mystery. In Islamic Neoplatonist philosophy l think this First Intelligence was designated to be the Archangel Gabriel. In Islamic theology, Gabriel is known as Ruh al Quddus - the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost. So, l would guess that, just as the Spirit arises as a vapour from the Soul, so the Holy Spirit emerged from infinity as a sort of vapour, and as such, it stands between Infinity and the Finite. Maybe its like how Love is the taste, the appreciation of, actual infinity. So, the Holy Ghost is like love, something which arises from actual infinity whilst also being not anything new to actual infinity. Maybe the Holy Ghost is Love, Inspiration, i don't know.

Then you have successive intelligences stepping down the frequency even further.

The result at each stage, as base frequency is lowered, is that the perception of time is also changed, because after all, f = 1/t

Bringing it all back to actual infinity, we see that infinite frequency = 1 / t, therefore t = 0 at that level.

If we take t to mean the spacing between instants in time (the spacing between peaks of frequency), then at the level of actual infinity, the spacing = 0, meaning everything exists all at once.

Conclusion: God won't be counting up or down, God is everything all at once, and there is no existence besides him, so a person won't be sat there next to him interviewing him.

I feel the only leap of faith here is: The nature of the First Intelligence, who does the unthinkable task of stepping down Infinity to something finite. However, l gave a precedent: the relation of the Soul to the Spirit, and note also how, coincidentally, the First Intelligence is actually called the Holy Spirit in one neoplatonist system.



You said: 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.

I say: I believe it's the system of successive emanations / intelligences described above



You say: 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 know. I proposed the inverse - finite world as an infinitely small illusion of independent existence where time flows, within a perfect, unchanging, actual infinity where there is zero time flow.



You say: 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

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

I think l get what you are saying. This reality can't have any infinite aspect because its beginning would be in reciprocal infinity, and its end would be in positive infinity, neither of which are conceivable.

As l say: We are just an illusion within actual infinity where there is no change

Suppose "now", the present, is the principle which defines what is happening, the events which are occurring, presently. "Simultaneous" implies that numerous events, are occurring at the same time. The different events are necessarily at different places, if they are at the same time. Under the precepts of special relativity, depending on the frame of reference, the events which are occurring simultaneously, now at the present, vary. — Metaphysician Undercover

SR has no concept of 'now at the present'. You can add that to it, but it doesn't presume it, nor does it forbid it. In fact it makes no mention of it. I says that local physics works in all frames of reference, and that a preferred frame (not to be confused with the preferred moment) if it existed, would be locally undetectable.

Therefore the interpretation of now varies according to the frame of reference, such that we can have multiple presents.

No. If there is a present, there is probably only one of them, and a frame that does not correspond to it is simply not the preferred frame. Moments that appear simultaneous in the other frames are not really simultaneous.

I suppose there could be an interpretation with multiple presents, but I've not seen a name put to it. There is no logic that forbids it. One simply has to not refer to 'the present' and instead refer to 'this present and that other present'.

There is no interpretation of special relativity which renders "one present", because it makes no reference to said present because this implies a preferred frame of reference, which is strictly excluded by special relativity.

No, it doesn't exclude a preferred frame. It just says you can't do a local experiment to detect it, if there is one. Physics works in all of them (principle of relativity) and SR just extended that principle to electromagnetism. GR also says the preferred frame is undetectable. There is a unique frame which has the property of local isomorphism, but there is no way to demonstrate that if there is a preferred local inertial frame, it is that frame, especially since the frame is different everywhere.

Special relativity specifically disallows a preferred frame of reference, that is the fundamental principle of "relativity". So any interpretation of time which uses such a preferred foliation is inconsistent with special relativity..

Sounds to me like you're attempting to disprove the presentism I know you to hold, while I am defending it despite thinking it wrong.

If both the following hold true:

- Einstein's Relativity is correct
- There is something that distinguishes 'now' from 'past' and 'future'

Then we need a flavour of eternalism that distinguishes 'now'. — Devans99

Einstein did not assert eternalism in his TOR. I know he held that metaphysical view personally, but the theory was about empirical physics, not metaphysics. The theory is about the map, and the metaphyics is about the territory. Einstein stated that a spacetime map corresponds very well to what we observe, but the theory makes no assertions about the correspondence of that map to the metaphysical territory.

If you assert a 'now', then you are discarding the eternal view whose sole premise is non-reality of that very thing. Einstein's theory still stands, but you've added two new things to it: A preferred frame and also a preferred moment. Einstein's theory says the former would be undetectable and makes no mention of the latter.

I'm repeating myself now, so I may drop off.

I thought that Special Relativity implied Eternalism:

- Special Relativity asserts the existence of multiple 'nows'
- All 'nows' must exist concurrently
- Time must be persistent for the 'nows' to exist concurrently
- IE Eternalism

If you assert a 'now', then you are discarding the eternal view whose sole premise is non-reality of that very thing — noAxioms

I disagree; Eternalism is primarily about the existence of past and future. I have given many reasons why I feel past and future must exist, so I must claim to be an Eternalist.

At the same time, I assert (and its seems a self-evident fact) that we can tell the difference between past, now and future. How can we tell the difference? There must be some distinguishing fact about 'now'. So I still maintain we need time to have both the following characteristics:

- Past, present and future all real
- Present is distinguishable from past and future

I thought that Special Relativity implied Eternalism — Devans99

It probably does imply it, but does not assert it.

If you interpret it that way (as did Einstein), then it would be logically inconsistent with "There is something that distinguishes 'now' from 'past' and 'present'"

Special Relativity asserts the existence of multiple 'nows'

No, this is blatantly false.

I disagree; Eternalism is primarily about the existence of past and future.

Also false. It has gives no such distinct status to any event. None of them are 'past' or 'future'. Such labels are only potential relations between two arbitrary events. A preferred frame makes that relation objective, not just potential. Presentism on the other hand makes those labels a property of an event, not a relation between two of them.

SR has no concept of 'now at the present'. — noAxioms

Right, that's why the standard interpretation is that of eternalism, no "now".

No. If there is a present, there is probably only one of them, and a frame that does not correspond to it is simply not the preferred frame. Moments that appear simultaneous in the other frames are not really simultaneous. — noAxioms

That is incorrect. If you interpret special relativity with the assumption that there is such a thing as "the present", then "the present" is necessarily specific to the frame of reference. This means that there are multiple "presents" according to multiple frames of reference. Furthermore, events which are simultaneous in other frames, are really simultaneous in those frames. To say this, what you say here, that moments which appear to be simultaneous in other frames "are not really simultaneous" is to violate special relativity which stipulates that they really are simultaneous, according to the frame of reference.

No, it doesn't exclude a preferred frame. It just says you can't do a local experiment to detect it, if there is one. — noAxioms

Again this is the same incorrect assumption. Special relativity, like all relativity theories, dictates that there is no ontologically "correct" frame. If there is a "preferred frame", it is preferred for other reasons. That the correct frame cannot be detected is consequent to the stipulation that there is no correct frame. It is clearly inconsistent with special relativity to believe that there is a correct frame which cannot be detected.

Right, that's why the standard interpretation is that of eternalism, no "now". — Metaphysician Undercover

Standard interpretation, yes, but not the only one.

That is incorrect. If you interpret special relativity with the assumption that there is such a thing as "the present", then "the present" is necessarily specific to the frame of reference. This means that there are multiple "presents" according to multiple frames of reference. Furthermore, events which are simultaneous in other frames, are really simultaneous in those frames. To say this, what you say here, that moments which appear to be simultaneous in other frames "are not really simultaneous" is to violate special relativity which stipulates that they really are simultaneous, according to the frame of reference.

I think what you're described here is an inconsistent set of assertions. You describe an assertion of "the present" like there is one of them, and then go on to describe other different presents, which means there is more than one. That is inconsistent, unless I'm interpreting your words wrong.

For what I said to be incorrect, it would similarly need to be self-inconsistent.

Again this is the same incorrect assumption. Special relativity, like all relativity theories, dictates that there is no ontologically "correct" frame.

It uses the word 'ontological'? That would be news to me. That would indeed be a metaphyscial statement.

I think what you're described here is an inconsistent set of assertions. You describe an assertion of "the present" like there is one of them, and then go on to describe other different presents, which means there is more than one. That is inconsistent, unless I'm interpreting your words wrong. — noAxioms

Obviously that's not what I meant to imply, as I went on to talk about a multiplicity. If I approach my lawn with the attitude that there is such a thing as "the blade of grass" this ought not imply to you, that I am only talking about one blade of grass.

For what I said to be incorrect, it would similarly need to be self-inconsistent. — noAxioms

No, it is an incorrect interpretation of special relativity. Special relativity cannot be interpreted as allowing for only one present. Either you take the standard interpretation that there is no such thing as the present (eternalism), or if you approach with the assumption that there must be such a thing as "the present", then you find a multiplicity of presents. Likewise if you approach the lawn with the assumption that there must be such a thing as "the blade of grass", you will find that there is a multiplicity of blades of grass.

It uses the word 'ontological'? That would be news to me. That would indeed be a metaphyscial statement. — noAxioms

No, Einstein does not use the word "ontological", but he says that two events which are simultaneous from one frame of reference are not simultaneous from another. Therefore he makes a statement concerning being, what is and is not, existence, and that's an ontological statement.

God is actual infinity. Implicit in that is: he is beyond time (he is everything, there is no change) — BaldMenFighting

I don't believe in Actual Infinity but lets not debate that on this thread...

I suspect god is timeless too but this presents difficulties; time seems to enable change; how did god create the universe without time? Must of been able to make changes without time. Instantaneous changes? What then was the purpose of time?

Your solution is (I think) to make god Actually Infinite so he is already 'everything', so there is never any need for change? Interesting idea. Maybe god could just encompass all possibilities rather than being actually infinite?

I don't make God anything. He is eternal, not merely a big guy. If he were finite, then he would not be God.

I am not talking without precedent - l believe all Abrahamic faiths see God as eternal.

My definitions are based on the 99 Names of God in the Islamic faith, e.g. Az Zahir / The Evident (= actual), Al Qayyum or As Samad / The Eternal, Al Hayy / The Ever Living (= pure existence, maybe?).


How did God create changes, without time? I would conflate changes with time, actually. As per my previous post:

- It's a mystery to me, l just don't (yet) know
- I believe it was via the agency of the First Intelligence / Holy Spirit
- It involved the stepping down of infinite frequency into finite frequency.Just how this was done, is the major question.

Also note: l don't know if it is above time or under time, but the world of meanings could be one way to move, without a time axis - unless time is implicit in the world of meanings, in which case l am wrong.

Food for thought: Remember the final episode of Star Trek TNG, "All Good Things". As l recall, Q explains to Picard that there is a level of existence where time no longer matters, and it suddenly becomes clear that Q was not as malevolent as he seemed. He caused a lot of death on the Enterprise, but it was all to illustrate philosophical points. After all is said and done, everything that was lost could be reversed.

l believe all Abrahamic faiths see God as eternal — BaldMenFighting

Apologies, I did not realise, but there are actually two different definitions of eternal:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eternal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_eternity

1. Eternal-Temporal. Existing within time but everlastingly. This is the meaning I've been using in this post.
2. Eternal-Timeless. Existing outside of time.

The bible says god is eternal but apparently does not clarify which meaning. For example Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" could be either meaning.

The bible says god is eternal but apparently does not clarify which meaning. — Devans99

I think the only way to understand "eternal' in relation to God, is the second way, outside of time. Material things are often said, in theology to be temporal. God is said to be immaterial, and therefore outside of time.

No, it is an incorrect interpretation of special relativity. Special relativity cannot be interpreted as allowing for only one present. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you insist. Seems to put your presentism on shaky ground then, if relativity contradicts it. It requires you to reject it. Seems harsh.

Either you take the standard interpretation that there is no such thing as the present (eternalism), or if you approach with the assumption that there must be such a thing as "the present", then you find a multiplicity of presents.

Well, I stand on the eternalism side of that fence, so it would not bother me to see presentism be contradictory like that, but since I cannot think of a single falsification test for it, I suspect your analysis is in error. If they're incompatible, there must be some test that falsifies one or the other.

I think the only way to understand "eternal' in relation to God, is the second way, outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed. For example, if God exists in time, who created time? (plus all the other problems list in the OP).

God is said to be immaterial, and therefore outside of time — Metaphysician Undercover

I guess thats the traditional view but an immaterial God is so hard to analyse. We can make more progress in analysing God if we assume he's constrained by materialistic rules.

If you insist. Seems to put your presentism on shaky ground then, if relativity contradicts it. It requires you to reject it. Seems harsh. — noAxioms

I never said I support presentism. I'm just following some points discussed in the thread.

Well, I stand on the eternalism side of that fence, so it would not bother me to see presentism be contradictory like that, but since I cannot think of a single falsification test for it, I suspect your analysis is in error. — noAxioms

It's not that presentism itself is contradictory, but to hold special relativity and presentist principles, both together, would be contradictory. If I were presentist I would reject special relativity. But I'm not presentist by any standard definition of presentism, so if I reject special relativity it's for reasons other than those of presentism.

If they're incompatible, there must be some test that falsifies one or the other. — noAxioms

In general, competing ontological principles are incompatible and there is no easy test to falsify one or the other. That's why we tend to hold different metaphysical principles and we are usually incapable of convincing another to change one's metaphysics.

We can make more progress in analysing God if we assume he's constrained by materialistic rules. — Devans99

What would be the point in that? We'd be analyzing a concept of "God" which is inconsistent with the concept of "God" held by theologians. Therefore we wouldn't really be analyzing the concept of God.

In general, competing ontological principles are incompatible and there is no easy test to falsify one or the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agree, but theory of relativity is not an ontological principle. The standard interpretation is, but you can't use its premises in a different interpretation.

As for Devans99's bit about assuming God is constrained by materialistic rules, the typical theist isn't even willing to assume humans are constrained by materialistic rules, so it seems pretty contrary to constrain God more than we constrain ourselves. I agree with your reply to that remark.

Agree, but theory of relativity is not an ontological principle. — noAxioms

One key principle upon which special theory of relativity rests, is the relativity of simultaneity. As I explained above, it is an ontological principle. It is a claim about "being", what is. That this principle cannot be falsified results in your claim that one cannot do a local experiment to determine the preferred frame of reference.

One key principle upon which special theory of relativity rests, is the relativity of simultaneity. As I explained above, it is an ontological principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

As an ontological principle, it demands a preferred frame. Without that, two events cannot be actually simultaneous. TOR does not assert that preferred frame, so it makes no such ontological assertion.

Also, while it does describe relative simultaneity, but it doesn't rest on that. It is a conclusion that follows from the constant speed of light measured against any frame.

As an ontological principle, it demands a preferred frame. Without that, two events cannot be actually simultaneous. TOR does not assert that preferred frame, so it makes no such ontological assertion. — noAxioms

Yes, I believe that's correct But the truth or falsity of special relativity depends on the truth or falsity of the relativity of simultaneity, which appears to follow necessarily, as a logical conclusion from the stipulation that the speed of light is constant in different frames of reference . We can avoid having to verify the ontological truth or falsity of the relativity of simultaneity by assuming the truth or falsity of the constant speed of light.

Also, while it does describe relative simultaneity, but it doesn't rest on that. It is a conclusion that follows from the constant speed of light measured against any frame. — noAxioms

The problem here is that the available evidence indicates that the speed of light is not constant against any frame of reference. So we have for example, what is known as the expansion of the universe, which is a type of motion of objects, that cannot be called "motion" because it doesn't fit into the confines of special relativity. Therefore we cannot say that the speed of light is constant against any frame, because in some frames such an assumption leaves us with evidence of a further motion which is unaccounted for.

Since this principle, the constancy of the speed of light, is called into question, consequently the relativity of simultaneity is called into question. Our ability to determine the speed of light in many different frames is extremely limited. We need principles to relate one frame to another, and if these principles assume that the speed of light is constant, we're just begging the question. If problems, such as the expansion of the universe, are exposed, then we can conclude that the principles by which we relate one frame to another are inadequate. Therefore we ought to go right back to the ontological principle, simultaneity, and develop an understanding of exactly what it means to be simultaneous. This will give us a better position to determine "the speed of light" with more accuracy, allowing a variable speed of light depending on the frame of reference, determined by a proper understanding of simultaneous.

Prove that Presentism is wrong:

1. Presentism posits that only now exists
2. Therefore only now always existed
3. Therefore time did not have a start
4. But if you take away the start (Monday) does the rest of the week (Tuesday...) still exist?
5. No, so time has a start
6. Hence Presentism is false
7. Hence Eternalism must be true

7. would only follow from 6. if Presentism and Eternalism were the only two possibilities.

It seems to me that we only experience things as a series of memories, when somethings 'happens' it immediately becomes a memory. We can only see backwards which has ceased to exist anyway, so we have to reconstruct those memories, which might help explain false memory syndrome, something which I have experienced when listening to people's accounts of past events which seem to become gradually more inaccurate over time.

So time is just a false memory.

7. would only follow from 6. if Presentism and Eternalism were the only two possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

Presentism posits the existence of only now. If its false then more than only now exists so some form of Eternalism then.

So time is just a false memory. — TWI

Time governs every particle in the universe via the speed of light limit law (speed = TIME / distance) so its a fundamental part of the universe.