My question is what other meaning of "exists" could there be if it doesn't refer to "presently existing", "did exist" or "will exist". — Mr Bee
All three of those are circular definitions, and thus not really definitions. — noAxioms
The fact that 'exist' appears on both sides. 'Exist' means 'presently existing'. 'Hot' means has a hot temperature. Those are useless circular definitions.How so? What's so circular about them? — Mr Bee
It means 'is a member of' [the universe], and not just 'is a current member of'. — noAxioms
If I say a T-Rex exists, I mean it is a member of the set of objects contained in the universe. I don't mean it is a member of the set of objects currently contained in the universe.What does "is" mean here?
The fact that 'exist' appears on both sides. 'Exist' means 'presently existing'. 'Hot' means has a hot temperature. Those are useless circular definitions. — noAxioms
If I say a T-Rex exists, I mean it is a member of the set of objects contained in the universe. I don't mean it is a member of the set of objects currently contained in the universe. — noAxioms
And if these three sets are all that exhaust what you mean by the "set of objects contained in the universe" then to say that something "exists" under your use of the term is just another way of saying that it either "was, is, or will be", all of which are temporal forms of existence. So this doesn't really offer up a new form of existence at all, one that isn't reducible to a tensed version of existence. — Mr Bee
Presentism is the view that only present objects exist. According to Presentism, if we were to make an accurate list of all the things that exist – i.e., a list of all the things that our most unrestricted quantifiers range over – there would be not a single non-present object on the list. Thus, you and I and the Taj Mahal would be on the list, but neither Socrates nor any future grandchildren of mine would be included. And it’s not just Socrates and my future grandchildren, either – the same goes for any other putative object that lacks the property of being present. All such objects are unreal, according to Presentism. According to Non-presentism, on the other hand, non-present objects like Socrates and my future grandchildren exist right now, even though they are not currently present. We may not be able to see them at the moment, on this view, and they may not be in the same space-time vicinity that we find ourselves in right now, but they should nevertheless be on the list of all existing things. — A Defense of Presentism, Ned Markosian
Couldn't it equally be said that the tensed version of existence is reducible to the tenseless version? Your argument strikes me as somewhat unfair to B-theorists, since if language is necessarily tensed, then B-theorists are not even able to describe their view of time. I sense that you are probably aware of the issues, and I understand that the B-theory may not be strictly identical to "non-presentism", but this may help some readers (perhaps): — Luke
I have no idea. Maybe we could just say "There is motion" or "Everything is in motion", and time is a way that we measure or mark that. Perhaps more simply it's the fact that we age, but that's probably circular. It's a difficult question. But so is the question of illusion for B-theorists. — Luke
Couldn't it equally be said that the tensed version of existence is reducible to the tenseless version? — Luke
Presentism is the view that only present objects exist. — A Defense of Presentism, Ned Markosian
If time flows, as A-theory claims, what does it flow with respect to? — Inis
If time flows, then it must flow with respect to something, and that something has to be an external time. — Inis
What's the question of illusion? — Inis
What is the tenseless version of existence then? — Mr Bee
I have no clue what the notion of saying something exists means other than saying that it either was, is, or will be — Mr Bee
This is like asking "what contains space?". It's a nonsense question that I think is based upon the mistake of treating the background as part of the foreground. Space and time are the setting for objects to exist and events to take place, but they are not objects and events themselves. — Mr Bee
That everything at all times exists (some say exists "simpliciter"); i.e. the block universe theory. — Luke
No one is claiming that space flows. If they did, then you can rest assured that that flow would need to be with respect to something. — Inis
Claiming that space and time are merely the setting for events is B-theory. — Inis
B-theorists hold that the flow of time is an illusion and that the universe is static. How do we experience illusions in that case (or experience anything at all)? — Luke
It would seem to run counter to our understanding of how the body functions, which relies on actual motion. — Luke
I don't think our understanding relies on the flow of time though. This flow didn't even appear in Newton's theories, despite the fact that he claimed that time "flows equably". — Inis
Also, B-theory doesn't imply that motion doesn't exist. I hope not anyway. — Inis
Im not sure whether Newton had much to say about how the human body functions. — Luke
It does, at least according to some definitions. — Luke
It fails because it can also explain A-time? Odd. — Banno
If I say a T-Rex exists, I mean it is a member of the set of objects contained in the universe. I don't mean it is a member of the set of objects currently contained in the universe. — noAxioms
I thought I was pretty explicit in my comment there, so you either have no understanding, or you refuse to accept the way I am using the word. By your insistence in adding 'currently', you are assuming presentism, so of course non-presentism isn't going to be compatible with that.I still do not see how you're using the term "is" in a manner that isn't present tensed though. Also what exactly is in the "set of objects contained in the universe"? I assume that it is going to contain the set of objects that are currently contained in the universe. — Mr Bee
Can you point to the bit that denies the reality of motion? I don't see it, but then I am chronically averse to the absurd. — Inis
The B-theory of time is the name given to one of two positions regarding philosophy of time. B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality. [...]
The terms A and B theory are sometimes used as synonyms to the terms presentism and eternalism, [...]
The debate between A-theorists and B-theorists is a continuation of a metaphysical dispute reaching back to the ancient Greek philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. Parmenides thought that reality is timeless and unchanging [B-theory]. Heraclitus, in contrast, believed that the world is a process of ceaseless change or flux [A-theory]. [...]
The difference between A-theorists and B-theorists is often described as a dispute about temporal passage or 'becoming' and 'progressing'. B-theorists argue that this notion is purely psychological [read: illusory]. [...]
It is therefore common (though not universal), for B-theorists to be four-dimensionalists, that is, to believe that objects are extended in time as well as in space and therefore have temporal as well as spatial parts.
I thought I was pretty explicit in my comment there, so you either have no understanding, or you refuse to accept the way I am using the word. — noAxioms
So you're not trying to drive it to self-inconsistency, but merely decline to accept it, which is fine. — noAxioms
Best I can explain the general stance is that eternalism gives equal ontological status to all events. What that status is isn't necessarily part of the view. My opinion on that is certainly not typical of eternalists.The reason why I have been using "currently" is because that is the only way I can make sense of your claims, but I very much welcome an alternative conception, so long as it makes sense. Indeed, that is the very reason why I am having this discussion with you. — Mr Bee
Best I can explain the general stance is that eternalism gives equal ontological status to all events. What that status is isn't necessarily part of the view. My opinion on that is certainly not typical of eternalists. — noAxioms
Best I can explain the general stance is that eternalism gives equal ontological status to all events. What that status is isn't necessarily part of the view. My opinion on that is certainly not typical of eternalists. — noAxioms
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.