If you believe the past did exist then you believe it no longer does exist and that it therefore does not exist. — Luke
Never heard the term 'presentism.' Does such a thing exist if our biology requires a small lag time in our experience of 'now' in essence turning into 'then?' — julian kroin
have this thought; entropy explains everything (though I 'm not privy to that explanation) — julian kroin
The low entropy of the universe points to a start of time which would rule out presentism. — Devans99
"A start of time" is an essential to where you want to go — Frank Apisa
The past does not exist but it provably did exist (else the present would not exist). — Devans99
From the fact the past did exist and from 'only now exists' we reach 'only now always existed'. — Devans99
Let''s say I don't accept your assertion that the present would not exist unless the past did exist. How are you going to prove that? — Luke
"Only now always existed" is grammatically incorrect and incoherent, combining both present and past tenses.. It attempts to refer to a past tense existence of the present moment ("existed"). The present moment does not exist in the past, by definition. — Luke
I think you could say that every effect in the present has a cause in the past else it would not exist so therefore the past must have existed. — Devans99
What I mean is: does the state 'only now exists' apply to the past, IE did 'only then exist' in the past if you see what I mean. Because if 'only now exists' applies to all time then there cannot be a start of time (because that would be creation from nothing). — Devans99
That's just repeating the same assertion. It's not proof — Luke
Presentists don't need to accept the assumption about past existence - it's not part of presentism — Luke
1. The effect is in the present
2. The cause must exist
3. The cause must come prior to the effect
4. So 'prior to now' must have existed. — Devans99
I think thats a debatable statement, see here for example: — Devans99
Cool. That shows that you are working with an unhelpful definition of infinity. Treat it rather as an unbounded number larger than any real number. — Banno
sime
289
I am under the impression that those who discount presentism do so, because they interpret presentism as a variant of realism about time and causality, where the ontological basis of that temporal realism is the present. — sime
(PA) Always, only present things exist. — Devans99
What do you take this to mean? — Luke
So as we go back in time, still only the present exists. — Devans99
So the present ALWAYS existed. That implies no start of time. — Devans99
Then if there was a start of time; that would be creation ex nihilo of a sort - creation without time itself which seems impossible — Devans99
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.