It makes sense to the common everyday layperson but that doesn't mean it can't be false. The idea that the sun rises and sets would be acceptable to children who don't know any better, but that doesn't mean that the sun revolves around the earth no matter what.
Eternalism isn't common sense. It is not intuitive at all, and it certainly doesn't conform to our everyday beliefs about time. It says things that goes against our everyday notions of time, and that includes the idea that events had or will happen through the passage of time. That is just what it basically says. — Mr Bee
Does one need to commit to some metaphysical theory in order for P3 to sound plausible? Will P3 sound plausible to a layman? — The Great Whatever
Don't you think that any theory that forces us to say that sensical things don't make sense should prima facie be disregarded, unless there is good reason to believe them? Is there any reason one would want to be an eternalist or a presentist? Probably not; they probably arise form verbal disputes and misunderstandings. — The Great Whatever
Nobody needs to commit to any metaphysical theory of time in order to accept P3. — Mr Bee
Great! So let's talk about P3 independent of metaphysical theories of time. Let's suppose (as is true) that I have no stake in the game of which theory of time is right, and so am neutral on the subject. — The Great Whatever
Again, if you could please read up on they mean then that would make both of our lives easier. You can still remain neutral even after reading about them and refrain from adopting any of them if you so wish. Why are you making this so hard?
I cannot respond to your comments because they seem like they rest upon a lack of understanding, one that you seem adamant about maintaining. If you don't want to do so, then I don't see the point of continuing to argue with you, given that we will most likely talk past each other like we have been over the past couple of days. — Mr Bee
OK, I've been pulling your leg a little bit. I actually am familiar with all of these theories, and have been playing dumb because I don't want to get into them and distract form the actual issues. — The Great Whatever
P3 doesn't sound convincing at all to me. Why? Because I don't think my experience is limited to a single time – I think that I experienced some things yesterday, will experience others tomorrow, and so on. So it seems that I have different experiences at different times – and if that's true, my experience can't be limited to a single time. — The Great Whatever
Why should I think my experience is limited to a single time (again, prior to accepting any metaphysical theory)? — The Great Whatever
I don't find myself having an experience of being in my room, and an experience of being on the train to work, for instance. — Mr Bee
Saying that you "experienced" and "will experience" something if you mean that in an A-theoretic sense — Mr Bee
In the case just described, it is an experience of "Skydiving and Smelling burnt toast". It is not just having an experience of "Skydiving" and an experience of "Smelling burnt toast" separately.
Or if you are okay with a completely visual example, in the case where I am seeing a red patch in my vision and a blue patch, there will be a larger visual experience of seeing both of them together (for instance, it could be an image that has red on the left side and blue on the right). — Mr Bee
If I have an experience of getting up and going to work, that experience might both involve sitting in my room, and then letter being on the train, yes. — The Great Whatever
You also want to say that there is some sort of eternalist way to have experiences. I reject this claim, and your example of simultaneously seeing a red and a blue patch (at the same time!) does not help to address how one can possibly have some "larger experience" of two different experiences that are temporally distant from each other. — Luke
No. — The Great Whatever
What do you mean by the passage of time? It requires that there be different times, with each of the experiences had at different ones. — The Great Whatever
What is NOW includes what generally exists. — Mr Bee
If you don't really understand what the passage of time is, then I don't know if I can really tell you, since to me it's a basic concept. It's that thing that everyone in the philosophy of time talks about. — Mr Bee
What does it mean to generally exist? Is that different form existing? — The Great Whatever
I think that there's a time t1 at which I have an experience and then later another time t2 at which I have another. Is that the passage of time? — The Great Whatever
It just means what it says. If something exists, then it is a part of what is NOW. — Mr Bee
So why use the word NOW? Can you just reword your claim using the word 'exists' instead? — The Great Whatever
Are you asking if I have both experiences while I exist. Of course – I have to exist to have an experience. — The Great Whatever
Both the experience of sitting in my room and the experience of being on a train exist — Mr Bee
More specifically, do both the experience of sitting in my room and the experience of being on the train exist like we would say that both the events of the big bang and the event of the creation of Earth are said to exist under the Block universe (again, I'm not requiring to you to accept the latter)? — Mr Bee
Because you asked me to create a new word to describe what it means to you — Mr Bee
I asked you to use a new word because you were abusing the English word 'now' by using it incorrectly. — The Great Whatever
When did they happen? If they both happen in the past, I would say they both existed. — The Great Whatever
I think a more sensible thing to say about past events is that they happened. Asking whether they exist seems infelicitous to begin with, but to the extent I can make sense of it, it seems to be a matter of asking whether they're happening, which of course they aren't, but they did happen. — The Great Whatever
If you are saying that the experience of sitting in your room and the experience of the train do not exist (you reject the above statement) — Mr Bee
then I cannot see how you can say we experience both, other than by saying that they are experienced with the passage of time. — Mr Bee
It says for the experiences that exist that I am have — Mr Bee
they are only limited to a single time, because the contents that I find in my total experience are only of a single time.
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.