And it isn't; or rather, its needs are far outweighed by those of the woman. — Banno

Based on what objective criteria?

Fascinating.

Anyway Inis if you're finished doing your very incompetent Russian troll anti-EU thing, please run along, you have convinced no-one of anything except your own foolishness. And it's getting boring. — Baden

According to the Lisbon Treaty, you have no representation on the EU Commission. This is a verifiable fact.

Fascinating.

"Phil Hogan (born 4 July 1960) is an Irish politician who currently serves as European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development since November 2014. " — Baden

Yes, you are that clueless.

Which is typical.

Phil Hogan. Why? I mean, judging by his girth he has expansionist aims, but is he antagonistic towards Russia too? — Baden

Because you have just revealed to anyone who understands how the EU is governed, that you are typically clueless.

No, Phil Hogan does not represent you.

Do you know what those words mean? — Baden

Who represents you on the EU Commission?

Italy's GDP per Capita is now lower than when it joined the Euro in 1999.

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd24218-248f-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

The topic is Brexit not anti-Macron protests in Paris or a downturn in the Eurozone economy (economic growth occurs in cycles, you know that right?). So, what is the relevance of this? — Baden

Well, the EU turning into a fascist police-state, with an army, expansionist aims, and antagonism of Russia, is relevant. The fact that it has encouraged mas migration, yet maintains mass youth unemployment in the South does matter. The fact that not one person in the whole of Europe ever voted for these policies matters.

Suppose that the metaphysics behind the b theory of time is true, and all events exist tenselessly, then what does that mean for causation? — Walter Pound

Causality wouldn't exist, which is what the laws of physics say anyway..

What does that mean for the debate over determinism, compatibilism, libertarian free will, and indeterminacy? — Walter Pound

Determinism would be absolute, free will wouldn't exist, but compatibilism would remain nonsense.

If you want to make specific arguments over how 4 dimensionalism or eternalism or moving spotlight theory affect the notions of causation or free will or whatever, I welcome the conversation! — Walter Pound

Relativity is not our only fundamental theory. For the Block to be compatible with quantum mechanics, we need a bigger determinism to cope with entanglement effects. or we need a bigger universe.

Two solutions are Superdeterminism, or the Multiverse. Under Superdeterminism, reality is a conspiracy, scientific knowledge is fake, causality doesn't exist, and free will is absolutely excluded. Under the quantum multiverse, reality is our playground, we may create knowledge, causality is recovered, and free will exists.

People hate the quantum multiverse for some reason, perhaps they are superdetermined to.

More lies. Germany is expected to do best of the three you mentioned with 1.7%. France is expected to outperform Italy (1.6%), the UK will now no longer outperform Italy (1.2%) (still assuming soft Brexit), Italy is still growing (1.3%). So technically you don't know what you're talking about. — Benkei

Germany is in or close to technical recession:

https://deutschewealth.com/content/deutschewealth/en/our_perspective/cio-memo-germany-technical-recession-not-inconceivable.html

Italy is in recession:

https://news.sky.com/story/italy-falls-into-recession-as-quarterly-gdp-drops-11623135

Eurozone Q4 growth is 0.2% according to Eurostat.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9539637/2-31012019-AP-EN.pdf/fead6e91-cd7f-4654-b5d7-81fef584772d

France is ablaze:



Spain jails politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/02/spanish-court-question-catalonia-separatists-except-puigdemont

I could go on.

The same data I used with totally different figures. Do you have a reading disability that I need to take into account when communicating with you? — Benkei

Did you use the data from here?

https://www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/sites/www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/files/attachments/Freedom_of_Movement_08082018.pdf

Really???

Here's your latest official statistic (Nov 2018) on this issue: — ssu

I stand corrected. From the "latest figures"

The overall number of EU citizens coming to the UK continues to add to the population as 74,000 more EU citizens came to the UK than left.

Net immigration from EU was only 74,000 last year, despite Brexit.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2018

If there are fewer EU nationals working, yet more arriving, draw your own conclusions.

How many EU countries are there? How many are in the G7? Spoiler, 28 and 3 — Benkei

Meanwhile, Germany is in technical recession, Italy is in recession, and France is in flames.

Eurozone growth is estimated at 0.2% Q4.

Based on what information because the "data on migrants and benefits is incomplete, fragmented and not routinely available"? — Benkei

The data was eventually extracted from HMRC and the Treasury by Iain Duncan Smith, ex Work and Pensions Secretary, and is for 2013/14.

Sure, if growth slows down in the EU, everyone should just leave it — Baden

That's why 3.7 million EU Citizens live in UK, that and the £4billion in benefits they take.

That's why net migration from EU is still 100,000 p.a. despite Brexit.

Isn't personhood the main issue. If we take that out of the discussion then the opponent pro-lifers vanish into thin air. The pro-choicers win without even lifting a finger. — TheMadFool

And that non-person status extends to infancy now, apparently.

I doubt anyone here wants to have to explain to you what the words "no-deal Brexit mean". — Baden

Meanwhile, Germany is in technical recession, Italy is in recession, the whole Euro zone teetering on the brink with Q4 GDP growth of only 0.2%.

Hopefully the Government and Parliament change their minds. It is projected that a no-deal Brexit will throw the UK into recession. — Michael

This simply isn't true. IMF projects UK will be equally fastest European G7 growing economy.

I meant pass an Act of Parliament to revoke Article 50 if a deal is not approved. — Michael

Sure, it would require an Act to revoke A50 notice. (You can't revoke A50 BTW, it's a treaty). I think this is impossible for a couple of reasons. Firstly it would never pass, and secondly there simply is not enough time.

Under UK Law, there is already a deal approved. UK pays nothing to EU and simply leaves on 29th March. Under EU treaty, A24 would then apply, which means UK/EU trade, travel etc. would continue under current arrangements for 2 years.

The ECJ ruled that:

... where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State ... to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner ... — Michael

You are confusing A50, which is a treaty, and thus cannot be revoked, with the Notice to leave, which can be revoked, if there is an Act of Parliament allowing the government to do so, which there isn't.

Also, note that the Notice cannot be revoked in order to hold another referendum.

I was optimistic that Parliament would veto a no deal Brexit and revoke Article 50 when it became clear that a deal won't be made. But then yesterday they voted against giving themselves the authority to do that. Crazy. — Michael

How can parliament veto primary legislation, without an Act of Parliament?

Parliament cannot revoke Article 50, it is part of the EU treaty. The notice period could be extended with unanimous agreement of the EU Council, by the government.

Although hopefully they change their minds before it's too late. — Michael

Hopefully the unelected bureaucrats in the EU change their mind. It is projected that a no-deal Brexit will throw Germany into recession.

I said Ok, Ok, and now Ok. I was wrong, there is no such thing as causality in physics - I bend to your overwhelming knowledge on the subject. Not really sure what level of victory you are looking for. — Rank Amateur

If causality is absent in the laws of physics, then why does anyone expect the creation event to have a cause?

Maybe you could look up the wikipedia page on Unitarity yourself?

All laws of physics are time symmetric. So you're wrong.

Lazy. There is no causality in any fundamental law of physics.

no matter how you cut it, you are saying that from nothing - there was something - that was not caused. Can't see how with that understanding - you can rule out a an un-created creator. It seems you are ruling it out as a possibility - simply because you want to rule it out. — Rank Amateur

Can you point to any law of physics that mentions causality, or where causality can be inferred?

Check Sean Carroll's debate with William Lane Craig. Carroll shows one of them (Guth I think) saying it's a misuse of the theorem. — MindForged

Carroll is wrong. The BGV theorem proves there was a creation event, given a rather broad, realistic, and empirically established criterion.

OK? Aside from the broad misuse of that theorem, "there was a first moment of time" doesn't lend anymore weight to there being a God or not. — MindForged

A misuse of the theorem? Not according to Vilenkin.

I think the real point is that it's a model that does not require anything god-like to explain any particular aspect of it. Atheism-compatible, in other words. — MindForged

The Borde Guth Vilenkin tells us there was a beginning.

Why couldn't the same be said about the flow of time? What makes that an "incoherent misconception"? — Luke

What does time flow relative to?

How fast does it flow relative to this thing?

If it changed speed, or even stopped flowing altogether, would you notice?

Why don't we experience the flow?

How long does the present last for?

I don't buy your distinction. What is the passage of time supposed to be relative to? And where is your proof? — Luke

There you go again. Time is a dimension of the block universe. Clocks measure the passage of time, in their reference frame.

You claimed that there is an objective flow of time. What is this flow relative to?

I never said there was no time, but eternalism says there is no passage. — Luke

Tediously false.

So what? Eternalists claim that temporal passage is an illusion. — Luke

No they don't.

Prove it. I'll go first: — Luke

You are conflating "passage of time" (which is measured by clocks) with the wikipedia expression "objective flow of time" (which doesn't exist).

There is no flow of time. This has been dealt with in this or recent similar threads. It is an incoherent misconception that does not bear scrutiny. It doesn't even work under presentism. What is this flow supposed to be relative to?

No one, other than you, thinks that the static block universe precludes clocks, motion, change. Given that time is one of the dimensions of the block, to claim that time doesn't exist in the block, seems somewhat absurd. If someone were to claim that one of the spatial dimensions did not exist, that it was an illusion, you would think they were joking. You're not joking are you?

Motion is a problem for eternalism because temporal passage is an illusion — Luke

Simply false. Eternalists have clocks.

It seems odd to call it "change" when nothing actually changes. — Luke

Eternalists have clocks and change happens.

The disagreement between us seems to be that you (and some others) are speaking from a physics point of view, whereas I am speaking from a philosophy of time point of view. In philosophy of time, eternalism is an ontological theory (about existence) which says that all times equally exist and objective temporal passage is an illusion. — Luke

Eternalism doesn't claim that, though. The fact that all times are equally real does not preclude passage from one time to another.

We cannot percieve them because they were not part of these set conditions that moulded us. — Susu

How do we know about the strong or weak nuclear force?

And that just seems to be a deliberate dodge of the question. — prothero

Your question is answered.

The eternalist stance (as I understand it is the past, the present and the future all have equal ontologic status. They all exist and are real in the same manner. — prothero

But not at the same time, or the same place..

The problem is virtually no one actually believes that. — prothero

If you've studied relativity (and quantum mechanics) eternalism is inevitable. Many physicists don't like that for religious reasons, which is why they try to invent new physics.

One can not empirically directly demonstrate the continuing reality of the past — prothero

How do you empirically directly demonstrate the momentary reality of the present?

Under presentism, there is no hypersurface or light cone, both 4 dimensional concepts. So if you seek information about any of the simultaneous events that make up your present, you have to wait for the information to come to you, at which time the information is no longer about the present. — noAxioms

Under presentism, there has to be a present hypersurface, and there has to be only one of them. Unless you pull the trick of denying objective reality etc.

The hypersurface will be 3D, and defined by all simultaneous events - i.e. by everything in reality. The light-cone will be a convenient mathematical tool for figuring out how long ago events happened, and why different observers disagree about such things.

Thats already inherent in the notion of "observation" isn't it? Or are you arguing that gaining any information is impossible? — Echarmion

Frankly have no clue what you mean. Nevertheless, permit me to reiterate:

Your present hypersurface is inaccessible to you. If you seek information about any of the simultaneous events that make up your present, you have to wait for the information to become part of your past light-cone.

I think I can observe things in the present. — Andrew M

Well you can't. Everything in your present is space-like separated from you.

We know relativity as a consequence of theorizing about what is observed (in our reference frame). — Andrew M

You think you can observe your present?

For the "eternalists" and "block universe" advocates on the thread.
I want to know the status of "dinosaurs"? Are they truly extinct and vanished from the universe (except for their bones and descendants)?
Or are they still moving and inhabiting the earth in their region of the 4D space time block and the only reason we can't get back there is because our timeline won't curve enough to take us back? — prothero

Dinosaur world-lines exist in the distant past.

Yes. The way I would state it is that our knowledge (of reality) is reference-frame dependent. In my reference frame, I make a distinction between the past, present and future. Per that distinction, other people and many other things exist, but dinosaurs do not exist. Similarly, while each person has their own reference frame (and thus present), dinosaurs do not exist for them either.

So I think on that view, presentism, relativity and realism are compatible. — Andrew M

Except you have just argued for observer dependence.

I have no idea why you think our knowledge is reference-frame dependent. We all know relativity, and it has nothing to do with which particular reference frame we happen to be in.
[

Donald Trump donated his last quarter salary to alcoholism research.

Your present is not necessarily 'the present'. In fact, quite unlikely to be. Presentism is safe from this sort of argument in my opinion. — noAxioms

It doesn't matter what label you apply to any particular simultaneity hypersurface.

Or you can deny relativity, which as I mentioned earlier, is an option.