You seem to be interpreting presentism as a denial of relativity. But I haven't seen anyone claim that. I certainly don't. — Andrew M
Because it is talking about "the flow of time, or passage through space-time," rather than motion. There is no difference in dynamics between eternalism and presentism. In fact, there is no physical difference, period. The difference is entirely metaphysical and has to do with metaphysical notions, such as the objective present, the passage of time, the existence of past and future, etc. — SophistiCat
That would have to involve reifying time in an odd way (that's completely without justification in my view). — Terrapin Station
That's not true. — karl stone
Have you worked out yet how to account for eternalism's lack of motion, or are you still ignoring that eternalism has this problem? — Luke
And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. — karl stone
So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013, — karl stone
The desire for this referendum does not originate with the people. It originates within the Tory Party. — karl stone
Anyway, the subject of the thread implies that one's interpretation of time has anything to do with the possibility of time travel. Assuming time travel is to the past, as is typically assumed, it is impossible, period. A-theory has nothing to do with that. — noAxioms
Such a concept would involve sending information to the past, and that has never been possible under any valid interpretation of physics. — noAxioms
Besides, the Dutch pay per capita (that means per person) a lot more to the EU than the British do (Benkei has explained), so again a questionmark on your crying about payments to EU. — ssu
David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose. — karl stone
It is called a preferred reference frame, or at least a preferred foliation (an objective ordering of events). Presentism must assume such a thing, but the existence of a preferred foliation does not necessarily imply the existence of a present (a preferred moment). — noAxioms
Anyway, under the preferred foliation, there is a fixed amount of time between any two moments in time, and frames which do not correspond to this preferred frame are simply not representative of the absolute ordering of events. Hence clocks are all wrong because they're all dilated, some more than others. — noAxioms
How do you know this? Fact is, you don't. — karl stone
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain — karl stone
Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption. — karl stone
Yes. I want you to stop misrepresenting the facts all the time by cherry picking data and spreading misleading or false information. On the UK contribution: — Benkei
From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved. For instance, for the Netherlands, where I live, it can have an effect of up to 1.2% of GDP. That's 10 billion EUR in costs. — Benkei
Can you give an example of a factual disagreement? — Andrew M
A presentist need not deny observer-independent reality. Instead they are describing reality from a preferred reference frame - their own — Andrew M
Presentism and Eternalism are two different metaphyscial interpretations of the same empirical data. Since time travel would be an empirical experience, it should in principle make zero difference whether presentism or eternalism is assumed. Under current empirical physics, both metaphysical views forbid time travel to the past, and neither forbids forward travel. Hence I see little point in needing to assume one metaphysical stance when discussing if a physical act is possibility or not. — noAxioms
Even if there were no clocks, the present still "exists" and change still happens and therefore time (a derivative concept of change) passes. If there were no change there would no time. — prothero
I don't see how the reading on the clock has anything to do with whether or not the present exists. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes they do, all other factors being equal. — noAxioms
Anyway, here's the YouTube video's I'm raving about: — Wallows
Clocks around the world have 24 different times representing the different time zones. Before agreement clocks in different towns had different times, rail travel made synchronizing clocks necessary, etc. The time reading on any particular clock has nothing to do with presentism or with the philosophical notion of time. — prothero
That has been done many different times and many different ways and the result is the same, clocks run at different rates under the influence of gravity and acceleration. The time reading on a clock however has nothing to do with presentism. Time is not fundamental, what is fundamental is change and process, and the rate at which a clock runs, or humans age, varies with gravity and acceleration. There is a fundamental misunderstanding about what time is (a derived concept from change) and what clocks do (they are processes that run at different rates under different conditions). — prothero
You do like cherry picking your statistics don't you? How's GDP growth doing as compared to other countries and the GDP projection? — Benkei
Are both clocks at the present when they are reunited? The time displayed on the clocks is irrelevant to presentism, so long as the clocks always remain at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then why the heck have you been quoting figures relating to trade and profit? Have you completely lost your mind? — S
I agree, and I've never said otherwise. What I've said is that, according to my view of presentism, no other times but the present time exist, and time travel can only be viewed from an eternalist or B theory perspective of time. — Luke
False — Benkei
You've shown that you can selectively quote statistics. Well done. But how about an economic forecast? Are you capable of that? Are you an economist? Can you quote any credible sources with favourable economic forecasts? And what's the consensus on this? — S
Not any spacetime structure that's correct, though. I'm not saying that it's not a popular belief that time travel is possible, but the belief rests on not understanding what time really is. — Terrapin Station
My point was that the figure you quote, that 8% (although it's actually 7.4%) is relating to goods only, at the exclusion of services, and I've also pointed out that you don't quote the equivalent statistic for non-EU countries, leaving us with nothing to compare it to. That is cherry picking, another informal logical fallacy. — S
I was using your figures. According to which you are wrong. Which is an odd position to be in. — Baden
He also quotes statistics relating to goods only, which excludes services. I wonder why this could be? — S
650+622=1272
622/1272=0.49
Therefore 49% of UK trade is with the EU not 44%. — Baden
You cherry-picked the statistics again. 44% represents exports only. 53% of all imports come from the EU. — Baden