Don't shoot the philosopher. He's doing his best. Although he's not always very good. — David Mo
So, |>, do they have a table in C++ , in Java, and in all other languages, for ALL imaginable non-reducible fractions of integers? — god must be atheist
You remember right, but that wasn't at issue - we've both acknowledged that this is the case. My point is that relativistic time is not identical to physical time (the time that physical clocks measure). — SophistiCat
Why is this important? To bring this back to the original topic, a common argument for the B-theory and against the A-theory is that the theory of relativity, though it may not rule out the A-theory, does not offer any support for it either. The A-theory requires additional assumptions that are not part of SR or GR. The implicit thesis here is that we ought to base our theory of time on the theory of relativity and nothing else. But this thesis is weakened if the identity between relativistic time and physical time is weakened.
Douglas, Where did ZelebG go? You see what you've done? We quibbled, and ZG took the opportunity of the moment that we weren't watching, and he ran away. — god must be atheist
Perfectly true. But the numbers will be thus represented as long as a program is run written in that particular programming language. If you run a different program, written in a more conventional programming language, that does not have that feature programmed into its structure, then you lose accuracy of rationals with infinite repetitions. — god must be atheist
Once you enter into a variable the value of 1/7, and you use that variable's value in calculations, you will immediately lose the perfect accuracy, as the calculations storage go on binary code representation. — god must be atheist
Now this is funny. Don't you see that is exactly what I'm saying? All I have to do is set my arbitrary resolution to planck scale and define the arbitrary given size as that of the universe to match Tegmark. — Zelebg
In triary computers, yes, 1/3 could be digitized, but 1/2 could not. You can't escape this problem with any digital system. — god must be atheist
So, for some arbitrary given resolution and some arbitrary given size of an object, such that it maximally occupies the whole screen, say 800x600 resolution and passport style photographs of human faces - there exist a finite number of possible human faces for that particular specified size and resolution. Yes? — Zelebg
That is not the answer, just refusal to accept the premise of the question — Zelebg
and is beside the point since the bottom resolution can be fixed to arbitrary size and precision. Say, human faces. My monitor can show every possible human face at least down to a scale and precision of an electron microscope. Therefore, there is only a finite number of unique human faces. Yes?
Let's just say you implied that time has a direction, or that there is an arrow of time, if you will. How is this consistent with your agreement that "time doesn't flow at all"? No flow should entail no direction. — Luke
On every page there is a description of a single particle, where it is, what is doing at the given time. — Zelebg
Ugh, why do I even waste my time on this... — SophistiCat
You implied that time has a naturally preferred directionality when you stated that we remember the past and not the future, which "follows plainly from thermodynamics and information theory." I don't see how you can consistently argue both that time doesn't flow and that time has a preferred directionality. — Luke
Who says that we "get" from one brain state to the next? At time T1, you are in brain state A. At time T2, you are in brain state B. For any given time Tn, physical law tells us what brain state you will be in. And that brain state will be the same brain state whether eternalism is true or presentism is true.If nothing moves or flows, then how do we get from one brain state to the next? — Luke
Are there any theories of how our brains work (e.g. to produce our minds and represent things) which do not require motion? — Luke
The thinkers of the past often said things that were clearer and more profound than today stars of philosophy. — David Mo
Ordinary language is specially confuse when using the word "facts". For example: "mathematical facts" and "a matter of fact". Therefore a more analytic "jargon" is needed. — David Mo
This begs the question. Why assume that 'time flows' from ordered to disordered states? Because that accords with our perceptions? It remains unexplained why there should be a preferred directionality to our perceptions of temporal flow if nothing really moves. — Luke
But the two do not mean the same thing. — tim wood
You: "Oh, sorry! You didn't go to college, or at least my college, so I thought you were stupid, or at least ignorant. Let me correct myself. What I really meant was...". — tim wood
I consider Miller's article to be an even-handed presentation of the issues, and you might recall that it was introduced in the OP, not by me. Call it "argument from authority" if you like, but I am simply attempting to have it recognised that Eternalism entails a motionless world. — Luke
why do we have such a different relationship with the future than with the past
Except that there is actually no motion according to Eternalism. I would imagine that it's much easier to explain why we perceive motion if there actually is motion than if there actually isn't. My point, again, is better expressed by Kristie Miller: — Luke
Right. You mentioned your boss. I understood it was a reference to his master in the degree. I could have used your boss's opinion that you quoted. But it doesn't matter. — David Mo
Here's a classic: Carnap, Rudolf: "Formal and Factual Science" (1935): — David Mo
but leaves engineers or biologists indifferent. — David Mo
If the use of jargon bothers you, you're lost in philosophy — David Mo
The problem that I see here is that there is no inherent connection between the direction of time given by the time coordinate of the relativistic spacetime — SophistiCat
I consider the moving spotlight view to be a hybrid of Presentism and Eternalism, since it contains all times/events (Eternalism) plus motion (Presentism). If you remove the spotlight, you remove the motion, and then you need to account for the appearance of motion. This is exactly the problem for eternalists. — Luke
I find it very strange that at MIT no one has explained to you the difference between factual and formal sciences — David Mo
And pure and applied mathematics, of course. — David Mo
I keep wondering what your teacher has to say on the subject. What a pity. — David Mo
GR doesn't know anything about entropy - it's not part of the theory. — SophistiCat
They have to limit themselves to GR's coordinate time, which increases monotonically (in simply connected topologies), but in an arbitrarily chosen direction. — SophistiCat
Therefore, if it is possible for the entropy gradient to reverse itself along the length of one worldline, then a relativity fundamentalist faces a problem, because her theory of time is not sensitive to this change. — SophistiCat
Eternalists have such accounts: Time is real. It is locally ordered. (I word it this way just to account for Special Relativity.) For every point in local time there is an immediately past point in local time and an immediately future point in local time. People, and other representationalist systems, such as fancy computers, can represent the past and the future relative to the point in time where the person or computer is located. They can understand the laws of nature well enough to make certain predictions about the future points in time from the past points in time. They can record information about the past in their memories, etc."the eternalist owes us an account of why it should seem that there are such features [of change, temporal flow] in the world when there are not." — Luke
You just don't understand these metaphysical distinctions. As I mentioned physical law is identical under both of them. If you don't believe me, write to Miller and ask her yourself. She'll tell you just what I have.You appear to be claiming both that things can change and evolve over time, but also that nothing changes? — Luke
My apologies for the lack of clarity. I guess what I'm getting at is that we have dynamic accounts for how memory and other bodily functions work (neurons fire, light enters the eye, blood circulates, etc), but I don't see how this could work in a static world. — Luke
I'd be happy to read any articles by these other professors that provide an alternate definition of Eternalism, if you can direct me to them? — Luke
For the eternalist, the key challenge lies in explaining temporal phenomenology and
in explaining the apparent directionality of time. There has been significant work in
this area, but questions still remain: why do we have such a different relationship
with the future than with the past: why is it that effects typically precede their causes
when the laws of nature are symmetric: why do we remember the past, but not the
future
No offence, but I think I'll take the word of the associate professor over yours. — Luke
My apologies for the lack of clarity. I guess what I'm getting at is that we have dynamic accounts for how memory and other bodily functions work (neurons fire, light enters the eye, blood circulates, etc), but I don't see how this could work in a static world. — Luke
You’re defeating your own argument Douglas. I can certainly sense some accuracy in that last sentence though! — Alcyone7
Okay then, how are events 'made present' for a cognitive entity, such that they have a relative past to remember? I'm finding it odd for an eternalist to be using such presentist terms. — Luke
What is the eternalist account? — Luke