Does time really exist?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171282 wrote:

So, upon analysis, it turns out that "Kennethamy is a baby in year so-and-so, but this is no longer the year so-and-so" is nonsense. You seem to have meant something like:
1) Kennethamy is a baby in year so-and-so
2) this is not the year so-and-so
Conclusion: Kennethamy is not a baby.

---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 12:42 AM ----------

Okay, tell me how you die.

Sorry, as is usual, you have left me in the dust of incomprehension and wonderment. I cannot tell you how I die since (happily) I have not done so yet. But I assure you that when I do, it will be most reluctantly.

Actually, the syllogism would have to be changed by substituting "now" for "this" in 2), and interpolating in the conclusion, the word, "now" before the phrase, "a baby".

1 Reply

@davidm,

davidm;171284 wrote:

Death is a temporal boundary.

And apparently you are supporting the idea that you are dead, amongst other things, so tell me about your death, how do you die?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171282 wrote:

Conclusion: Kennethamy is not a baby.

---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 12:42 AM ----------

:Glasses:

Have you actually read what I wrote?

Under eternalism, Kennethamy is never a baby, anymore than spatially, Kennethamy is ever his knees. As I have just explained, under eternalism, babyhood is a temporal part of him, just as his knees are a spatial part of him. The point of eternalism that your subjective existence at any given moment does not constitute the WHOLE of you; it constitutes only a part of a physical object spread out in time from birth to death. So the questions, "are you an adult?" or "are you a baby?" are meaningless under eternalims. They're exactly like asking, spatially, "are you your knees?"

You would never ask a question like "Are you your knees?" Would you?

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 11:49 AM ----------

ughaibu;171286 wrote:

No he hasn't. The status of an eternalist future is no different from that of the present or past, it is actual. That it's actuality isn't necessary makes no more difference to the future than it does to the past.

The future (as well as the present and the past) is, as it is. Not, the future is, necessarily, as it is.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;171287 wrote:

the syllogism would have to be changed by substituting "now" for "this" in 2)

But you have explicated the "this"!!

kennethamy;171287 wrote:

and interpolating in the conclusion, the word, "now" before the phrase, "a baby".

Are you a native speaker of english? "Now" indicates the present and "is" is the present form of the verb.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171288 wrote:

And apparently you are supporting the idea that you are dead, amongst other things, so tell me about your death, how do you die?

I am afraid you are quite confused. :Not-Impressed:

"I" am never dead, because death is a state of nonexistence. The sentence "I am dead" is meaningless, because it presupposes my existence; but if I exist, I am not dead.

Under eternalism, there is a time t after which my temporal parts no longer exist, that's all. In that stage of spacetime, I am not to be found. Just as there is some other time x before my birth in which my temporal parts are also not to be found.

1 Reply

@davidm,

davidm;171289 wrote:

:Glasses:

The future (as well as the present and the past) is, as it is. Not, the future is, necessarily, as it is.

Yes, the future is necessarily is as it is, but as you say, it is not as it necessarily is, for it is false that it necessarily is anything at all.

0 Replies

@davidm,

davidm;171289 wrote:

Under eternalism, Kennethamy is never a baby

You'd better take that up with him, he claims to be an adult, married and have a grandchild.

davidm;171289 wrote:

The future (as well as the present and the past) is, as it is. Not, the future is, necessarily, as it is.

And it's as fixed as the present and past, necessity doesn't come into the matter.

---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 12:56 AM ----------

davidm;171292 wrote:

I am afraid you are quite confused. :Not-Impressed:

"I" am never dead, because death is a state of nonexistence. The sentence "I am dead" is meaningless, because it presupposes my existence; but if I exist, I am not dead.

Under eternalism, there is a time t after which my temporal parts no longer exist, that's all. In that stage of spacetime, I am not to be found. Just as there is some other time x before my birth in which my temporal parts are also not to be found.

I see you've ignored the question entirely. . . . How do you die?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171295 wrote:

You'd better take that up with him, he claims to be an adult, married and have a grandchild.And it's as fixed as the present and past, necessity doesn't come into the matter.

Oh, lord. Either you're being deliberately perverse, or you're not able to grasp a simple concept.

He's speaking colloquially. He is saying that from the temporal vantage point designated NOW (May 31, 2010) he is an adult.

But this is imprecise. Please do listen (if you're in fact making a good faith effort to grasp this.)

Under eternalism, the WHOLE of Kennethamy is physically extended from his birth to his death, through time. Therefore, when he says, "I am an adult," it is a short-handed way of saying (under eternalism) "there is a part of me that is designated 'adult' on May 31, 2010." Hoever, there are other parts of him that are designated baby, teen, young adult, old adult, etc. at other dates. But these are just PARTS of the WHOLE.

Please tell me you get this? You don't have to agree that the world is really like this; I just can't fathom that you don't get the point. Perhaps you're just trolling.

1 Reply

@davidm,

davidm;171292 wrote:

I am afraid you are quite confused. :Not-Impressed:

"I" am never dead, because death is a state of nonexistence. The sentence "I am dead" is meaningless, because it presupposes my existence; but if I exist, I am not dead.

Under eternalism, there is a time t after which my temporal parts no longer exist, that's all. In that stage of spacetime, I am not to be found. Just as there is some other time x before my birth in which my temporal parts are also not to be found.

The sentence, "I am dead" is not meaningless since it will, alas, express a true statement in the future (distant I hope). Of course, it can never be uttered so that it expresses a true statements, but that is, of course, a different matter.

If you are afraid whenever U. is confused, then you will be in a constant state of fear.

1 Reply

@davidm,

davidm;171297 wrote:

Please tell me you get this?

Of course I get it, it's well publicised and simple stuff.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;171298 wrote:

The sentence, "I am dead" is not meaningless since it will, alas, express a true statement in the future (distant I hope). Of course, it can never be uttered so that it expresses a true statements, but that is, of course, a different matter.

If you are afraid whenever U. is confused, then you will be in a constant state of fear.

Well, I take "I am" to insist upon actual existence. For I to be anything at all, I must be alive. Death is a state of nonexistence.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:02 PM ----------

ughaibu;171299 wrote:

Of course I get it, it's well publicised and simple stuff.

Then why do you keep asking questions like "Are you a baby?" If you actually got this stuff, you would see that the question is as meaningless as "Are you knees?"

2 Replies

@davidm,

davidm;171300 wrote:

Then why do you keep asking questions like "Are you a baby?" If you actually got this stuff, you would see that the question is as meaningless as "Are you knees?"

And you are almost entirely nonexistent, under eternalism, so I think I'll stop wasting my time with this.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171302 wrote:

And you are almost entirely nonexistent, under eternalism, so I think I'll stop wasting my time with this.

:confused:

You are almost entirely non-existent under any interpretation of reality, given that the temporal extent of the universe is vastly, inconceivably greater than your individual life span. And ... so?

I'm sorry you feel you are wasting your time. Are you knees? :devilish:

0 Replies

@north,

north;171130 wrote:

oh time exists in the sense that time is used to understand the movement of things and the whys and hows

but ask of the physical properties of time to do anything at all , to move something , anything , in and of its self ... can it ?

Not quite, and yet true enough as far as it goes... Time is life, and life is time, so that without life there is no time; while there may be movement, and objects and all other things we think of as existing, still existing...

0 Replies

@davidm,

davidm;171300 wrote:

Well, I take "I am" to insist upon actual existence. For I to be anything at all, I must be alive. Death is a state of nonexistence.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:02 PM ----------

Being dead, like being alive, are states of being. But existence and non-existence are not states of anything since existence is not a property of anything. Shall we not confuse existence with living even if the latter presupposes the former?

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:20 PM ----------

ughaibu;171302 wrote:

And you are almost entirely nonexistent, under eternalism, so I think I'll stop wasting my time with this.

You mean you have lost the argument, don't you? Reculer pour mieux sauter. (You do know the La Fontaine fable, "The Fox and the Grapes" don't you? After leaping and constantly failing to reach the grapes hanging on the vine. the fox suddenly decided that he did not care to have the grapes after all for, as he said, "they will be too sour". Thus, the saying, "Sour grapes").

2 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Wasn't the original form of eternalism, the omniscient and eternal nature of God?
Wasn't the conception of god as eternal standing outside of time and viewing history form the beginning (alpha) to the end (omega) like a man on the hill watching a caravan cross the desert?
Does not eternalism have all the same problems about fixity of the future and the past as divine omniscience?
Granted relativity deprives us of "simultaneous" events, but it does not deprive us of the past, present and future from a particular reference point and relativity itself gives nonsense results at the extremes of its equations.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;171321 wrote:

Wasn't the original form of eternalism, the omniscient and eternal nature of God?

I don't exactly know what your mean by "original form", but suppose it was the original form. How does that matter? Except historically and genetically?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;171324 wrote:

I don't exactly know what your mean by "original form", but suppose it was the original form. How does that matter? Except historically and genetically?

Well because "eternalism" is a religous as well as a philosophical or scientific speculation. Just an observation. I as you know am not a determinist so I object to eternalism in so far as it implies fixity of the future. I object to divine omniscience (interpreted as meaning foreknowledge of the future) for the same reason.
Just another observation.

Time fundamentally is process or change, and change is a (the) fundamental feature of reality. Modern day science does not exclude multiverses, a time block universe, or fixity or the future (nor god for that matter) but it certainly does not confirm them either. For us temporal creatures or actualities time does exist. In fact both time and experience are fundmental features of "reality" which the methods of science may not capture fully.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:12 PM ----------

kennethamy;171307 wrote:

Being dead, like being alive, are states of being. But existence and non-existence are not states of anything since existence is not a property of anything.

That is an interesting use of language.
"existence" is not a property
"being" is a property?
Whatever do you mean? examples?
I did enjoy the "sour grapes" story though:bigsmile:
"the bewitchment of language" LW.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;171307 wrote:

Being dead, like being alive, are states of being. But existence and non-existence are not states of anything since existence is not a property of anything. Shall we not confuse existence with living even if the latter presupposes the former?

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:20 PM ----------

Here is ken at his least cunning... For us existence is living, and our being is all being since without our individual lives we could not suppose any existence... So your statement that being dead is a state of being is false, because life is our sole being... Do you think to consider yourself as so much dead meat and matter??? Of course not... You know yourself as that spiritual quality called life, as everyone else does...To say existence is not a property of anything is false... Everything, and by this I mean all finite objects, things, exist... Things exist... Res, things, exist as objects, and that is their common quality, or property, if you prefer so it is daft to say existence is not a property of anything when it is clearly a property of every thing..

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;171307 wrote:

You mean you have lost the argument, don't you?

No, I meant what I wrote, as is my habit. However, if you think that I've lost an argument, perhaps you can state what that argument is.

1 Reply

Does time really exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know