Presentism and Eternalism

[crocodile deathroll]

The perception of a present "now" time flowing from the past to the future is an illusion. It is an illusion because it give you the impression that the universe is just a bubble of reality travelling form its source at the big bang to where ever it is going in its future.
Presentism is the view that only present objects exist. Thus, you and the Taj Mahal would be on the list, but neither Socrates nor any future Bases on Mars would be included And it's not just Socrates and future base on Mars, either -- the same goes for any other putative object that lacks the property of being contemporaneous to us. All such objects are unreal, according to Presentism.

One alternative to Presentism is Eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as presently observed objects. According to Eternalism, non-present objects like Socrates and future bases on Mars exist in block time, even though they are not currently present to our perceptions. We may not be able to see them at our perceived moment, on this view, and they may not be in the same space-time vicinity that we find ourselves on our own subjective "now time", but they should nevertheless be on the list of all existing things.

I like to use a surfing carnival analogy and if one is a presentist they believe that their lives are analogous riding on a board called "present" within a single wave called "reality", and when they a wiped out that is the end of their lives that is it and the wave just keeps rolling on without you. There would a strong ontological bias between the reality where you are dead and the reality where you are yet to be born as you only continue in the wave of reality where you are dead.

An eternalist like me believes that all the events during the carnival are equally real, and not merely a single surfer surfing on a single wave so when you are wiped out then all the other waves and surfers are equally real. In this case there is no ontological bias between the events before you are born and the events after you die. So you can say you are both equally yet to be born and dead in a the realm of the block universe, with no more bias to being dead that not being born.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Aside from being a different way of defining the word "exist", what's the difference?

Dr. Stupid

[crocodile deathroll]

In presentism Socrates is ontologically dead as the present is the only manifestion of reality. According the presentism the present is the soul fluid bubble of reality that had it extinct source at the big bang and expand into the future. According to presentism what is past is past and Socrates is absolutely dead.

In eternalism Socrates and dinosaurs are all alive and well in a hyposphere of reality and all events in the universe are equally including the big bang and future bases on Mars.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Crocodile,

In presentism Socrates is ontologically dead as the present is the only manifestion of reality. According the presentism the present is the soul fluid bubble of reality that had it extinct source at the big bang and expand into the future. According to presentism what is past is past and Socrates is absolutely dead.

In eternalism Socrates and dinosaurs are all alive and well in a hyposphere of reality and all events in the universe are equally including the big bang and future bases on Mars.

Yes, I understand that. What I want to know is, how is that anything more than just presenting two different definitions of the word "exist"? Aside from a semantic difference, how are the above two views actually different?

Dr. Stupid

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Crocodile,



Yes, I understand that. What I want to know is, how is that anything more than just presenting two different definitions of the word "exist"? Aside from a semantic difference, how are the above two views actually different?

Dr. Stupid

There is a very big difference. Presentism directly contradicts relativiity theory like the Hafele Keating Experiment (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Crocodile,

There is a very big difference. Presentism directly contradicts relativiity theory like the Hafele Keating Experiment

OK. I'll buy that. So presentism, as you have defined it, is false.

Dr. Stupid

Why exactly does the view that the present moment is the only thing which actually exists contradict relativity? :confused:

I am a 'presentist'. The past exists only as an informational construct, the future as a potential projection. Anything in the past which is not directly represented in the present (e.g. a fossil, a memory) simply does not exist. Those unrecorderd bits of the past can be considered to have 'decayed'. They do not exist in some sort metaphysical other-place. Such a view is inevitable if you are an idealist, since time, space and matter are considered to be modes of human perception rather than any absolute ground of reality. Why should any of this contradict relativity?

Apart from anything else if the future already exists then you might just as well sign up to Franko-style fatalism and say bye-bye to any hope of free will. It means that every 'random' instance of nuclear decay is already pre-determined - and if even quantum randomness is removed then you have absolute fatalism.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

Why exactly does the view that the present moment is the only thing which actually exists contradict relativity?

It doesn't, as long as it is defined locally. But Crocodile has made it clear that what he means by presentism implies the existence of a Universal "present". That does violate relativity, because it implies universal simultaneity, which is inconsistent with the reality of time-dilation.

Apart from anything else if the future already exists then you might just as well sign up to Franko-style fatalism and say bye-bye to any hope of free will. It means that every 'random' instance of nuclear decay is already pre-determined - and if even quantum randomness is removed then you have absolute fatalism.

Sure. I don't buy Eternalism either. By the way, I have already said bye-bye to the libertarian conception of free-will. It is nonsensical. My conception of free-will is perfectly compatible with determinism and fatalism, even though I am neither a determinist, nor a fatalist.

Dr. Stupid

It doesn't, as long as it is defined locally. But Crocodile has made it clear that what he means by presentism implies the existence of a Universal "present". That does violate relativity, because it implies universal simultaneity, which is inconsistent with the reality of time-dilation.


Well, that's the problem then. 'Now' only exists in consciousness - the physical Universe is the domain of linear time. To infer that presentism means a Universal 'now' is a result of ontological confusion - since a hunk of matter with no awareness has no use for the concept of 'now'. As far as I am concerned its just a lump of information. So my view on presentism doesn't infer a Universal present from the POV of matter, only from the POV of consciousness - and since matter doesn't have a POV the problem vanishes.

Here you go Croc.....

The Qualia of Now: Key to a Fundamental Equation of Consciousness? (http://www.ap.org.ru/eng/qalia.htm)


‘Now’ is certainly unique to consciousness. It is absent from physics and absent too by implication from any physical description of consciousness. Spatially and temporally extended, it violates causality by requiring the past to be active in the present. Despite being absent from physics, we can be certain that whatever reality is, it is experienced only in the ‘now’. Indeed there are only three absolute certainties, firstly that experience is occurring, secondly that it is changing, and thirdly that everything else is uncertain.

‘Now’ can only be sensibly defined in terms of consciousness, being that part of space-time occupied by consciousness. The problem of explaining ‘now’ scientifically is identical to the problem of explaining subjective consciousness itself.

“There is no ‘Now’ in Physics:”

That there is no ‘now’ in physics was a view made forcefully by Einstein with regard to relativity theory. He was referring to the lack of simultaneous now across space. However the problem of duration gives a much deeper sense in which there is no now in physics. There is no now at any point in space-time, nor indeed are there points either.


I have found your position a bit confusing. Perhaps this is why. Just because there is no NOW in physics doesn't mean there is no NOW, because NOW is the only thing you ever experience - which is the answer to the apparent dilemma - because there is no experience in physics either - both of them are the domain of consciousness. Trying to apply NOW, which belongs in consciousness, to the physical world leads to the apparent clash with relativity, but the clash is seen to be an illusion once you understand that consciousness isn't physical.

:)

[kourama]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

*SNIP*

Trying to apply NOW, which belongs in consciousness, to the physical world leads to the apparent clash with relativity, but the clash is seen to be an illusion once you understand that consciousness isn't physical.

:)

COnsciousness isn't physical?!?!?

Then...WHERE THE HELL AM I ?!? :D

Originally posted by kourama


COnsciousness isn't physical?!?!?

Then...WHERE THE HELL AM I ?!? :D

You are asking me (an idealist) to tell you the location of your mind?! :D


Stop

With your feet on the air and your head on the ground
Try this trick and spin it, yeah
Your head will collapse if there's nothing in it
And you'll ask yourself......

Where is my mind?
Where is my mind?
Where is my mind?
Way out in the water, see it swimming! ;)

(The Pixies)

BUMP

(for Kimpatsu)