Pick your own debate - 1F

Though I don't feel that my opponent has fully conceptually grasped the idea of Eternalism, this is a good start for both of us (after all, this debate prompted me to read into philosophy of time). ==================== Defending Eternalism -- Definition of Eternalism ==================== Ah, if this is the definition you are speaking about then I don't mind since I don't disagree. The reason why I initially did is because you stated that it meant that "all things exist", which is evidently false - Eternalism states that everything that exists continues to, since there is no concept of the "flow of time" passing by. It's just when you phrase it so simplistically as "all thing exist", which can be interpreted to mean everything CONCEIVABLE exists, is when we have trouble. ==================== Defending Eternalism -- A-Theory ==================== My opponent's response is quite ironic. He states that he has not misunderstood A-Theory and B-Theory, but his elaboration of this exposes the very lack of understanding! Let me reiterate: A-Theory is a model of events in time in the form of non-relational singular predicates, while B-Theory is a model of events in time in the form of dual-relational predicates[1]. This is the basic definition, and should be pretty easy to understand. However, take a look at what you say: "The A-Theory is based in A properties such as "being two days future, being one day future, being present, being one day past, etc. " These descriptions would obviously be in relation to the present. When 1990 was the present, A properties were different for all times. It's kind of like being north or south relative to your current location. As your location changes, A properties change. " ----> Descriptions of events in time that utilize relationships is THE B-THEORY, NOT THE A-THEORY. I agree with you that 1900 was the future, the present, and now the past. But as you admit, this would only obtain is we take a B-Theory model to be true, not the A-Model. Your very argument utilizes key words that are fatal to your own position. "As there is only one present at any given time, there is no ambiguity. " ----> Preposterous, "present" is simply an indexical term. Can you demonstrate what present is? Can you demonstrate what past is? You can't without utilizing the B-Theory, which is counterproductive for this debate. ==================== Defending Eternalism -- Theory of Relativity ==================== "We've standardized length. We've standardized weight. We've standardized mass. Naturally, we have a nice reference point of 0mph at which the Theory of Relativity has a minimum effect. Therefore, we have a standard to which we can refer for all perceptions of time. Bingo. " ----> Incredibly naive of you to say so. I ask of you, can you define time, and wait for it, WITHOUT using the concept of time in it? At first blush this seems simple, but you will realize this is seemingly an impossible feat - and indeed, this is one of the problems philosophers of time deal with. This, plus the empirical that time can be experienced differently (though this fact alone doesn't preclude objective time, it is evidence against it), places heavy doubt on the idea of an objective time. The fact is my opponent, while he can claim to do so, is unable to figure out a way to standardize time, let alone find a an adequate operational definition of it. He states that using a half life of one radioactive so-and-so isotope is useful, and I agree to a certain extent. While these methodologies are used, they still beg the question that time is objective. These devices ASSUME time is objective, but this is what you are supposed to prove, is it not? ==================== Defending Eternalism -- Here and Now ==================== "This is because the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of my location are the same, no matter where you are looking from. .. My latitude and longitude (and altitude) are absolute locations. " ----> This is a complete assumption, again examine this concept closely and you will see your own shortcomings. Firstly, it seems you are implying "here" means where you're physical body is located. This is completely arbitrary - why should here be where an observer's body is? As I said before, terms such as here and now are merely indexical, something I've been repeating many times with no answers. "My opponent claims that the Big Bang had no absolute location. However, the Big Bang supposedly started at "a single point" [3]. Where was this single point? Being a point demands that there was emptiness outside of the Big Bang. Where in this absolute emptiness was the Big Bang? That, my friends, would be the absolute spatial location of the Big Bang. " ----> Ugh, again this argument crumbles due to your failure to understand the Big Bang. The singularity was an "event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. .. this occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. [2]" In other words, the Big Bang is the dimensionless point where all matter pulled into the back hole is concentrated - it is not located in a spatial location because it is the expansion of SPACE ITSELF. ==================== Defense of Eternalism - Occam's Razor ==================== "My opponent first criticizes my assumption of OR being a valid heuristic maxim, although he gives no reason why it cannot be assumed to be so. " ----> And you never show why we should it assume it to be so. .. but nevertheless, I'll grant you it's validity for the sake of convenience. Even then, your usage of OR betrays your lack of understanding about it - it's use here is compltely out of context. We aren't trying to choose among competing theories with similar if not equal evidential support; we are trying to figure out the evidential support itself! ==================== Defense of Eternalism - Parade Analogy ==================== Well duh I'm banking on Eternalism to be true, this analogy is begging the question. You can't use an analogy that assumes Eternalism is false to prove Eternalism is false -_-. ==================== Results of Eternalism ==================== No, my initial confusions were because of your overtly simplistic presentation of Eternalism's definition. Besides, your definition coincides with mine as well; there is no conflict. ==================== Conclusion and a few remarks ==================== "Since the future depends on the present, the state of what the past was, the present is, and the future will be, starts with the past, and slowly advances to the present, when we learn the state of the present, and continues towards the future. This is an obvious flow of time. " ----> I wouldn't have to answer this question if you understood my argument. According to Eternalism, time is like a block (if God were to exist outside of time, this is how events in the world would look like to him, in a block and all at once). So in that sense, yes the future is "connected" to the present but only because they are the same time ontologically speaking. We only use terms such as past, present, and future because we have conscious, rational faculties that perceive the world to be like this. My opponent's argument fails mainly because of one reason: he doesn't fully understand the subject matter at hand. He misconstrues the Big Bang, fails to remember my critical points, and even mistakenly uses my theory to prove his - an obvious folly. ---References--- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. . http://www.umich.edu...