Miracles

[seer]

It exists in the manifold of spacetime. Existence is not dependent upon the observer.

Really? Can you point to it? Can you tell me where to find it? If it is not dependent upon the observer then how do you physically confirm the present existence of April 23, 1972?

"Now" exists. 2054 exists. That doesn't mean that the properties of 2054 are applicable to the properties of Now, any more than the properties of New York are applicable to the properties of Tokyo. The fact that two positions exist does not imply that all things at those positions are the same.

So right "now" I'm both dead and alive? In one position I'm alive, in another position I'm dead. But both are occurring right now?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Really? Can you point to it? Can you tell me where to find it?

Yes. It is at April 23, 1972. That is the address which we have given that particular region of spacetime in our current system.

If it is not dependent upon the observer then how do you physically confirm the present existence of April 23, 1972?

By confirming the applicability of the B-Theory of Time.

So right "now" I'm both dead and alive?

No. "Now" is a position in time. The properties which you have at that particular position in time are not necessarily the same properties which you have at another position in time.

In one position I'm alive, in another position I'm dead.

Yes.

But both are occurring right now?

No. Positions do not "occur," at all. Positions in spacetime are static.

[seer]

Yes. It is at April 23, 1972. That is the address which we have given that particular region of spacetime in our current system.

Can we visit it? How do we get there?

By confirming the applicability of the B-Theory of Time.

A theory that can not be physically confirmed by actually visiting April 23, 1972

No. "Now" is a position in time. The properties which you have at that particular position in time are not necessarily the same properties which you have at another position in time.

Yes.

No. Positions do not "occur," at all. Positions in spacetime are static.

So somewhere in space time I'm alive, and some where in space time I'm dead.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Can we visit it? How do we get there?

A theory that can not be physically confirmed by actually visiting April 23, 1972

Visitation is not a necessary indicator of existence.

So somewhere in space time I'm alive, and some where in space time I'm dead.

Yes.

[seer]

Visitation is not a necessary indicator of existence.

Kind of like God then.

Yes.

So I am both dead and alive. Doesn't that violate the law of of non-contradiction? Or how could a true contradiction exists in such a universe?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Kind of like God then.

If you say so. I have no idea what "God" is supposed to mean.

So I am both dead and alive. Doesn't that violate the law of of non-contradiction? Or how could a true contradiction exists in such a universe?

It does not violate the law of non-contradiction. Composite things can display numerous disparate properties. The fact that such an entity displays one property in one location and another property in a different location is not a violation of the property of non-contradiction.

[seer]

If you say so. I have no idea what "God" is supposed to mean.

And I have no idea what it means to have physical places in the universe that we can't visit or see. So we are even.

It does not violate the law of non-contradiction. Composite things can display numerous disparate properties. The fact that such an entity displays one property in one location and another property in a different location is not a violation of the property of non-contradiction.

But you are saying that I exist in two places (or many more). I am both A and not A. I am both dead and alive.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

And I have no idea what it means to have physical places in the universe that we can't visit or see. So we are even.

The vast majority of places in the universe cannot be seen or visited. Do you think that only the places which you can see or visit are real?

But you are saying that I exist in two places (or many more).

This is not a violation of non-contradiction. Regardless of whether the A-Theory or B-Theory is correct, you exist in a panoply of places. You exist where your left foot is. You exist where your right hand is. You exist where your head is. None of these are the same place, and yet you exist in all of them.

I am both A and not A.

No, you are not.

I am both dead and alive.

Some parts of your panoply exhibit a property known as "being alive." Some parts of your panoply exhibit a property known as "being dead." That is not a violation of non-contradiction.

[seer]

The vast majority of places in the universe cannot be seen or visited. Do you think that only the places which you can see or visit are real?

But in theory they could be. So what you are suggesting is that I could visit my dear Mother and watch her making Sunday dinner. And what prevents us from seeing these other places?

This is not a violation of non-contradiction. Regardless of whether the A-Theory or B-Theory is correct, you exist in a panoply of places. You exist where your left foot is. You exist where your right hand is. You exist where your head is. None of these are the same place, and yet you exist in all of them.

No, you are not.

Some parts of your panoply exhibit a property known as "being alive." Some parts of your panoply exhibit a property known as "being dead." That is not a violation of non-contradiction.

Oh stop! I am a single entity. I don't exist anywhere but here. I'm presently not both sitting in my office and not sitting in my office. I don't exist in the future because the future does not exist. I mean how do you even know the universe will exist in the future?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But in theory they could be.

On what theory can they be visited? By what theory can you visit the center of the sun, or the event horizon of a black hole, or the empty space three parsecs distant from the Earth directly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane of the solar system?

And what prevents us from seeing these other places?

The fact that there is no light which is projected towards us from those locations.

Oh stop! I am a single entity. I don't exist anywhere but here.

Are you trying to say that you are not a composite entity? That you are not composed of distinct subsets which each exist in different locations?

I'm presently not both sitting in my office and not sitting in my office.

Not presently, no, as that would give us your exact temporal location.

I don't exist in the future because the future does not exist.

Once again, with this you are only saying, "I don't believe the B-Theory because I believe the A-Theory." You are not providing any reasoning why the B-Theory is false, nor any reason for preferring the A-Theory over it.

[seer]

On what theory can they be visited? By what theory can you visit the center of the sun, or the event horizon of a black hole, or the empty space three parsecs distant from the Earth directly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane of the solar system?

What are you taking about? Are you saying they can't be visited - why not? What prevents that?

The fact that there is no light which is projected towards us from those locations.

What does that mean? Why not?

Are you trying to say that you are not a composite entity? That you are not composed of distinct subsets which each exist in different locations?

Yes, I'm saying that all of me is right here - and not anywhere else.

Not presently, no, as that would give us your exact temporal location.

No, because if 2054 is present in the universe then I am also presently there.

Once again, with this you are only saying, "I don't believe the B-Theory because I believe the A-Theory." You are not providing any reasoning why the B-Theory is false, nor any reason for preferring the A-Theory over it.

Really? How do you know that the universe will exist in the future?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What are you taking about? Are you saying they can't be visited - why not? What prevents that?

I'm not saying that they can or cannot be visited. You were the one who said that such places could be visited in theory. What theory would allow us to visit such places? Or were you making an unjustified assertion?

What does that mean? Why not?

This may end up sounding more condescending than I intend it to, but given some of our conversations I'm honestly not sure of the answer: do you understand how the process of vision works? Do you know that we only see things which either project or reflect visible light into our eyes? Do you know that, if an object does not project or reflect light, we cannot see it?

Yes, I'm saying that all of me is right here - and not anywhere else.

So you are not composed of individual cells which each occupy different locations?

No, because if 2054 is present in the universe then I am also presently there.

This is a fallacy of equivocation. You are using the word "present" in two entirely different manners and pretending that they are they same. It's like claiming that light is electromagnetic radiation, and a feather is light, therefore a feather is electromagnetic radiation. The temporal position 2054 exists in the universe. However, it is not the same temporal position as "the present" or "now."

Really? How do you know that the universe will exist in the future?

Yes, really. This question is not coherent on the B-Theory. It is only coherent if one presumes the A-Theory. So you are only saying, "I don't believe the B-Theory because I believe the A-Theory." You are not providing any reasoning why the B-Theory is false, nor any reason for preferring the A-Theory over it.

[seer]

I'm not saying that they can or cannot be visited. You were the one who said that such places could be visited in theory. What theory would allow us to visit such places? Or were you making an unjustified assertion?

This may end up sounding more condescending than I intend it to, but given some of our conversations I'm honestly not sure of the answer: do you understand how the process of vision works? Do you know that we only see things which either project or reflect visible light into our eyes? Do you know that, if an object does not project or reflect light, we cannot see it?

Boxing are you just making things up as you go along? Why wouldn't these other realities have or reflect light? Certainly the reality where my dead mom is still alive has just as much light as this present time. When she was alive in 1968 that world had just as much light as this world. So what prevents us from seeing these realities? Perhaps because they don't really exist?

So you are not composed of individual cells which each occupy different locations?

This is a fallacy of equivocation. You are using the word "present" in two entirely different manners and pretending that they are they same. It's like claiming that light is electromagnetic radiation, and a feather is light, therefore a feather is electromagnetic radiation. The temporal position 2054 exists in the universe. However, it is not the same temporal position as "the present" or "now."

Again Boxing where does 2054 exist in the universe? And talk about different locations. We as humans change from moment to moment - how many millions of copies of me are there in the universe. I must be in a different location for every moment I ever lived.

Yes, really. This question is not coherent on the B-Theory. It is only coherent if one presumes the A-Theory. So you are only saying, "I don't believe the B-Theory because I believe the A-Theory." You are not providing any reasoning why the B-Theory is false, nor any reason for preferring the A-Theory over it.

Really how does the B-Theory prove that the universe won't end? That there is s future?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Boxing are you just making things up as you go along? Why wouldn't these other realities have or reflect light?

These aren't "other realities." They are other locations in space. I'm not even talking about spacetime, as a whole, at this point. I'm limiting my discussion to the space which we both agree exists. The central core of Jupiter occupies a real location in space, despite the fact that we cannot see it because it is occluded by an immensely thick atmosphere. Black Holes occupy real locations in space, despite the fact that we cannot see them because any light which reaches their event horizons is absorbed into a deep gravity well and never reflected. The empty space three parsecs distant from the Earth directly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane of the solar system is a real location, despite the fact that we can't see it because it is empty space, and therefore neither generates nor reflects light.

The fact that we cannot see a thing has absolutely no bearing on its reality.

how many millions of copies of me are there in the universe. I must be in a different location for every moment I ever lived.

By Odin's right eye, I think you're starting to get it.

Really how does the B-Theory prove that the universe won't end? That there is s future?

It doesn't, nor should one expect it to do so. Neither does the A-Theory, by the bye.

[JonathanL]

You're stuck on the A-Theory. You're not even attempting to view things from the perspective of the B-Theory. You're basically saying, "The B-Theory can't be true because things work differently on the A-Theory." That's simply poor reasoning.

It would seem that holding to the B-theory and naturalism at the same time is kind of hard, because the fact that we perceive temporal change means that temporal change must be true in some aspects, and therefore the B-theory can be only partially true, at best. If temporal change is not a real part of anything in the natural world, then it follows from the fact that we perceive temporal change that whatever part of us that experiences temporal change cannot be anything natural, but must be supernatural.

Saying that temporal change is simply an illusion doesn't work, given that all points in time in B-theory are equally real and none of them have any privileged position that can be singled out as being the present. If naturalism and B-theory were both true it would become unexplainable why we don't experience every single moment of our life at the same time. There is nothing in the worldview of the naturalism that can account for the perception of temporal change given the assumption of the B-theory of time. [/soapbox]