The one who holds the infinite together AS the infinite is the only one who needs to know because knowing does nada if you ain’t it.
Trying to divide the now into moments is another Zeno’s paradox trap.
My first question for Zeno would always be “what the hell is a point?”
If you try to divide something with dimension using something else which is zero-dimensional, then guess what? You can keep dividing for all eternity.
Time (the now) is zero-dimensional, so there is no “shortest unit of duration”, “moments” are purely subjective.
The subject that contains/is them is already (t)here—traversing does not present a problem.
You assume the subject is unchanging, what subject is ever unchanging?
Our identities as persons remain stable throughout our lifetime (even fractured personhood has a core person…and fracture is always disorder) — we subsume our changes.
Because we are made in the image of original personhood — who subsumes ALL change — and never diverges/fractures from order/reality.
Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Identity is constantly evolving like everything else. We are constantly shaped by our experiences, which then go on to affect our beliefs and subsequent actions. Human identity is not the rock you think it is, it morphs throughout the duration of our lives.
You’re not Niall anymore? Imposter!
I guess you could say I’m not the man I used to be, Ichthus.
Thank fuck…
How could you possibly know that…unless you’re Niall?
Philosophers are fricken nerds who will argue about literally anything.
1 Like
If I was the same Niall, there wouldn’t be a contrast, now would there?
I’m not arguing change ain’t real.
That’d be B Theory.
What’s up, doc?
Tell me about the B theory. Paragraphs only please, no bullet-points.
1 Like
Briefly… On the impossibility of knowing a true tenseless fact without omnitemporality - #13 by Ichthus77
I see you, herding me into that pen again…
Gets out tinfoil hat, OK, I’ll take a look…
1 Like
For everyone else who doesn’t know who McTaggart is:
According to McTaggart, although time is unreal, temporal judgments can be well or ill-founded in the sense that, given how things actually are, some judgments about time and temporal ordering capture real facts about the underlying reality that gives rise to the appearance of time.
Triadic recursion.
Read him:
“If we reduce time and change to appearance, must it not be to an appearance which changes and which is in time, and is not time, then, shown to be real after all? This is doubtless a serious question, but I hope to show hereafter that it can be answered in a satisfactory way.”
One of your sources says he reproduces the argument (in the linked article) in a published book (The Nature of Existence), so perhaps he answers it in a satisfactory way in that book? Then again, maybe it was a bait-and-switch, or click bait?
It should be noted that his A, B, and C Series is not identical to A, B, or C Theory.
1 Like
Until the ‘time’ word is being defined in a way with something that actually exists you people will not move along here.