The Big E (Einstein) is falling out of favor in many philosophical circles.
You probably did not know that.
You can google the topic and find out if you are interested.
FYI.
The Big E (Einstein) is falling out of favor in many philosophical circles.
It follows just from the speed of light being constant that observers experience a different present. Which rules out presentism. Do you doubt Einstein's axiom? or his reasoning?
Guess you haven't heard that Einstein's spacetime was confirmed in every experiment, that's 100% evidence so far. It's well known for example that GPS systems would quickly break down if Einstein was wrong.h_k_s wrote: ↑December 30th, 2018, 1:20 pmYour fallacy is argument from ignorance then. You don't know either way. But there is no evidence to support your view.
My view is the default view -- that if there is no evidence for something then it does not exist.
You have also tried to shift the burden and move the goal posts. Bad dog.
Here's one more comment you can pretend to ignore.
Really? How are your writings faring among physics circles?
First let's skip the animal analogies. Second absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, I'm not sure who you think holds a default view that just because we're incapable of detecting something it doesn't exist. Even Donald Rumsfeld knows about the 'unknown unknowns'. The concept of now is in your mind as is the concept of the past, unless you have some form of existential dementia and are incapable of remembering anything. The biology of the neurons that bring the senses of now into your mind are the same as those that the mind consists of, as far as we can currently tell, so if your mind conceives of now and now is real I'd suggest that it also conceives of a real past.h_k_s wrote: ↑December 30th, 2018, 1:20 pm Your fallacy is argument from ignorance then. You don't know either way. But there is no evidence to support your view.
My view is the default view -- that if there is no evidence for something then it does not exist.
You have also tried to shift the burden and move the goal posts. Bad dog.
Under Modern Empiricism (I hope you have studied what that means) you must utilize your senses to observe before you can state that something outside of yourself exists.Mark1955 wrote: ↑December 31st, 2018, 11:56 amFirst let's skip the animal analogies. Second absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, I'm not sure who you think holds a default view that just because we're incapable of detecting something it doesn't exist. Even Donald Rumsfeld knows about the 'unknown unknowns'. The concept of now is in your mind as is the concept of the past, unless you have some form of existential dementia and are incapable of remembering anything. The biology of the neurons that bring the senses of now into your mind are the same as those that the mind consists of, as far as we can currently tell, so if your mind conceives of now and now is real I'd suggest that it also conceives of a real past.h_k_s wrote: ↑December 30th, 2018, 1:20 pm Your fallacy is argument from ignorance then. You don't know either way. But there is no evidence to support your view.
My view is the default view -- that if there is no evidence for something then it does not exist.
You have also tried to shift the burden and move the goal posts. Bad dog.
You clearly have demonstrated a firm grasp of the obvious. I would encourage you to broaden your scope, especially if you are going to try to deny the proven.
What would you call traveling into the future?
Time travel is about skipping time, those astronauts don't do that.
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023