Philosophy Now Forum

prothero wrote:

bahman wrote: God is omniscient and timeless. This means that we are dealing with a block universe since all states of universe are known to God. This means that motion is an illusion since nothing changes in a block universe. We are however experience changes. This means that changes can only be described in term of changing the perspective of agents (simply moving along time axis). This however problematic since it requires that all agents are synchronised in what they experience.

I suppose I should not even bother posting since I fundamentally reject virtually every one of the stated premises. It should be noted that such arguments depend heavily on the premises which themselves are debatable.

prothero wrote: I don’t think God is timeless or omniscient (in the sense of seeing history from the alpha beginning to the end omega). I think God is temporal, responsive and loving. I think God takes in the experience of the world and preserves the experience of the world (in its presentational immediacy) and is thus omniscient in that sense but not in the sense of knowing the future (which does not yet exist, making me a presentist of sorts). I also think on the subject of God the eternal changeless immutable God of Greek perfection is not (on analysis) the most useful of religious conceptions (but again assumptions just different ones from yours).

Belinda wrote: With reference to the title of the conversation I don't find any paradox. The so-called "block universe" is the view from eternity, and change is the view from time. The referent remains the same in both cases.

Yes, there is a problem in block universe. The problem is related to the fact that motion in block universe is due to change in perspective of an agent. This means that the changes in perspective of many agents must be synchronized otherwise you don't have a consistent changes.

Belinda wrote: Bahman wrote:

Yes, there is a problem in block universe. The problem is related to the fact that motion in block universe is due to change in perspective of an agent. This means that the changes in perspective of many agents must be synchronized otherwise you don't have a consistent changes.

But agents' perspectives change. If agents' perspectives did not change they would be either unconscious or dead. All agents' perspectives are as good as dammit synchronous when the agents are dead, and all lives are transient.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:
You're saying that that isn't covered by your definition of "motion"?

No I am saying that that is covered by my definition of motion.

So why isn't perspective covered?

Terrapin Station wrote: bahman, you didn't answer this yet:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
No I am saying that that is covered by my definition of motion.

So why isn't perspective covered?

The problem is how the perspective change among individuals (not dead) are synchronized to such a great degree.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: bahman, you didn't answer this yet:

Terrapin Station wrote:
So why isn't perspective covered?

I don't understand your question.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: bahman, you didn't answer this yet:

I don't understand your question.

You had said that the perspectival change that occurs in a block universe isn't covered by your definition of motion (which of course you need to say, otherwise your block universe has motion after all, contra claims that it does not). However, you also wound up saying that "(the) human body when the body can stretch, rotate and move" is covered by your definition of motion. So I asked why isn't perspective covered by it, if those other aspects of the body are covered by it.

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
I don't understand your question.

You had said that the perspectival change that occurs in a block universe isn't covered by your definition of motion (which of course you need to say, otherwise your block universe has motion after all, contra claims that it does not). However, you also wound up saying that "(the) human body when the body can stretch, rotate and move" is covered by your definition of motion. So I asked why isn't perspective covered by it, if those other aspects of the body are covered by it.

All sort of changes is covered with block universe as well.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: You had said that the perspectival change that occurs in a block universe isn't covered by your definition of motion (which of course you need to say, otherwise your block universe has motion after all, contra claims that it does not). However, you also wound up saying that "(the) human body when the body can stretch, rotate and move" is covered by your definition of motion. So I asked why isn't perspective covered by it, if those other aspects of the body are covered by it.

All sort of changes is covered with block universe as well.

Perspective is or isn't covered by your definition of "motion" (in a block universe)?