tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post7860066733147682267..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Change of facts and an argument against presentismAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75274871140815497492008-05-10T06:33:00.000-05:002008-05-10T06:33:00.000-05:00Nice argument again, and my own views are idiosync...Nice argument again, and my own views are idiosyncratic, but why not say that what changes is the number of years since the Battle in the sense of, for example, the number of times the Earth has completely orbitted the Sun. The Presentist can believe in space, and complete orbits, and something having happened a certain number of times already, no?<BR/><BR/>I'm not up to speed on theories, so I'm only guessing; just thinking of my column of water wobbling up and down: Say I persistently believe it has done so 10 times since it began. Then as it continues to wobble, my belief becomes false because (as it becomes false) the column is still wobbling. There is no need to involve imaginary facts about 10 or more imaginary waves spreading out from the column.<BR/><BR/>Also, Patricia's defect is not very strange; don't we all have beliefs like that, which is why we are surprised at how things have changed? Since we do, I find it hard to believe that they could be a problem for presentism, which is pretty intuitive. I believe that it's a problem for the theories you mention though, and hope soon to know it is.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.com