tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4292528453480240491..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Is the past changing all the time?Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-70263869136588627192019-07-26T05:19:58.811-05:002019-07-26T05:19:58.811-05:00It is actually quite conceivable that the past cou...It is actually quite conceivable that the past could change.<br /><br />Suppose there are parallel universes, and that one is exactly the same as this one now, but had a slightly different past. Now suppose that our souls are moved from this universe into that one. For us it is as though nothing changed, except that we now have a different past.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-91855409689048300602019-07-18T05:12:08.510-05:002019-07-18T05:12:08.510-05:00The truism that the past doesn't change is int...The truism that the past doesn't change is interesting though. If it was changing, we would never know; because we have no direct access to the past. Indeed, if we had such access, then we would be able to change the past. So this truism is essentially a logical truth, or else it is nothing.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-30770203818311981892019-07-17T16:56:55.782-05:002019-07-17T16:56:55.782-05:00Right. I think "x years ago" is also abo...Right. I think "x years ago" is also about the present. What is really meant is the year, with "x years ago" just being another way of pointing at it.Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-59855329948392454972019-07-17T16:49:13.602-05:002019-07-17T16:49:13.602-05:00Daniel:
But what is this "present" that...Daniel:<br /><br />But what is this "present" that the past is getting more distant from? It's not an enduring object, is it? I don't think this point is fatal to your argument, but it seems like it might call for more care.<br /><br />Michael:<br /><br />Even if there is no past, we want to make some sense of the truism that the past doesn't change. One way is to say that propositions solely about the past don't change in truth value. But then we get my problem, since the proposition that WW2 started 80 years ago does change in truth value and seems to be solely about the past. Maybe, though, the thing to say is that the proposition that WW2 started 80 years ago is not just about the past.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-28305393469549348682019-07-17T15:37:59.538-05:002019-07-17T15:37:59.538-05:00This is a good argument, Alex, that on the A-theor...This is a good argument, Alex, that on the A-theory of time the past is changing all the time. I do not know of any good reasons why, if we do choose to count past events getting older as the past changing, why we would think that the past is unchangeable. Can you think of any?Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-2207055034436112382019-07-17T15:30:57.593-05:002019-07-17T15:30:57.593-05:00Hi Alex,
I would put it this way, the real intri...Hi Alex, <br /><br />I would put it this way, the real intrinsic change would be in the actualization of future potentials in the present. The past doesn't really change, but changes relative to the present as it continues to put distance between itself and a past moment by the number of actualizations of potentials that have occurred. <br />My best,<br /><br />DanielDaniel Vecchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922261849155279279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-90643496794158765912019-07-17T08:02:33.025-05:002019-07-17T08:02:33.025-05:00To draw out the conceptual muddle of the whole thi...To draw out the conceptual muddle of the whole thing, I would add that saying "the past IS changing" is a meaningless statement, since "is" is in the present tense. It is, I think, impossible to speak coherently in such a way; it doesn't make sense. <br /><br />I don't mean that it's merely unintuitive; I mean it is non-sense (not "nonsense" in the insulting way; but it transgresses the bounds of "sense"; it has no meaning).Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-37657532938074322372019-07-17T07:48:00.884-05:002019-07-17T07:48:00.884-05:00Pruss: On Presentism, there is no past, so how can...Pruss: On Presentism, there is no past, so how can we say that it is changing all the time? All that is changing is what is; what was doesn't exist so as to change.Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-90538644163832850872019-07-15T18:14:14.442-05:002019-07-15T18:14:14.442-05:00Maybe, but I'm not sure.
On the A-theory, the...Maybe, but I'm not sure.<br /><br />On the A-theory, the change from present to past is supposed to be a real change. But it would be a bit odd if the change from 0 minutes ago to 1 minute ago were a real change, but the change from 1 minute ago to 2 minutes ago weren't. The A-theory is supposed to take tensed temporal determinations seriously. But if we take seriously the difference between "presently" and "recently", shouldn't we take seriously the difference between "recently" and "long ago"?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-61624989395327367672019-07-14T17:31:24.261-05:002019-07-14T17:31:24.261-05:00Hi Alex,
It may be an objective change, but it sou...Hi Alex,<br />It may be an objective change, but it sounds more like a Cambridge change than an intrinsic change. Perhaps the past is immutable only with respect to intrinsic changes.<br />Best,<br />DanielDaniel Vecchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922261849155279279noreply@blogger.com