(Untitled)

Apr 16, 2005 00:01

i explained mctaggart's proof of the nonexistence of time to my 6-year-old brother today. and he understood it! he believes in santa but not in time. how now is that?

he still believes in god however. he thinks i'm an atheist as i don't go to sunday school. but i have convinced him that the pope was a jerk. hmm!

Leave a comment

Comments 15

_my_evil_twin April 15 2005, 23:33:09 UTC
i thought ol' mcT's theory was flawed? can't say i really paid attention in that class tho, to tell the truth...

Reply

tyrone_slothrop April 15 2005, 23:34:21 UTC
It's watertight.

Reply

heraclitus April 16 2005, 13:26:14 UTC
Unless you deny the isomorphism of language and reality.

Zam!

Reply

heraclitus April 16 2005, 13:26:42 UTC
Actually, there are a few end-game tricks around it, but it is a pretty little turd to leave in the punchbowl.

Reply


easwaran April 16 2005, 05:49:47 UTC
Your brother is pretty gullible I see.

I don't think the non-existence of time is ever "now". Unless it always is, I suppose.

Doesn't McTaggart just rest on an equivocation of "eternal" tenseless statements with present tense statements?

Reply

tyrone_slothrop April 16 2005, 10:50:55 UTC
Well, as much as I try to disagree with McTaggart, the paradox can always adapt itself to the solution, like the deadliest of virurses.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the equivocation though...are you saying that McTaggart sees the need to give present-tense statements eternal truth-conditions, and because of this, will always lapse into contradiction? I mean, the paradox arises anew even if we say this (as obviously, if the truth-condition of 'x is now' is the fact of x's being now, a truth-condition which can only be applied when x is now, then obviously it both applies and does not apply at the same time, if the now is past and future...holy crap this is vague. but is someting like that what you meant?)

Reply


ironed_orchid April 16 2005, 08:33:55 UTC
More proof that we should be learning the basics of philosophy and especially thought experiments in primary school. That way we can get it all over and done with before we discover drugs.

Reply


miss_behave April 16 2005, 08:39:27 UTC
My youngest doesn't believe in Santa - he thinks Buddha brings the presents.

Work that one out! ;)

Reply

tyrone_slothrop April 16 2005, 10:38:59 UTC
This is Bec, yeah? That's becuase he is a genius.

Reply

miss_behave April 16 2005, 10:41:39 UTC
Genius, nutter - it's all much of a muchness.... ;)

Reply


talesque April 16 2005, 12:04:11 UTC
I want a little follower I can indoctrinate too.
Step number 1 to taking over the world = Lots of kids that can spread and live by the message.

Reply

pigseatingfigs April 18 2005, 13:40:48 UTC
no, I'd say that was Step 2. Step 1 is getting your mitts on a REALLY big gun.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up