Philosophical Presentism within the Context of Relatvity

[Ohj1n37]

Hi everyone. I haven't been on in a long time and there's a good chance I will not make response, but I had become aware of what I was attempting to explain in previous posts is something called philosophical presentism.

The reason I was so ardent about this idea within the context of theory of relativity is that I believe that what I was attempting to explain can explain time related phenomenon without the need for space time. And if there is no space time that could lead to a new direction in study and possible advancements in technology and science not thought possible.

Feel free to discuss and debate, but I have personally made up my mind that is what time is because all evidence points to it being as quoted from the Wikipedia page,

changing the normal view of time as a container or thing unto itself and seeing time as a measure of changing spatial relationships among objects.

And by evidence I mean empirical (measurable), and observable science. Time can only be measured or observed as the comparison of motion of two or more objects. If interested feel free to look at the Wikipedia page and my past posts.

Hope you all have a good one.

Philosophical presentism - Wikipedia

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hmm, a few thoughts occur, mostly problems with the meaning or definition of 'the present'; if the present is an infinitely thin boundary between past and future, then presentism suggests what exists is infinitely attenuated and constantly changing; if it takes time for information about the world to reach us and for us to process it, we must be perceiving and experiencing a world that no longer exists; it seems to presuppose a universal & absolute Newtonian time, otherwise things would both exist and not exist, depending on the observer... special relativity demonstrably supports the relativity of simultaneity, not Newtonian absolute simultaneity, contradicting simple presentism.

I wouldn't be surprised if such objections could be evaded by redefining what is meant by 'the present', or the meaning of 'exists', or even 'time' but I'd like to hear a decent argument that is compatible with empirical data (and, preferably, relativity).

 

[Ohj1n37]

I neglected to post a question I proposed on another site.

Why isn't time understood to be relative motion?

In the last part I talk about relativity of simultaneity. I hope that proves interesting to you and others.