I think it's pretty obvious what I mean. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think so too, and I think I know what you mean. Trouble is, your claims are without proportion. You're as a man who says that you cannot sit in a chair because there is no such thing as a chair - just mostly profoundly empty space and widely spaced teeny wavicles. And of course I'm sitting as I type and likely you as you read. Of course there is a two o'clock, and with all the furniture that implies, and true and meaningful in its context for its purposes. Will that do for applications in which it won't do? Duh, no. But somehow, your "wisdom" that would confound the world, doesn't seem to slow it down even a whit.

Truth exists to the best of one's ability to express usually in the form of probabilities. If something is eternal it's less likely to be a god but more so a multiverse in which universes flicker in and out of existence; an eternity of processing and re-processing. Based on what we know there's a greater probability of a multiverse existing than any god entity denoted as eternal.

This claim does not seem to be based in any logic. If it is true that there is nothing which is eternal, this makes the statement "nothing is eternal" true. It does not make the statement "nothing is eternal" eternal. In fact, that would contradict the premise that there is nothing which is eternal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I thought I was showing the statement “nothing is eternal” is self-contradictory and thus false, but I think I realized my mistake.

If nothing is eternal, then at some point everything ceases to be, including time, so “nothing is eternal” would itself not be eternal.

In the view that nothing is eternal, the world appears, not even out of nothing since nothing doesn’t exist, and at some point ceases to be, and that’s it. In that view there is absolutely no reason for any “law” of physics, for any regularity observed, and these laws aren’t eternal.

The alternative view is that something was always there and always will be, and that there may be a reason behind the “laws” of physics and the regularities we observe.

Trouble is, your claims are without proportion. — tim wood

Proportion is irrelevant. Whether you are talking about a huge portion of time, or a very small portion of time, there is still a duration, and therefore no such thing as a point which marks what time it is when this duration is passing. Therefore referring to a portion of time as a point in time such as 2:00 cannot be a true reference, no matter what the proportion is.

Of course there is a two o'clock, and with all the furniture that implies, and true and meaningful in its context for its purposes. — tim wood

Why do you insist on denying the truth? "Two o'clock" is just a name you use, which has no real reference. There are conventions for the usage of that name, but there cannot be anything specific which the name refers to, or else it would lose its universal applicability. The reason why I can say it is two o'clock where I am, and you can also say that it is two o'clock where you are, and it can be two o'clock all over the place, is that "two o'clock" does not refer to anything real. Have you not yet grasped this fact, that assuming particular points in time is just a convention of convenience? The only implied furniture is a mountain of conventions, which no matter how high that mountain is, only amounts to conventions without any real thing corresponding to the usage.

There are two very distinct uses of "eternal". One refers to existing forever, infinite temporal existence. The other refers to existence outside of time. Aristotle demonstrated that the first, infinite temporal existence, is a faulty concept. Following this, Christian theologians accepted the second meaning, "outside of time" as the description of the eternality of God. What exactly is meant by this is a subject for speculation.

Let’s assume nothing is eternal. — leo

I can't make any sense out of this sentence. What does the word "nothing" refer to? Is "nothing" a label for the null set? How can "nothing" have a property of being eternal?

As far as I can tell this is a nonsense sentence. Classic examples of a nonsense sentences are "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination" or "Colorless green dreams sleep furiously". We recognize that these are grammatically correct and the words have reasonably well defined definitions - but we all recognize that these sentences do not express a coherent thought using the standard definitions.

Perhaps there is another way of phrasing this? Perhaps "There is no object in the physical universe that has the property of being eternal"?

There are two very distinct uses of "eternal". One refers to existing forever, infinite temporal existence. The other refers to existence outside of time. Aristotle demonstrated that the first, infinite temporal existence, is a faulty concept. Following this, Christian theologians accepted the second meaning, "outside of time" as the description of the eternality of God. What exactly is meant by this is a subject for speculation. — Metaphysician Undercover

From our point of view we only experience a portion of the present, which is itself an extremely small part of all that it, was and ever will be. I would say an eternal, infinite consciousness would experience it all at once forever. And maybe the whole is perfect, but it only appears imperfect from a limited point of view, especially when we're experiencing the difficult parts. But I would say also that difficulty is a part of perfection, if everything was easy there would be something missing.

Perhaps there is another way of phrasing this? Perhaps "There is no object in the physical universe that has the property of being eternal"? — EricH

"There is nothing that has the property of being eternal" yes, that's what I was getting at. But I don't subscribe to this view for various reasons. Though I now realize the reasoning I was putting forward in this thread was flawed, for I was implicitly assuming that something is eternal in order to disprove that nothing is ...

From our point of view we only experience a portion of the present, which is itself an extremely small part of all that it, was and ever will be. — leo

This depends on how you define "the present". I would define it as the division between past and future. It seems evident to me that my experience consists of some past and some future, so I would say that my experience encompasses all of the present, and also some past and some future. But if you define "the present" as consisting of an extended period of time, then it is likely that we only experience a part of the present. So to resolve this question as to "truth", there is a requirement to determine exactly what the present is.

I would say an eternal, infinite consciousness would experience it all at once forever. — leo

This appears to me to be an incoherent statement. "Consciousness" and "experience" are specific to the way that we experience time. To talk about a consciousness experiencing all of time at once doesn't really make any sense. Consider what it would be like if what we experienced as a thousandth of a second in time, would consist of the physical changes of a billion years. We don't notice the changes of a thousandth of a second because they go by so fast. So all the things which happen to the earth, the solar system, and the entire universe, in a billion years, would not be noticeable to this consciousness because they go by so fast. Now extend this to all of time. Everything which happens throughout the entirety of time would not be noticeable because it zooms by too fast. How does it make sense to talk about a scenario like this?

Define Truth as what is eternal, what never changes.

Is there such a thing?

Assume Truth does not exist. Then there is nothing that never changes. So “there is nothing that never changes” is eternal. So Truth exists.

So something is eternal. Some call it God.

I find it interesting that it can be proven that something eternal exists. — leo

If something (God) never changes, then how does it cause change? How does an effect of change follow from a never-changing cause?

Truth is the relationship between statements and the state-of-affairs those statements are about.

Truth is a predicate of statements; it is not a thing. It is not god nor is it eternal. — Banno

What is a "thing"? Is eternal a thing? If not, then how can predicate statements not be eternal if they both qualify as not-things?

This depends on how you define "the present". I would define it as the division between past and future. It seems evident to me that my experience consists of some past and some future, so I would say that my experience encompasses all of the present, and also some past and some future. But if you define "the present" as consisting of an extended period of time, then it is likely that we only experience a part of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would say your experience consists only of some present. Your memories and expectations are experienced in the present, and they don't necessarily reflect accurately what you did experience in the past or what you will experience in the future.

As to why I said we only experience a portion of the present, is that the present consists of the present experience of all beings, not just mine, what I experience presently is a tiny part of all that's experienced.

This appears to me to be an incoherent statement. "Consciousness" and "experience" are specific to the way that we experience time. To talk about a consciousness experiencing all of time at once doesn't really make any sense. Consider what it would be like if what we experienced as a thousandth of a second in time, would consist of the physical changes of a billion years. We don't notice the changes of a thousandth of a second because they go by so fast. So all the things which happen to the earth, the solar system, and the entire universe, in a billion years, would not be noticeable to this consciousness because they go by so fast. Now extend this to all of time. Everything which happens throughout the entirety of time would not be noticeable because it zooms by too fast. How does it make sense to talk about a scenario like this? — Metaphysician Undercover

The way I see it, our experience is limited both spatially and temporally. So for instance I don't see what's behind the wall in front of me, but someone on the other side of the wall does. Well what if all moments in time exist concurrently, and we only see a tiny portion of it as we're traveling along? This would mean that the whole future is already written, so from the highest point of view everything we are going to do is already written, but from our limited point of view we do have limited free will because we do make choices based on a set of inputs (experiences/beliefs/understanding/...)

What would it be like to experience a bigger chunk of time at once? Well we can't do it justice from our limited point of view, just like someone who doesn't see colors cannot get what it's like to see colors. It would be a higher dimension of experience.

So what would it be like to experience the whole past and future experiences of all beings simultaneously? Can't describe it. Infinite experience. And if that infinite experience is sustained forever then it wouldn't zoom by, it would just be permanent, eternal.

So of course there is a lot of speculation in what I just said, but I find it is an interesting way to view existence and I feel like there is something to it.

I would say your experience consists only of some present. Your memories and expectations are experienced in the present, and they don't necessarily reflect accurately what you did experience in the past or what you will experience in the future. — leo

When you sense something, isn't the thing sensed, in the past by the time that it is sensed? This is how we came to know that light moves faster than sound. You see something in the distance, then the sound of that follows. But still, light takes some time, so the thing seen (experienced) is in the past by the time that it is experienced.

So I think it's not just a matter of saying our memories and anticipations are actually occurring at the present, I think our experience is really of the past and of the future. Think of anticipation in general. It is a natural instinct to expect the future. How could you anticipate unless you somehow knew there is a future. And how could you know there is a future unless you somehow were experiencing it.

Well what if all moments in time exist concurrently, and we only see a tiny portion of it as we're traveling along? — leo

This would make sense, but it requires a mechanism which propels one along through time. So when you think about it, it makes a lot more sense to conceive of actual time passing in an active world, then to conceive of a mechanism propelling human beings through a static world. Consider all the scientific evidence which indicates that time was passing and things were changing prior to the existence of human beings. How does it make sense to think that the physical world was arranged in such a way so as to make it appear to us like time was passing and things were changing before human existence, but things were really static without some conscious being, actively being propelled through this simulation? And now, if you accept that this is a simulation, and change was not really occurring, you need to explain this mechanism which is exclusive to the human being, and propels the human being through this fixed world.

When you sense something, isn't the thing sensed, in the past by the time that it is sensed? This is how we came to know that light moves faster than sound. You see something in the distance, then the sound of that follows. But still, light takes some time, so the thing seen (experienced) is in the past by the time that it is experienced. — Metaphysician Undercover

What you experience you experience now. If you assume that what you experience is an image of what was in the past, you're still experiencing that image now. It is in that way that I mean we only experience the present.

Also, there is nothing experienced without an experiencer, so in my view it is meaningless to talk of how things are while abstracting out the experiencer.

I think our experience is really of the past and of the future. Think of anticipation in general. It is a natural instinct to expect the future. How could you anticipate unless you somehow knew there is a future. And how could you know there is a future unless you somehow were experiencing it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting ... yes we do experience change, which involves a comparison between different moments. It's true there is a part of what we experienced that remains, and some of what we anticipate that we do end up experiencing. Well the anticipation is an experience itself, but we do have that ability to distinguish between what we call past and future.

If we say we're only ever experiencing a changing present, there is implicitly a notion of past and future in it. So yes I suppose we could say we don't experience a succession of instantaneous "nows", but a chunk of time that is evolving.

This would make sense, but it requires a mechanism which propels one along through time. So when you think about it, it makes a lot more sense to conceive of actual time passing in an active world, then to conceive of a mechanism propelling human beings through a static world. Consider all the scientific evidence which indicates that time was passing and things were changing prior to the existence of human beings. How does it make sense to think that the physical world was arranged in such a way so as to make it appear to us like time was passing and things were changing before human existence, but things were really static without some conscious being, actively being propelled through this simulation? And now, if you accept that this is a simulation, and change was not really occurring, you need to explain this mechanism which is exclusive to the human being, and propels the human being through this fixed world. — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn't really that the being would be propelled through time. Also it wouldn't be exclusive to the human being it would apply to all beings that experience.

If you agree with the idea that we experience a chunk of time, then that means the past and future are at least partly determined. Now consider the idea that the whole past and future of all beings are already determined. And that they are all occurring simultaneously. Meaning the future and past "you" exist now, but not just one of each, an immense number of them, maybe an infinity, and they're all experiencing their limited chunk of time that is evolving, all flowing towards the end of the story that is already predetermined. And for it to be a continuous whole, the end would also be the start. Your story wouldn't start with your birth some decades ago and end some decades in the future, it would be much grander than that, we are more than material beings, much more than that.

The end of the story would be all beings realizing and experiencing how everything is connected and all reunited into the One infinite consciousness that they belong to. But the end of that story would be occurring at the same time as all the other parts of that story. And the end would circle back to the beginning. And the whole of that, that eternal whole would be what is timeless and perfect.