3 ms·
> what exists (in the unrestricted sense of 'exist' the OP is after) becomes event-relative Well, of course; that's how we already use the term "exist" in ordi
by pdonis 4y ago
> what exists (in the unrestricted sense of 'exist' the OP is after) becomes event-relative
Well, of course; that's how we already use the term "exist" in ordinary language. We say that our past of today "exists", but tomorrow does not, at least not yet. But tomorrow, we'll say that what we now call tomorrow does "exist". So our ordinary language concept of "exists" already takes into account that what "exists" changes over time.
- Schiphol 4y agoThe commonsense tensed 'exist' is not a good model to 'only my light cone exists'. The former says that events in my causal past and future do not exist, for example. The latter only makes sense as a proposal about some unrestricted notion of existence. More or less: what is the smallest catalogue of entities I need to commit myself to, if I want to make sense of the science?
- pdonis 4y ago> what is the smallest catalogue of entities I need to commit myself to, if I want to make sense of the science? I'm fine with this formulation, because I think the answer to it is the one I gave: the past light cone of your "here and now".