/lit/ - Literature

>QM, GR and classical TD's conception of time are easily reconcilable
fucking brainlet. never post again

oh yeah then explain this shit smarty pants

>>11717387
I didn't say that. You said that. Try learning to read before writing anything, little child.

>>11717415
Explicate these relationships then and explain exactly what you mean by time.

>>11717448
No. We're not talking about physics, we're talking about purely philosophical arguments of time, which I'm saying are awful. For instance, the book tries to argue about the nature of time through silly language riddles, thinking it has formulated a proof. This tradition goes back to Parmenides who can be forgiven, but it's a bit tiring now. I feel like I've wasted my time.

>>11717501
In other words you can't because you don't know what you're on about.

>>11717377
Wasn't McTaggart a Hegelian? That would explain your reaction.

>>11717528
You haven't read the book so please don't post in my thread. Thanks.

>>11717599
The point is, don’t post about things you don’t understand, half the time philosophyfags try to say ‘science solves the problem of this’ when no scientist would agree.

John Von Neumann might say that Game Theory proves free will exists, but Sam Harris sits there like a fucking loser and says ‘hurrrrr science proves that objectively perfect ways of behaving exist’. Hum, don’t think so. This is one of my pet peeves

>>11717609
>John Von Neumann might say that Game Theory proves free will exists,

He did? I tried googling but I can't find the source.

>>11717609
It looks like your entire process of thinking revolves around some internet arguments you've had, and now you look at everything in terms of these. That's something you have to learn to shed, because you're part of a very insular groups of people. However I will argue that "internet philosophers" are usually the ones shitting on science's achievements -- Sam Harris type people are rarer (but equally retarded).

>>11717599
>it's a bad book about time because it's written in language and even has the temerity to present arguments in language
>no i won't talk about time in general
haha fuck off

>>11717614
I genuinely can't tell if you're a spastic, or trying to be funny, or just trolling.

>>11717626
I told you once, do not post here unless you've read all the books I'm talking about. Thanks.

>>11717614
That’s why I said ‘might’. John Von Neumann didn’t worry about the question of free will at all

>>11717623
Sam Harris types are the majority of modern philosophers, literally no one is doing what people accuse modern philosophers of— saying that science is dogmatic.

Science is certainly reliable, but it isn’t infallible and it certainly isn’t as perfect as some of these philosophers like Dawkins say it is

>>11717628
>>11717635
Sorry, I'm a brainlet, missed the word "might".

>>11717632
If /lit/ did that there would be no /lit/.

>>11717626
I’ve dealt with these stupid motherfuckers before. They think that just because they haven’t read the exact book the thread is about they can’t talk about it. At any given time, there is NO ONE who has read the book you have read, you should be happy someone is willing to discuss the general, broad topic you made the thread about. In this case, it’s time. The book is just a means to discuss and present ideas, have you forgotten the point of literature?

>>11717632
Why would anyone stoop to reading McTaggart in the first place? Why not at least post excerpts for dissection instead of registering your vain disgruntlement which you could have accomplished with an Amazon star rating?