[wstewart]

Originally Posted by davidm

Truly, Wayne, this is absolutely pathetic.

First, I am not talking, in this thread, about the relativity objection. I only raised it once.

You're attempting a drive-by objection now, and you have in fact attempted the objection more than once.

Originally Posted by davidm

The relativity objection shows that you cannot be certain about the temporal order of a certain class of events; this is easily demonstrated by Einstein's train example, with lightning bolts. And no, Wayne, my understanding of relativity is NOT from some "outdated Wikipedia article;"

I handed you a stack of clarifying, up-to-date professional papers on temporal ontology, with introductory comments, and you dismissed all unread, returning repeatedly to Wikipedia. You blustered to the end.

Originally Posted by davidm

non-locality in QM does not supersede or violate special relativity. That you don't understand this, proves you don't understand a thing about either SR or QM.

Your mangled straw-man text demonstrates your level of familiarity with contemporary philosophy of time, and the source of your bluster on this topic.

Originally Posted by davidm

you failed to answer any of my simple yes/no questions, but veered off on yet more tangents. The bottom line is that the answer to all the questions is NO, as you well know; and once this is established, EP vanishes like a mirage on a highway.

Apt analogy is no tangent, even when it's an unflattering analogy.

Existential passage is conceived with function identical to that of any other unfelt time-gap. Special pleading won't disqualify the one application of the concept you don't like. Only informed reasoning could conceivably do that, and at present your reasoning is a mess. E.g., the trivial "no" answers to your latest questions. These answers deny even Old Paul passage to New, by your latest reasoning. This, despite the fact that you grant Old Paul passage elsewhere on this very same page, by different reasoning.

Your reasoning around unfelt time-gaps is, now as before, a mess. I predicted this result near the outset. The cause? "You're arguing, ultimately, for an interpretation that does not make sense when stated in functional terms."

Originally Posted by davidm

I am likely not to continue posting in this thread...

I understand.