Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

To use Red: do you know of responces to Backmann on B theory

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Aristotle's jedi

    Thanks, I´m a moron. I didn´t even thought about asking him directly. Serious question, should we send the same message, including Calhouns point, to Mumford or another powers metaphysicist?

    Calhoun

    Basically, but the whole concept seems very confusing. Attacking Humeanism as a alternative view should prove as being the easiest way to strike back. But of course, we are here to defend the Powers view against the claim that it is incompatible with every time ontology. I will throw a few ideas later.

    Anyway, before I try to write out a few lines of attack against Backmann´s specific accounts, I want to mention several other things:

    1. As I said before, I´m primarily interested in the consequences for the Aristotelian proof. I think this paper serves as no attack to the fundamental proposition of act and potency. In fact, I think in every time ontology the causal events can be reformulated in such a way. The examples in Backmann´s paper do no harm to that idea, as far as I can tell. In fact there are important differences between the scholastic view of causation and the powers metaphysics attacked in the paper. Pp 12-13:

    "Friebe claims that in dynamical views of time and the powers ontology, however, facts do not exist independently from one another. On such a view, to say that a physical token is being produced at a certain time means that it has been brought into existence, dependent on the necessary connections between properties or events (Friebe 2018, 87–88). The power of a negatively charged object a to repel another negatively charged object b brought the fact that b being repelled by a into existence. The fact did not exist before it was produced."

    Sounds to me like, this goes contrary to what e.g. Feser would say, since the fact did exist, but only in the divine mind as a potential. This gets actualized in the certain moment, when a repels b.
    Also, the fact that Backmann claims that no Power metaphysicist actually says that the view is compatible with Eternalism seems suspicious in that instant. I don´t think a scholastic or Aristotle himself would agree.

    2. Can it be that this field is very much dependend on the physical science? The universe he presents under "Eternalism" very much resembles from what I heard from Sean Carroll and Aron Wall (in case you don´t know him, Cambridge physicist with a blog) in one of his posts on Craigs Kalam argument claimed that this is based on very "experimental" and probably wrong physics. I´m no physicist and can neither review that, nor do I claim that physical science decides the nature of time, but it seems to me that we can use it for our arguments. Backmann himself puts some emphasis on the allegation that some modern physics are perfectly compatible with a Humean metaphysics. I think this offers some other lines we could attack.


    Help me out when I did a mistake, but I think that at least concerning (1) I have a point.

    Comment


    • #17
      Calhoun

      I personally think that not only humean causality is problematic, but I also don´t see how a kind of platonism can be avoided when an eternalistic view is applied. WHile on the topic of the Moving Spotlight he gives the example of his plant and its states going from healthy to dying and that the change is merely the current state presented, while every other state of the plant exists eternally as a simpliciter. In which way can those states still be said to exist without involving some kind of immateriality?

      Comment


      • #18
        @Kwisk

        sure email Mumfird but don't send him a massive email. I'd give a quick sentence or two summary of the question, quote that paragraph I did (Which is the succinct point summarised) and link the paper.

        sending someone an essay if questions out of the blue is a sure fired way to get ignored

        Comment


        • #19
          I wanted to say that I have nothing really to say beyond anything written to the article. I was primarily concerned with the possible consequences to the arguments for God, and I don´t think that there are any direct threats. Above that, I´m not equipped to make a sophisticated defense of the Powers metaphysics, to be honest, I haven´t been to interested in that topic before.
          I´m writing a mail to Mumford at the moment.

          Comment


          • #20
            I could use some help. Do you have a short version I could include as to why Backmann thinks the powers metaphysics is incompatible with the time ontologiues? I think I have it for eternalism, but I don´t know exactly how to formulate it in MST, GBT and Presentism

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Kwlsk View Post
              I could use some help. Do you have a short version I could include as to why Backmann thinks the powers metaphysics is incompatible with the time ontologiues? I think I have it for eternalism, but I don´t know exactly how to formulate it in MST, GBT and Presentism
              Forget MST. The same problem for eternalism applies to it. I would just ask him whether he thinks it's compatible with eternalism.

              Comment


              • #22
                Okay, then I just put most of the mail away.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I'd say there is actually no need to send emails because response to such problems require a lot of thinking, It might not be possible to just provide a convincing reply in an email. its better to just wait for some other article that discusses such arguments.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Well, too late. Sent 24 hours ago. Let´s see how/when/if he responds.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Calhoun View Post
                      I'd say there is actually no need to send emails because response to such problems require a lot of thinking, It might not be possible to just provide a convincing reply in an email. its better to just wait for some other article that discusses such arguments.
                      If you do see articles that respond we'd appreciate a link!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Kwlsk View Post
                        Well, too late. Sent 24 hours ago. Let´s see how/when/if he responds.
                        Any responce?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Nope. I´m also not quite sure if his university mail is even active at the moment. He seems to be working on an independent project since 2016. Should we ask anyone else? You can´t tell me that power theorists haven´t already written substantially on their relationship with eternalism. Problem is that I´m not so deep in the issue to know who would be a good correspondend

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X