Presentism is the view that all, and only, things that exist in the present, the now, exist. To determine whether something is part of the present means that you have to find what exactly determines the present. The common objection for presentism is by the use of the Special Theory of Relativity, or more specifically the relativity of simultaneity. The Special Theory of Relativity is a well confirmed physical theory of the measurement of non-accelerating frames of reference in all inertial systems proposed by Albert Einstein. The basics of the theory is that in a vacuum the speed of light will be the same for each and all of the observers, regardless of the motion of the light source. Changing how to define the present is a way to try and
…show more content…
This then leads to a hyper-relativised presentism provided by Steve Savitt3, based on the cone model. Instead of just defining the present for an event E, instead the present, the things that will exist, can be defined in terms of reference to an event E and an observer O. “This would lead to the suggestion that the present for O at E, is the set of events simultaneous with E in O’s frame of reference”. This model than has an advantage over the cone model, based on that fact that it allows for transitivity and simultaneity defined in Newtonian space time. The problem with this model is if there are multiple observers for the event E, is to determine one observer, whose hyper plane of simultaneity could represent the present for E. The solution that Savitt weakly provides is that all observers are completely equivalent, but one frame of reference is metaphysically distinguished. As this point of reference can’t be measured by nomological standards, instead the present, the existence, for an event E must be viewed as a broad set of points, which are space like but not time like separated, including the event E. This large set unfortunately cannot be measured physically as it is hard to determine when something is space like separated yet not time like separated. There is no real evidence to deny the working of this model but I don’t believe that is grounds to say that presentism is
This then leads to a hyper-relativised presentism provided by Steve Savitt3, based on the cone model. Instead of just defining the present for an event E, instead the present, the things that will exist, can be defined in terms of reference to an event E and an observer O. “This would lead to the suggestion that the present for O at E, is the set of events simultaneous with E in O’s frame of reference”. This model than has an advantage over the cone model, based on that fact that it allows for transitivity and simultaneity defined in Newtonian space time. The problem with this model is if there are multiple observers for the event E, is to determine one observer, whose hyper plane of simultaneity could represent the present for E. The solution that Savitt weakly provides is that all observers are completely equivalent, but one frame of reference is metaphysically distinguished. As this point of reference can’t be measured by nomological standards, instead the present, the existence, for an event E must be viewed as a broad set of points, which are space like but not time like separated, including the event E. This large set unfortunately cannot be measured physically as it is hard to determine when something is space like separated yet not time like separated. There is no real evidence to deny the working of this model but I don’t believe that is grounds to say that presentism is