Sundaram thinks:
"...the senseless random accident will happen, the cosmos and its glories lose the energy that has upheld them and fall into an oblivion that annuls the very past." (p. 326)
He thinks that, although he exists and thinks here and now, it might later become the case that he had not existed or thought here and now. No! His thought should end: "...and fall into oblivion." That makes sense. Why add a contradiction? This bugs me. There is no need for it.
2 comments:
This is only rational if you start with the premise that the past is unchangeable.
If a three-dimensional object changes colour, then the object is red at time t0 and blue at time t1 of a single timeline.
Suppose the four-dimensional timeline also changes. In state A of the timeline, the 3D object changes from red to blue whereas, in state B of the timeline, the object changes from red to green.
There is a before-and-after/temporal relationship between A and B. Anyone who perceives this temporal sequence sees B succeeding A and therefore then sees A as no longer existing. But anyone whose world-line extends along A just sees the object changing from red to blue. For him, it remains the case that this change, from red to blue, has happened. He does not arrive at a time when the change has changed to from red to green.
Post a Comment