11946
|
Propensities are part of a situation, not part of the objects [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
Propensities should not be regarded as inherent in an object, such as a die or a penny, but should be regarded as inherent in a situation (of which, of course, the object was part).
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (A World of Propensities [1993], p.14), quoted by George Molnar - Powers 6.2
|
|
A reaction:
Molnar argues against this claim, and I agree with him. We can see why Popper might prefer this relational view, given that powers often only become apparent in unusual relational situations.
|
6866
|
It is disturbing if we become unreal when we die, but if time is unreal, then we remain real after death [Le Poidevin]
|
|
Full Idea:
For the A-theorists called 'presentists' the past is as unreal as the future, and reality leaves us behind once we die, which is disturbing; but B-theorists, who see time as unreal, say we are just as real after our deaths as we were beforehand.
|
|
From:
Robin Le Poidevin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.174)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 6865 for A and B theories. I wonder if this problem is only superficially 'disturbing'. Becoming unreal may sound more drastic than becoming dead, but they both sound pretty terminal to me.
|
6865
|
A-theory says past, present, future and flow exist; B-theory says this just reports our perspective [Le Poidevin]
|
|
Full Idea:
The A-theory regards our intuitive distinction of time into past, present and future as objective, and takes seriously the idea that time flows; the B-theory says this just reflects our perspective, like the spatial distinction between here and there.
|
|
From:
Robin Le Poidevin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.174)
|
|
A reaction:
The distinction comes from McTaggart. Physics seems to be built on an objective view of time, and yet Einstein makes time relative. What possible evidence could decide between the two theories?
|