I'm not sure but how I read it is that it seems to suggest that all events occur (or could occur) simultaneously but to travel from one event to another requires movement (duration) which we perceive as the flow of time. I can't see how this makes any difference on a practical level but from a philosophical viewpoint it is probably important??zoobyshoe said:Thanks for digging that up, Art, but that quote just confused me more about what he is trying to say.
"It is perfectly meaningful to state that two events may be separated by a certain duration, while denying that time mysteriously flows from one event to the other."
If you're sensitive to language, notice the syntactically hinky use of the word "duration." The sentence ends up not having any meaning I can fathom.
Last edited by a moderator: