You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Gavin comments on Open thread, 30 June 2014- 6 July 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: DanielDeRossi 30 June 2014 10:58AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (246)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Gavin 01 July 2014 07:39:44PM 2 points [-]

That depends on whether you think that: a) the past ceases to exist as time passes, or b) the universe is all of the past and all of the future, and we just happen to experience it in a certain chronological order

The past may still be "there," but inaccessible to us. So the answer to this question is probably to dissolve it. In one sense, I won't still love you. In another, my love will always exist and always continue to have an effect on you.

Comment author: Jiro 01 July 2014 07:46:03PM 1 point [-]

... and the five year old won't understand those subtleties and will interpret it to mean something comforting but false. An answer to a question is one thing, and an answer that a five year old can understand is another.

(Besides, if the five year old's parent loves her forever because the past is there, is that true for everything? Will her parent always be dying (since the death will have happened in the past)? Whenever she's punished, does that punishment last forever? Do you tell five year olds who have the flu that the flu will always be around forever?)

Comment author: Coscott 02 July 2014 12:21:43AM 1 point [-]

I think the A theory of time is effectively disproved by relativity.

By the way, for those who do not know, these are actually called "the A theory of time" and "the B theory of time"

Comment author: DanielDeRossi 02 July 2014 11:07:02AM 1 point [-]

I don't think its been disproven. See <a href=http://philpapers.org/rec/ZIMPAT">here</a> for how A-theory can fit in with relativity.

Comment author: DanielLC 01 July 2014 09:47:13PM 0 points [-]

Explain like I'm five.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 July 2014 12:42:22AM 2 points [-]

Chaosmage just did!

Comment author: DanielLC 02 July 2014 03:31:33AM 0 points [-]

My point is that I don't think a five-year-old would understand either explanation.

Comment author: Gavin 02 July 2014 04:59:47PM 1 point [-]

If the five year old can't understand, then I think "Yes" is a completely decent answer to this question.

If I were in this situation, I would write letters to the child to be delivered/opened as they grew older. This way I would still continue to have an active effect on their life. We "exist" to other people when we have measurable effects on them, so this would be a way to continue to love them in a unidirectional way.