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.
… 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?)
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.
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.
… 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?)
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”
I don’t think its been disproven. See <a href=http://philpapers.org/rec/ZIMPAT“>here for how A-theory can fit in with relativity.
Explain like I’m five.
Chaosmage just did!
My point is that I don’t think a five-year-old would understand either explanation.
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.