Well you mistake my doctrine of eternal, when I say eternal, I mean timeless in the case of God. There is some interesting theology I've heard in that if we think of time as linear, then God exists on all points at once, so to speak. God does not change so that time applies.

Couldn't something similarly be suggested when talking of an infinite regress
Where every single compound of every single thing, exist simultaniously while there is a "meta present" so to speak
In reference to this "meta present" nothing is potential

Are you speaking of Parmenedes and Zeno's metaphysics?

I'm not quite familiar of their metaphysics

They entirely denied change, giving a couple paradoxes which kind of are reminiscent of what you are saying.

But we seem to observe change. Act and potency was a response to Zeno and Parmenedes trying to refute change, Aristotle instead saying it is very possible and intuitive.

At the very least for some things we can say this was in this state, and then it was in this state

yes but change existing in reference to our present is irrelevant to referencing the meta present, under which all things exist simultaniously

Except the "meta present" is only possible if you assert change is an illusion

How

That's how presentism works

its an illusion in the sense that in reference to that meta present change is absent

The point of meta present is that any other notion of past or future is illusionary

It rejects change

yes

whats wrong with that?

Well observing change being an illusion seems contradictory at the least

I guess you could argue it could be similar to a sensation, which can be at one moment

But it's not something we really want to accept, so I haven't bothered refuting it because the arguments it uses against time are incorrect, so I don't have a reason to accept it really.

How is it contradictory? And how are the arguments used against time incorrect?

change being an illusion since we exist within a non meta present does not contradict that we observe change

It's contradictory because you are in the process of observing change, which involves change, even if everything around us was changing, you are changing in a way, unless you treat it like an experience I suppose.

And Aristotle refuted tons of anti time/change arguments

You don't understand

I'm not denying the existence of change

That's necessary to assert presentism

I'm merely asserting, that in reference to a multi present, change is an illusion and does not exist.

Could you define presentism?

I was not familiar with what it was when i developed this counter argument thinking about the possibility of there being a multi verse

Oh, I wasn't aware that's what you meant

That just sounds like there are tons of potentials, but only certain ones become actual.

No you don't understand

Let me draw this in Paint in order for you to get a better understanding

By "P." I mean "possible"

Basically, there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of nuances within them, each one being peculiar from the previous one, however, there is a SINGLE meta present which encompasses all of these, in reference to that single meta present, nothing is in potentiality since everything is in actual

I get it now, but this would only imply that there are all possible worlds. This would mean the metapresent isn't all act, but just contradictory in general if you tried to superimpose everything onto each other.

As things would be in act differently, or in potential

So it wouldn't really combine at all

This would more just mean there are different worlds with different variations of act and potency

"I get it now, but this would only imply that there are all possible worlds. This would mean the metapresent isn't all act" How?