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?

Do you understand what is meant by "in reference to the meta present, everything is actual"?

Yes, you superimpose all states onto each other to get a meta present

So in this metapresent, everything is in act

Yes

yes and whats the issue with that?

My issue is that among these different possibilities, there are different variations of acts and some things would be in potency, so it's entirely contradictory.

If it takes everything in act, it would take all worlds where there also is potency into account too

Is what you're saying that in a universe 1, a coffee is hot, but in universe 2 a cup of coffee is cold, and within universe 1 that coffee is potentially cold? Is that what you mean by different variations of acts while some things remaining in potency

I mean in U1, Coffee is 31 degrees U2, Coffee is 32 degrees, and so forth. Or more relevant to my point, let's say an object can move X to Y or X to Z, etc. None of these can be put together into one meta present

I'll leave my comment about potency out for now

Why can they not?