Is morality objective or subjective?

[Will Bouwman]

So there once was a point where there wasn't time and then there was.

How do you know?

Because the question "How old is the universe?" has an answer.

I'm sure you are well familiar with the colloquial notion of "age". It denotes the time since the beginning of something.

You are confusing 'time' with 'the time'. The time is roughly 13.8 billion years after the big bang, according to some estimates, based on the current orbit of a planet around its star that has only existed for half that 'time'. Time is change, in my view; things happen, we count them and that's it. By "the universe" you mean the visible universe which is what we assign "age" to; before that, we have no way of knowing whether anything was changing, and no way therefore of knowing if there was any time. If you can't understand that, it's probably pointless talking to you.

[Skepdick]

You are confusing 'time' with 'the time'.

No, I am not.

How old are you, Will? Let your age be X.
What were you doing 2X years ago?

The time is roughly 13.8 billion years after the big bang

So you aren't X years old? The time is X years after you were born?

Gotcha.

Time is change

Then what's a Hertz? Change per second? Weird...

in my view; things happen, we count them and that's it.

In your view you don't seem to have a clue what it is that you are counting when you count time/change.

By "the universe" you mean the visible universe which is what we assign "age" to; before that, we have no way of knowing whether anything was changing, and no way therefore of knowing if there was any time. If you can't understand that, it's probably pointless talking to you.

The qualifier "visible" is so peculiar. Is there a non-visible universe?

And your use of "before"? Are you saying that the non-visible universe came before the visible universe? Did the non-visible Will come before the visible Will?

Fucking philosophers. Don't even grasp the very first damn law of thought.

Identity.

[Will Bouwman]

You are confusing 'time' with 'the time'.

No, I am not.

Yes you are.

Time is change

Then what's a Hertz? Change per second? Weird...

It might be weird to you, but that's exactly what a Hertz is.

in my view; things happen, we count them and that's it.

In your view you don't seem to have a clue what it is that you are counting when you count time/change.

It doesn't really matter.

By "the universe" you mean the visible universe which is what we assign "age" to; before that, we have no way of knowing whether anything was changing, and no way therefore of knowing if there was any time. If you can't understand that, it's probably pointless talking to you.

The qualifier "visible" is so peculiar. Is there a non-visible universe?

Who knows? That's the point.

And your use of "before"? Are you saying that the non-visible universe came before the visible universe? Did the non-visible Will come before the visible Will?

What logic lead you to that hypothesis?

Fucking philosophers.

Goodness, don't you get upset easily?

[Harbal]

You are confusing 'time' with 'the time'.

No, I am not.

How old are you, Will? Let your age be X.

My age is also X, but I thought Will was younger than me.

[Skepdick]

You are confusing 'time' with 'the time'.

No, I am not.

Yes you are.

No, I am not. I can only explain it to you - I can't understand it for you.

Time is change

Then what's a Hertz? Change per second? Weird...

It might be weird to you, but that's exactly what a Hertz is.

If something changes 10 times per second (e.g it has a frequency of 10 Hz) then it trivially follows that time is NOT change.

I can only explain identity to you - I can't understand identity for you.

It doesn't really matter.

It does If you are wrong.

Who knows? That's the point.

You do! Apparently. There's you talking about "before". This is a temporal notion.

All while you have no fucking clue what time is.

What logic lead you to that hypothesis?

The very same one you are using when you use notions such as "before" and "after".

A temporal one.

Goodness, don't you get upset easily?

Goodness, aren't you impossible to upset? Even when you are clearly wrong.

[Skepdick]

You are confusing 'time' with 'the time'.

No, I am not.

How old are you, Will? Let your age be X.

My age is also X, but I thought Will was younger than me.

How do you even know you aren't the same person?

Is there any kind of problem both being and not being X years old?

[Will Bouwman]

If something changes 10 times per second (e.g it has a frequency of 10 Hz) then it trivially follows that time is NOT change.

Duh! How do you define a second?

[popeye1945]

Philosophically, I believe the view is as follows;
Philosophical realism [PR] claim that things exist by themselves regardless of humans [subjects] i.e. mind-independent.
The ANTI-PRs oppose above PR's claims is not tenable, rather they claim somehow things exist with an inevitable relation to human conditions.
The human conditions would include the biology of humans,
"Biology is the scientific study of life" WIKI
thus to claim "biology is the measure and the meaning of all things"
is too wide.

Things may exist mind-independent, but mind-dependent is the only way we come to know the world of objects, mainly because they alter our standing biology. However, I contend that we do not experience things as they are, only how they alter our biology. This gives us experience and knowledge of how it relates to that biology, thus we give it meanings relative to their effects upon us--- it is hard because we are soft. To claim biology is the measure and the meaning of all things is simply reality. Our apparent reality is a biological readout a melody if you like that the outer world plays upon us as its instrument, it is a melody only the biological subject perceives as its day-to-day reality. All meaning belongs to the conscious subject and never to the world as object, for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless.


To bring in 'biology' is not wrong but is not very philosophical.
The philosopher Protagoras claimed
"man is the measure of all things"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
which is more realistic and covering the whole of the human conditions not "biology"-the scientific study of life.

Biology is the study of life by biology, for all measures and all meanings are biologically dependent. Biology as a subject and the physical world as object are the summation/the totality, of the human condition. Pythagoras whether he realized it or not was touching on the reality that free will is nonsense. Your behaviors encompass your entire experiences to the present going right back to that primordial pond or ocean, the complexity of existence is all-encompassing.

Is the concept "biology" (itself) a part the way we experience the world but not a phenomenon that is really there beyond our experience, meaning it is not an "in itself" phenomenon? In other words, we may say we experience the world through biology, but biology itself perhaps doesn't exist outside of our experience?

Our bodies are objects themselves in the outer world of objects. Our bodies are also the interface through which we come to know the world, a subjective world, a world created through the biological readings of alterations made to it by the energies and/or objects in our outer world. There are no meanings that are not the property of a conscious living organism. Our apparent reality is made up of our biological experiences that provide to us with understanding and meanings. We then project these upon the outer world unconscious that it is our projections. Interesting, " Biology perhaps does not exist outside our experience." I don't disagree, it could be that we are just a type of energy form that recognizes other types of energy forms as objects. Certainly. we do not know in the absence of a conscious subject whether there are things at all. Physics tells us that all is energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things. Apparent reality is a relational emergent quality from the union of subject and object.

[Skepdick]

If something changes 10 times per second (e.g it has a frequency of 10 Hz) then it trivially follows that time is NOT change.

Duh!

Duh?!? You said the exact opposite.

How do you define a second?

You said that time is change.

And since frequency is change per second; then frequency is time per second.

However you define a second - you've tied yourself into a circle.

[Harbal]

No, I am not.

How old are you, Will? Let your age be X.

My age is also X, but I thought Will was younger than me.

How do you even know you aren't the same person?

Because when you quote Will, my notifications don't say you quoted me.

Is there any kind of problem both being and not being X years old?

I've always been X years old, so I don't even know what it's like not to be X years old.

[Will Bouwman]

If something changes 10 times per second (e.g it has a frequency of 10 Hz) then it trivially follows that time is NOT change.

Duh! How do you define a second?

You tell me, genius.

Why should I know how you define a second?

If time is change. And frequency is change per second; then frequency is time per second.

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

However you define it - you've tied yourself into a circle.

Ha!

So idiot-philosophers can quit playing these stupid, semantic, spatio-temporal games.

[Skepdick]

Duh! How do you define a second?

You tell me, genius.

Why should I know how you define a second?

You shouldn't. Because I don't.

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

You can't even explain it to me without tying yourself up in a circle.

However you define it - you've tied yourself into a circle.

Ha!

So idiot-philosophers can quit playing these stupid, semantic, spatio-temporal games.

Then stop.

Do you need me to explain the halting problem to you also?

[Iwannaplato]

I've always been X years old, so I don't even know what it's like not to be X years old.

You seem younger. I would even have been shocked to find out you were W years old.

[Will Bouwman]

Why should I know how you define a second?

You shouldn't. Because I don't.

Then ya don't have to worry about what a Hertz is.

[Skepdick]

Why should I know how you define a second?

You shouldn't. Because I don't.

Then ya don't have to worry about what a Hertz is.

I know. But you have to.

Because it's circular.