Space & Time are Not Mind-Independent

[Skepdick]

To say that something is mind-independent is to say that it cannot exist if minds do not exist. The fact that clocks were created by human minds does not mean they cannot exist without minds.

Remove all minds in the present day and you'll still have clocks existing out there.

The ontological religion is strong with this zealot.

[Magnus Anderson]

Says the solipsistic, egocentric, zealot.

[Skepdick]

Says the solipsistic, egocentric, zealot.

Projecting solipsism onto me is just another way in which you are wrong.

[Flannel Jesus]

To say that something is mind-independent is to say ...

I think you meant dependent, not independent.

[Magnus Anderson]

To say that something is mind-independent is to say ...

I think you meant dependent, not independent.

Yes. Thanks for another correction.

[Atla]

Yeah VA's reply was not even wrong in so many ways that I didn't even reply. Let's see how it would go though heh:

Philosophical realism claims that all things are mind-independent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

All things? The first part of the first sentence in your link already completely disagrees.

Philosophical realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (like numbers, morality, or the physical world) has mind-independent existence

---

Clocks are invented by humans with their mind.
As such, clocks cannot be mind-independent.
If there were no humans in the first place, there would be no clocks.

In this case, we can say clocks are human mind-dependent.

Most excellent, I wrote a comment elsewhere where I argued that you tend to conflate 3-4 different meanings of "mind-dependence". But here you seem to have thrown one more into the mix. Mind-dependent as in "invented by human minds".

Human minds invented clocks, but that has nothing to do with clocks being "things-in-themselves" in the external world (as in the dual-object noumenon).

And there's zero reason to think that human minds inventing or not inventing clocks has any bearing on the natural world behaving according to Einsteinian relativity. Even if humans had never evolved, there's no reason to think that this universe wouldn't behave according to Einsteinian relativity.

We have all the reason to think that while psychological, absolute, "Kantian" space and time are indeed mental faculties, they are useful representations of the mind-independent Einsteinian relativity. At low velocities they behave almost identically from our perspective, so evolution cut corners and equipped us with thinking in terms of absolute space and time.

(Now QM has shown that even Einsteinian spacetime may only be softly emergent, plus it's also possible that spacetime is inherently circular, something that both Western and Eastern philosophy may have overlooked. But this doesn't make spacetime any less real.)

[Impenitent]

human minds invented clocks...

a lone tree in a field casts a shadow that moves in accordance with the position of the Earth and sun...

the invention of time is a tricky thing...

-Imp

[popeye1945]

Clocks are invented by humans with their mind.
As such, clocks cannot be mind-independent.
If there were no humans in the first place, there would be no clocks.

In this case, we can say clocks are human mind-dependent.

To say that something is mind-independent is to say that it cannot exist if minds do not exist. The fact that clocks were created by human minds does not mean they cannot exist without minds.

Remove all minds in the present day and you'll still have clocks existing out there.

The only way apparent reality is known or can be known is on a subjective level, it is quite impossible to know if anything could exist outside our subjectivity. The definition of ultimate reality is, a place of no things, in other words, it is all energy. Apparent reality is entirely dependent upon subjective consciousness. Just as there is no sound or color in the real world, so there are no objects. Apparent reality is the effect of energies upon one's biology and our knowledge is thus about the effects rather than the source, which we assume to be the energies around us. In the absence of a conscious subject the world is utterly meaningless, in other words, nothing in our outer world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject, for consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. Subject and object stand or fall together, take one away, and the other ceases to be.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Clocks are invented by humans with their mind.
As such, clocks cannot be mind-independent.
If there were no humans in the first place, there would be no clocks.

In this case, we can say clocks are human mind-dependent.

To say that something is mind-independent is to say that it cannot exist if minds do not exist. The fact that clocks were created by human minds does not mean they cannot exist without minds.

Remove all minds in the present day and you'll still have clocks existing out there.

Note, you are merely inferring and projecting with your mind, as such it is merely a thought [an idea].
"Remove all minds in the present day and you'll still have clocks existing out there."
This is merely a thought [an idea] in your existing mind, not something real as a matter of fact.

I stated,
If there were no humans in the first place, there would be no clocks.
If there are no humans, then, there are no humans to enable the emergence and realization of human-based reality [clock or whatever].

Note my principle;
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows, whatever emerges and is realized cannot be mind-independent.

Note the above is related to Kant's Copernican Revolution.
Kant asserted the default of assuming things pre-existed [mind-independent] before there were humans [philosophical realism] had failed miserably prior to his time, thus his top-down approach of starting what is real, i.e. real verifiable and justifiable empirical experiences and dig down to get to the truths as far as the empirical can support.

The worst of the idea of mind-independent provide room for theists to insists their mind-independent God, soul, and freewill exists as real; this lead to all sorts of illusions and therefrom evil acts as commanded by a mind independent God and soul which survive physical death.

My principle is most realistic because it is grounded on real experiences and leaves no room for the possibility a mind-independent god or soul to be real.

[Magnus Anderson]

"Remove all minds in the present day and you'll still have clocks existing out there."
This is merely a thought [an idea] in your existing mind, not something real as a matter of fact.

Yes, it is indeed a thought. Noone disputes that. Noone thinks it's an actual clock.

But that does not mean it's a false belief.

I stated,
If there were no humans in the first place, there would be no clocks.
If there are no humans, then, there are no humans to enable the emergence and realization of human-based reality [clock or whatever].

You repeat yourself a lot. I think you should spend a bit more time trying to say something new, something others haven't heard before.

Noone disputes that clocks were invented by humans. What's being disputed is that removing minds would also remove clocks. This is what you have to prove -- that if all minds ceased to exist that clocks would cease to exist too. That's what mind-dependence entails. I can assure you that you will have a lot of trouble doing so.

[Atla]

The worst of the idea of mind-independent provide room for theists to insists their mind-independent God, soul, and freewill exists as real; this lead to all sorts of illusions and therefrom evil acts as commanded by a mind independent God and soul which survive physical death.

My principle is most realistic because it is grounded on real experiences and leaves no room for the possibility a mind-independent god or soul to be real.

Which could massively backfire, and increase the number of theists worldwide, since most of them already suspected that they are uniquely linked to God within their own minds. Getting rid of those pesky realists who would force them to think a bit more critically, could be a blessing for them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Remove all minds in the present day and you'll still have clocks existing out there."
This is merely a thought [an idea] in your existing mind, not something real as a matter of fact.

Yes, it is indeed a thought. Noone disputes that. Noone thinks it's an actual clock.

But that does not mean it's a false belief.

I stated,
If there were no humans in the first place, there would be no clocks.
If there are no humans, then, there are no humans to enable the emergence and realization of human-based reality [clock or whatever].

You repeat yourself a lot. I think you should spend a bit more time trying to say something new, something others haven't heard before.

Noone disputes that clocks were invented by humans. What's being disputed is that removing minds would also remove clocks. This is what you have to prove -- that if all minds ceased to exist that clocks would cease to exist too. That's what mind-dependence entails. I can assure you that you will have a lot of trouble doing so.

I believe repetition is critical in philosophical especially with very contentious and refined issues.

The onus is on you to prove human-based clocks exist as real when there are no humans.

Belief is merely a thought.
To claim your belief is real and true, you need to prove it.
This is what science is doing.
First scientists has belief, i.e. a hypothesis, then to ensure it is real and scientifically objective, scientists has to prove their hypothesis is conclusive in compliance with the human-based scientific FSK, i.e. the scientific method and all its conditions.

As such we can do away with beliefs that are not proven via a human-based FSK, such as, "there are clocks even if there are no humans."
Such a belief is useless if there are no humans.
What is useful is merely for psychological comfort.

We are entering into the realm of high precision reality, thus we have to be very precise.

How can you prove something is real and objective without humans realizing it then prove it and subsequently know and describe it?

[Magnus Anderson]

I believe repetition is critical in philosophical especially with very contentious and refined issues.

Goebbels would have agreed. I don't.

The onus is on you to prove human-based clocks exist as real when there are no humans.

You made the claim that clocks ( and a number of other things ) are mind-dependent. Did you prove that? No. You presented what you think is a proof. Other critiqued it, and instead od addressing their critiques, you're now trying to shift the burden of proof by demanding that those who critique you prove that you are wrong.

Such a belief is useless if there are no humans.

No belief is useful in the absence of minds ( human or not. ) Noone disputes that. But you're trying to say that that implies that clocks are mind-dependent. You haven't shown how. Where's the logical connection?

[Skepdick]

No belief is useful in the absence of minds ( human or not. ) Noone disputes that. But you're trying to say that the belief implies that clocks are mind-dependent. You haven't shown how. Where's the logical connection?

It's pretty trivial really. All of this confusion stems from the contrast between continuous and discrete conceptions of time.

Clocks measure the distance between discrete events, but time is actually continuous. There are no such things as "events" - there's just one event that has been happening, is happening and will continue to happen.

It's the human mind that chops up the never-ending, ever-changing stream into discrete chunks.

[Magnus Anderson]

There are no such things as "events" - there's just one event that has been happening, is happening and will continue to happen.

It's the human mind that chops up the never-ending, ever-changing stream into discrete chunks.

If there is only one event, then there is only one point in time, and consequently, there is no change. Change is a difference between two points in time, and as such, in order for it to exist, there must be more than one point in time. But you say there is only one, so change, it follows, does not really exist. Yet, you proceed to contradict yourself by claiming that humans "chop.up" ever-changing "stream".

Your concept of continuous time is an oxymoron -- a nonsense.