So the universe 13.7 billion years ago (A) was the same as the universe today (A).
Shame. Way to say - nothing whatsoever.
Nothing is moving, only changing.
I went after you a bit back there because I was a little put off when you suspected I was not sincere about using my cell and then the disparaging tone afterwards. That's why I went on name dropping philosophers. But it is all forgotten.Speakpigeon
orry if I offended you, but what I really meant was that what you say is tosh. I really have nothing against you and I'm sure you're a nice bloke. So, please keep in mind that when I say that what you say is tosh, I really mean that and not something else. So, no good reason to feel offended, really.
As to good philosophy, well, good philosophy is good philosophy because it is good philosophy, not because it's you who've read it in some book or because it's Kant. Also, what you've read may actually be good philosophy, and why not, but what you say is still tosh.
Time is not conceived as events "in duration". We just don't need the word "duration" to talk about time and nobody does. It would be stupid. And who even ever said that? Ah, yes, just you. When philosophers use the expression "time in duration", it is therefore not to define time but to make clear what they are talking about, i.e. time and not just one moment in time. You're welcome.
Your example is to the point. Waiting for the loo is not a formal time measurement, and not and reference to time as a concept. It is an event, and as such it stands outside the concept and its analysis. Analysis comes when we ask, what is time? Then we are in another conceptual and eventful world, that of discussing time, the concept, its basis and justification and critique. It is not Einstein's time, but it could be if we simply raise the issue to encompass the discussion of physics and time. Time, like all concepts, derives its meaning from context. There are those who say that time is the essence of what it is to be a person, but to understand what this is about, one has to step outside of physics, outside of waiting for the loo to be available, and look to how THIS particular discussion is about.Minutes and centuries are not arbitrary notions either. Just wait a century for the loo and you will notice the not at all arbitrary difference between a minute and a century. Our notion of duration is grounded in our subjective experience, and again, that's definitely not something arbitrary because this is indeed all we actually know. You don't seem to understand that. We could say here very a propos that man is the measure of everything. .
The idea I was presenting is that time is existentially reducible to events, and notions about time being some condition of the world outside of the way time works as a concept are not defensible. I think time is, like all concepts, a pragmatic construction the interprets what we encounter in the world. Physics doesn't care, I should note, about this kind of thing, only philosophy does, and here we are, of course, having a philosophy conversation. Now, when I talk about an eternal now, I am trying to undo the way time works in finite, contextualized ways, and look at things at a more basic level: time only comes into play a when we try to organize our affairs, this coming after that, last year's events compared to this year's and so on in all the possible contextual construals, and consider what eternity without these altogether. Now that would be eternal! Not time upon time measured events, but beyond measurement entirely. to do this, one has to liberate experience from time to form such a concept. I will grant you that calling it an eternal now brings the term 'now' into the construction, and this term is no more exempt from finitude as any other time word. But in the attempt to think of timelessness by ignoring time language and contexts, what is one left with if not a "kind of" now that has no boundaries, as one sits like a Buddha ignoring the time signatures in the world that bring up contexts of different kinds. eternal now is just the best that can apply here, for to sit like a Buddha the present seems to expand into a timelessness.And if you say that events do not occur in time and that time is reducible to events, then you're just asserting something you don't know so why should I or anyone believe you? Further, this isn't anything like an original idea, so what you say you believe is likely merely what you are repeating without proper justification. So, what's the justification for believing that events do not occur in time and that time is reducible to events? Well, it could be true, isn't it? Yeah, could be. Could be false, too. Could be. So, not much in terms of justification. It's just you're choice to believe it.
I agree that how we think of time changes as inquire as to what time is about. But to dis serious philosophy is, well, I suppose there is something ad hominem going on. You should not not read them because you think their seriousness is presumptuous, or whatever. Generally, it's just a rationalization: Heidegger is hard to read, therefore not easily accessible, therefore not worth the effort. This reasoning is pretty awful. Were you to actually read Being and Time, your thoughts on this would change completely.Personally, I don't believe time exists as we ordinarily think of it. But then again I don't believe that space, or indeed anything physical, including the physical world itself, exist as we ordinarily think of them. So, you can keep you're "serious" philosophy for when you've find something a bit more original to teach me.
You don't care? Well, that is a novel argument. SInce you don't read what they have to say, these great geniuses of philosophy, then where is the basis for any judgment at all? Like most people, you simply assume that such a thing as time is unanalyzable. But assumptions like this simply assume that that there is nothing interpretative going on here. Has it never occurred to you that all we think and say is interpretative, and therefore, complex and analyzable? It is difficult if you never make the effort, and to do this, you have to, well, care. Start with Kant,miserably difficult if you are just beginning. But so what? Everything is like this.As to using time words as if they are referring to actual things, there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe time exists, maybe it doesn't exist. When you can prove it doesn't, come back to teach us.
I'm myself not even interested in whether time really exists or not. Who cares,really? Doesn't make much difference either way, isn't it?
Instead, I was discussing the logic of our usual notion of time or of the infinite and the logic of the notion of time doesn't rely at all on whether time is a real thing or just a figment of our imagination. So, if you have something to say about the logic of our ordinary concept of time, you're welcome.
Rather than claim vacuously that Kant was a great philosopher, you would need to demonstrate whatever you've learnt from reading him. For example by articulating something like a cogent argument. For now, your score is zero on this front. Try again?odysseus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:28 pmBut assumptions like this simply assume that that there is nothing interpretative going on here. Has it never occurred to you that all we think and say is interpretative, and therefore, complex and analyzable? It is difficult if you never make the effort, and to do this, you have to, well, care. Start with Kant,miserably difficult if you are just beginning. But so what? Everything is like this.
I read your post. It possesses the assumption that ideas of empirical science, like micro neurology, can unlock apriority, that is, the capacity to understand logical and intuitive necessity. You seem to think that the key to time lies in some reductionism to neurological functions, or, at least this what you lean. It is not at all clear why time would be redundant (certainly it would not be pragmatically redundant, as if we no longer needed to use this wrod because there is something better!) if this were the case: such reductionism never precludes the function itself given that the formulation of the new empirical idea, the reductionism of time to micro functions of the brain, is executed IN time. The name philosophers have for this is hermeneutical circularity, which observes that one cannot give a genuine critique of X if said critique assumes X, and this is what you do when you talk about time being what the brain does, taking time to do it. The best that can be done with hermeneutics is study phenomenology. Here, scientific presuppositions are put on hold in order to examine the structure of thought in the world itself. It starts with Kant, then moves into Husserl,then Heidegger and others. Of course, since analysis is similarly bound to the delimitation of hermeneutics, there will be no absolute validity achieved, but at least the direction of inquiry ia right: it is on language and the structure of thought and experience. This is a philosopher's world. empirical science cannot go here, and the scientist who says, eureka, I've found organic locus of time in the brain, has a lot of explaining to do, for which he is ilequipt.Speakpigeon
Rather than claim vacuously that Kant was a great philosopher, you would need to demonstrate whatever you've learnt from reading him. For example by articulating something like a cogent argument. For now, your score is zero on this front. Try again?
Easy, here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=26401
You've read my post but you don't show you've understood any of it.
So you consider a quotation as a valid justification for one's assertions?
You are the true illiterate moron...Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:31 amSo you consider a quotation as a valid justification for one's assertions? "Speakpigeon is an a fool" -- Logik, 2nd April 2019, 6:30AM. According to myself I agree with myself. But I quoted myself so it's justified.
a.The act of justifying
b. The condition or fact of being justified.
I provide rigorous proof where the claim is a logical / mathematical oneLogic wrote:
Please justify your justification
For something that does not experience time there would be absolutely no differenceLogic wrote:
So the universe I3 . 7 billion years ago ( A ) was the same as the universe today ( A )
That's quite the Cartesian mental gymnastics you have to do to utter the above sentence
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests