Well, maybe we are the ones living in reverse.
And, it wouldn't make any difference.
Time is a sequential dimension e.g. spoken language is sequential. Spatial dimensions are nonsequential e.g. a map is nonsequential.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:02 pmBut 'sequence' is just a linear set of things, as a line of points. "Change" may then be thought of as whatever one given point is with respect to another, like if we say started at point 0 on a number line, any other point NOT-"point 0" is a change of position. So time can be understood as just another dimension, like the relative comparison between two static pictures.
But what does "after" mean without defining some "order in time"? You'd be forced to beg how "time" means "what comes after in something in time, without being circular.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:50 pmThere's nonetheless a difficulty with this view. It doesn't chime with our subjective experience of time, namely that we experience one moment after another rather than the whole block of our life. Haven't found any solution to that.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:40 pm If your reference to "blocks" is what is referred to as static, this is how Einstein pictured it and I agree with. Time acts as just another static dimension where each moment is frame of 3-dimensional space, like a movie frame. The movie frames collectively create the illusion of time as a whole strip or "motion picture". It can be further illustrated that for every optional perspective, we have different possible frame sets for each single image, making up an infinite set of times as another kind of dimension. Each picture/frame is like a word in language in which we can use them in an infinite different ways to create different story lines.
I thought you were relating the concept of time to our concept of existence. It thus relates to that thread regardless. If anything has its own state of being, it is a relative, "I", and only exists where it has some distinctive different state of being some "non-I". If this were not true, we return to the concept of 'solipsism' because we could only interpret meaning to existence in contrast to something we are not.No. It was initially a post on another forum.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:40 pmWhat might be debatable is to whether it is discrete or continuous, similar to my point in the thread we are discussing on how we know when we begun existence. [When (or how) do "I" originate: An Ontological Puzzle...] I'm guessing that sparked your thinking on this thread too?
It depends HOW you name it. See you at the bakery at the corner of X and Y, Monday at 8am. is a point in spacetime.
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:36 amIt depends HOW you name it. See you at the bakery at the corner of X and Y, Monday at 8am. is a point in spacetime.
Points don't exist because they are gone in an instant - we lack the precision/specificity. Monday between 7am and 7:05am. That's a "thing". It's why we are bounded rationalists.
All the silliness in philosophy stems from the approximate/precise distinction.
When I speak of existence I strictly speak about my own map e.g my knowledge of reality, not reality itself.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:45 am "Points don't exist" is a claim about reality whereas "we lack the precision " is a claim about how we can know reality.
My "As soon as I name space time coordinates time becomes thingified as does space" is a claim about how we can know reality or, as in so many cases, how we cannot know reality.
That's indeed how we think of them but that doesn't mean that's how they are. Space only makes sense in terms of us moving relative to other things. And I can't reach both the shop and my fridge at the same time. I have to go to the shop first and come back to my fridge to fill it with the stuff I bought. We can only travel along linear and sequential paths, either in time if we stand still, or in spacetime if we move. So, if time is sequential, it makes our movement in space sequential too.
You would need a little more than "now". If there's a previous now, how come there's any connection at all between the previous now and the current one?
Memory recall appearing now.
Events never happen. That's just another memory recall appearing NOW that never happens.
The idea that our thoughts are ours is just another thought in the mind that no thought owns.
It's never the same shop though, albeit the building's spatial coordinates are the same .The shopkeeper too is not the same person albeit his birth certificate, fingerprint, and DNA are the same.we can go back to the same shop again and again, and we usually do
, but we can't go back to our childhood.