Cliff Stagoll on the strange case of John McTaggart, who didn’t believe in time.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/20/Killing_Time
Killing Time
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Killing Time
Time is not real, indeed it is intangible.
Time only exists as a man-made construct to measure events, if there is not an event then there is no time.
Interesting that TIME reverses to EMIT. An extremely short, perhaps indivisible point of an event where an electron EMITs a photon.
DOES MASS MATTER
www.androcies.com
Time only exists as a man-made construct to measure events, if there is not an event then there is no time.
Interesting that TIME reverses to EMIT. An extremely short, perhaps indivisible point of an event where an electron EMITs a photon.
DOES MASS MATTER
www.androcies.com
-
Agent Smith
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm
Re: Killing Time
It looks like we're in a bind
On the dotted line he signed
In the boat in the river
An arrow missing from the quiver
On the dotted line he signed
In the boat in the river
An arrow missing from the quiver
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Killing Time
AETHEREAL REFLECTION
Should the stars reflect the anti-matter of time...?
such that now I can see them and feel the caress of a distant warmth,
and shudder from the cold of some colossal nothing.
I embrace the ambience of distant vibrations in the aether,
that allow me to reflect its own existence,
which is all that I am and
as insignificant as I am,
somehow my reflection contributes
some importance,
thus to constitute and command
its own existence...
to it?
whatever it
is?
the anti-universe of something
that is not quite nothing.
www.androcies.com
Should the stars reflect the anti-matter of time...?
such that now I can see them and feel the caress of a distant warmth,
and shudder from the cold of some colossal nothing.
I embrace the ambience of distant vibrations in the aether,
that allow me to reflect its own existence,
which is all that I am and
as insignificant as I am,
somehow my reflection contributes
some importance,
thus to constitute and command
its own existence...
to it?
whatever it
is?
the anti-universe of something
that is not quite nothing.
www.androcies.com
Re: Killing Time
David Hume had already argued against our having any idea of time in his Treatise. E.g. Selby-Bigge page 65; ‘But if you cannot point out any such impression, you may be certain you are mistaken, when you imagine you have any such idea.’ (italics in original) –There is no impression of time, so we have no idea of it.
The main difficulty here may be to comprehend exactly what is being denied. There is no denial that changes occur, and are experienced, and that there is an experienced order in which changes occur. What is being denied is that we have any idea of something else, that underlies experienced changes, makes them possible and may, or even must, be applied willy-nilly to all objects, even when they are not experienced to undergo any change, while other things change. There is no denial that we can experience some change when the hands of the clock are pointing at twelve, and experience some other change, subsequently, when the hands of the clock are at half past twelve. These are experienced changes, and the order they are experienced to happen in. But it is denied that if some object appears totally unaltered as these other changes occur it must, nevertheless, in spite of appearing unaltered, have undergone change corresponding to these other changes, because it must have experienced, or undergone time. Such an unchanged object might change at 12.15pm or at 12.20pm or at any other points of change of the clock, but this does not show that when it isn’t changing it must be undergoing time nevertheless.
If there is no impression of time, and so no idea of it, apart from experienced changes and their order, then we don’t have such an idea to apply to an object that does not appear to undergo any changes, or their order.
Similarly, since we have no idea of time, we have no such idea that the past and the future could exist in. We only have ideas of changes and the order they may exist in, not an idea that holds these existences when they don’t actually exist. So, the future doesn’t exist and the past doesn’t exist and objects ‘in the past’ or ‘in the future’ don’t have the properties of ‘pastness’ or ‘being approached’, although we may well give an estimate of how many changes in a clock will occur before an occurrence occurs, and how many changes have occurred since something has occurred, none of this shows that such occurrences still exist, somehow, and so have properties of past or future.
“Existed in the past” this does not imply that it exists now. “Will, or may, come to exist” this does not imply it exists now. If something doesn’t exist, it can’t have properties. (There are such phrases as ‘exists in the past’ and ‘exists in the future’, but these imply something there seems there is no (normal) experiential evidence for.)
The thought occurs that McTaggart, in denying the reality of time, is surreptitiously supposing there is something it is more significant to deny than it is. Perhaps he thinks that ‘time’ is something that has some sort of overarching role in governing how things appear to exist but this appearance of reality must be wrong since time is impossible, so reality can’t be as it appears. But since we know of no such thing to play that role, the denial that such a thing exists does not show reality must be other than it appears.
The author mentions scientific experiments on people’s experiences of time, but since there is no experience of TIME, this research seems to be being carried on based on a confusion between experienced changes and experiencing time.
There is a further aspect to this matter. An unchanging object may, falsely, have different times distinguished of its existence, and so from the idea of its existence at any of these times it will be logically impossible to derive anything about its existence at any of the other times, on the analytic view of logical truth, since all the other times of the objects existence will be external to whichever idea we are considering, and so cannot be validly derived from it, without going beyond it. But this logical impossibility does not show that these, falsely, supposed states, cannot be connected except by a conceptual connecting of (really) logically distinct states. This illustrates a form by which logically distinguishable, and so logically distinct, states may be connected without being logically deducible from ‘one another’, or by being connected under a concept from which they can be deduced. Instead we can make comparisons to see if what could be distinct existences could instead be continued (unaltered) existences.
The main difficulty here may be to comprehend exactly what is being denied. There is no denial that changes occur, and are experienced, and that there is an experienced order in which changes occur. What is being denied is that we have any idea of something else, that underlies experienced changes, makes them possible and may, or even must, be applied willy-nilly to all objects, even when they are not experienced to undergo any change, while other things change. There is no denial that we can experience some change when the hands of the clock are pointing at twelve, and experience some other change, subsequently, when the hands of the clock are at half past twelve. These are experienced changes, and the order they are experienced to happen in. But it is denied that if some object appears totally unaltered as these other changes occur it must, nevertheless, in spite of appearing unaltered, have undergone change corresponding to these other changes, because it must have experienced, or undergone time. Such an unchanged object might change at 12.15pm or at 12.20pm or at any other points of change of the clock, but this does not show that when it isn’t changing it must be undergoing time nevertheless.
If there is no impression of time, and so no idea of it, apart from experienced changes and their order, then we don’t have such an idea to apply to an object that does not appear to undergo any changes, or their order.
Similarly, since we have no idea of time, we have no such idea that the past and the future could exist in. We only have ideas of changes and the order they may exist in, not an idea that holds these existences when they don’t actually exist. So, the future doesn’t exist and the past doesn’t exist and objects ‘in the past’ or ‘in the future’ don’t have the properties of ‘pastness’ or ‘being approached’, although we may well give an estimate of how many changes in a clock will occur before an occurrence occurs, and how many changes have occurred since something has occurred, none of this shows that such occurrences still exist, somehow, and so have properties of past or future.
“Existed in the past” this does not imply that it exists now. “Will, or may, come to exist” this does not imply it exists now. If something doesn’t exist, it can’t have properties. (There are such phrases as ‘exists in the past’ and ‘exists in the future’, but these imply something there seems there is no (normal) experiential evidence for.)
The thought occurs that McTaggart, in denying the reality of time, is surreptitiously supposing there is something it is more significant to deny than it is. Perhaps he thinks that ‘time’ is something that has some sort of overarching role in governing how things appear to exist but this appearance of reality must be wrong since time is impossible, so reality can’t be as it appears. But since we know of no such thing to play that role, the denial that such a thing exists does not show reality must be other than it appears.
The author mentions scientific experiments on people’s experiences of time, but since there is no experience of TIME, this research seems to be being carried on based on a confusion between experienced changes and experiencing time.
There is a further aspect to this matter. An unchanging object may, falsely, have different times distinguished of its existence, and so from the idea of its existence at any of these times it will be logically impossible to derive anything about its existence at any of the other times, on the analytic view of logical truth, since all the other times of the objects existence will be external to whichever idea we are considering, and so cannot be validly derived from it, without going beyond it. But this logical impossibility does not show that these, falsely, supposed states, cannot be connected except by a conceptual connecting of (really) logically distinct states. This illustrates a form by which logically distinguishable, and so logically distinct, states may be connected without being logically deducible from ‘one another’, or by being connected under a concept from which they can be deduced. Instead we can make comparisons to see if what could be distinct existences could instead be continued (unaltered) existences.
-
Agent Smith
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm
Re: Killing Time
The rivers in Buzong are seasonal. This was one of the biggest issues Buzongians will have to face per the Annual Water Report 5059. It was pointed out, the very next day after the AWR 5059 was published, by Dr. Feen that the AWR 5059 was a textbook case of a Mortelian fallacy which, to those who don't know, is HDWYK case in re clocks. Dr. Feen claims that dams, megadams, will be able to meet all our future water needs as long as the sheep farms on the western slopes of mount Gul are permitted to use natural gas to run their shearing machines.
-
popeye1945
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Killing Time
Time is the reciprocal affects and effects of matter on matter through space.
-
Impenitent
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Killing Time
killing time ... if you are going fast enough, time could be different for those who do move as quickly (the distance involved may inhibit communication) ... but even when moving at the speed of light, time as a local event, is not killed...
would gravity kill time?
when moving at the speed of light, even light itself cannot escape a black hole...
-Imp
would gravity kill time?
when moving at the speed of light, even light itself cannot escape a black hole...
-Imp
-
Agent Smith
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm
Re: Killing Time
We've already done that ... chronos be dead ... the local priest's performing the last rites ... helpful bloke ... must take him some oranges. How do I know? How does Rip Van Winkle know anything for that matter?