Time does not exist.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Terrapin Station » Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:06 pm

uwot wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:Forces are processes of matter.
Well, you describe processes as "changing relations of matter". I don't think that tells the whole story. Force only changes with distance, the potential at any point remains the same.
It tells the whole story in terms of what forces are in the most general sense. They're processes--changing relations of matter. In other words, my ontology doesn't exclude forces insofar as they exist.
Terrapin Station wrote:You're referring to the fact there.
So what would be an example of an empirical claim, as in "empirical claims aren't provable period"?
"That point of light is in a particular position relative to the 'fixed stars'" is an empirical claim. The quotation marks indicate that it's a claim. Per correspondence theory, the claim is made true via "matching" a fact--namely, the state of affairs that is that point of light in a particular position relative to the "fixed stars." What is unavailable is a proof of that claim, since it's an empirical claim, and we could be wrong about any given empirical claim. That would could be wrong about any given empirical claim is one of the cornerstones of the sciences. All claims are potentially revisable. With a proof, that wouldn't be the case, since something proved can't be wrong, or it wasn't proved in the first place.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Terrapin Station » Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:09 pm

uwot wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
uwot wrote:The phenomenon is not the ding an sich,
That would be the claim.

Now, what do you believe is a good support of that claim?
I can't see it in the dark.
What?? You can't see what in the dark, and how is that support that noumena are not the same as phenomena, or that phenomena are not accurate with respect to noumena?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Terrapin Station » Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:13 pm

Londoner wrote:Absolutely, I cannot observe 'nerves'. Again, my concept of 'nerves' is something I posit as an explanation for the mechanics of experience. For example, if I put my hands in front of my eyes, the rock we are discussing disappears. I have concluded that the appearance of rocks depends on my being able to see them, and that this involves eyes. By making other investigations, others have elaborated this theory to involve optic nerves, brains etc.
I'm aware that you do this. I'm asking you to support why you do. Why do you posit nerves as an explanation of the mechanics of experience. Why do you posit that there are others who do investigations where they elaborate a theory that involves optic nerves. What is your support for that?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:04 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:It amuses me that representationalists think that we can know anything whatsoever about perceptual appartuses. After all, according to representationalists, we can't literally observe eyes and nerves and brains and so on. We only know mental data per se.
You are good at trying to pigeon hole people, but never really get it right. One day I'm empiricist, and another I'm idealist, now I'm a representationalist.

Luckily for you, god has given your the perfect senses to exhaust the possibilities of perception.
Jesus you're a moron. You can't read. And you really know/understand jackshit about philosophy.
i.e. you have completely lost the argument and the plot.

Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Londoner » Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:34 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:I'm aware that you do this. I'm asking you to support why you do. Why do you posit nerves as an explanation of the mechanics of experience. Why do you posit that there are others who do investigations where they elaborate a theory that involves optic nerves. What is your support for that?
It is in the section of my post that you quote. We think our nerves are involved in experience because when we poke them we usually get an experience, like pain. But when we block the nerve or leave it alone, we no longer get the same experience.

We think optic nerves are involved in seeing because we notice that if we prevent light reaching them (as when we close our eyes) we can no longer see.

But I ask again, what is your theory? How do you think an image of a rock gets into our heads, if it isn't via the optical nerve? To recap, I am saying that all the optical nerve relays are electrical signals, which we then interpret as 'a rock'. But you seem to be arguing that the rock gets into our heads in a more direct fashion, so that no interpretation is needed. How does it happen?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Terrapin Station » Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:46 pm

Londoner wrote:It is in the section of my post that you quote. We think our nerves are involved in experience because when we poke them we usually get an experience, like pain. But when we block the nerve or leave it alone, we no longer get the same experience.
You're skipping something here.

You have to believe that you have nerves in the first place in order to believe that you can poke them and block them.

I'm asking how, given your view, you get to a belief like "I have nerves" in the first place in order to believe that you can poke them and block them.

Basically, you're either not understanding the question I'm asking or you're intentionally avoiding answering it. But what I'm asking here is the heart of the discussion I'm having with you.

I'll get to answering questions you're asking me later. I want to focus on one thing at a time so that we don't just gloss over anything. I want you to understand and answer the question I'm asking first.

Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Londoner » Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:44 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:You're skipping something here.

You have to believe that you have nerves in the first place in order to believe that you can poke them and block them.
And so I do, however I do not things 'nerves' are the same thing as 'an experience of pain'. Nor do I think 'nerves' are just 'the experience of seeing fibrous tissue'. What happens is that I connect these experiences, and more, together and call it 'nerves'. I do it because the association is useful; it helps me predict future experience. But I don't have to; perhaps I am unaware of the physiological connection between the experience of pain and those fibrous tissue. In that case my idea of 'nerves' , i.e. what I 'believe in', would be different. And if I discover more things about nerves, then 'what I believe' in when I refer to 'nerves' will change again.

So you see, 'what we believe' when we refer to 'nerves' is something we have put together. We do so because it is useful . What 'nerves' connotes is not fixed. It is mental construction from experiences, not the raw experiences.
Basically, you're either not understanding the question I'm asking or you're intentionally avoiding answering it. But what I'm asking here is the heart of the discussion I'm having with you.
I think you understand my answers perfectly well. But, let's try an another approach.

Do you believe that Paris exists? If so, what exactly is it that constitutes 'Paris'? Is it the buildings, the river, the sewers, the air, the stones? If Paris exists, then surely some bit of Paris must exist. But then, if just individual bits exist, then what is this 'Paris'? If the world is just given to us directly, it can't give itself in two different ways at once.

Or, on a smaller scale, let's go back to that rock. The rock is red...or is it? We might equally say that the red is not the rock, but the light reflected from the rock. Under a different light the rock appears a different colour. So again, if the rock is just given to us directly, is it red? Or do we say the rock has no colour, that what is given to us directly is something different; red light? But then, the light wouldn't be that colour if it wasn't for the pigmentation of the rock, so we can't leave the rock out of it entirely...

I have no problem with such things, since for me both Paris and the rock are mental constructs. I can aggregate lots of things and call them 'Paris', or single particular ones out. I can interpret 'the colour of the rock' in varying ways. But for you, the claim is that what we sense is simply 'what is'. Except, whenever we look closely, there never is a simple 'what is'.
I'll get to answering questions you're asking me later. I want to focus on one thing at a time so that we don't just gloss over anything. I want you to understand and answer the question I'm asking first.
Socrates asked questions but also put forward arguments.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:48 pm

I love to see a naive realist squirm.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5401
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:03 pm

Londoner wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Change would only cease if relative movement ceased, every particle: electron, neutron, proton, quark, boson; or planet, asteroid, dust, etc. Change is all about relativity; relativity is all about change.
'Change' arises if we divide the universe into parts, as you do here - not only into types of things but into individual examples. Then these things stand in relationship to each other, relationships which (as you say) can change.

However, if we divided the universe in different ways, then so would what we called changes. When we identify a particular thing, we define it, such that when it no longer fits that definition we can say 'it has changed'. But we could have chosen to identify and define that thing differently.

For example, if we freeze water (which we have defined as a liquid) then it changes to ice. But if we had identified the same substance as 'H2O' then no change has taken place, ice remains H20. Neither view is better, more correct, than the other.
Not true as the molecules in water as a liquid move more rapidly than they do as Ice. That is a significant difference. My point, that I have noticed with anything that humans can talk about, is that a statement about something can be false simply because it doesn't contain all the pertinent particulars needed to fully represent the object/subject in question. Such that when you define something it's not enough to say that green thing, as the number of electrons, neutrons, protons, quarks, forces, atomic weight, etc, must actually be mentioned so as to completely be as accurate as possible. Otherwise we really aren't saying much. So as long as there is movement of valance electrons or sub atomic particles there is change, no matter how one sees it. Unless of course you might say something about your Ice/water example that is more clear.


Similarly, one might observe that the parts of an engine may change position relative to each other, but viewed holistically the engine remains the same engine. Again, both are true; which is preferable in any instance depends on us, whether we are repairing the engine or just using it.
I disagree, as the human perspective has nothing to do with the physics of the universe. Once humans wipe themselves out, the universe shall still change like it always has, unless all motion in it completely stops.


And suppose we don't divide the universe at all. Then we would have no 'change', because whatever happens 'the universe' must still remain 'the universe'.
What you're missing is that human perception/perspective has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the physics of the universe.
And don't try and tell me that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time, that's a falsehood. The absolute universal truth is that it's either alive or dead. Human knowledge of something has absolutely nothing to do with it's truth factor.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5401
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:16 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:

You are putting the interpretive horse before the evidential cart here.
You cannot have the luxury to assume that the human devised scheme of the world is a collection of purely objective and natural categories.
It seems to me from the way that attofishpi wrote what he did that he would believe that events are objective. If he doesn't, that's fine. He can clarify that. The aim is just to get attofishpi to respond and to think more about his views in this context.

I certainly believe that events obtain objectively, but then again I also think it's nonsense to say that time doesn't exist.
The objective is not evident. We have only access to the subject. The object is is a construct designed to even out observer bias. Objectivity is that which your language community has agreed upon is the truth devoid of the subject, but it is still far from the thing in itself.
Objectivity is about agreement between observers, though it is characterised as 'reality'.
What humans know only defines what they know, it has no necessary bearing on what universally is the case.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5401
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:23 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Belinda wrote:Hobbes'Choice wrote:
You cannot know a rock except by the idea of it. The distinction to draw is the temporary reality and the transience of the rock. In the same same way I'd not deny the existence of a real rock, the distinction is between the rock and what we are interested about the rock. The rock is moving in a bewildering number of ways*, even before we can detect it. A rock "at rest", unchanging to our perception, is changing and moving in ways we are not aware of. And that is why when we break it or throw it the changes are minimal and only of interest to us as observers, yet the changes and movement of a rock at rest; changeless to our view is in a continual state of chaos. That is why I think it important to insist that what we see as change and movement is a human interested descriptor and not significant to the existence of the rock as it ignores more than we perceive.
True, what we perceive about a rock are the attributes of the rock, and the attributes that we can perceive are limited in number and quality by our senses and brain-minds.We also perceive the the rock is a transient entity or series of events; we know that some specific rock was once semi-fluid lava. I therefore agree with you. And I also agree that the rock is not naturally differentiated from other entities but that the differentiation which we perceive is superimposed upon the rock and its surroundings by our human special interests.I agree also the the rock ignores more than we perceive about it.

All this is however insufficient to include change itself as no more than some other, more abstract, human categorisation such as is some rock, or rocks in general. We do live in relativity and temporality however even God could not exist unless he were able to tell one event from another. For instance an eternal being would know the difference between eternity and temporality. The rock is not only "changing and moving in ways we are not aware of" it's changes and movements are limited to the causal influences of changes and movements of events other than the rock .Nature is a whole and cannot be otherwise than it is.

The wholeness of nature depends upon time and change through time, and this is because nature is in process of becoming.
You agree, yet you draw on and insist upon an anthropocentric conclusion which simply brings you back to the subject, a subject in which we are all chained.
There is no change 'itself', there is not 'becoming'. becoming implies a telos, yet the universe is unfolding unconscious of any aim, and we are motes in the draft, grains of sand worn by time.
No, but you're full of shit. As you cannot speak for the universe. You self aggrandizing fools, attempting to make yourselves appear larger than the universe, really make me laugh!

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:39 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I love to see a naive realist squirm.
But most of all I like to see three empty posts from a twat who I have blocked!!1
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Belinda » Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:50 pm

Hobbes', I keep reminding you that evolution by natural selection is not teleological. All of modern science is conducted without benefit of telos.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:06 pm

Belinda wrote:Hobbes', I keep reminding you that evolution by natural selection is not teleological. All of modern science is conducted without benefit of telos.
I don't need reminding.
You can do that all you like, but you do not seem to understand it.

Your second sentence is total bullshit. Most of science is goal oriented.

You seem confused.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time does not exist.

Post by Terrapin Station » Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:10 pm

Londoner wrote:'nerves' . . . 'an experience of pain' . . . an "experience of seeing fibrous tissue'
Are those things identical to mental-content-only in your view?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests