Re: Time does not exist.
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:01 pm
What do you take to support that claim? (Evidentially or logically)Hobbes' Choice wrote:The objective is not evident. We have only access to the subject.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
What do you take to support that claim? (Evidentially or logically)Hobbes' Choice wrote:The objective is not evident. We have only access to the subject.
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.Belinda wrote:Hobbes'Choice wrote:
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.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.
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.
Demonstrably empirically, obviously, definitively.Terrapin Station wrote:What do you take to support that claim? (Evidentially or logically)Hobbes' Choice wrote:The objective is not evident. We have only access to the subject.
How would you demonstrate that empirically?Hobbes' Choice wrote:Demonstrably empirically, obviously, definitively.Terrapin Station wrote:What do you take to support that claim? (Evidentially or logically)Hobbes' Choice wrote:The objective is not evident. We have only access to the subject.
What is the 'that' of the 'that' you speak of, exactly?Terrapin Station wrote:How would you demonstrate that empirically?Hobbes' Choice wrote:Demonstrably empirically, obviously, definitively.Terrapin Station wrote:What do you take to support that claim? (Evidentially or logically)
Dude, follow the conversation.Hobbes' Choice wrote:What is the 'that' of the 'that' you speak of, exactly?Terrapin Station wrote:How would you demonstrate that empirically?Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Demonstrably empirically, obviously, definitively.
It's an ontological conundrum. Clearly the phenomena we experience imply a sequence of events. I could not have written, nor could you read that sentence, without it being so. It doesn't follow that this sequence is dependent on a separate arena/substance. It is entirely coherent, and more parsimonious, to think that just the events obtain. Chuck in 'time', as discrete from events, and you get tangled up in the problem that all dualism faces: how do two completely different substances interact?Terrapin Station wrote:How could there be events if time doesn't exist?
Why would we take time to be separate from events, though? That doesn't imply that time doesn't exist, by the way.uwot wrote:It's an ontological conundrum. Clearly the phenomena we experience imply a sequence of events. I could not have written, nor could you read that sentence, without it being so. It doesn't follow that this sequence is dependent on a separate arena/substance. It is entirely coherent, and more parsimonious, to think that just the events obtain. Chuck in 'time', as discrete from events, and you get tangled up in the problem that all dualism faces: how do two completely different substances interact?Terrapin Station wrote:How could there be events if time doesn't exist?
Time can only exist when an event occurs. If there is not an electron spinning, a photon emitting, then there is NO time.Terrapin Station wrote:How could there be events if time doesn't exist?attofishpi wrote:I agree. Time is simply mans method of 'syncing' events into a measurable value.bahman wrote:Time does not exist.
Personally, I wouldn't, but there are perfectly respectable physicists that take the idea of time as a physical dimension seriously enough to explore the theoretical possibility of 'wormholes' linking different points.Terrapin Station wrote:Why would we take time to be separate from events, though?
Well, I don't think that anyone is denying that there is change. Even subscribers to block universe hypotheses have to concede that their timeline through it proceeds, but, as you say, just as there is no evidence that implies god doesn't exist, nor is there any that implies that time, as a discrete 'substance', or dimension, doesn't.Terrapin Station wrote:That doesn't imply that time doesn't exist, by the way.
I think it's false that becoming implies a telos.This is the same basic fallacy as that the proof of the existence of God from design implies a Designer.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.
I agree with that, actually. But then so how do you go from that view to agreeing that time doesn't exist? You do not believe that events occur?attofishpi wrote:Time can only exist when an event occurs. If there is not an electron spinning, a photon emitting, then there is NO time.Terrapin Station wrote:How could there be events if time doesn't exist?attofishpi wrote:
I agree. Time is simply mans method of 'syncing' events into a measurable value.
I don't have any problem with considering time to be a dimension (and any dimension is going to be physical on my view, since I'm a physicalist). Dimensions in a physics context are simply measurements required to specify something's (relative) position. Time is a dimension in that sense. It's just that that idea doesn't require that time is ontologically separate from events.uwot wrote:Personally, I wouldn't, but there are perfectly respectable physicists that take the idea of time as a physical dimension seriously enough to explore the theoretical possibility of 'wormholes' linking different points.Terrapin Station wrote:Why would we take time to be separate from events, though?
"As I say"?Well, I don't think that anyone is denying that there is change. Even subscribers to block universe hypotheses have to concede that their timeline through it proceeds, but, as you say, just as there is no evidence that implies god doesn't exist, nor is there any that implies that time, as a discrete 'substance', or dimension, doesn't.Terrapin Station wrote:That doesn't imply that time doesn't exist, by the way.
I would say, not in the sense that what we choose to call an event corresponds to any particular state of affairs.Terrapin Station wrote:You do not believe that events occur?
Dude, I am following the conversation. So tell me what I asked, and stop obfuscating.Terrapin Station wrote:Dude, follow the conversation.Hobbes' Choice wrote:What is the 'that' of the 'that' you speak of, exactly?Terrapin Station wrote:How would you demonstrate that empirically?
You said, "The objective is not evident. We have only access to the subject."
I said, "What do you take to support that claim? (Evidentially or logically)" (Or in other words, "What do you take to evidentially or logically support that claim?"--I was looking for the specific thing(s) you take to be a good reason to believe the claim in question.)
You said, "Demonstrably empirically, obviously, definitively."
So I asked, "How would you demonstrate that empirically?"
What is "that"? Well, it's the claim we've been discussing, obviously. Namely this claim: "The objective is not evident. We have only access to the subject."