The Contradiction of Time
The Contradiction of Time
1. There is time.
2. Time is continuous.
3. As continuous time is not subject to changing its nature, time is always time.
4. Because time is always time there is a thing which does not change and this is time.
5. Because time does not change there is a thing which does not change.
6. This thing which does not change is intemporal.
7. There is no time for time.
2. Time is continuous.
3. As continuous time is not subject to changing its nature, time is always time.
4. Because time is always time there is a thing which does not change and this is time.
5. Because time does not change there is a thing which does not change.
6. This thing which does not change is intemporal.
7. There is no time for time.
- Angelo Cannata
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
- Location: Cambridge UK
- Contact:
Re: The Contradiction of Time
Where is the contradiction?
Re: The Contradiction of Time
Here is a prime example of how the human being can twist and distort what is ACTUALLY True into such a way that what is TRULY False may APPEAR to “fit in" with what one ALREADY BELIEVED was true.
Re: The Contradiction of Time
Time is Timeless; P=-P
Re: The Contradiction of Time
This is a distortion to another point of view if all is relative (as all is relative according to you).
- Angelo Cannata
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
- Location: Cambridge UK
- Contact:
Re: The Contradiction of Time
I don't think there's contradiction, because when you say "There is no time for time", actually you are defining two kinds of time, or two levels of time, one working like a container, the other one working like a content. Then you find a contradiction because you call both of them with the same word "time", as if they were the same identical thing. But in no. 7 you are not treating them as the same identical thing.
Re: The Contradiction of Time
It really depends on how you view/interpret "="Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 8:17 am I don't think there's contradiction, because when you say "There is no time for time", actually you are defining two kinds of time, or two levels of time, one working like a container, the other one working like a content. Then you find a contradiction because you call both of them with the same word "time", as if they were the same identical thing. But in no. 7 you are not treating them as the same identical thing.
If you view it as the continuous transformation of P into its negation (f :: P --> -P) ; or the continuous transformation of -P into P ( g :: -P --> P); then under a particular kind of axiom in a particular kind of Mathematics... P = not-P and not-P = P.
Trivially demonstrable in this model/system (implemented in Python)
Code: Select all
In [1]: class P:
...: def __eq__(self, other):
...: return True
...:
In [2]: p = P()
In [3]: p == (not p)
Out[3]: True
In [4]: (not p) == p
Out[4]: True
Contradiction is the process of propositional negation.
Re: The Contradiction of Time
Re: The Contradiction of Time
But I did not say "There is no time for time". I said:Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 8:17 amI don't think there's contradiction, because when you say "There is no time for time", actually you are defining two kinds of time, or two levels of time, one working like a container, the other one working like a content. Then you find a contradiction because you call both of them with the same word "time", as if they were the same identical thing. But in no. 7 you are not treating them as the same identical thing.
Time is Timeless.
"Is" necessitates equivocation.
Re: The Contradiction of Time
Does it matter? If all is relative then your viewpoint is false under other contexts (ie other perceptions, such as those who claim absolute truth, etc.).
Re: The Contradiction of Time
But my view is what ALL can agree with, and what ALL can agree with could be only what IS True, Right, and Correct. So, NO distortion NOR false conceptions anywhere here.
Re: The Contradiction of Time
- Angelo Cannata
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
- Location: Cambridge UK
- Contact:
Re: The Contradiction of Time
I would say that contradiction is already in your point n.1;
“Is” implies staticity, while time implies movement, change, becoming.
It is like the contradiction shown by Heraclitus: you cannot step two times in the same river: this has the consequence that giving a river a name is actually a contradiction, from Heraclitus’ point of view; similarly, you cannot say that “a river is”.
It happens similarly in saying “Time is”, or “There is time”.
“Is” implies staticity, while time implies movement, change, becoming.
It is like the contradiction shown by Heraclitus: you cannot step two times in the same river: this has the consequence that giving a river a name is actually a contradiction, from Heraclitus’ point of view; similarly, you cannot say that “a river is”.
It happens similarly in saying “Time is”, or “There is time”.
Re: The Contradiction of Time
The continuity of change is "staticity". The river is a continuum of change.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:54 pm I would say that contradiction is already in your point n.1;
“Is” implies staticity, while time implies movement, change, becoming.
It is like the contradiction shown by Heraclitus: you cannot step two times in the same river: this has the consequence that giving a river a name is actually a contradiction, from Heraclitus’ point of view; similarly, you cannot say that “a river is”.
It happens similarly in saying “Time is”, or “There is time”.
- Angelo Cannata
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
- Location: Cambridge UK
- Contact:
Re: The Contradiction of Time
You have been able to say this because language makes possible and even inevitable these tricks, like giving a name (which is staticity) to something changing. Language makes even possible to say things such as “cold fire” or “flying horse”.
The word “change” is itself a contradiction, because, as a word, it is static, but its meaning refers to something that is not static.
So, the fact the we invented the word “change” doesn’t mean that it can be treated in reasoning as something that we are able to manage as a static concept.
Being able to say or to think something doesn’t imply anything about how things are, how things work, if they have contradictions or not.