Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
marigold_23
Posts: 40
Joined: April 22nd, 2021, 10:08 am

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by marigold_23 »

RJG wrote: April 27th, 2021, 7:29 am
Atla wrote:Einstein doesn't defy logic. Absolute, one-directional time is the illogical one, several times over: the future appears out of nothing, the present disappears into nothing. And the whole arrow of time business is an arbitrary, asymmetrical direction of existence. The future is different from the past, with nothing to compensate for the difference.
Whether the arrow of time is forward, backwards, or whatever is irrelevant. Denying the existence of Time (i.e. "change") is logically impossible, as the denial itself relies on its existence.

Anyone, including Einstein, that makes the claim that "claims can't be made" is contradicting themselves. Einstein is part of this 4D block universe. If there is no real change in this universe then Einstein can't do anything. He can't claim change does not exist.
I've enjoyed reading this debate,

I propose you don’t need to profess a belief in chronology or causality to make any statement, despite the appearance...

The minimum requirement of any legitimate “statement of” is “interaction with”...if a statement from a source does not trace to some event or some thing other than the source of the statement, then (and this is kind of funny) it is necessarily not a legitimate statement of anything...is would be determined to be a fluke...something totally random...it is also therefore to be thought of as supernatural and to that extent we must treat it as if it were impossible… our statements are complex… they profess complex chronology, causality, experience, and with all of that they betray an underlying unrest (desire) from the one making the statement, as the statements we are familiar with are made by intelligent minds which, as far as we know, are built in with unrest / desire / reactivity / or what would be called programming in the computer analogy. We do not make these sorts of complex statements without provocation by various, simultaneous memory references, all of which compete for dominance in each of our statements, forming the resultant organized statement as a result of their internal competition which manifests as a synthesis...a dance… a fight which becomes lovemaking, if you will.

And this is quite beautiful to observe, but there is a deeper reality to “statements” than the kind of unique statements made by thinking minds… in this sense, things which are more complex (these thinking statements) are also more limited and bound by more parameters...What if we revealed those specific parameters as unnecessary to the statement itself?

I propose that the statement has a fundamental character which must be considered as separate from chronology/causality… an unthinking / undesiring nature of statements embedded beneath the thinking / desiring

What is a statement, truly?

The “happening” of a statement from an intelligence is technically reducible to the same kind of happening anywhere (in terms of how we describe it).

A statement is by an object or thing, relating to it’s interaction with another object or thing

To an observer, statements may be regarded everywhere… there is no more legitimacy to the statement observed coming from another person that 2 + 2 = 4 than the statement by a dry piece of wood, as it actively bursts into flames when struck by lightning… the first statement is a reference to memory and outside stimulation in the person we observe in the same way that the second statement is a reference by the wood to the nature of it’s molecular constituents and to the lightning which has struck it… they are, at root, the same kind of expression, which we might call a statement.

Therefore, statements are reducible (by tracing them to their source) to “reaction” (implying causality, chronology, etc…) which is reducible by the same method of tracing to “interaction”. We cannot conceive of a “reaction” (invoking one or another of multiple objects or things) without a previous “interaction” (invoking the event of the happening itself, [between what we later would characterize as two or more objects, where one reacts from the other(s)] as being ONE object… one happening (having the dual nature of an event and an the object(s) in the event).

So statements are just interactions, fundamentally. By definition, interaction is spontaneous between the participants, and therefore also non causal or chronological in itself… it is however, not stagnant necessarily… an interaction is considered as an event and is active to the beholder

By this argument I realize certain problems may arise:

For one, we must conclude that, not only are statements with no traceable interaction “illegitimate”... they are also impossible… therefore, any statement made by a person would be traceable to an interaction and also expressive of it to some extent… therefore, all statements must have inherent legitimacy to some extent…even absurd, contradictory statements, as they are considered relative to the one expressing them. Just not the kind of legitimacy we would care about, and the statement in itself may be regarded as illegitimate if it is regarded relative to some particular methodology… Such as if someone were to say 2 + 3 = 4, the statement is illegitimate according to the known methodology, but it still meets the requirements of a pure statement which requires a legitimate non chronological non causal interaction that it can be traced to… It is a statement on the nature of the one making it, not on the nature of mathematical process.

However, it is not inherently the case that a statement against chronology or causality is illegitimate, either according to the interpretations of scientific methodologies or to the nature of statements… one must not be required to express a belief in chronology or causality in any given statement… actually it may be quite the opposite, that we betray a belief in the non causal, unchronological nature of reality, as built by interactions which are spontaneous and outside time or order.

You could claim that your claim was made and given spontaneously… you may infuriate those who hear it, but it may be a legitimate statement.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:Do you agree with 1-46? If not, which is the first of the numbered statements with which you disagree?
Okay, I started down the list. #7-9 come across to me as definite non-truths (that I certainly disagree with).

Scott wrote:[7] Leftness and rightness do not really exist.
[8] Up-ness and down-ness do not really exist.
[9] Vertical-ness and horzional-ness do not really exist.
These certainly exist as 'real' directions. These directions exist at every single reference point within our universe. There is not a single reference point within our universe where these directions do not apply; are not real.

Scott wrote:Those concepts only have meaning in fictional contexts…
Not so. The "fictional" concept is believing that reference points (and directions) exist outside our 'infinite' universe. Since it is logically impossible to have a reference point "outside" an 'infinite' universe there can be no such thing as an "absolute/universal" direction. Such a notion is purely "fictional".
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

RJG wrote: April 27th, 2021, 2:27 pm
Scott wrote:Do you agree with 1-46? If not, which is the first of the numbered statements with which you disagree?
Okay, I started down the list. #7-9 come across to me as definite non-truths (that I certainly disagree with).

Scott wrote:[7] Leftness and rightness do not really exist.
[8] Up-ness and down-ness do not really exist.
[9] Vertical-ness and horzional-ness do not really exist.
These certainly exist as 'real' directions. These directions exist at every single reference point in our universe. There is not a single point in our universe where these directions do not apply; are not real.
Thank you for clarifying. That is very helpful for me. That has helped me better understand the source of our seeming disagreement.

If we do not agree whether rightness and leftness really exist, then I do likewise expect we would not agree about whether time-ness or unconscious presence exist.

I disagree with the claim that rightness/leftness exist "at every single reference point in our universe" for multiple reasons:

1. Per #2 in the numbered list, 0D points do not really exist. In other words, there is no real reference points in the universe, and thus the statement "every single reference point in our universe" refers to something that doesn't exist.

2. It takes more than just a mere reference point to get leftness and rightness. One needs to also posit an entire reference frame that includes not only the 0D reference point (a.k.a. the origin point) but also an orientation for every dimension. In other words, on a standard 2D graph for example (which might be what is used to arbitrarily determine whether a pool ball is on the so-called right side of a pool table or left side of the pool table), one not only needs to conceive of a 1D line (typically the y-axis) that divides the left side from the right side going through the 0D origin point (a.k.a. reference point), but one also needs to conceptually make up a made-up orientation to determine which direction of that y-axis is positively numbered and which side is negatively numbered. In other words, it's not enough to conceptually imagine a made-up arbitrary y-axis through a a made-up arbitrary origin point, but then one also needs to make up an arbitrary orientation. Then, one may have a sufficient enough made-up reference frame with which to conceptually divide the orientation-less reality into left and right. But that division is a fiction.

I maintain that leftness and rightness are not qualities of actual fundamental reality. Reality does not actually have a line (or 2D/3D plane) cutting through it that divides left versus right. Without referencing a made-up fictional reference frame, it is meaningless to ask if Mars is on the right side of the universe or the left side of the universe. The universe has no left or right side, because leftness and rightness are not qualities of actual physical reality itself.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:I disagree with the claim that rightness/leftness exist "at every single reference point in our universe" for multiple reasons:

1. Per #2 in the numbered list, 0D points do not really exist. In other words, there is no real reference points in the universe, and thus the statement "every single reference point in our universe" refers to something that doesn't exist.
Yes, I agree 0D points do not really exist. But I was not meaning "point" in its literal sense, but meaning it as at any place (in spacetime) within the universe.

Scott wrote:2. It takes more than just a mere reference point to get leftness and rightness. One needs to also posit an entire reference frame that includes not only the 0D reference point (a.k.a. the origin point) but also an orientation for every dimension. In other words, on a standard 2D graph for example (which might be what is used to arbitrarily determine whether a pool ball is on the so-called right side of a pool table or left side of the pool table), one not only needs to conceive of a 1D line (typically the y-axis) that divides the left side from the right side going through the 0D origin point (a.k.a. reference point), but one also needs to conceptually make up a made-up orientation to determine which direction of that y-axis is positively numbered and which side is negatively numbered. In other words, it's not enough to conceptually imagine a made-up arbitrary y-axis through a a made-up arbitrary origin point, but then one also needs to make up an arbitrary orientation. Then, one may have a sufficient enough made-up reference frame with which to conceptually divide the orientation-less reality into left and right. But that division is a fiction.
But it is not "fiction". The directions up-down; left-right, etc exist and are related to my position (or to any particular position in this universe), and remain nonetheless; they don't disappear. They exist at every particular placement in this universe. They even follow me around when I go visit any particular placement in this universe. If I turn around then my left then now becomes my right, nonetheless. And if I stand on my head, then I might call what was then up, now down. This does not mean that left, right, up, down somehow disappeared or became "fictional", they are still there and relative to my reference position.

Scott wrote:I maintain that leftness and rightness are not qualities of actual fundamental reality.
Sure they are. Leftness-rightness are qualities (properties) of any (and every!) particular reference placement in this entire universe.

Scott wrote:Reality does not actually have a line (or 2D/3D plane) cutting through it that divides left versus right.
Again, sure it does. I am real. If we use my particular placement in this universe, then the left versus right revolve with me (I'm part of reality). Anything on the side where I wear my watch is on the left side, and anything on the side where my writing hand is on the right side. The left and right don't disappear; they still exist; they are still real and not-fictional.

Scott wrote:Without referencing a made-up fictional reference frame, it is meaningless to ask if Mars is on the right side of the universe or the left side of the universe. The universe has no left or right side, because leftness and rightness are not qualities of actual physical reality itself.
Not so. Is it also meaningless to ask how far away is Mars? The distance and direction of Mars is relative to the reference point. Distance, and direction don't somehow disappear (not-exist), because of the impossibility of having a (universal/absolute) reference point "outside" of this universe. That doesn't make sense.
Last edited by RJG on April 27th, 2021, 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote:I disagree with the claim that rightness/leftness exist "at every single reference point in our universe" for multiple reasons:

1. Per #2 in the numbered list, 0D points do not really exist. In other words, there is no real reference points in the universe, and thus the statement "every single reference point in our universe" refers to something that doesn't exist.
RJG wrote: April 27th, 2021, 4:42 pm Yes, I agree 0D points do not really exist. But I was not meaning "point" in its literal sense, but meaning it as at any place (in spacetime) within the universe.
I don't know what you mean by "place in spacetime". Can you provide a more precise definition for exactly what that means?

I know what a literal point is, but not this other thing you are calling a "place in spacetime".

Scott wrote:2. It takes more than just a mere reference point to get leftness and rightness. One needs to also posit an entire reference frame that includes not only the 0D reference point (a.k.a. the origin point) but also an orientation for every dimension. In other words, on a standard 2D graph for example (which might be what is used to arbitrarily determine whether a pool ball is on the so-called right side of a pool table or left side of the pool table), one not only needs to conceive of a 1D line (typically the y-axis) that divides the left side from the right side going through the 0D origin point (a.k.a. reference point), but one also needs to conceptually make up a made-up orientation to determine which direction of that y-axis is positively numbered and which side is negatively numbered. In other words, it's not enough to conceptually imagine a made-up arbitrary y-axis through a a made-up arbitrary origin point, but then one also needs to make up an arbitrary orientation. Then, one may have a sufficient enough made-up reference frame with which to conceptually divide the orientation-less reality into left and right. But that division is a fiction.
RJG wrote: April 27th, 2021, 4:42 pm But it is not "fiction". The directions up-down; left-right, etc exist and are related to my position (or to any particular position in this universe), and remain nonetheless; they don't disappear.
I don't know what you mean by "my position". Are you referencing your own alleged consciousness (a.k.a. conscious present)?

I don't know what you mean by a "particular position in this universe", especially considering you explicitly deny that you are referring to literal point. If a "particular position" is not by definition a point, then what is the definition of a "particular position"?


Scott wrote:I maintain that leftness and rightness are not qualities of actual fundamental reality.
RJG wrote: April 27th, 2021, 4:42 pm Sure they are. Leftness-rightness are qualities (properties) of any (and every!) particular reference placement in this entire universe.
I don't know what a "reference placement" is.

Scott wrote:Reality does not actually have a line (or 2D/3D plane) cutting through it that divides left versus right.
RJG wrote: April 27th, 2021, 4:42 pmAgain, sure it does. I am real.
What do you mean by "I" exactly? Are you referring to consciousness and/or positing a conscious present(s)?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:I know what a literal point is, but not this other thing you are calling a "place in spacetime".
A "place in spacetime" means a particular location in 4D spacetime.

Scott wrote:I don't know what you mean by "my position". Are you referencing your own alleged consciousness (a.k.a. conscious present)?
"My position" is the particular location in 4D spacetime where I exist. The who or what "I" or "my" is, is irrelevant.

Scott wrote:I don't know what you mean by a "particular position in this universe", especially considering you explicitly deny that you are referring to literal point. If a "particular position" is not by definition a point, then what is the definition of a "particular position"?
"Any particular position" means any particular location in 4D spacetime.

Scott wrote:I don't know what a "reference placement" is.
A "reference placement" means the particular referenced location in 4D spacetime.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

RJG, I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean. If it isn't a 0D point, what is a "particular location in 4D spacetime"?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean. If it isn't a 0D point, what is a "particular location in 4D spacetime"?
I don't know exactly where I am located (...or Mars, Earth or anything for that matter are located) within this universe. But I'm sure I (and Earth and Mars and everything) exist "somewhere"! I can certainly tell you my location is referenced to somewhere on Earth and X distance from Mars. Also I probably take up about 6 sq.feet of 3D space and am capable of moving this 3D object (called "me) around within this universe thanks the 4th dimension called Time.

Furthermore, without "reference points" we wouldn't know where anything was located.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

RJG wrote: April 27th, 2021, 5:45 pm
Scott wrote:I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean. If it isn't a 0D point, what is a "particular location in 4D spacetime"?
I don't know exactly where I am located (...or Mars, Earth or anything for that matter are located) within this universe. But I'm sure I (and Earth and Mars and everything) exist "somewhere"!
I am not asking where you are located, in part because I don't know what that would mean in an objective context of actual physical reality.

Rather, I am asking what you mean in your earlier posts by the words "particular location in 4D spacetime" since you say those words don't mean "a 0D point in 4D spacetime". I know what the latter means, but not the former.

RJG wrote: April 27th, 2021, 5:45 pm Furthermore, without "reference points" we wouldn't know where anything was located.
I don't disagree. More specifically, without made-up 0D reference points, the word distance seems to lose meaning as well, but leftness/rightness are way more abstract, conceptual, and nonphysical than mere distance. One only needs to imagine two 0D points to get meaningful distance, but one needs to make up several more imaginary concepts than just two 0D points to get directional orientation such as left and right.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:I am not asking where you are located, in part because I don't know what that would mean in an objective context of actual physical reality.

Rather, I am asking what you mean in your earlier posts by the words "particular location in 4D spacetime" since you say those words don't mean "a 0D point in 4D spacetime". I know what the latter means, but not the former.
Objects don't exist at a 0D point in spacetime, unless we are talking about maybe where the theoretical center of this object is located. For example, if you were to ask me where my house is located in this universe, then I would say my house is located in a 15,000 cubic feet volumetric space located on Maple Street, on planet Earth. My house does NOT exist at a 0D point in 4D spacetime, it exists in a "particular location" as defined by its volumetric dimensions, relative to a reference object (Earth).

Scott wrote:More specifically, without made-up 0D reference points, the word distance seems to lose meaning as well…
I don't think this is true. We don't need to "make up" 0D points for distance (and direction) to have meaning. We just need another object from which to reference from. We can know my house is located on Maple Street, which is 35 paces to the "left" of the school yard when viewed from the street. We don't need to make up 0D points to understand the location and direction of the house from the schoolyard.

Scott wrote:One only needs to imagine two 0D points to get meaningful distance, but one needs to make up several more imaginary concepts than just two 0D points to get directional orientation such as left and right.
I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't think we need to imagine a bunch of 0D points to understand distance and direction. All we really need are objects that we can reference to each other.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote:I am not asking where you are located, in part because I don't know what that would mean in an objective context of actual physical reality.

Rather, I am asking what you mean in your earlier posts by the words "particular location in 4D spacetime" since you say those words don't mean "a 0D point in 4D spacetime". I know what the latter means, but not the former.
RJG wrote: April 27th, 2021, 7:52 pm Objects don't exist at a 0D point in spacetime, unless we are talking about maybe where the theoretical center of this object is located. For example, if you were to ask me where my house is located in this universe, then I would say my house is located in a 15,000 cubic feet volumetric space located on Maple Street, on planet Earth. My house does NOT exist at a 0D point in 4D spacetime, it exists in a "particular location" as defined by its volumetric dimensions, relative to a reference object (Earth).
Hi, RJG,

I hope you don't mind a few questions:

1. What do you mean by "objects" in this context exactly? Are you talking about something that exists as part of an oversimplified VR-world hallucinated by a human brain (e.g. the sense in which a table is a simple solid object of a certain length that can be touched by human fingers, rather than an illusion of abstraction representing the way electromagnetic waves in some mostly empty electron clouds magnetically repel the those in the finger preventing the clouds from touching let alone overlapping)? Or are you talking about something that allegedly exists in terms of actual fundamental physics (e.g. a photon)? Or something else? Would defining objective leftness and rightness in terms of "objects" commit the begging the question fallacy?

2. In a context in which leftness and rightness have not been assumed (since that would presumably be a begging the question fallacy), what defines object-hood?

3. You mention that your house is measured by cubic feet, but if spacetime is 4D, wouldn't it have to be tesseractic feet?

4. Would 'measuring' (whatever that means in this context) a 3D house in a 3D universe in cubic feet first involve defining a 2D border for the 3D volume? That would presumably be in the same way that measuring a 1D line first involves defining the two 0D points that will be the terms/borders of the 1D line. You don't have a 1D line to measure until you two 2D points, and you don't have a 3D volume to measure until you have a 2D border; right?

5. I am still not exactly sure what you mean by "particular location". Can you provide a definition?

6. Are you asserting that objective leftness and rightness exist objectively, or are you asserting that some kind of subjectivity (i.e. consciousness) actually exists which is the source of alleged leftness and rightness?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

Scott wrote:Indeed, if we cannot agree on #7 and more generally speaking on what leftness and rightness mean, let alone what senses the concepts of left and right refer to objectively real things, then the rest of the would-be argument goes totally off the rails. In other words, if we don't agree on leftness and rightness, certainly we won't agree about timeness and spaceness.
Yes, if we can't agree what "left" and "right" mean it's doubtful whether we could have any meaningful conversation about anything relating to the positions of objects, since those are simple terms referring to the relative positions and orientations of real objects.
Regarding your reasoning for the alleged falsehood of #7, you mention that "relative spatial position", but I'm not sure I disagree with what you are saying about "relative spatial position" being realer than Santa Claus.
Good!
Instead, my point is that rightness and leftness themselves are relative to fictional constructs, such as an imaginary y-axis on a pool table.
I disagree that they're relative to fictional constructs. A real object's real position and orientation is meaningful when specified relative to other real objects, relative to a reference frame which is stationary with respect to real objects.
Assuming one is not positing consciousness (presumably some kind of metaphysical subjectivity) or what could be called "conscious presence" as some kind of reference-frame-like thing...
No. A reference frame is not a consciousness or a "conscious presence". Think of it as simply a system of real objects and real clocks.
Do you agree that it is meaningless to ask if Mars is on the right side or the left side of the universe; that is, without specifying or conceiving of some kind of fictional reference frame?
No, I don't agree with that because I don't agree with the part after "that is...".

Since the universe isn't an object, but is a collective term for the entire history of every thing (at least it is to me), it would make no sense to ask if Mars is on the left or right side of it. It would be like asking "Is Mars permanently to the left of everything, including itself?". (I know Mars is red. But it's not that red). But it would be perfectly sensible to ask if real object A is to the left or right of real object B with respect to the real position and orientation of real object C. For example, this question makes sense to me:

"With respect to this real part of this real parking lot/carpark, is that real green Nissan to the left or right of that real blue Toyota?"
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:1. What do you mean by "objects" in this context exactly? Are you talking about something that exists as part of an oversimplified VR-world hallucinated by a human brain (e.g. the sense in which a table is a simple solid object of a certain length that can be touched by human fingers, rather than an illusion of abstraction representing the way electromagnetic waves in some mostly empty electron clouds magnetically repel the those in the finger preventing the clouds from touching let alone overlapping)?
Objects are those "things" that we sense in reality. And yes, I consider a table a "solid" 3D object (even though it may not be "solid" in the real sense). These objects that we sense may be real or they may not be real (e.g. hallucinated, etc), but nonetheless they are objects (the "stuff" that we sense).

Scott wrote:Would defining objective leftness and rightness in terms of "objects" commit the begging the question fallacy?
Nonsense, that would be silly and dishonest to do so. Just because these two words ("object" and "objective") look similar, does not mean they have similar meanings as they are being used. To falsely equivocate the two, in an attempt to fabricate a "begging-the-question" fallacy is being disingenuous (downright dishonest; intentional game playing). If this is your game, count me out.

Scott wrote:Are you asserting that objective leftness and rightness exist objectively…
Yes. Direction, distance, time, etc are real (objective) measurements that require reference points/objects. Without reference points/objects, there can be no real (objective) direction, distance, time, etc.
Last edited by RJG on April 28th, 2021, 6:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by Atla »

Steve3007 wrote: April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am
Instead, my point is that rightness and leftness themselves are relative to fictional constructs, such as an imaginary y-axis on a pool table.
I disagree that they're relative to fictional constructs. A real object's real position and orientation is meaningful when specified relative to other real objects, relative to a reference frame which is stationary with respect to real objects.
Where do you find such a stationary reference frame, when we can't put the universe into a "container" of absolute space and time, for measurement (because there's no absolute space and time)?
True philosophy points to the Moon
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

Atla wrote:Where do you find such a stationary reference frame, when we can't put the universe into a "container" of absolute space and time, for measurement (because there's no absolute space and time)?
I said "a reference frame which is stationary with respect to real objects". An object which is stationary with respect to another object is sometimes said to be "stationary WRT the reference frame of that object" or "stationary in the reference frame of that object" or similar.

For some reason you seem to think I'm referring to some kind of "absolute stationary" concept.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021