Is Time Just an Idea?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:30 am
creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 2:49 am

So, it comes back to who is right?

If we all are describing different concepts of time and space, then either 'matter in motion' (processes) displays different characteristics for every person or every person observes and/or experiences different characteristics with 'matter in motion'. So, which one do you think or believe it is?
No it comes down to the need of your concepts to be based on objective descriptions.
Which they are.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:30 am Vague idealistic ideas SHOULD NOT be part of our definitions.
So, why do you have vague idealistic ideas?
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 5:51 am
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:23 am
You are confused.
What do you believe I am confused about exactly?
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:23 am I am not saying that you are wrong bases on what I "believe".
I am only pointing out that it's pseudo philosophy to ignore facts, like time dilation, in your philosophical attempts to promote a worldview.
Could it also be known as pseudo philosophy to accept something as fact when it may actually not be at all?

Anyway, if what 'time' is not yet even agreed upon, then how could time dilation be a so called fact?

Also, if time dilation is a fact, then what time actually is, and time, itself, dilates could actually be explained. So, what is 'time' exactly, and how does that 'thing' actually dilate?

What a thing actually is, and, if that 'thing' is an actual existing thing, which could even dilate, has to be agreed upon and known first, before 'time' (whatever 'it' is?) could actually even be known to dilate or not in the first place.

An 'interpretation' of what is happening or occurring is not a 'fact'.

A 'fact' is; a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Time, itself, is not even an existing thing on its own, which is known or proven to be true, yet, to some, let alone time dilation, itself. But, obviously some people believe time dilation is an already irrefutable fact.

However, to others, if time could actually dilate or not is not even yet known nor proved to be true.

Therefore, to those who do not believe time dilates yet, time dilation is not yet a fact.
No pseudo philosophy is the practice of ignoring or rejecting facts. Whether those facts are proved to be questionable in the future, that is irrelevant.
Time dilation IS an observable fact.
Anyway, if what 'time' is not yet even agreed upon, then how could time dilation be a so called fact?
What pseudo philosophers suggest for the ontology of a vague concept has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon we quantify in science.
What a thing actually is, and, if that 'thing' is an actual existing thing, which could even dilate, has to be agreed upon and known first, before 'time' (whatever 'it' is?) could actually even be known to dilate or not in the first place.
-And here is when your magical thinking kicks in. Time is not a thing and it doesn't exist in the way physical entities exist. Time was a concept we came up with to quantify the relations and differences in rhythm and pace between different processes and in this process we discovered that those relations change due to externalities like speed and gravity.
That is A FACT...not an interpretation of a fact... externalities change the way process tic.
Time dilation is a known and proven fact.

Time, itself, is not even an existing thing on its own, which is known or proven to be true, yet, to some, let alone time dilation, itself. But, obviously some people believe time dilation is an already irrefutable fact.
Again, magical thinking. Time is a label we put on observable phenomenon. You are introducing an ontological mystery that is irrelevant to actual phenomenon responsible for the concept of time.

"However, to others, if time could actually dilate or not is not even yet known nor proved to be true.''
Sure, our descriptive framework about the observable phenomenon call time does not apply to your mystical and magical concept .

Its all over again the problem of non overlapping magisteria.
Science is describing qualities and properties of observable phenomena while pseudo philosophers and religious people are speculating about an invisible agent with the same characteristics. Science offers descriptive mechanism while magical thinkers promote speculations about an invisible ontology.

"Therefore, to those who do not believe time dilates yet, time dilation is not yet a fact."
-Again, time dilation is not a fact only if by the word "time" you are pointing to a magical phenomenon with an unknown ontology.
In science we don't address the ontology of your "why" epistemically useless question.
We only address what we directly or indirectly observe. Time is how we quantify an observable phenomenon. Time dilation is an observable fact.
By making up mysterious ontologies and rejecting observable facts you are guilty of pseudo philosophizing.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:02 am
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:30 am

No it comes down to the need of your concepts to be based on objective descriptions.
Which they are.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:30 am Vague idealistic ideas SHOULD NOT be part of our definitions.
So, why do you have vague idealistic ideas?
No you are promoting a mystical idea of time, when in science we quantify an observable phenomenon.
Now you are doing what all magical thinkers do when they can not defend their ideologies....tap dance.
I think you are done for now.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:41 am
creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 2:44 am

Why then do we all have different concepts of time and space?

Are the 'processes of matter' different to everyone?
guess it has to do with the phenomenon called magical thinking.
And what is this 'magical thinking' exactly, which you frequently talk about?
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:41 am We tend to treat abstract concepts with a label as "things" or "entities" or substances.
Great example the pseudo philosophy around the phenomenon of consciousness.
Unless you know the absolute truth of things, only then you would know the so called 'pseudo philosophy' around things.

You appear to love to use the term 'pseudo philosophy' as you can distinguish the actual absolute truth from that what is false. Yet, from the words you use, you actually do not seem to have this ability at all.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:41 am The actual scientific definition of the mind property of consciousness is the following:
"Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex ". (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/)
Unfortunately, most of the non naturalistic philosophers and everyday "thinkers" fail to understand that the word just labels a process with specific qualities,instead they speculate about an actual entity, an agent ,a substance or even worse "an energy", magically displaying the same properties with those of the real phenomenon.
And your beliefs are strikingly obvious.

By the way, what has this got to do with time just being an idea?

Also, the actual real, true, right, accurate, and correct definition of 'mind' and 'consciousness' is very different than that one inconsistent, even within scientific terms, definition of the mind property of consciousness.

So, once again, why do you have different concepts of 'things'?

Is the 'process of matter' different for everyone? Or, is the 'process of matter' the same, but everyone just have different concepts of this process?

Are you even able to explain the very reason why everyone has different concepts?

Do you even know why absolutely everything is relative to the observer?

Are you even aware of how the Mind and the brain actually work?

When you do, then you might actually know what the actual truth is about time, and how it works.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am
creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 5:51 am

What do you believe I am confused about exactly?



Could it also be known as pseudo philosophy to accept something as fact when it may actually not be at all?

Anyway, if what 'time' is not yet even agreed upon, then how could time dilation be a so called fact?

Also, if time dilation is a fact, then what time actually is, and time, itself, dilates could actually be explained. So, what is 'time' exactly, and how does that 'thing' actually dilate?

What a thing actually is, and, if that 'thing' is an actual existing thing, which could even dilate, has to be agreed upon and known first, before 'time' (whatever 'it' is?) could actually even be known to dilate or not in the first place.

An 'interpretation' of what is happening or occurring is not a 'fact'.

A 'fact' is; a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Time, itself, is not even an existing thing on its own, which is known or proven to be true, yet, to some, let alone time dilation, itself. But, obviously some people believe time dilation is an already irrefutable fact.

However, to others, if time could actually dilate or not is not even yet known nor proved to be true.

Therefore, to those who do not believe time dilates yet, time dilation is not yet a fact.
No pseudo philosophy is the practice of ignoring or rejecting facts.
And what do you call accepting things as facts, which are not even known nor even proven to be true, yet?

You appear to have a very serious bad habit of accepting things as facts before they are even proven to be true, yet.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am Whether those facts are proved to be questionable in the future, that is irrelevant.
LOL a 'fact' cannot be so called "questionable" in the future. You really do appear to not have an understanding of what a 'fact' actually is.

The view you are divulging here is showing a typical response from a person who puts a hell of a lot of faith in the current scientific knowledge, knowing that it can all to easily be proven false or wrong and be corrected.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am Time dilation IS an observable fact.
If you say so, then it must be true, right, and correct, to you.

If you want to believe time dilation IS an observable fact, and therefore irrefutable, then by all means keep believing.

You are free to believe absolutely is true. So, go right ahead and believe this. It is of absolutely no concern to me at all.

Just like those who said the sun revolves around the earth IS an observable fact, and believed that it IS a fact, they, also, were completely free to believe whatever they wanted to.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am
Anyway, if what 'time' is not yet even agreed upon, then how could time dilation be a so called fact?
What pseudo philosophers suggest for the ontology of a vague concept has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon we quantify in science.
You really appear to love using the "pseudo" word, as though that will help your case somehow.

You not being able to even tell me what 'time' actually means to you, shows a lot about who and what is actually false here. You cannot even give a 'vague concept', let alone any real concept you have and hold onto. What is it that you are trying so hard to hide or disguise here?
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am
What a thing actually is, and, if that 'thing' is an actual existing thing, which could even dilate, has to be agreed upon and known first, before 'time' (whatever 'it' is?) could actually even be known to dilate or not in the first place.
-And here is when your magical thinking kicks in.
And some say your magical thinking has not even stopped.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am Time is not a thing and it doesn't exist in the way physical entities exist. Time was a concept we came up with to quantify the relations and differences in rhythm and pace between different processes and in this process we discovered that those relations change due to externalities like speed and gravity.
So, if you and some others came up with time is a concept, then how does that differ in any way from my definition of time at all?

Also, those processes do not change due to external things.

There is just an assumed difference in those processes, wrongly predicted to happen by the way, from different observers. That is all. What is actually true, right, and correct can be very different from those assumed observations, which can very easily and very simply be proven to be true.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am That is A FACT...not an interpretation of a fact... externalities change the way process tic.
If you say so, then is MUST BE a FACT.

And, facts are, by definition, irrefutable.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am Time dilation is a known and proven fact.
I have already said that this is a so called "fact" to some people. Usually those who accept and believe whatever they are told by, or read from, so called "scientists".

NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am
Time, itself, is not even an existing thing on its own, which is known or proven to be true, yet, to some, let alone time dilation, itself. But, obviously some people believe time dilation is an already irrefutable fact.
Again, magical thinking. Time is a label we put on observable phenomenon. You are introducing an ontological mystery that is irrelevant to actual phenomenon responsible for the concept of time.
You keep using words like 'pseudo', 'magical', and 'phenomenon' to try and make out the other is wrong and does not know what they are talking about. Yet when you are question to provide answers you very rarely do, and I do not recall you answering my questions directly.

You are now providing just about the exact same definition for the word 'time', yet you say I am introducing and ontological mystery.

Have you even been aware of what I have been writing in relation to the what the word 'time' refers to exactly? Or, are you just looking at what I say from your own thinking only, and therefore the reason why you are so confused about what is actually going on here?
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am "However, to others, if time could actually dilate or not is not even yet known nor proved to be true.''
Sure, our descriptive framework about the observable phenomenon call time does not apply to your mystical and magical concept .[/quote]

Once again you are completely and utterly wrong, and could not be any further away from the actual truth of what has been going on here.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am Its all over again the problem of non overlapping magisteria.
Science is describing qualities and properties of observable phenomena while pseudo philosophers and religious people are speculating about an invisible agent with the same characteristics. Science offers descriptive mechanism while magical thinkers promote speculations about an invisible ontology.
I do not recall ever meeting a religious person with as much faith and belief as you have for your chosen religion and leader/s.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am "Therefore, to those who do not believe time dilates yet, time dilation is not yet a fact."
-Again, time dilation is not a fact only if by the word "time" you are pointing to a magical phenomenon with an unknown ontology.
In science we don't address the ontology of your "why" epistemically useless question.
We only address what we directly or indirectly observe.[/quote]

Obviously you have completely missed another point, which I have addressed.

You do not actually even directly observe things. You just say that an observation is predicted to happen, and according to our so called current "facts" and "evidence" the observers are proven to already be true.

See, I could ask you a series of questions, which IF you answered honestly would prove how and why your relativity predictions and so called proven time dilation to be false, wrong, and/or incorrect.

But as of now I am yet to find a person who is open and honest enough to answer a series of questions, honestly.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:07 am Time is how we quantify an observable phenomenon. Time dilation is an observable fact.
By making up mysterious ontologies and rejecting observable facts you are guilty of pseudo philosophizing.
If they are observable so called 'facts', then they would be irrefutable forever more.

How quick human beings are to forget the sun revolves around the earth was as so called "observable facts"?

How many times do people have to be told, what is observed is not always what is factually true, right, and/or correct?

To be able to distinguish what is actual fact, from what is a supposed observable fact, which is obvious not a fact at all to me, then some things are needed first. But, as has been shown here, some people are just not yet prepared for this fact.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:14 am
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:41 am
And what is this 'magical thinking' exactly, which you frequently talk about?
-Assuming ontological entities beyond our observations.
Unless you know the absolute truth of things, only then you would know the so called 'pseudo philosophy' around things.
You keep demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between an irrational or pseudo philosophical claim vs a true or correct claim.
Your claims could be correct, but they are irrational since they deny observable facts.
You appear to love to use the term 'pseudo philosophy' as you can distinguish the actual absolute truth from that what is false. Yet, from the words you use, you actually do not seem to have this ability at all.
-What I appear to love or not is irrelevant. Pseudo philosophy is a term used to demarcate honest inquiry based on facts from unfounded metaphysical speculations. And again those speculations could be by accident correct, so Pseudo philosophy doesn't address truth, it addresses logic and honesty in the method.
And your beliefs are strikingly obvious.
There are knowledge based beliefs and faith based beliefs. As you can see, I am basing mine on the former.

"Also, the actual real, true, right, accurate, and correct definition of 'mind' and 'consciousness' is very different than that one inconsistent, even within scientific terms, definition of the mind property of consciousness. "
The scientific definition is the only one that describes the actual phenomenon and doesn't introduce ontological speculations outside an observable mechanism.

"Is the 'process of matter' different for everyone?
-You will need to make your research on that.
"Or, is the 'process of matter' the same, but everyone just have different concepts of this process?""
-I can answer you if you don't give me your concept or other examples.

-"Are you even able to explain the very reason why everyone has different concepts? "
Sure, its a problem that Wittgenstein and Searle have pointed in their work....language and fallacious reasoning.

"Are you even aware of how the Mind and the brain actually work?"
-I follow the literature of the field really close. (by field I am referring to Cognitive science which is an interdisciplinary effort). What do you want to know.


"When you do, then you might actually know what the actual truth is about time, and how it works."
-you keep reproducing the words "truth, correct and wrong" showing that you don't understand our limits when it comes to make absolute statements about the truth value of our propositions.
That is a text book pseudo philosophical approach!
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:09 am
creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:02 am

Which they are.



So, why do you have vague idealistic ideas?
No you are promoting a mystical idea of time,
You keep saying and insisting this. YET, I ask you what my view or understanding is, yet you have provided nothing so far, instead of just continually using the words "pseudo", "magical thinking", "idealistic ideas", et cetera.

I will ask again, let us see if you actually do know what you are alleging here. What do you think or believe my "mystical idea of time" is exactly, which you allege I am "promoting"?

If am supposedly "promoting" some idea, then you should be able to very simply tell the readers what my idea is.

But from what you have written so far, you appear to not have absolutely any idea what my idea is, which you should by now. Especially from what you have been saying and alleging.

Prove me wrong, tell us what my idea is or ideas are.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:09 am when in science we quantify an observable phenomenon.
Now you are doing what all magical thinkers do when they can not defend their ideologies....tap dance.
I think you are done for now.
You could not be more wrong even if you wanted to be.

Stop assuming and believing things, then you will be able to see what thee actual truth of things here.

You have yet to even say what my ideologies are, so what is "it" that you now allege I cannot defend?

The reason why you defend what you say are facts is because you are holding onto those beliefs with absolutely all you have got.

You are literally the exact same as those who used the 'the sun revolves around the earth is an observable fact' fallacy to defend their own strongly held onto beliefs.

All you can say is 'time dilation is an observable fact' but when questioned and challenged with logical answers, you, like those in the past, are unable to provide direct answers. All you can say is, "it is an observable fact".

How about you stop using words like "pseudo", "magical", "idealistic", et cetera to portray a particular picture, and you instead just answer the open clarifying questions I ask you directly. That way you can prove that you actually do know what you are talking about instead of just trying your hardest to pretend you do?
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

LOL a 'fact' cannot be so called "questionable" in the future. You really do appear to not have an understanding of what a 'fact' actually is.
You do understand that a fact is an evaluation term we humans apply on statements descriptive of things we observe in nature?
I guess not....
Stationary earth used to be a fact, not any more.
Design in nature used to be a fact. not any more.
You need to understand that all concepts are observer relative.
Sure in science we are far more careful than before when we use the label "fact"....but that doesn't prevent you from rejecting the term fact from the relative nature of all dimensions in the universe.
You believe you are free to remove the label from those observations that mesh with your death denying ideology....just by calling them interpretations. Well they are not.
A process ticking differently when elevated some cm from its previous position is not an "interpretations" its an observable fact. You need to accept it or you are just acting irrationally.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:06 am
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:09 am

No you are promoting a mystical idea of time,
You keep saying and insisting this. YET, I ask you what my view or understanding is, yet you have provided nothing so far, instead of just continually using the words "pseudo", "magical thinking", "idealistic ideas", et cetera.

I will ask again, let us see if you actually do know what you are alleging here. What do you think or believe my "mystical idea of time" is exactly, which you allege I am "promoting"?

If am supposedly "promoting" some idea, then you should be able to very simply tell the readers what my idea is.

But from what you have written so far, you appear to not have absolutely any idea what my idea is, which you should by now. Especially from what you have been saying and alleging.

Prove me wrong, tell us what my idea is or ideas are.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:09 am when in science we quantify an observable phenomenon.
Now you are doing what all magical thinkers do when they can not defend their ideologies....tap dance.
I think you are done for now.
You could not be more wrong even if you wanted to be.

Stop assuming and believing things, then you will be able to see what thee actual truth of things here.

You have yet to even say what my ideologies are, so what is "it" that you now allege I cannot defend?

The reason why you defend what you say are facts is because you are holding onto those beliefs with absolutely all you have got.

You are literally the exact same as those who used the 'the sun revolves around the earth is an observable fact' fallacy to defend their own strongly held onto beliefs.

All you can say is 'time dilation is an observable fact' but when questioned and challenged with logical answers, you, like those in the past, are unable to provide direct answers. All you can say is, "it is an observable fact".

How about you stop using words like "pseudo", "magical", "idealistic", et cetera to portray a particular picture, and you instead just answer the open clarifying questions I ask you directly. That way you can prove that you actually do know what you are talking about instead of just trying your hardest to pretend you do?
And this is the problem with mystical declarations. They are ineffable, so people can't really hold them accountable for anything. And this is what you do.
You simple reject the definition presented by everyone in here who is scientifically informed.
you also reject observable facts like time dilation's.
You kept talking about time or space being that which gives the ability to a process to unroll.....in directions and other ineffable concepts....Sure teleology in the 2020's
Again You are trying to answer a "why" question which is useless and irrelevant.
This is a text book pseudo philosophical approach to something else than the actual phenomenon we call time.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 7:14 am
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 3:41 am
And what is this 'magical thinking' exactly, which you frequently talk about?
-Assuming ontological entities beyond our observations.
We do not want to know what you imagine is taking place.

We want to know EXACTLY what these "assumed ontological entities beyond your observations" ARE, which you continually accuse me of having?

See, what the 'obvious truth' IS, all of this "magical thinking" is in your own head only.

If you do not provide any actual thing, then all of this is in your own imagination.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
Unless you know the absolute truth of things, only then you would know the so called 'pseudo philosophy' around things.
You keep demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between an irrational or pseudo philosophical claim vs a true or correct claim.
And you have yet to even discuss the topic of this thread and answer my questions about what really occurs.

But you have not stopped making accusations of me and about me, continually trying to discredit me 'before' I even get a chance to propose anything.

You are so 'stuck' in your own beliefs that if absolutely anyone says anything in contradiction to what you believe is true, right, or correct, then they are irrational, magical, pseudo, or idealistic thinking.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am Your claims could be correct, but they are irrational since they deny observable facts.
Seriously?

This is your "logic" here. The earth revolves around the sun claim could be correct, but it is irrational since it denies "observable facts". Therefore, I am NOT going to listen to a word you say, and will just try to discredit you with whatever words I can use against you, and I will keep deflecting away from your ideas, and be distracting so that you are never able to express your views fully. I believe the current observable facts are true, right, or correct, and so you are not even worth listening, to nor are you even worth being given the time nor the respect to be able to express your self.

What is "irrational" to a person has absolutely no bearing at all on what is actually true, right, and correct.

If a person believes some sort of "observable facts", then of course if what another one says contradicts those beliefs, then they will "appear" "irrational". But, only when is not believe and thus is truly open, then they can see with 100% what is truly irrational and what is not.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
You appear to love to use the term 'pseudo philosophy' as you can distinguish the actual absolute truth from that what is false. Yet, from the words you use, you actually do not seem to have this ability at all.
-What I appear to love or not is irrelevant. Pseudo philosophy is a term used to demarcate honest inquiry based on facts from unfounded metaphysical speculations. And again those speculations could be by accident correct, so Pseudo philosophy doesn't address truth, it addresses logic and honesty in the method.
Use whatever terms you like to use, to describe whatever you want to describe.

But if you cannot or will not just answer questions logically, reasonably, honestly and directly, then this speaks volumes for itself. You do not have to say anything.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
And your beliefs are strikingly obvious.
There are knowledge based beliefs and faith based beliefs. As you can see, I am basing mine on the former.
LOL that is what everyone says in regards to their beliefs. They all believe that there beliefs are based on knowledge. They just do not consider if that so called "knowledge" is actually true, right, and correct to start with.

NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
"Also, the actual real, true, right, accurate, and correct definition of 'mind' and 'consciousness' is very different than that one inconsistent, even within scientific terms, definition of the mind property of consciousness. "
The scientific definition is the only one that describes the actual phenomenon and doesn't introduce ontological speculations outside an observable mechanism.
Once again the religious and/or belief faculty of you is shining bright as can be.

I do not think you could be more biased and one sided even if you tried to be.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
"Is the 'process of matter' different for everyone?
-You will need to make your research on that.
Once again when challenged and question you appear to not even know a single thing about what it is that you have been trying to say.

I point out the contradiction, through a series of clarifying question, which you inability to answer reveals the contradiction strongly.

I have already done the research and know what the true, right and correct answers are already, that is why I know what questions to ask you that will completely stump you.

You not being able to answer my clarifying questions, logically, reasonably, honestly and directly shows that what you say is contradiction and obviously false and wrong.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
"Or, is the 'process of matter' the same, but everyone just have different concepts of this process?""
-I can answer you if you don't give me your concept or other examples.
This answer does not make sense in and of itself. Where you meant to say something else?

You wrote:
Processes of matter create our concepts of time and space.

I then asked:
Why then do we all have different concepts of time and space?
Are the 'processes of matter' different to everyone?


Absolute any concept will do as an example.

You were trying to make out 'processes of matter' is a one and only truly objective thing, which could not get misinterpreted, and so it is 'processes of matter', which our concepts of time and space come from.

But obviously everyone has different concepts, about anything. Therefore, IF 'processes of matter' create our concepts:
Why then do we all have different concepts of time and space? And,
Are the 'processes of matter' different to everyone?

Are you clear now, or do you still need me to give you more of my concept or more examples?
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
"Are you even able to explain the very reason why everyone has different concepts? "
Sure, its a problem that Wittgenstein and Searle have pointed in their work....language and fallacious reasoning.
That is at one level, but what is the reason why people like yourself have and use confusing language and fallacious reasoning?

Are you even able to explain the very why everyone uses confusing language and fallacious reasoning?

The answer by the way is very simple and easy to get to and understand, that is; when you are truly open and honest. The answer is also the very thing, which will prevent confusing language and fallacious reasoning from happening and occurring in the future.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
"Are you even aware of how the Mind and the brain actually work?"
-I follow the literature of the field really close. (by field I am referring to Cognitive science which is an interdisciplinary effort). What do you want to know.
You will not find the answer through already obtained current knowledge from science. That will only lead you further astray.

Also, did you not understand my very simple clarifying question?

Here I will repeat it, see if you can understand it this time;
Are you even aware of how the Mind and the brain actually works?

NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am
"When you do, then you might actually know what the actual truth is about time, and how it works."
-you keep reproducing the words "truth, correct and wrong" showing that you don't understand our limits when it comes to make absolute statements about the truth value of our propositions.
And just maybe, I know far more than what you will even know about just how you are limited, because of and from that limited thinking, looking, seeing, and understanding limited brain you are looking at and seeing this?

But, obviously, if you already knew how the Mind and the brain worked, then you would already know this fact. And, know what the actual truth IS as well.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am That is a text book pseudo philosophical approach!
Who cares?

Not me.

The earth revolves around the sun was also a text book "pseudo philosophical and pseudo scientific approach".

You are stuck so far in your own distorted and wrong beliefs that if you never change, then you will never understand this.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 9:03 am
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am


You keep missing the point made here.
Science offers a descriptive definition based on observable phenomena.
You keep claiming that we ignore the ontology of time. That is your ontological speculation.
For science time is a concept addressing observable processes and their qualities and for you time is something ineffable that you can not explain. This is a great example of new age pseudo philosophy.

If you do have an effable concept about time pls share it with us and I will gladly remove the terms pseudo and new age from my future comments.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station »

creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 2:28 am
Terrapin Station wrote: January 27th, 2020, 9:01 am

And space is "nothing" to you?
No.
So what is space in your ontology?
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 9:03 am
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:04 am



I think I have to explain the Rules of Basic logic and meaning of concepts like right/wrong, true/false and rational/irrational.

Before you accept a claim you need to know which is the default position.
The claim is the earth is stationary. That is our initial impression of the relation of the earth and even Galileo illustrated the problem of movement between to objects without an external reference.
Thus the default position was set by our impressions and the Null Hypothesis which is designed to reserve belief in claims without evidence.
Its states that : The relation between A(earth) and B(revolution) should be rejected UNTIL we are able to falsify this rejection....simple?
So what we did is that we succeeded to falsify this rejection by providing evidence in favor of a revolving earth.
Now the default position of a revolving earth is a fact.
New evidence came along and they talk about a helical movement.
So new evidence change the picture we have about our world and together it changed the current evaluations of our propositions.(evidence change facts).

According to the above "changes" we must understand that absolute knowledge, or truth, or right or wrong is a red herring.Those are OUR evaluations for our statements about the world and they are directly related to our current knowledge. Se we can never be sure whether we know everything about something thus its nonsensical to talk about absolute knowledge thus to say what is absolutely true or false.
We can only point out that a claim is wrong or not true in relation to our current facts and observations.(current knowledge).

According to our current scientific understanding, your claims are beyond our realm. You deny the scientific definition and evidence not because they are questionable observations, but because you hold an ineffable concept under the same label of "time" that has nothing to do with our descriptive model.
So we can neither say that you are wrong or your definition is not true.....we can only say that it is irrational to accept a claim that you can not describe or prove to be the case.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 28th, 2020, 9:28 am
creation wrote: January 28th, 2020, 2:28 am

No.
So what is space in your ontology?
That is an interesting question. I suspect his ontological explanation will be equally ineffable with time's.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am
LOL a 'fact' cannot be so called "questionable" in the future. You really do appear to not have an understanding of what a 'fact' actually is.
You do understand that a fact is an evaluation term we humans apply on statements descriptive of things we observe in nature?
Yes I know some human beings do this. That way they can "justify", to themselves anyway, each time they want change the way they observe things in nature.

To me, however, a 'fact' is a thing that is already known or proven to be true, and an 'interpretation' of what is happening or occurring is not a 'fact'.

To me, a fact cannot change just because a human being or human beings they start observing things different in nature.

Facts are of what is known or proven to be true.

These things do not change just because human beings what to observe things differently in order to keep "justifying" the current "theory" is the correct one.

See, I do not do assumptions, guesses, theories, et cetera. Instead I just look at, see, and understand what is true, right, and correct from the beginning. That way, unlike you, I am not always trying to "justify" my already held beliefs and assumptions on what others have assumed and/or theorized to be true.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am I guess not....
Stationary earth used to be a fact, not any more.
Design in nature used to be a fact. not any more.
If they are not a fact now, then they NEVER were a fact, contrary to popular 'belief'.

The fact is some human beings just believe things are a fact, before the actual facts come to light and are known or proved true.

For example some people believe and say time dilation is a fact, which obviously in the not to distant future will not be any more.

So, saying something is a fact, when the truth IS it may not be a fact at all is a completely idiotic and ridiculous thing to do, from my perspective.

Some might also say that me saying that time dilation will not be a fact any more in the future is an idiotic and ridiculous thing to do. But the fact is that they do not yet know what I already know.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am You need to understand that all concepts are observer relative.
But I do understand this. I have stated this quite a few times already.

I quite often say that absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

Some observers are just far more open or closed than others are.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am Sure in science we are far more careful than before when we use the label "fact"....
Not from my perspective.

Not much has changed at all in this regard.

Obviously there are still some human beings still saying the exact same similar things like; "Your claims are irrational since they deny observable facts". which is more or less what they have been saying for hundreds, if not for thousands, of years, which, by the way and again, were not facts at all.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am but that doesn't prevent you from rejecting the term fact from the relative nature of all dimensions in the universe.
Facts, themselves, do not have a relative nature of all dimensions in the Universe.

Facts are facts. Irrefutable and unchanging.

Facts are what is known or proven to be true. This cannot change, from my perspective.

But if you want to continue on the path of insisting facts can change, then do not be to surprised about how and why human beings keep continuing to "justify" their wrong and distorted thinking, assumptions, and beliefs.
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am You believe you are free to remove the label from those observations that mesh with your death denying ideology....
And you are PROVING that you are completely incapable of reading and understanding what others write and say.

What you are writing here is the exact very thing you do.

You change so called "facts" along the way to fit in with and suit your currently held assumptions and beliefs.

Also, you never did get around to just saying what my supposed "death denying ideology" is exactly.

LOL was the denying of the earth revolving around the sun "ideology" also a "death denying ideology"? And, a "death denying ideology" of the supposed and believed sun revolves around the earth "observable fact" as well?
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am just by calling them interpretations. Well they are not.
If you say and believe so, then okay.

I really do not care. But, feel free to explain how they are not interpretations?
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am A process ticking differently when elevated some cm from its previous position is not an "interpretations" its an observable fact.
LOL who ever said it was an "interpretation" and not an "observable fact"?

You really do not have any clue at all what I have been saying here all along.

This is because you have misjudged me from the very outset, and all along have been assuming and believing I am saying things that I am not.

Now, this is either of two reasons, because of the way I write or because of the way you read.

I will let you choose which one is the right answer here?
NickGaspar wrote: January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am You need to accept it or you are just acting irrationally.

This is the second time you have accused me of something, which you have absolutely no evidence for, yet you arrived at these conclusion, which is obviously absurd and wrong.

Although the reason why you arrived at such obviously wrong conclusions, is already known and can be proven to be true, you continually doing it is revealing who is the one actually acting irrationally.

You do not even yet know what I am writing and saying, let alone what I am actually thinking and meaning, yet I am the one supposedly acting irrationally.

Oh, and by the way, is a process ticking differently when elevated some centimeters from its previous position an indisputable and irrefutable fact and absolute truth, or is the absolute truth, this is just what you have been told or read is true? And, if a process ticking differently when elevated some centimeters from its previous position such a fact that this proves that the predictions of a what is essentially just a theory, or just a guess, of what would happen and occur enough evidence to prove that a part of the theory of relativity has been confirmed and/or verified to you?

See, even if that difference in processes from differing positions was in fact a fact this, to me, does not necessarily prove, confirm, nor verify something else. This is because this part of all of this is just an 'interpretation' as I have been saying all along here.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

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