Is Time Just an Idea?

[RJG]

Observe"? These observations only provide 'subjective' evidence, not 'objective'.

How do you know something isn't the same as what you know.

If this "knowing" was subjectively derived, then you can't know what you know is objectively true. You can only guess/speculate/assume that it is objectively true (real), that's all.

On the logical possibility of something coming from nothing…

There is NO logical possibility. "Something coming from nothing" is not logically possible.

...there's no "how" to it other than it being a brute fact that it happened.

"Brute fact"??? ...where did you get this "brute fact" from? ...from 'objective' sources, or 'subjective' sources?

[Terrapin Station]

Observe"? These observations only provide 'subjective' evidence, not 'objective'.

How do you know something isn't the same as what you know.

If this "knowing" was subjectively derived, then you can't know what you know is objectively true. You can only guess/speculate/assume that it is objectively true (real), that's all.

What I asked you is if you agree that how you know something is the same as what you know.

The only thing I'd accept as an answer to that is you telling me whether you agree with it or not. It's a very simple question. Just tell me whether you agree. I'd not move on without even being able to settle something so simple as you telling me whether you agree.

[RJG]

What I asked you is if you agree that how you know something is the same as what you know.

I'm not sure I follow. How I know (what I know) can be done in different ways. I can know things 'objectively' (via math/logic), or I can know things 'subjectively' (via the senses), or I can know things 'religiously' (via blind faith/indoctrinations).

We all possess knowledge, but not all knowledge is 'objectively' true.

[Terrapin Station]

What I asked you is if you agree that how you know something is the same as what you know.

I'm not sure I follow. How I know (what I know) can be done in different ways. I can know things 'objectively' (via math/logic), or I can know things 'subjectively' (via the senses), or I can know things 'religiously' (via blind faith/indoctrinations).

We all possess knowledge, but not all knowledge is 'objectively' true.

The answer to how we know something we observe isn't just "subjectively"--that wouldn't describe the process involved, would it? What happens, on your view, when we observe something? How does an observation work?

[Sy Borg]

(But if this is not what you are talking about, then just disregard this).

You said almost nothing above that was related to what I was speaking about, so yes, I'll disregard.

[RJG]

The answer to how we know something we observe isn't just "subjectively"--that wouldn't describe the process involved, would it? What happens, on your view, when we observe something? How does an observation work?

If you are trying to sell me on the notion that we can somehow get (derive) 'objectivity' from 'subjectivity', then I'm not buying it. We can't ever never get (derive) objectivity from subjectivity, no matter how many subjective observations (or subjective evidence) you may present.

More subjectivity can only yield more subjectivity (not objectivity).

More hallucinations can only yield more hallucinations.

[Terrapin Station]

The answer to how we know something we observe isn't just "subjectively"--that wouldn't describe the process involved, would it? What happens, on your view, when we observe something? How does an observation work?

If you are trying to sell me on the notion that we can somehow get (derive) 'objectivity' from 'subjectivity', then I'm not buying it. We can't ever never get (derive) objectivity from subjectivity, no matter how many subjective observations (or subjective evidence) you may present.

More subjectivity can only yield more subjectivity (not objectivity).

More hallucinations can only yield more hallucinations.

I'm trying to get you to understand that "how we know something" isn't simply the adverb "subjectively"--that would be a property of how we know something, perhaps, but not a description of what's going on when we know something. And the reason I'm trying to get you to understand that is simply so we can address the question of whether how you know something is the same as what you know.

[RJG]

I'm trying to get you to understand that "how we know something" isn't simply the adverb "subjectively"--that would be a property of how we know something, perhaps, but not a description of what's going on when we know something. And the reason I'm trying to get you to understand that is simply so we can address the question of whether how you know something is the same as what you know.

...sorry, clear as mud.

The "what we know" is just the 'content' of our knowing. The "how we know", I've already mentioned. Confusing the "what" and "how" as the same thing, seems non-sensical and totally irrelevant to this discussion.

[creation]

Note: Math and Logic are the only 'objective' tools that we possess. Subjective observations can never derive objective truths.

So, what is an 'objective truth'?

Objective truths are a priori truths; they are not "man-made", they are logically/mathematically derived. Refer to Truth Hierarchy:

• Truth Hierarchy:
  
  1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
  2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
  3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
  4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
  5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities

So, is this, so called, "Truth Hierachy" a 1., a 2., a 3., a 4., or a 5 "truth" itself?

Also, will you provide us with an example of each of these 1 through to 5 "truths", and will you just use logic only, and not math, for number 2?

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Okay, but will you provide an example of an "Absolute Truth"?

Are you also aware that what is undeniable/undoubtable to one person may well be very deniable and doubtable to another person?

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Again, are you aware that what is "logical" to one person may well not be logical at all to another person? Examples of this can be seen in what you say is logical, and which I do not see, and say it is not logical.

Subjective (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge.

Yet the ones who propose these, trust they are true (real and certain) knowledge. How can you logically propose that they are not trustworthy, and/or not true, not real, and/or not certain knowledge?

Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful. Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.[/list]

Are you aware that what one person may have experienced could actually be real and certain knowledge or truth, whereas you are proposing here that they can never be certain nor known as truthful?

Just because you say something is not truthful, or cannot be known as truthful, does not mean you are expressing a truth at all here. In fact it may well be just your 'subjective truth' only that you are expressing here, which, by your own "logic" would not be trustworthy anyway, correct?

Or does the 'trustworthiness' of 'subjective truth' only relate to other people and not to you and your subjectivity?

I mean 'dimension' as "a means to"; or "a pathway", and in this case a "spatial direction" as illustrated in my premise here:

• P1. From a geometric perspective:
  • A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
    A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
    A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
    A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.
  P2. The 4th dimension is called "Time".

You say that a 3 dimensional object (of matter) cannot move/change without a 4th dimension, which is called 'time'.

Correct.

I just say that a 3 dimensional object (of matter) cannot move/change without space. But because the 3 dimensional object already exists, then that means that a space already exists also. Therefore, the 3 dimensional object can already move, and in fact would already be moving/changing anyway.

Firstly, you forget that space is constructed of 3D.

I NEVER forgot any such thing.

What made you even consider I did, let alone what made you even assume I did, and let alone then you writing your own assumption down as though it was even a fact?

And without the 3D's of space, you could not contain 3D objects.

I actually stipulated this by the way I wrote what I did write.

For example, imagine a big empty cardboard box that contains 3D space, now put a big 3D rock inside. No problem, right? Now remove the rock, and fold/unfold the box into a flat 2D shape. Now put this same big 3D rock inside. It can't be done, right? 3D rocks can only fit into 3D (and 4D) spaces.

Which is EXACTLY what I said.

Why do you think you could not see this in what I wrote?

Secondly, it is not "space" (by itself) that allows objects to "move".

Well 'space', by itself, is not preventing nor stopping objects to 'move', correct?

From my perspective all that is needed for objects to 'move' is space.

Again, put this 3D rock into the 3D space of the big 3D cardboard box. Does the rock move?

Yes, the rock does move.

The reason I observe the rock moving and you do not is because I look at things from a very different perspective that you do.

Yell at it. Even yelling at it does not make it move. What would make this rock move? Why would it move? Without something(s)-happening-somewhere, this rock ain't movin. Without matter+time+space (something-happening-somewhere), there can be no movement, or change whatsoever. The missing ingredient is TIME, the 4th dimension. Without TIME, MATTER cannot move ("occur" or happen) throughout SPACE.

I have already asked you previous, WHY is 'time' NEEDED for objects to move?

What is 'time' exactly which allows objects to move?

Until you start answering my clarifying questions, then do not expect me to see the so called "logic", which you see, and believe is there.

Now, as I have stated previously, I can back up and support what I say and claim with evidence and proof, and I suggest if you want to say and claim things here, then it is best you have any supporting evidence and/or proof BEFORE you start making claims.

To be able to provide supporting evidence, then one needs to be able to answer ALL clarifying questions regarding their claims.

You can keep making the same claim over and over again, but without anything at all to back up and support that claim, then really you are saying nothing at all.

What is in TIME, or what is TIME made out of, that without TIME, MATTER supposedly cannot move (occur or happen) throughout SPACE?

From what I have observed, and thus now SEE, what makes sense to me now can be proven correct with supporting evidence. But, this is of no real concern to me now. What is of concern to me is you are making claims, which you appear to very strongly believe are true, right, and correct. Your claims differ from what I have observed and now see, so this means my views could be completely and utterly wrong. So, in order for me to be able to observe and see how your claims are true, right, and/or correct, then you NEED to be able to answer my questions, which are about the things you say that do not make sense to me. If you do not provide logical explanations to what I see as being illogical in your conclusions, then how you will ever be able to show me the truth of things here?

To me, the 4th dimension you talk about exists only because of movement, or change.

The first 3 dimensions ONLY provides a means for 3D objects to EXIST. It does not provide a means for them to MOVE/CHANGE.

If 3 dimensional space does ONLY provides a means for objects to EXIST, from your perspective, and 3 dimensional space does not allow objects to move freely about, from your perspective, then so be it. But I find it very illogical that without 3 dimensional space any object could move at all.

But this is just another example of how we see things very differently here.

The 4th dimension is the means to move/change.

Is this just your 'subjective truth', gathered from just your 'subjective observations'?

If, however, you would like to suggest that the above is an 'absolute truth' or even an 'objective truth', then you will have to provide us with the undeniable and undoubtable proof and/or the logical proof that that is true.

To me, the first three dimensions, and the fourth dimension, co-exist together, and always have.

Agreed. All 4 dimensions (+ matter) have never not existed (have/had 'permanent' existence).

I will have to correct myself here. To me, the first three dimensions, and the fourth dimension, co-exist together, and always have, since human beings started conceptualizing these dimensions.

[creation]

To me it does. This is because to me, the Universe is defined as ALL-THERE-IS. So, if what is left after object x disappears is no objects at all, then that is what the Universe consists of now.

It's all there is. All there is is object x. Object x disappears. There no longer is anything for "all there is."

But now ALL-THERE-IS is just 'nothing', or as some people call that 'space'.

What you're proposing is that even when there isn't anything, there's still the universe somehow, even though you're saying the universe is all there is, not something there isn't.

If ALL-THERE-IS is 'nothing', then that is some 'thing'. Whatever way the Universe is, then that is how the Universe is.

If the Universe consists of just one, infinite, 'thing' (object), or just one, infinite, 'no thing' (nothing), then that is how the Universe just is. Either way the Universe is, to me, still defined as ALL-THERE-IS.

This is what the other poster was pointing out, How can something (y) come from nothing?

On the logical possibility of something coming from nothing, there's no "how" to it other than it being a brute fact that it happened.

What is a so called "brute fact" that 'it' happened?

What exactly are you proposing here happened?

Anything more than that wouldn't be something coming from nothing. We'd be talking about another idea instead.

If you say so.

Again, this has nothing to do with the "intuition pump" of logical possibility re change that I'm presenting.

Okay. I have already said this also.

I was just pointing out what I see as being wrong, from my perspective.

[Terrapin Station]

It's all there is. All there is is object x. Object x disappears. There no longer is anything for "all there is."

But now ALL-THERE-IS is just 'nothing', or as some people call that 'space'.

What you're proposing is that even when there isn't anything, there's still the universe somehow, even though you're saying the universe is all there is, not something there isn't.

If ALL-THERE-IS is 'nothing', then that is some 'thing'. Whatever way the Universe is, then that is how the Universe is.

If the Universe consists of just one, infinite, 'thing' (object), or just one, infinite, 'no thing' (nothing), then that is how the Universe just is. Either way the Universe is, to me, still defined as ALL-THERE-IS.

On the logical possibility of something coming from nothing, there's no "how" to it other than it being a brute fact that it happened.

What is a so called "brute fact" that 'it' happened?

What exactly are you proposing here happened?

Anything more than that wouldn't be something coming from nothing. We'd be talking about another idea instead.

If you say so.

Again, this has nothing to do with the "intuition pump" of logical possibility re change that I'm presenting.

Okay. I have already said this also.

I was just pointing out what I see as being wrong, from my perspective.

Nothing isn't a thing--it's right there in the word: no-thing. And nothing doesn't exist. The only way it's coherent to talk about it as obtaining is in the sense of a vacuum relative to things that do exist. Space doesn't exist "on its own" by the way. Space only obtains by the extension of matter and the extensional relations of matter.

Re "What is a so called "brute fact" that 'it' happened?" That something simply appeared for no reason, with no mechanism behind or proceeding it.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops--typo: proceeding above should have been preceding.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm trying to get you to understand that "how we know something" isn't simply the adverb "subjectively"--that would be a property of how we know something, perhaps, but not a description of what's going on when we know something. And the reason I'm trying to get you to understand that is simply so we can address the question of whether how you know something is the same as what you know.

...sorry, clear as mud.

The "what we know" is just the 'content' of our knowing. The "how we know", I've already mentioned. Confusing the "what" and "how" as the same thing, seems non-sensical and totally irrelevant to this discussion.

So the reason I asked you this question was because in the midst of the old idealism/realism discussion, where you're doubting that we know anything objective, you said, "Tell me how you know rocks objectively exist." But how we know something isn't the same thing as what we know. The normal objection here is simply based on confusion: confusing how we know with what we know, as if they're the same thing. No one is arguing that how we know isn't via our minds. But that doesn't mean that what we know is just our minds. Because how we know and what we know are different.

[creation]

But now ALL-THERE-IS is just 'nothing', or as some people call that 'space'.




If ALL-THERE-IS is 'nothing', then that is some 'thing'. Whatever way the Universe is, then that is how the Universe is.

If the Universe consists of just one, infinite, 'thing' (object), or just one, infinite, 'no thing' (nothing), then that is how the Universe just is. Either way the Universe is, to me, still defined as ALL-THERE-IS.



What is a so called "brute fact" that 'it' happened?

What exactly are you proposing here happened?



If you say so.



Okay. I have already said this also.

I was just pointing out what I see as being wrong, from my perspective.

Nothing isn't a thing--it's right there in the word: no-thing. And nothing doesn't exist.

I NEVER said any 'thing' existed.

I said the 'Universe' is ALL-THERE-IS. Therefore, if ALL-THERE-IS is 'nothing', then that is the Universe, how 'It' IS.

Also, I KNOW that 'nothing' is not a thing, because it is right there in the word: 'no-thing', BECAUSE it was I that pointed that very 'thing' out, previously, as evidenced above, quoted.

The only way it's coherent to talk about it as obtaining is in the sense of a vacuum relative to things that do exist. Space doesn't exist "on its own" by the way.

If there is NO object, then obviously space would be "existing" 'on its own'. There would not be any 'thing' else other than a 'vacuum' of 'space' also, by the way.

Also, you were talking about the Universe consisting ONLY of an object (x), which, some might say, the only way it is coherent to talk about the Universe as obtaining just ONE object is in the sense of 'singularity' relative to things that do not exist, which is obviously and literally just nothing. Matter does not exist "on its own", either, by the way.

Space only obtains by the extension of matter and the extensional relations of matter.

Matter only obtains by the extension of space and the extensional relations of space.

(And, if anyone wants to further investigate this, then what is discovered is the true fundamental causes of 'What the Universe actually is' and the fundamental cause of 'How the Universe actually works'.

Re "What is a so called "brute fact" that 'it' happened?" That something simply appeared for no reason, with no mechanism behind or proceeding it.

And, the 'brute fact' might actually be very different from this, and also be one that is actually very logically, and very reasonably, possible. Unlike what you just wrote here.

[Terrapin Station]

I NEVER said any 'thing' existed.

I just quoted you saying "If ALL-THERE-IS is 'nothing', then that is some 'thing'"

No. It is not some thing. It is no thing.

I said the 'Universe' is ALL-THERE-IS. Therefore, if ALL-THERE-IS is 'nothing', then that is the Universe, how 'It' IS.

The universe is all there is. You don't have an "all there is" if there is no thing that exists. So there is no universe in that case.

If there is NO object, then obviously space would be "existing" 'on its own'.

No. Not at all. Space isn't a thing or container or anything like that. Again, space is the extension of matter and the extensional relations of matter.

That means that if there is no matter, there is no space.

Also, you were talking about the Universe consisting ONLY of an object (x), which, some might say, the only way it is coherent to talk about the Universe as obtaining just ONE object is in the sense of 'singularity' . . .

They could say that, but they'd be wrong. And "singularities" are mathematical constructions, not real things.

Matter only obtains by the extension of space and the extensional relations of space.

Incoherent. It would need to be some sort of thing that has extension, which would make it matter.

And, the 'brute fact' might actually be very different from this, and also be one that is actually very logically, and very reasonably, possible. Unlike what you just wrote here.

Logical impossibility only obtains when we have a non-equivocated contradiction (and we're not using paraconsistent logic). What is P in this case (for our P & ~P that you're claiming?)