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: 966
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 6:59 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:07 am
creation wrote:To me, just about everyone here in this forum now, when this is written, are assuming and believing somethings are already true, right, and correct. Therefore, those ones are 'not' truly inquisitive nor open, and it is inquisitiveness, openness, and honesty that is needed for your sensible guidelines for discussions to occur in a philosophy forum.
I request that you read back the above post and consider the irony in it.

When I wrote the post citing the forum rules and suggesting some guidelines that might be mutually agreeable, I had hoped to "reset" things by meeting you halfway; by us both acknowledging past faults in our own communication styles and learning from them.
So, are you once again suggesting I look back at my writings and see my own faults in my own communication style?

I could request you look back and see where how just through simple inquisitiveness, openness, and honesty all of your "guidelines" would be fulfilled anyway, but I will not request that. If I did, then we would again be getting sidetracked from looking at the actual words I have used in relation the actual topic of this thread, and once again be focusing on how to express things in a way that agrees with the "commonly accepted version of things".

I say 'time' is some actual thing. Do you know what that thing is?

By the way, have you yet said anything in relation to whether, from your perspective, 'time' is just an idea or not?

If you have, then I must of missed it. What do you say 'time' is then? Just an idea, or something else?
Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:07 am
From what you've said above, and in the rest of the post from which the above quote was taken, I could be wrong, but you don't appear to me to get that.
To you, I do not get what exactly?

Do you want me to acknowledge my past faults?

If yes, then we would be here for the rest of our lives, at least.

Just about every view I want to eventually share I cannot get to be looked at, and considered, let understood understood at all, let alone completely and fully understood.

In fact, I cannot even ask a very simple straightforward clarifying question, for example, like, How long does it take light to travel from the sun to the earth? without some completely wrong misinterpretation of what I am actually asking for being made, my question being completely taken out of context and misconstrued, and me being completely and utterly misunderstood.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:07 am
You still appear to me to view yourself, alone as uniquely open and inquisitive while almost everyone else is, in your view, convinced of their own rightness and unwilling to consider others' arguments.
Well do you believe some things are true, right, and/or correct?

Do you like to assume what others are meaning in their writings, without clarifying first?

If yes, and yes, then you would be convinced of your own rightness, and/or you would be unwilling to consider others' arguments sometimes, correct?

The very reason I ask so many unassuming clarifying questions is so that I can better understand them, and their views and/or "arguments". And, while you are believing something is true, then you are convinced of your own 'rightness' correct?

I do not believe nor disbelieve anything for the very reason that I would not be open.

Also, my 'rightness' is irrefutable.

But what does this sentence actually mean and refer to exactly?
Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:07 am
This view is not borne out by evidence.
Are you absolutely sure of this?
Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:07 am
In my view, if you still can't accept that you also have to change the way you communicate, and that you also are apt to make unfounded assumptions about other people (such as the one you make in the quote above),
What supposed "unfounded assumptions about other people" did I supposedly make in the quote above?

Did I say something that was not true, not right, and/or not correct?

If yes, then what is it or are they exactly?

But if no, then what I said was is just true, right, and/or correct, and not an unfounded assumption at all, correct?

By the way, yes I do sometimes, unfortunately, make completely unintended assumptions, which I hope people would make them clearly known to me and the readers here.

Also, I have previously admitted that I am probably the most useless communicator here, in this forum. So, I have a great deal to learn about how to communicate much better. But the change that I am seeking to discover and learn just maybe not the same way that you think or believe I need to change to.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:07 am
then very little will change if we keep talking. I am not interested in continuing to be told, as you have told me in the past from the very start, without evidence, that I am closed to new ideas and that I worship particular ideas unquestioningly.
What do you mean without evidence, it was your words that was what told me this, and then your actions after are confirming this further. So the evidence in your words and your actions.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:07 am
I am not interested in those unfounded assumptions of yours.
Of which you have not actually made clear, so that we could at least have a look at what you are yourself 'assuming' here. For all we know your assumptions here could be well and truly just 'unfounded assumptions' of yours.

If you are not open and honest and share your views, then I have absolutely nothing to respond to.

I cannot logically accuse you of making 'unfounded assumptions' for example if we have not even provided with what you are actually assuming that I have made "unfounded assumptions" of something, which only you know about.

To me, I have not made an assumption at all, let alone an unfounded one, so until you point out and acknowledge what your assumption is, then I have no idea.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:07 am
If you want to keep doing that, please do it with someone else. I would rather talk to other posters.
Well go and talk with other posters. I would certainly never make you talk with anyone that you do not freely want to.

Also, you accusing me of making "unfounded assumptions" seems, to me, to be a completely 'unfounded assumption' itself.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:07 am
Obviously the above is just my view. It is not necessarily true, right and correct. If you disagree with it, that is, of course, your right.
There was nothing to disagree with anyway, was there?

I do not think I have had a discussion with you where you have actually said anything really to disagree with.

From what I recall, when discussing with you, is your continual look at the way I talk and/or act, and your continual diversionary tactics away from what I am actually talking about and pointing out. You have yet to discuss any actual things that I have been talking about. So, if I recall correctly, you never actually say anything to agree or disagree with.

If you do not want to talk about, and/or dispute, how 'time' is just an idea or not, or in the other thread talk about how traveling at speed relative to others that 'time' does or does not change relative to those observers in different reference frames, then please feel very free to talk with other posters. I am looking for those that disagree with me and what to question and challenge me on my views, and not just talk about how I converse.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2236
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 » January 18th, 2020, 10:11 am

creation wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 10:35 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 12:57 pm


I was positing an example where the universe consists solely of the two different objects in question.
What were those two different objects in question?

You wrote:
It's possible for there to be x, an object, which disappears and is replaced by y, a different object. That's a change--there was x, now there's y. But there's no single thing that remains the same during the course of the change.

I then wrote:
This is not exactly true, because there is one single thing that remains the same during the course of the change, but this detracts from the main point of what you are getting at. (But I can clarify if interested).

I then clarified when you asked.

You wrote there is 'no' single thing that remains the same during the course of the change. I just expressed that there was 'one' thing that is an object x, which does 'not' disappear and is 'not' replaced by y, no matter what.

If you were positing that the Universe, by definition consists of solely just two objects, then that is fine. But, by the way, even if the Universe consists solely of just two different objects, then even when those two things change, the Universe will still be the same, as the Universe still consists solely of those two different objects, just in another way, shape, or form. But the Universe, Itself, will still remain the same during the course of the change, of those two different things.
I didn't specify what the objects were--because it doesn't matter, aside from representing them with variables. If the universe consists solely of object x, there's not something else other than object x. It's not the case that there's object x plus the universe. Object x is the universe in the stipulated case. It's all that exists. Then object x disappears--it goes out of existence, to be replaced with object y. That's a change. We had object x and now we have object y, which is a change. But nothing stayed the same during that change.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1973
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 18th, 2020, 10:16 am

Terrapin Station wrote:I'd ask you the same thing (again): are you familiar with the distinction between universals or types and particulars?
No, not really, but the little that I do know clearly indicates that this is irrelevant. For as I see it, a concept is still a concept regardless of its quality, or characteristic. The 'realness' of a concept cannot be determined by its 'type'. Therefore, going down this path seems, to me, to be a wasteful (and diversionary) exercise in futility.

If we believe time is a dimension, and further believe dimensions are not real, then simple logic tells us that time is not real. It would be contradictory in this case to claim time is real. I'm not saying this is your view. Your view is logically coherent, but others (such as Nick, Tam, and I think Steve, and many others in the general science community) hold this logically incoherent view, presumably because they believe what they've been told without considering the logical implications (contradictions).

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2236
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 » January 18th, 2020, 10:54 am

RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 10:16 am
Terrapin Station wrote:I'd ask you the same thing (again): are you familiar with the distinction between universals or types and particulars?
No, not really, but the little that I do know clearly indicates that this is irrelevant. For as I see it, a concept is still a concept regardless of its quality, or characteristic. The 'realness' of a concept cannot be determined by its 'type'. Therefore, going down this path seems, to me, to be a wasteful (and diversionary) exercise in futility.
So, just to clarify, I'm using "real" in the sense of "objective," or existing outside of persons' minds.

Given this, no concept is real. Concepts are mental phenomena. They're not something that exists outside of persons' minds. Objective things in the world, like rocks, for examples, are not concepts. This doesn't mean that we don't have a concept of "rock" when we think about rocks. It means that rocks, as they exist outside of our minds, are not concepts. People need to exist in order for there to be concepts. People do not need to exist in order for there to be rocks.
If we believe time is a dimension, and further believe dimensions are not real, then simple logic tells us that time is not real.
Sure. Time as a dimension is an abstract way that we think about time, because it's handy for dimensional analysis, which is an important tool for physics.

Dimensions do not occur as something that exist outside of our minds.

On my view, by the way, only particular, individual unique things exist. Like a particular rock, a particular "lengthwise" extension of a particular rock, a particular rock undergoing a particular motion relative to another particular rock, and so on.
It would be contradictory in this case to claim time is real. I'm not saying this is your view. Your view is logically coherent, but others (such as Nick, Tam, and I think Steve, and many others in the general science community) hold this logically incoherent view, presumably because they believe what they've been told without considering the logical implications (contradictions).
Yeah, that could be. I haven't read most of the posts in the thread (which is something I'm typically guilty of with long threads, especially when they have lots of long posts).

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2236
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 » January 18th, 2020, 11:18 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 5:42 am
viewtopic.php?p=346292#p346292
(This was directed at RJG)
Terrapin Station wrote:I'd ask you the same thing (again): are you familiar with the distinction between universals or types and particulars? It would be much easier to understand my view if you understand that distinction. I'm a nominalist. I don't believe that any universals are real (that is, I don't believe that any universals exist extramentally or objectively).
From the context in which you use the words, it seems to me that by "universals" you mean generalizations and by "particulars" you mean specific instances. If this is true, then presumably all "laws" that we derive, by a process of Induction, from observations of patterns in specific instances are things that you would refer to as "universals".

Is this right?
It's weird that you seem to filter everything through an epistemological perspective, where you see everything as talking about us, our language and how we use it, etc.

The traditional universals vs particulars argument doesn't have to do with epistemology or with us.

So, to set the stage, imagine that no people exist. That will help us avoid getting distracted by people, how they talk about things, how they think about things, etc.

The question of universals versus particulars originally arose via the issue of instances of properties (or we could also say instances of things).

So let's take pink(ish) rock as an example, like pink granite (and ignore issues about what pink is as a property for the time being, as well as ignoring the color/pattern variances we actually find in pink granite--imagine two pink granite rocks that look "exactly the same"). The issue is whether the pink of two pink granite rocks is the same property--as in literally an identical property. If it's literally an identical property in both instances, then it's not something that exists "at" just one rock. And the argument goes that due to the nonidentity of discernibles (two xs are not identical if they're separate/if they're not numerically the same thing), the pink can't be identical to simply the pink of the two rocks combined--the pink of the two rocks is discernible, so can't be an identity. For the pink to be just one property that's instantiated in two different (discernible) rocks, the pink has to be something other than the pink as it occurs at the two rocks. It would be something "abstract" that somehow the two rocks "participate in," insofar as they have the pink in question. This abstract thing is known as a universal (or type or kind).

Realists on universals say that the abstract things in question exist outside of anyone's mind--they're not just a way that people think about things, they're abstract whatevers that would exist whether there were any people or not.

I'm not a realist on universals. I'm a nominalist. I don't believe there are any real abstracts.

Where people usually balk on nominalism (in it's antirealism on abstracts form) online, especially because there are so many engineer, CompSci/etc. types on line, and especially because so many of them tend to be platonists about this, is mathematics. If there are no real abstracts, there are no real mathematical objects as such. Mathematics is simply a way that persons think.

And yes, physical laws as such also wouldn't be real--they'd not be real abstracts, at least.

This isn't to say that properties are not real for (all) nominalists. But nominalists who believe there are real properties--I'm one, believe that properties are particulars, and the pink of two pink granite rocks is not identical. Again, people tend to balk on this when it comes to kinds like electrons, say. This also means that two electrons are not identical--they're not literally "the same thing" that somehow occurs in two instances.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2236
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 » January 18th, 2020, 11:28 am

Bringing things back to us, by the way, my view is that the whole universals vs particulars (or "realism vs nominalism" as it was known in the middle ages) debate is a product of very confused thinking (on the "there are real universals" side) about concepts. It's basically reifying/projecting concepts onto the world at large (the extramental world), without realizing that concepts are simply a way that we think about things.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1973
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 18th, 2020, 12:01 pm

creation wrote:You call this 4th dimension "Time", and what I do not yet fully understand is why you use a capital 'T', I did ask you previously why? But either you did not clarify this, or, I missed your answer.
Sorry this is a (bad?) habit. I do lots of legal writing in my job. Once a term has been defined at the beginning of a document, the capitalized word refers to that specific previous definition, and not to some other or new understanding.

creation wrote:By the way for me to answer "Yes" or "No" to your question here, then I would need to have a full understanding of what you actually mean when you use the 'dimension' word here.
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".

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1973
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 18th, 2020, 1:43 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:So, just to clarify, I'm using "real" in the sense of "objective," or existing outside of persons' minds.
Agreed. "Real" or "objective" means -- existing independent of human (subjective) perception/observation.

Terrapin Station wrote:Given this, no concept is real. Concepts are mental phenomena. They're not something that exists outside of persons' minds.
Agreed.

Terrapin Station wrote:Objective things in the world, like rocks, for examples, are not concepts.
Disagree. Rocks are NOT objective things. Rocks are a product of our subjective observations, unless we can objectively prove (via math/logic) its 'realness', ...until then, rocks are not 'objectively' real.

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

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1973
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 18th, 2020, 2:46 pm

creation wrote:To me, from what I have observed is there is 'change', and to some people this change is just what the 4th dimension of the 4 dimension model of the Universe is, which they see as and call "time".
"Change" is NOT "time". Change is an 'event'. An event is something-occurring-somewhere (i.e. matter-time-space). Without matter + time + space, there can be no "change".

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2236
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 » January 18th, 2020, 4:01 pm

RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 1:43 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:So, just to clarify, I'm using "real" in the sense of "objective," or existing outside of persons' minds.
Agreed. "Real" or "objective" means -- existing independent of human (subjective) perception/observation.

Terrapin Station wrote:Given this, no concept is real. Concepts are mental phenomena. They're not something that exists outside of persons' minds.
Agreed.

Terrapin Station wrote:Objective things in the world, like rocks, for examples, are not concepts.
Disagree. Rocks are NOT objective things. Rocks are a product of our subjective observations, unless we can objectively prove (via math/logic) its 'realness', ...until then, rocks are not 'objectively' real.

Note: Math and Logic are the only 'objective' tools that we possess. Subjective observations can never derive objective truths.
Why in the world would you believe something so inane as "rocks are a product of our subjective observations"?

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1973
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 18th, 2020, 4:23 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:Why in the world would you believe something so inane as "rocks are a product of our subjective observations"?
Tell me how you know rocks objectively exist, and then you'll know why I said/believe it.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2236
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 » January 18th, 2020, 4:45 pm

RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 4:23 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:Why in the world would you believe something so inane as "rocks are a product of our subjective observations"?
Tell me how you know rocks objectively exist, and then you'll know why I said/believe it.
You'd be confusing how you know they exist with how they exist. "How you know" something is different than how it's the case in general.

It's like saying, "Tell me how you paint a cow" and then claiming that cows are really the products of painting due to that. Cow paintings are a product of how you paint a cow. Cows themselves are not.

Re rocks, you can simply observe them as they are in the world. There's zero reason to believe that their existence in anyway depends on us.

So, tell me how you know that they're a product of us?

creation
Posts: 966
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 6:25 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 10:11 am
creation wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 10:35 pm


What were those two different objects in question?

You wrote:
It's possible for there to be x, an object, which disappears and is replaced by y, a different object. That's a change--there was x, now there's y. But there's no single thing that remains the same during the course of the change.

I then wrote:
This is not exactly true, because there is one single thing that remains the same during the course of the change, but this detracts from the main point of what you are getting at. (But I can clarify if interested).

I then clarified when you asked.

You wrote there is 'no' single thing that remains the same during the course of the change. I just expressed that there was 'one' thing that is an object x, which does 'not' disappear and is 'not' replaced by y, no matter what.

If you were positing that the Universe, by definition consists of solely just two objects, then that is fine. But, by the way, even if the Universe consists solely of just two different objects, then even when those two things change, the Universe will still be the same, as the Universe still consists solely of those two different objects, just in another way, shape, or form. But the Universe, Itself, will still remain the same during the course of the change, of those two different things.
I didn't specify what the objects were--because it doesn't matter, aside from representing them with variables. If the universe consists solely of object x, there's not something else other than object x. It's not the case that there's object x plus the universe. Object x is the universe in the stipulated case. It's all that exists. Then object x disappears--it goes out of existence, to be replaced with object y. That's a change. We had object x and now we have object y, which is a change. But nothing stayed the same during that change.
But that was my point, something did stay the exact same, that thing is; The Universe, itself.

If you want to now say that object x is the Universe in the stipulated case and that object x is all that exists, but then object x disappears, and goes out of existence, to be replaced with object y. And that is change, then we are back to the other poster explaining that y cannot come from nothing.

But if object x is the Universe as It exists, and changes into object y, then the Universe, as I say, remains the same. The Universe is still ALL-THERE-IS, which exists. The Universe, as I said before, is still the same, but It has just changed in shape and form.

creation
Posts: 966
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 6:53 pm

RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 12:01 pm
creation wrote:You call this 4th dimension "Time", and what I do not yet fully understand is why you use a capital 'T', I did ask you previously why? But either you did not clarify this, or, I missed your answer.
Sorry this is a (bad?) habit. I do lots of legal writing in my job. Once a term has been defined at the beginning of a document, the capitalized word refers to that specific previous definition, and not to some other or new understanding.

This explanation is a very handy piece of information, so thank you for explaining this.
RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 12:01 pm
creation wrote:By the way for me to answer "Yes" or "No" to your question here, then I would need to have a full understanding of what you actually mean when you use the 'dimension' word here.
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".
Your "A 3D" is where we differ here. You say that a 3 dimensional object (of matter) cannot move/change without a 4th dimension, which is called 'time'.

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.

To me, the 4th dimension you talk about exists only because of movement, or change. To me, the first three dimensions, and the fourth dimension, co-exist together, and always have. The two dimensions, the first three, and the fourth, are more or less one and the same thing as neither could exist without the other.

But you are completely free to have your view, but that view just does not fit in with my view. That is certainly not to say my view is right and your view is wrong, but to just point out where our views differ.

creation
Posts: 966
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 6:56 pm

RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 1:43 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:So, just to clarify, I'm using "real" in the sense of "objective," or existing outside of persons' minds.
Agreed. "Real" or "objective" means -- existing independent of human (subjective) perception/observation.

Terrapin Station wrote:Given this, no concept is real. Concepts are mental phenomena. They're not something that exists outside of persons' minds.
Agreed.

Terrapin Station wrote:Objective things in the world, like rocks, for examples, are not concepts.
Disagree. Rocks are NOT objective things. Rocks are a product of our subjective observations, unless we can objectively prove (via math/logic) its 'realness', ...until then, rocks are not 'objectively' real.

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'?

And, where did that answer come from? A 'subjective observation'?

Post Reply