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
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2152
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, 7:18 pm

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 6:25 pm

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.
Re what I was positing, there's nothing else other than one object being replaced by another. If we want to say that the second object "came from nothing" that's fine. It's just irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm explaining how, logically, change can obtain without anything remaining the same. That has nothing to do with whether contingently something "comes from" nothing.

creation
Posts: 922
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 7:20 pm

RJG wrote:
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".
I NEVER said it was.

What I said was; From what I have observed, to some people, this 'change' is what they see as being, and call, "time''.

From what I have also observed is what you see as being, and call, "time".

What you see as being 'time', which is what you call "time", is very DIFFERENT to what other people see as being 'time', which is what they call "time".

Which, by the way, is all very DIFFERENT to what I see as being 'time', which is what I call "time".

Now, ALL of these DIFFERENT interpretations of what is seen as being 'time', and which is what is called "time", have ALL come from 'subjective observations', so according to your logic NONE of them are 'objective truths', including yours. So, there is NO use in anyone proposing that there version of 'time', or what they call "time", is true, right, nor correct. The only thing we can really do, logically and reasonably, is to just each express our own views on this, and every other matter, just look at each and all of them, (dare I say "objectively"), and then decide on which ones work and fit in best with our already gained, from our own obviously very DIFFERENT individual and subjective past experiences, view of things.

We can 'try' and say another's view is wrong, or say what is true and what is not, but, if all we have is just 'subjective observations' to base our own views on, then we obviously do not know what the 'objective truth' is. So, to say something like, "Change" is NOT "time", is based on what exactly? One's own 'subjective observations' or on the 'objective truth' of things? If it is the former, then HOW do you KNOW, for sure, that "change" is NOT "time"?
RJG wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 12:01 pm
Change is an 'event'. An event is something-occurring-somewhere (i.e. matter-time-space). Without matter + time + space, there can be no "change".
I know this is what you say. You have said this a few times already.

I have also asked you clarifying questions regarding this view, which you have not answered. So, I am not sure what else I can do here. I have expressed my view, like you have yours. I have expressed where we differ. I have also asked questions for you to clarify, so I can gain a better understanding of your view, so then I may see what you see, which I am missing, but if you do not answer my questions, then I am not sure how I can better understand your view.

If you see my view is wrong, it is obviously different than your view, then just question and challenge me about my view.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2152
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, 7:21 pm

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 6:56 pm
So, what is an 'objective truth'?
A category error on my view.

See this post:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16247&p=345992#p345992

creation
Posts: 922
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 7:41 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:18 pm
creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 6:25 pm

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.
Re what I was positing, there's nothing else other than one object being replaced by another.
This was never in dispute. In fact I provided examples of what you might have been referring to exactly. I even said I am incorrect in anyway, then please correct me. You never did, so either what my example was explaining you agreed with, or you just missed that post.

If we want to say that the second object "came from nothing" that's fine. It's just irrelevant to what I'm saying.

And it was not something I was even considering. I was just pointing out the other poster who brought it, and how in your last example that if object x is the only object, which the Universe exists of, and then object x disappears, and is replaced by object y, then I could see why the other poster thought that you were talking about how object y is said to come from nothing. Obviously if x is all-there-is, and it disappears, and is replaced by y, then some might see that y comes from nothing.

The very reason I provided an example, to the other poster, of an x changing into a y, from what I thought you were talking about, was so that the other poster could understand what you were meaning better.

If you do say that x is the ONLY object and it disappears and x is replaced by y, then from the way that is written it can look like you are meaning that y actually came from nothing.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:18 pm
I'm explaining how, logically, change can obtain without anything remaining the same.
I even went and provided examples of this change, which you have yet to say was incorrect, but I have also pointed out that, to me, there is one thing that does actually remain the same no matter how much change occurs. That thing is thee Universe, Itself.

I have said that although the Universe may change in shape and form, the Universe, Itself, still remains the same. That is; The Universe is always in a constant state of change, this will always remain the same. So, to me, there is actually One thing that remains the same.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:18 pm
That has nothing to do with whether contingently something "comes from" nothing.
I know. I was only pointing out how what you wrote, in the way you wrote it, to other posters it could or may appear a perception that y came from nothing.

To me, what you wrote a few posts back where the other poster challenged you on how could something come from nothing, I never even saw this perspective, so I tried to explain to that poster, with examples, that that was not what you saying.

But, from your latest post, I was just trying to explain, to you, how what you are saying now could be construed as you are saying y comes from nothing.

I do not know if I have actually made myself any clearer now, but I am trying to.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2152
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, 7:58 pm

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:41 pm

I even went and provided examples of this change, which you have yet to say was incorrect, but I have also pointed out that, to me, there is one thing that does actually remain the same no matter how much change occurs. That thing is the Universe, Itself. I



I have said that although the Universe may change in shape and form, the Universe, Itself, still remains the same. That is; The Universe is always in a constant state of change, this will always remain the same. So, to me, there is actually One thing that remains the same.
If the universe consists solely of object x, and object x disappears, then the universe doesn't remain the same, does it? The universe disappears. Then it's replaced by the universe consisting solely of a different object, object y.

I know. I was only pointing out how what you wrote, in the way you wrote it, to other posters it could or may appear a perception that y came from nothing.
And that's fine. It's not as if that's a problem--to say that y "comes from nothing." It just has nothing to do with the thought experiment.

gater
Posts: 233
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by gater » January 18th, 2020, 8:11 pm

Time is the measurement of the constant, eternal, universal now. It is not a dimension, all dimensions have distance, time does not qualify.

creation
Posts: 922
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 10:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:58 pm
creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:41 pm

I even went and provided examples of this change, which you have yet to say was incorrect, but I have also pointed out that, to me, there is one thing that does actually remain the same no matter how much change occurs. That thing is the Universe, Itself. I



I have said that although the Universe may change in shape and form, the Universe, Itself, still remains the same. That is; The Universe is always in a constant state of change, this will always remain the same. So, to me, there is actually One thing that remains the same.
If the universe consists solely of object x, and object x disappears, then the universe doesn't remain the same, does it?
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.

The Universe always remains the same, no matter what. In that the Universe is always ALL-THERE-IS, whatever that may be at any time.

This is how I see the Universe. This also ended up being just the simplest and easiest way to understand what the Universe actually is as well as understanding how the Universe actually works also.

And, if when discussing things like the Universe with people, and I point out how they could not be correct, then people could and tend to say that that is not the Universe, and so change the definition to suit their newly changed view of things.

The definition I provided for the 'Universe' also, to me, fits in with all the other definitions I have of other things as well to form one fully filled in picture of ALL-THERE-IS.

The universe disappears. Then it's replaced by the universe consisting solely of a different object, object y.[/quote]

If you want to continue on that path, then where did y come from?

This is what the other poster was pointing out, How can something (y) come from nothing?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:58 pm
I know. I was only pointing out how what you wrote, in the way you wrote it, to other posters it could or may appear a perception that y came from nothing.
And that's fine. It's not as if that's a problem--to say that y "comes from nothing."
How can something come from nothing? might not be a problem for you, but for some this is clearly very much a problem.

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:58 pm
It just has nothing to do with the thought experiment.
Is that the "thought experiment", which, you say, concludes that there is no single thing that remains the same during the course of the change?

If no, then what was the thought experiment?

But if yes, then, to me, the Universe is still a single thing that remains the same during the course of the change.

creation
Posts: 922
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 18th, 2020, 11:06 pm

gater wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 8:11 pm
Time is the measurement of the constant, eternal, universal now. It is not a dimension, all dimensions have distance, time does not qualify.
Now, we are getting somewhere, but still not there yet.

As I have said previously 'time' is just the measurement taken of the duration between agreed upon perceived events.

There is actually only One event happening, in an always continually constant-change. There is actually no separated nor different events occurring in this One constantly changing event. But there are obviously different separate perceived events, from the human perspective. So, although there may seem to be different events, (with an s), there really is only the one event (no s) of NOW, just in a different shape and form.

The Universe just in different shape and form is why there is a perception that there are different events (with s). Because human beings have named and labeled absolutely every thing in the Universe, they "see" and perceive things, from these labels and names.

Although there is a 'duration' between agreed upon seemingly different perceived events it could be said that there is a 'dimension' of length or distance. But, as pointed out previously, by another poster, 'dimension' is just in thought, or in concept only. 'Dimension' is not any actual thing other than just a thought, in concept only.

The Universe is just One solitary entity, thing, or event happening, or changing. No matter "where" you are, or "when" you are, in the Universe, that will still only be the HERE, and the NOW.

There is no such actual thing as 'time' other than just in thought, or in concept, only.

'Time' is also just a word that describes the measurements taken of duration between agreed upon perceived events, or agreed upon points in the One eternal event of NOW. Other than that 'time' is just a thought, in concept only.

Obviously because change is constantly happening, there also must be duration from when the One thing (the Universe) is in one shape and form to when It is in another shape and form. This duration is said to be 'time', but to me duration is just the length taken for change to occur. To me, 'time' is no thing other than just a human made up word, which describes the length of duration, or which exists in thought and concept only.

There is no other thing such as 'time'. If there is no time, then there also could be no change of time relative to observers in supposed "different" 'frames of reference'.

Some might now, and hopefully some do, say that 'duration' or the 'length of duration' changes relative to observers in different 'frames of references'.

And, if anyone now wants to discuss this, then please do.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8757
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Greta » January 19th, 2020, 12:31 am

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 11:06 pm
There is actually only One event happening, in an always continually constant-change. There is actually no separated nor different events occurring in this One constantly changing event. But there are obviously different separate perceived events, from the human perspective. So, although there may seem to be different events, (with an s), there really is only the one event (no s) of NOW, just in a different shape and form.
"Illusion" - a terribly overused word on philosophy forums.

I don't know if this logical error has a name, but I have seen it many times on forums.

That is, since they believe that the universe is one singular entity then that renders all within it as illusory. That does not mean "illusory", just less fundamental than previously imagined. I also see that local fallacy applied to time at times, with claims that anything that is temporal is "illusory".

Absolutism?

gater
Posts: 233
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by gater » January 19th, 2020, 12:43 am

Creation - Are you saying Time is a dimension?

creation
Posts: 922
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 19th, 2020, 1:16 am

Greta wrote:
January 19th, 2020, 12:31 am
creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 11:06 pm
There is actually only One event happening, in an always continually constant-change. There is actually no separated nor different events occurring in this One constantly changing event. But there are obviously different separate perceived events, from the human perspective. So, although there may seem to be different events, (with an s), there really is only the one event (no s) of NOW, just in a different shape and form.
"Illusion" - a terribly overused word on philosophy forums.
Did I use that word in the quote above?
Greta wrote:
January 19th, 2020, 12:31 am
I don't know if this logical error has a name, but I have seen it many times on forums.
What "logical error" do you supposedly see?
Greta wrote:
January 19th, 2020, 12:31 am
That is, since they believe that the universe is one singular entity then that renders all within it as illusory.
Are you trying to suggest that I believe such a thing?

I certainly hope not.

Even if the Universe is One single entity, which by definition it is anyway, then that does not mean anything until ALL is looked at and discussed, in and through logically reasoned discussions.
Greta wrote:
January 19th, 2020, 12:31 am
That does not render all within the Universe an "illusion" at all.
This appears as though you want to take out your frustration of others, and what they say, and somehow link it to me. I never even used the "illusion" word, but you started off with it and are still using it now.

If you have an issue, problem, dislike, hate, or anything else with anything that I have said, then just point out the exact words I used and tell us what is wrong with them, and back this up with some supporting evidence, so that you can also explain WHY what I said is supposedly wrong.

And, if anyone tells you "it" is an "illusion", which I have not, then just ask 'them' why do they use words, which are specifically designed to illustrate and define the many 'different and separate' things in the Universe?

Obviously they cannot logically use words, which themselves describe individual and separate things, to say that is all an "illusion", and to then say that all of these "separate" things are really just One thing.
Greta wrote:
January 19th, 2020, 12:31 am
That does not mean "illusory", just less fundamental than previously imagined.
You will have to be much clearer when speaking to me because I am very simple and very slow. When you said the word 'that', which you started the last two sentences with, then I am not sure what the 'that' word is in relation to exactly. If the 'that' word is in relation to the "logical error" you referred to before those two sentences, then I do not even know what 'that' is yet.

So, I do not even know what the "less fundamental than previously imagined" refers to as well.
Greta wrote:
January 19th, 2020, 12:31 am
I also see that local fallacy applied to time at times, with claims that anything that is temporal is "illusory".

Absolutism?
(Or, did you mean "local" here?)

If you meant "logical", then is the "logical fallacy" in reference to the Universe being One Entity?

If no, then okay what is the "logical fallacy" in reference to exactly?

But if yes, then WHY is it a "logical fallacy"?

You surely would have some evidence or proof to back this up, instead of just positing this claim, correct?

If yes, then will you share that evidence or proof with us. (But if this is not what you are talking about, then just disregard this).

creation
Posts: 922
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 19th, 2020, 1:21 am

gater wrote:
January 19th, 2020, 12:43 am
Creation - Are you saying Time is a dimension?
No.

I will say this once more, and this is what I am saying;

'Time' is just a word used to describe the measurements taken in relation to the duration between agreed upon events.

Other than that 'time' exists only in thought, as a concept only.

In other words, what I am saying is;

To me, 'time' is not anything else other than what I just said 'time' is.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 19th, 2020, 8:47 am

RJG wrote:
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.
RJG wrote:
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.
RJG wrote:
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.
Terrapin Station wrote:Re rocks, you can simply observe them as they are in the world.
"Observe"? These observations only provide 'subjective' evidence, not 'objective'.

Terrapin Station wrote:There's zero reason to believe that their existence in anyway depends on us.
And likewise there is zero reason to believe that these rocks are 'objectively real, unless of course you have some 'objective' proof/evidence. Your belief that these rocks are 'objectively' real is without any objective basis, but only subjective basis.

-- For who knows, maybe you are living in a dream world (virtual reality), or are a brain-in-a-vat, hallucinating/delusional, or these rocks are an illusion/mirage/trick of some type, etc. etc. You only know they exist 'subjectively' ("inside your head"), NOT 'objectively' ("outside your head").

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

    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.

    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”.

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

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

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

Secondly, it is not "space" (by itself) that allows objects to "move". Again, put this 3D rock into the 3D space of the big 3D cardboard box. Does the rock move? 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.

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

creation wrote: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).

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2152
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 19th, 2020, 9:17 am

creation wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 10:17 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 18th, 2020, 7:58 pm


If the universe consists solely of object x, and object x disappears, then the universe doesn't remain the same, does it?
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." 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.
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. Anything more than that wouldn't be something coming from nothing. We'd be talking about another idea instead.

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

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2152
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 19th, 2020, 9:48 am

I hate long posts that just keep arguing about more and more issues. One thing at a time:
RJG wrote:
January 19th, 2020, 8:47 am

"Observe"? These observations only provide 'subjective' evidence, not 'objective'.
How you know something isn't the same as what you know.

Do you agree with that?

Post Reply