If "time" and "change" meant the same thing, then we would not require both words.RJG wrote: ↑November 21st, 2019, 12:25 pmRJG wrote:Does "change" exist/happen?But if we equate "time" as "change" (as many of us do), then you would agree that "time" does exist? ...yes?h_k_s wrote:Sure there is change. But that is irrelevant to any notion of time.
...in the present what? ...time? (...go ahead, be brave, you can say it! :) )h_k_s wrote:Change can occur in the present.
To "occur"??? Your own words contradict yourself. For without a "past or future"; a "before or after"; a "beginning or end", NOTHING can "occur".h_k_s wrote:There does not need to be a past or future for change to occur.
Is the question of reality the only meaningful question?
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Is the question of reality the only meaningful question?
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Is the question of reality the only meaningful question?
That's a new topic.
You should start a new thread on it.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Is the question of reality the only meaningful question?
Think outside of the box a little. Then you will be thinking like a true philosopher, not just like a clone of Einstein or Hawking.Papus79 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2019, 9:23 pmDoes it particularly matter that it's one heartbeat and not 30 Neros or 100 Bourbons?h_k_s wrote: ↑November 20th, 2019, 6:08 pm I see how you are trying to equate motion or change with time.
However this is a false analogy. Nice try though.
A lot of modern people will just have a really hard time (no pun intended) comprehending that "time" really does not exist except in the mind of humans.
Here is a new analogy for you to consider, since you like analogies:
Think of the notion of "time" as having evolved for humans as a recording of their own heartbeats, where 1 second of time equals 1 heartbeat.
[/quote]
The only thing I can get from what you said here is something to the effect that meters don't exist if there's no human using them and the distinction being that time is just a measure of motion, not motion itself, therefore our ruler for measuring motion wouldn't exist if we disappeared.
The trouble I have with it though is that it seems like a distinction that doesn't capture most people's actual concerns. From this angle when most people go on about time, measuring time, mysteries of time, they're not on about how we derived our units of measure or the anthropology who who decided what - they're on about rules of motion and entropy in the raw if they're scientists and if its the layperson it's following the schedules of trains, restaurants, appointments, it's navigating designated periods we set aside for being in the same places and carrying out commerce or social events. People quite often come to the idea of determinism through certain specific motion preceding certain specific motion and we could measure either of those in heartbeats, Neros, or Bourbons - so long as we were settled on some scale or another it would be indifferent. Years are our best approximations of revolutions of the earth around the sun - which is motion. A day is our best attempt to capture the length of a rotation of one rotation of the earth based on midnight in Greenwich, England which is to be fair motion related to a specific place on the earth's surface but nevertheless it's motion. That's not to say that the measuring stick itself is real, we could use years or days from some other planet if we chose but we're primarily interested in seasons of the earth and such so that's what we go with.
I also really don't see where any of the above needs Einstein or Hawking. A sun-dial could pretty much have this covered.
[/quote]
A sun dial shows the change in the shadow from the relative motion of the Earth to the Sun.
Has nothing to do with the concept of "time."
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Is the question of reality the only meaningful question?
Then I'd have to admit that you're talking about something esoteric and I'm probably not likely to follow it that well.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Is the question of reality the only meaningful question?
There are lots of budding and great philosophers here on this forum.
I have learned a lot about the esoteric ones between Aristotle in ancient Greece and Roger Scruton at Oxford in England now.
It's a great site. I really enjoy it.
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Is the question of reality the only meaningful question?
On that note I was actually talking to someone earlier today somewhere else about Douglas Murray and sizing up how much influence Roger Scruton's work had on him. Any particular thoughts one way or another in that case?
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Is the question of reality the only meaningful question?
Murray calls himself a neo-conservative.
Scruton calls himself a Tory conservative.
They both probably agree on most things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_(author)
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023