Space, Time, and Paradoxes

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
doethineb
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: May 2nd, 2020, 2:29 pm

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by doethineb » May 3rd, 2020, 8:03 am

Hello evolution.

Ok, where to start, at the beginning I suppose. You make a really great point, I am in no way suggesting that Zenos' 'paradox's are a reflection of 'Reality'. What makes them paradoxes is that the maths when applied to infinite processes such as the motion, should entail that nothing can be in motion, Obviously this is not what really happens and goes against ones experience and expectation of 'Reality' therefore a paradox, I could be wrong. Why I said they are a great starting point is that they highlight some of the inherent issues when you start looking at mathematics of say time and space and applying them to our understanding, explanations and expectations.

So are they 'just worded in a way that tricks and fools some people'. No, I do not think they are, I think they are great example's of showing how mathematics does not give us the 'truth' about 'reality'. If 'some people' are fooled then they are probably missing the point, this is just my opinion as is what follows: I do not except that mathematics gives us the 'truth' about 'reality'. I have a massive problem even using the word 'truth'.

Ok, onto the problem of definition. If I walked into a room full of Physicists and asked them 'what is time ?' 'what is space?' I think their reply would be 'We don't know, ask a Philosopher'. The physicist Clifford A. Pickover states this in this book 'Time, a Travellers Guide'. I would argue here, and I am unsure if you are trying to state the same issue as I have, but I think the very question 'what is time?' is philosophical nonsense.

Measurements, In O.K. Bouwsmas' Book Philosophical Essays there is a great essay called 'The Mystery of Time'. In this essay there is a great little argument between a 'man who lays linoleum' and his clock. What this essay highlights is the inherent problems with using the language we use to say measure linoleum, with the language we use to measure time,we become confused. We can hold the ruler up to the linoleum, but what is the clock measuring?. These problems are inherent within Zenos' descriptions and in the descriptions of say time travel, and give rise to the paradoxs inherent within these stories. Philosophical problems arrise for the physicist in the same way when dealing with measurement. I was not been pedantic or trying to talk down to anyone. These issues are real, and really do raise questions about the observer and language when describing Metaphysical problems.

Time travel, ok, the time travel story as outlined above contains massive issues due to the descriptions of time as if it were space.If twin 'A' shots off into space very quickly then when he returns to earth he will be younger than twin 'B' who stayed on earth, we al know it and it is an example of what happens when we apply 'Special Relativity'. It is something that occurs when one point travels very fast through space, and the other point does not. OK is it time travel per se, I would argue no, it is just what happens when you travel very quickly through space. What we describe as 'time travel' is very different and involves many descriptions of time as if it were space. So I traveled to London ,1984. Both London and 1984 are been described as if they were places so to say. Describing time using the same language we use to describe space, it just leads to nonsense.

evolve, I am glad you are not troubled by any of the issues raised in Zeno's paradoxs. No one is trying to teach anyone anything, I thought philosophy was about engaging in open dialogue with others and maybe learning something from others, that's why I do it anyway. We create thought experiments, playgrounds if you will to test our opinions, habits of thought, to see if they hold up or just pure nonsense. We engage with others who also apply critical thinking in the hopes they can show us where we are going wrong. That's why I love philosophy anyway not to show why I am rightt but hopefully to be shown where i am mistaken in my thinking, because I understand I definitely am.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7681
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by Steve3007 » May 4th, 2020, 3:40 am

doethineb wrote:It is something that occurs when one point travels very fast through space, and the other point does not.
In your view, how would we decide which of those two points you that mentioned is travelling very fast through space and which point is not?

evolution
Posts: 421
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by evolution » May 4th, 2020, 7:06 am

Ayaan_817 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 7:15 am
evolution wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 6:57 pm
To me, consciousness within the human body is on a scale from there being the slightest conscious awareness of things up to the scale of absolute Awareness, or or capital C, Consciousness, Itself.

Along this journey of increased conscious awareness for most human beings, that is; up the days of when this is being written, there is a misnomer that those human beings are a part of the self-conscious animal, the human being. These people believe that they are a self-aware person, or a self-conscious being, and which is said to generally happen at around late infancy, early childhood. But this is a complete misnomer. Not until the proper and correct answer to the question; 'Who am 'I'?' is known and understood, and can be given, then human beings are obviously not yet a self-aware creature at all. In fact, they are completely lost or confused in this regard. Just ask them.

When one KNOWS who and what 'they' Truly ARE, and they are able to differentiate between the human being self, and thee True Being, Self, and that One is looking from the Truly OPEN perspective from which they are Being Truly Aware of what is going on, and not being stuck and held up in the thinking and emotions within the body, then that is Consciousness, Itself, has been reached. Anything less is just being on the spectrum of consciousness at some level.

I asked you if you are sure that consciousness's effects are not physically visible on the three dimensional Universe because I could, for example, be aware, and thus conscious, of the fact that human beings have left a mess on the beach. So, through this consciousness, or conscious awareness, and through the fact that I do not want to leave earth a mess for my up and coming children for future generations I could go and clean up the mess. Therefore, it was through consciousness, itself, that if I do clean up that one beach, then it was in fact consciousness's effects, themselves, that would be physically visible on the three dimensional Universe. To me, consciousness's effects can be physically visible on the three dimensional Universe. Or, I could just leave earth in the mess that it is in now, and so 'this' consciousness' effects would not be physically visible on the three dimensional Universe.
But what would be physically visible on the three dimensional Universe is the effects of those who damage and destroy, rubbish, this one and only home for ALL human beings. To me, the effects of either positive and good or negative and bad on the three dimensional Universe are done by the living human bodies, which physically visible effects can be clearly seen as a result of the conscious thinking within those bodies.

But you may define 'consciousness' completely differently than I do. So, if you are sure that consciousness's effects are not physically visible on the three dimensional Universe, then how are you so sure?
You are consciously aware that the beach is a mess. But how are you, or rather your consciousness, sure that it is a consciousness and not part of a simulation game that someone else is playing? This unsureness is what keeps the consciousness from embracing itself for it doesn't 'know' that it is a teamwork of neurons in a brain or a separate 'being' inhabiting a body. How are you sure those grains of sand aren't conscious?

Which sparks a new :idea: idea! A consciousness doesn't inhabit a body or individual substance, but a whole universe and don't go on saying that universe is also a substance and individual substances are scientific elementary particles. How are you sure those elementary particle have a collection of other substances forming them?
You wrote:
What I meant was that consciousness is a whole another dimension whose effects are not physically visible on our three dimensional universe.

I asked you:
Are you sure that consciousness's effects are not physically visible on the three dimensional Universe? If you are sure, then how are you so sure?

You then said:
What is your definition of consciousness?
If you tell me that, only then I would be able to explain accordingly.

To wit I gave you my definition. Now are you going to explain accordingly how you are sure that consciousness's effects are not physically visible on the three dimensional Universe, or are you not?

If you are, then go ahead.

If you are not, then so be it.

What you have said here above just shows what you believe is true. If this is your only explanation of how you are so sure, then that is understandable. But are you aware that just because you believe some thing is true, then that does not necessarily make it true?

evolution
Posts: 421
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by evolution » May 4th, 2020, 7:14 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 7:35 am
evolution wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 4:46 am


And I would then ask you to clarify, which would be about the simplest thing to do, and you will find most people also agree with this.

But can you clarify how 'time' is IDENTICAL to motion/change, when this is OBVIOUSLY not true to other people.

You can claim that, TO YOU, 'time' is IDENTICAL to motion/change, and that this is just your own personal definition. But you obviously cannot make this claim logically and reasonably to people who say that this is NOT TRUE, and propose that this is an actual fact. Are you able to see and understand just how different your example is here from your previous claim?

The only true thing you can do here is make it absolutely clear that "'time' being IDENTICAL to motion/change" is true to you, and that this is from your perspective only. I hope you understand that 'time' is NOT identical to motion/change to a lot of people. Do you understand this fact?

Are you now able to see and understand what I have been saying and meaning? Or, are you still not here yet?



But I am NOT reading your sentence that way. Why are you making such an assumption?
What you could try doing is saying, "time is not (or if you prefer can not be) identical to motion or change because ____" where you fill in that blank.
I have done this with you before, but it "falls on deaf ears", obviously.

Also, you have MISSED the whole point that I have been 'trying to' make here.
Terrapin Station wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 7:35 am
Hopefully what you'd fill in the blank with wouldn't be a comment about language usage, because I'm not saying anything about language usage. And then I'll address your objection.
I have NO objection. I have SUPPORTED that that is YOUR OWN PERSONAL DEFINITION, which you give to the word 'time'.

I would NEVER object that that is YOUR OWN PERSONAL DEFINITION of the word 'time'.

You can keep that one and use that one for as long as you like. I would NEVER object to you having that definition and using that definition.
Terrapin Station wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 7:35 am
If you'd like an example from my side, "Time is identical to motion/change, because extensionally, that's all we're ever referring to as time--the motion or changes of clocks, of astronomical bodies, of caesium isotopes, etc."
See, this is NOT what "we" are ever referring to as time. Obviously that is what 'you' always ever referring to as 'time'. If you actually think or believe that that is what "we" are ever referring to as 'time', then let me make this as clear as I can for you - I NEVER REFER to 'time' in that way at all.

Do you SEE and UNDERSTAND this FACT?

Or are you still under some sort of illusion that "we" are referring to 'time' the way that you personally define the word 'time'?

Because if you are, then you will be sadly MISTAKEN.

User avatar
Ayaan_817
Posts: 25
Joined: May 1st, 2020, 1:22 am

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by Ayaan_817 » May 4th, 2020, 8:50 am

evolution wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 7:06 am
Ayaan_817 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 7:15 am

You are consciously aware that the beach is a mess. But how are you, or rather your consciousness, sure that it is a consciousness and not part of a simulation game that someone else is playing? This unsureness is what keeps the consciousness from embracing itself for it doesn't 'know' that it is a teamwork of neurons in a brain or a separate 'being' inhabiting a body. How are you sure those grains of sand aren't conscious?

Which sparks a new :idea: idea! A consciousness doesn't inhabit a body or individual substance, but a whole universe and don't go on saying that universe is also a substance and individual substances are scientific elementary particles. How are you sure those elementary particle have a collection of other substances forming them?

What you have said here above just shows what you believe is true. If this is your only explanation of how you are so sure, then that is understandable. But are you aware that just because you believe some thing is true, then that does not necessarily make it true?
‘does not necessarily make it true’

Emphasis on the ‘necessarily’

If I believe I have suppose exactly 10^20 particles forming my body where particles are atoms, it can be true and it can be false, we can’t prove it but at the same time can’t disprove it. What if I’m true? I am sure I’m true and even if I’m false, what have I got to lose?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3392
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by Terrapin Station » May 4th, 2020, 10:39 am

evolution wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 7:14 am
What you could try doing is saying, "time is not (or if you prefer can not be) identical to motion or change because ____" where you fill in that blank.
I have done this with you before, but it "falls on deaf ears", obviously.
[/quote]

Could you paste or retype it maybe, please?

"Time is not (or can not be) identical to motion or change because _____"

What did you put in the blank there?

evolution
Posts: 421
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by evolution » May 5th, 2020, 6:23 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 10:39 am
evolution wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 7:14 am
What you could try doing is saying, "time is not (or if you prefer can not be) identical to motion or change because ____" where you fill in that blank.
I have done this with you before, but it "falls on deaf ears", obviously.
Could you paste or retype it maybe, please?

"Time is not (or can not be) identical to motion or change because _____"

What did you put in the blank there?
[/quote]

Different words have different definitions. If they did not, then having different words would be completely redundant.

I have also made it absolutely clear that different people use different definitions for words.

Some people say that 'Time' is just the word used when describing the measured duration between agreed upon apparent events. Therefore, time is not (or can not be) identical to motion or change, to them.

As I have explained, just because you say what time is, this does not make what time is, this is just how you define and use the word 'time'. The definition of the word 'time' just like the definition of absolutely every word is dependent upon the user or observer. The definition of what a word actually means depends on agreement.

For absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3392
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by Terrapin Station » May 5th, 2020, 9:35 am

evolution wrote:
May 5th, 2020, 6:23 am
Different words have different definitions. If they did not, then having different words would be completely redundant.

I have also made it absolutely clear that different people use different definitions for words.

Some people say that 'Time' is just the word used when describing the measured duration between agreed upon apparent events. Therefore, time is not (or can not be) identical to motion or change, to them.

As I have explained, just because you say what time is, this does not make what time is, this is just how you define and use the word 'time'. The definition of the word 'time' just like the definition of absolutely every word is dependent upon the user or observer. The definition of what a word actually means depends on agreement.

For absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.
So first, "Time is not (or can not be) identical to motion or change because I define it differently" doesn't work. What something is, ontologically--aside from what a definition is ontologically--does not hinge on the way we define anything.

Again, what I'm doing is not simply defining time. I'm not simply doing something with or about language. What I'm doing is ontological analysis.

If we ontologically analyze what we'd be referring to, extensionally, by "the measured duration between agreed-upon events," we're referring to motion or change. Because how do we make the measurements in question? By looking at the motion or change of things like the sun in the sky, or the shadow cast by a sundial, or the hands or digits of a clock, etc.

So not only does a definition not determine what something is ontologically, but the definition in question that you're proposing is perfectly consistent with the ontological analysis I've provided anyway. So that doesn't at all work as an objection to the claim that ontologically, time is simply motion or change.

evolution
Posts: 421
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by evolution » May 6th, 2020, 4:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
May 5th, 2020, 9:35 am
evolution wrote:
May 5th, 2020, 6:23 am
Different words have different definitions. If they did not, then having different words would be completely redundant.

I have also made it absolutely clear that different people use different definitions for words.

Some people say that 'Time' is just the word used when describing the measured duration between agreed upon apparent events. Therefore, time is not (or can not be) identical to motion or change, to them.

As I have explained, just because you say what time is, this does not make what time is, this is just how you define and use the word 'time'. The definition of the word 'time' just like the definition of absolutely every word is dependent upon the user or observer. The definition of what a word actually means depends on agreement.

For absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.
So first, "Time is not (or can not be) identical to motion or change because I define it differently" doesn't work. What something is, ontologically--aside from what a definition is ontologically--does not hinge on the way we define anything.

Again, what I'm doing is not simply defining time. I'm not simply doing something with or about language. What I'm doing is ontological analysis.

If we ontologically analyze what we'd be referring to, extensionally, by "the measured duration between agreed-upon events," we're referring to motion or change. Because how do we make the measurements in question? By looking at the motion or change of things like the sun in the sky, or the shadow cast by a sundial, or the hands or digits of a clock, etc.

So not only does a definition not determine what something is ontologically, but the definition in question that you're proposing is perfectly consistent with the ontological analysis I've provided anyway. So that doesn't at all work as an objection to the claim that ontologically, time is simply motion or change.
Well you have successfully, once again, completely misinterpreted me, and so you misconstrued what I have actually said and meant and you are misunderstanding what I am getting at.

Once again, this I'd completely my fault.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3392
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by Terrapin Station » May 6th, 2020, 6:25 pm

evolution wrote:
May 6th, 2020, 4:17 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
May 5th, 2020, 9:35 am


So first, "Time is not (or can not be) identical to motion or change because I define it differently" doesn't work. What something is, ontologically--aside from what a definition is ontologically--does not hinge on the way we define anything.

Again, what I'm doing is not simply defining time. I'm not simply doing something with or about language. What I'm doing is ontological analysis.

If we ontologically analyze what we'd be referring to, extensionally, by "the measured duration between agreed-upon events," we're referring to motion or change. Because how do we make the measurements in question? By looking at the motion or change of things like the sun in the sky, or the shadow cast by a sundial, or the hands or digits of a clock, etc.

So not only does a definition not determine what something is ontologically, but the definition in question that you're proposing is perfectly consistent with the ontological analysis I've provided anyway. So that doesn't at all work as an objection to the claim that ontologically, time is simply motion or change.
Well you have successfully, once again, completely misinterpreted me, and so you misconstrued what I have actually said and meant and you are misunderstanding what I am getting at.

Once again, this I'd completely my fault.
There are so many users here that seem like clones of creation. :P

evolution
Posts: 421
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by evolution » May 7th, 2020, 7:41 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
May 6th, 2020, 6:25 pm
evolution wrote:
May 6th, 2020, 4:17 pm


Well you have successfully, once again, completely misinterpreted me, and so you misconstrued what I have actually said and meant and you are misunderstanding what I am getting at.

Once again, this I'd completely my fault.
There are so many users here that seem like clones of creation. :P
I thought considering I write and sound the exact same as Me, then it would not take so long for this to be recognized. And, especially considering the choice of this username, that it was a complete give away from the outset.

Why do you think there are so many that seem like Me?

It seems like you were expecting me to go, and then come back as a "clone", with another name. I wonder why that would be?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3392
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by Terrapin Station » May 7th, 2020, 8:43 am

evolution wrote:
May 7th, 2020, 7:41 am
Terrapin Station wrote:
May 6th, 2020, 6:25 pm


There are so many users here that seem like clones of creation. :P
I thought considering I write and sound the exact same as Me, then it would not take so long for this to be recognized. And, especially considering the choice of this username, that it was a complete give away from the outset.

Why do you think there are so many that seem like Me?

It seems like you were expecting me to go, and then come back as a "clone", with another name. I wonder why that would be?
What gave it away so much in that last post is that instead of saying much about anything I typed, the gist of it was that I misunderstood what you wrote. And yeah, it struck me that the user name is pretty obvious for a new one for you.

Re the last comment, I'm used to boards where lots of folks post with lots of socks (additional accounts under different user names). It gives the impression that there are far more people posting on the board than there really are, but it's the same handful of people, often attempting to come across as different personalities, etc., but they usually quickly give away who they really are via various quirks. I think people typically do that because they're bored, and maybe because they don't want to seem like they "post too much" (so spread it out among different accounts), and sometimes trolling is the main goal. I've seen sock accounts get into "debates" with each other as a way of getting people motivated to post, etc.

evolution
Posts: 421
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by evolution » May 8th, 2020, 3:23 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
May 7th, 2020, 8:43 am
evolution wrote:
May 7th, 2020, 7:41 am


I thought considering I write and sound the exact same as Me, then it would not take so long for this to be recognized. And, especially considering the choice of this username, that it was a complete give away from the outset.

Why do you think there are so many that seem like Me?

It seems like you were expecting me to go, and then come back as a "clone", with another name. I wonder why that would be?
What gave it away so much in that last post is that instead of saying much about anything I typed, the gist of it was that I misunderstood what you wrote. And yeah, it struck me that the user name is pretty obvious for a new one for you.

Re the last comment, I'm used to boards where lots of folks post with lots of socks (additional accounts under different user names). It gives the impression that there are far more people posting on the board than there really are, but it's the same handful of people, often attempting to come across as different personalities, etc., but they usually quickly give away who they really are via various quirks. I think people typically do that because they're bored, and maybe because they don't want to seem like they "post too much" (so spread it out among different accounts), and sometimes trolling is the main goal. I've seen sock accounts get into "debates" with each other as a way of getting people motivated to post, etc.
Well I have already explained my position on why I did what I did.

It also appears that you were expecting me to change my name anyway, and as such syou sarted accusing others as being me, which I found quite humorous to say the least. No one else was making that assumption, and some were even telling you that it did not appear that way to them.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3392
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by Terrapin Station » May 8th, 2020, 8:34 am

evolution wrote:
May 8th, 2020, 3:23 am
Terrapin Station wrote:
May 7th, 2020, 8:43 am


What gave it away so much in that last post is that instead of saying much about anything I typed, the gist of it was that I misunderstood what you wrote. And yeah, it struck me that the user name is pretty obvious for a new one for you.

Re the last comment, I'm used to boards where lots of folks post with lots of socks (additional accounts under different user names). It gives the impression that there are far more people posting on the board than there really are, but it's the same handful of people, often attempting to come across as different personalities, etc., but they usually quickly give away who they really are via various quirks. I think people typically do that because they're bored, and maybe because they don't want to seem like they "post too much" (so spread it out among different accounts), and sometimes trolling is the main goal. I've seen sock accounts get into "debates" with each other as a way of getting people motivated to post, etc.
Well I have already explained my position on why I did what I did.

It also appears that you were expecting me to change my name anyway, and as such syou sarted accusing others as being me, which I found quite humorous to say the least. No one else was making that assumption, and some were even telling you that it did not appear that way to them.
It's not that I was expecting it. It's simply that you suddenly stopped posting (as creation)--and just at the time that you were supposed to be coming up with an example of incompatible dictionary definitions per the requirements given--and then others have suddenly appeared who have some of your same quirks. It's not difficult to figure out that one is dealing with a sock in that situation.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3392
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Space, Time, and Paradoxes

Post by Terrapin Station » May 8th, 2020, 8:45 am

To successfully be a sock where you're not identifiable, you need to be cognizant of your own quirks, your own tendencies--in thought, in expression, etc., and then you need to avoid them. Which isn't the easiest thing to do, and if one is interested in really expressing oneself, it also becomes quickly frustrating, because one needs to avoid any even slightly unusual view that one has. For example, if it's the case that you really say "I have no beliefs," you can't start up a sock account and get into a big discussion about having no beliefs, because that would immediately make people suspicious that it's the same goofball. It's easier just to keep the same identity and be yourself.

Post Reply