The Logical Implication of CTD

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

*
Scott, before discussing your comments on consciousness, I want to first try to understand your strong assertion that time does not exist (which, as you know, I see as a logical contradiction; impossibility). The disconnect in our views may simply be how we each define time.
Scott wrote:In analogy, imagine the entire universe was merely a single DVD. There was no DVD player or anything, and nothing existed except the one DVD. The DVD existed eternally in the unchanging unplayed state, and nothing else except the DVD existed. Maybe the DVD contains ten different video files, that if played could be played in any order (but again there is no DVD player). Is there change? No; ex hypothesi, no change is occurring and no change can occur.
RJG wrote:Agreed. A DVD by itself (without a DVD player) is useless. Nothing can happen. We can't [really] experience anything, including thoughts. ...Without a DVD player (being the causer of change; aka "time") nothing can happen.
Scott wrote:Yes, I agree. ...The existence of change requires a DVD player to timelessly/transcendentally interact with eternal reality.
1. Okay, so then it seems that you agree that "change" exists, and that a "causer/enabler of change" exists, but yet deny that "time" exists? ...right?
2. But if we define "time" as the "causer/enabler of change", then wouldn't you then agree that "time exists"?

Scott wrote:Whatever creates or causes spacetime to exist, does not create or cause it in space or over time or from a place in space or time.
Absolutely agree! For X<X is logically impossible -- There cannot be a time/space before time/space (time/space cannot exist before itself to create itself). Spacetime cannot logically be created. If it exists, then it has always (never not) existed. Therefore any "science" that claims there was a time before time is "bad science" (bad science = science that disregards logic). Logically there cannot be a time before time (nor can there be such a thing as a 'finite' or 'growing' space/universe), for X<X is logically/mathematically impossible. Any science that also claims our universe is finite or growing is bad science.

Scott wrote:Thus, we need to use words like timeless… The interaction must be timeless...
Not so, "timeless" (meaning "without time") is the wrong word. It is not that time is "timeless" (non-existent), it is that time is infinite (fully existent with no boundaries/limits). If time exists, then logically it has ALWAYS (infinitely; permanently; never not) existed.

We know "time" exists because "change" undeniably exists (it is impossible to deny; for any denial only affirms its existence), -- therefore since time exists, then time has ALWAYS (infinitely; permanently; never not) existed!
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Steve3007 »

Scott wrote:Rather, I am asserting that (if we assume consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful) then we live in a timeless block universe in which events do not really happen (over real time). Thus, we mustn't falsely conflate existence with happening. The denial eternally exists in the timeless eternal block universe, and thus does not really happen (over real time) or cause actual change to eternal unchanging reality. There is no contradiction.

In contrast, Newtonian Mechanics is known to be false, like flat earth theory.

Newtonian Mechanics is a fiction. In fictional pseudo-reality events can fictionally happen over fictional time and fictionally cause other things to fictionally happen at some other fictional point in fictional time. Nothing is really happening (over real time) because there is no real time and Newtonian Mechanics are a fiction.
I disagree with your interpretation of the block universe and with the assertion that Newtonian Mechanics is known to be false. I don't think that's how physics works and I don't think it makes sense to conclude from any law of physics that time is fictional. If we decide to view space-time as a 4 dimensional "block", with time as one of those dimensions, I don't think our decision to view it in that way makes any difference to the fact that time passes; changes happen.
RJG wrote:If time exists, then logically it has ALWAYS (infinitely; permanently; never not) existed.
Not infinitely. If time is change then it's perfectly possible for there to be a finite number of changes but for change to always (at all times) have been happening.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:If time exists, then logically it has ALWAYS (infinitely; permanently; never not) existed.
Steve3007 wrote:Not infinitely. If time is change then it's perfectly possible for there to be a finite number of changes but for change to always (at all times) have been happening.
Yes, if "time is change" then I can't disagree with you. But if time is what "enables change", then it is as infinite as any other spatial dimension.

From a geometric perspective, time enables change (of 3D objects):
  • 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.
The 4th dimension is called "Time".
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:Yes, if "time is change" then I can't disagree with you. But if time is what "enables change", then it is as infinite as any other spatial dimension.
In my view "time is what enables change" is meaningless. I'm not sure if putting the "enables change" part in quotes changes that because I don't know why the quotes are there.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Sculptor1 »

RJG wrote: February 28th, 2021, 6:53 am *********************************

THE LOGICAL IMPLICATION OF CTD

The ultimate goal in philosophical debate and discussion is to arrive at objective truth; logical certainty.
Where the hel did you get that idea?
This is done by reducing these discussions to logical statements that can then be mathematically (deductively) derived as true or false.
That is not what happens. Logic is fully limited by the strength of the premises used. Logic can be used to conclude nonsense, through definitions which can never perfectly encompass the reality they are designed to represent. It's just a rabbit hole of reductionism that you are promoting here.
This paper is written mostly from the perspective of logic; utilizing the axioms of Simple Logic.[1]

The existence of CTD is known by many in the science community,
Connective Tissue Damage, or Down Counter Function Block? Maybe you mean, Crash Test Dummies. But I think CRASH TO DESKTOP is what I am looking for ATM!!

but its monstrous logical implication stays hidden away from plain view. This paper starts first by reviewing CTD, then secondly exposing its hidden logical implication, and then finally reviewing and refuting some of the attempted objections of this new found logical truth.


What is CTD?
  • “The important thing to understand about the moment NOW is that it is actually the moment THEN. You can only experience something that has already happened, so essentially you're living in the wake of your own past.”
This quote by an Australian philosopher[2] pretty much sums up all that we need to know about CTD. But to add a bit more clarity - CTD is Conscious Time Delay. It is the delay in time between that which happens in reality (in real-time), and that which happens in the conscious mind of the observer (in conscious-time). More specifically, it is the time delay from an event happening in reality to the conscious realization of that event.

Most of us feel that we experience reality ‘as’ it is happening. We feel that our present conscious experiences are in sync with the present happenings of reality. But because of CTD, everything that we are presently conscious of, are of past events. For example, when we see a car traveling down the road at 40 mph, we fully assume this car to be precisely where we see it, when in reality, it is probably at least 11 feet (3.5 meters) in front of where our eyes tell us.[3]
  • The reality that we are conscious of, is long gone by the time we become conscious of it.
There are at least 3 factors that contribute to CTD: transmission, translation, and recognition. Using the car example above, 1) the transmission delay is the time it takes for light waves to bounce off the object (car) and enter into the eyes of the observer, 2) the translation delay is the time it takes for the conversion of these light waves into the electrical signals and patterns that the brain can then understand, and finally, the most significant is 3) the recognition delay is the time it takes to match these signals/patterns to corresponding memory patterns so as to then know what one experiences. Science tells us that the conscious recognition of our bodily experiences (sensory and neural reactions) will take a minimum of 200 milliseconds and possibly up to 0.5 seconds (or more).[4]
  • In essence, CTD is the time that it takes to KNOW what our body is physically experiencing.
Important Note:
The amount of time delay is irrelevant to this discussion. It is the existence of the time delay itself that matters. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the time delay were only .00000000001 milliseconds, or 100 seconds long, the logical implication of CTD still holds true.

To help better understand CTD -- imagine watching a “live-broadcasted” sporting event on TV. We believe that what we are seeing (on the TV) is actually happening in real-time, but due to network transmission delays of up to 7 seconds, our present view actually consists of past events. While we may see the batter on TV going through his warm-up swings, but back at Fenway Park, in so-called “real-time”, he has already hit a home run, ...we just don’t know it yet.

We view live sporting events through the time-delayed view of our TV. And likewise, we view reality through the time-delayed view of consciousness. ...this being our only access (view) to reality.

Logically:
  • P1. Instantaneous detection/sensing etc. is not logically (nor scientifically) possible. This includes human conscious experiencing (sensing, detecting, translating, and the interpreting involved in the conscious recognition of sensory and neural activity). A time delay is an unavoidable fact.
    P2. None of our conscious processes or events are exempt from this time delay, as ALL processes and events consume time.
    C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING that we are conscious of, has already happened; are of past events.
CTD is the inevitable and unavoidable time delay occurring between an event happening in reality [X] and the conscious realization of that event [consciousness-of-X].

To conclude this section with a spooky but true "Twilight Zone" moment...

When you get off work today and walk across the parking lot to your car, know that your real body (the one existing in reality), is probably at least 10 inches (26 cm) out in front of you.[5] And if it were possible to see the real you, then you would see the back of your own head. ...spooky? ...yes.

And then when you reach for the car door handle, your real hand has already opened the door. ...again, spooky, ...but true!


The Logical Implication

Although CTD itself is understandable and obvious to many of us, its monstrous implication is not so understandable, nor obvious. The logical implication of CTD is that conscious-causation is a logical impossibility.

Because of CTD, we are, in effect, being ‘fed’ our conscious experiences. That which happens, necessarily happens. This logical conclusion is a bit chilling, as it destroys any viability of conscious control (i.e., conscious-causation; free-will; mental causation, etc.) or any form or notion of consciously doing anything.
  • So, contrary to popular belief - We don’t consciously do anything, ...we are only conscious of what we’ve done.
To help better understand, imagine watching a video today of what you did yesterday. Is there anything you can do now to change that which you see? No, of course not, everything we are viewing are of past events; they have already happened; they have already been done.

A CTD value of any amount, whether 24 hours long as illustrated above, or a fraction of a millisecond, yields the same logical implication - the logical impossibility of conscious-causation; the logical impossibility of consciously doing anything.
  • Everything we are conscious of, are of past events.
The logic is very clear and simple. We can’t cause, control, or change a past event; after it has already happened; after it has already been caused. What is done is done.
  • P1. EVERYTHING we are conscious of, are of past events.
    P2. Past events are unchangeable.
    C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING we are conscious of, is unchangeable.
Again, the logic (above) is very simple and straightforward. Its conclusion is sound and irrefutable. Below is another syllogism, showing again the logical impossibility of conscious-causation, but from a slightly different perspective:
  • P1. The consciousness -of-X follows (comes after) X. [Consciousness>X]
    P2. The causation -of-X precedes (comes before) X. [Causation<X]
    C1. Therefore, the before-after terms defeat themself, thereby rendering “conscious-causation” as a simple oxymoron on par with “married bachelors” and “square circles”.
Nothing is more objectively certain in all of reality than that of a logical impossibility. In this case, X=~X is a logical impossibility; we can’t come before (and cause) that which we come after (are conscious of). Since no amount of empirical evidence could ever overturn, or make this (or any logical impossibility), a possibility, then conscious-causation (e.g., conscious control; free-will) is hereby demoted to the ranks of myths and illusions.


Objections
  • P1. CTD exists - everything we are conscious of, are of past events.
    P2. Past events are unchangeable.
    C1. Therefore, everything we are conscious of, is unchangeable.
    P3. Unchangeable events cannot be caused to change.
    C2. Therefore, conscious-causation is logically impossible.
To disprove a logical truth, one must first show a flawed (untrue) premise statement and/or an invalid logic structure. If the premises are true, and the structure is mathematically valid, then the conclusion is logically sound; logically true; objectively true. Attempts to disprove “the logical impossibility of conscious-causation” include:

1. Invalidate ‘logic’ itself. Deny that logic provides truth.

This claim defeats itself. This is a futile argument because any (logical) argument that tries to defeat logic, only defeats itself (the argument). And any illogical argument that tries to defeat logic defeats nothing. For if we argue that logic is invalid, then we only invalidate our own argument. We cut off the very legs upon which we make our stand.

2. Claim P1 is false. Claim that we can be conscious of future events via intentions, goal planning, etc.

This claim is mistaking the “map” for the “territory”. It is only our “thoughts” (of these future events) that we are actually conscious of, not actual “future events” themselves. Much like when reading a book about “future events” does not mean that we are actually seeing “future events”. We are only seeing (the pre-existing) “words” in the book whose content is about “future events”. And likewise, being conscious of thoughts or feelings about future events does not mean that one is actually conscious of future events. It is only the (pre-existing) thought/feeling (bodily experience) that one is actually conscious of.

******
Additional comments:
When we are conscious, we are only conscious of bodily experiences (e.g. thoughts[6], feelings, and sensory experiences), which in turn are supposedly caused by real objects or events (within or outside the body). These bodily experiences are the content of our consciousness and are undeniably real, as there can be nothing more real in all of reality, than our own experiences.[7] Whereas the objects that are represented in these experiences are not-certain; they may be real, or they may be not-real (fictitious; illusionary; imaginary; delusional; hallucinal; dream, etc.).

For example, sitting at my desk in my room, when I look outside my window, I am conscious of the sight of a tree, and when I look inside around my room, I am conscious of the sight of a ghost flying about. Since I am only privy to my bodily experiences and nothing more (i.e. not to the causal source of these experiences, nor to the actual objects that are represented in these experiences), the ghost himself may actually be real, and the tree herself may actually be not-real (or vice-versa, or other). In any case, both are not-certain. The certainty lies in the visual experience itself; it is the sight of the ghost and the sight of the tree that are undeniably real and certain, whereas the objects (ghost/tree) represented within these experiences are not-certain; i.e., they may be real or not-real.

Important Notes:
Without something to be conscious of, there can be no consciousness. One cannot be conscious of nothing. -- Much like with reading: without something to read, there can be no reading. One cannot be reading of nothing.

Without X, there can be no consciousness (-of-X).
Without words, there can be no reading (-of-words).

The "something" [X] that we are conscious of, are “bodily experiences”. Without pre-existing bodily experiences, there can be no consciousness [consciousness-of-X]. The consciousness of these bodily experiences naturally follows (comes after) the existence of these bodily experiences. -- Again, much like with reading: without pre-existing words there can be no reading. The reading of words naturally follows (comes after) the existence of these words.

Consciousness is contingent upon the pre-existence of bodily experiences.
…as is reading is contingent upon the pre-existence of words.

Interesting Side Notes
:
1. Although another topic altogether, consciousness itself can only logically be another bodily experience. This is not to say that we can be conscious of consciousness, as that would be logically impossible. More particularly, consciousness is the singular bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory. For it is recognition that converts a non-conscious bodily experience into a conscious experience, that we then call “consciousness”.

2. In one respect, consciousness could be viewed as the memory playback of the most recent bodily experiences. And it is because of this memory playback, that we experience consciousness in moments rather than in discrete points. To help better understand, imagine being a smaller version of our self, sitting backwards in a backpack on the back of our larger real-self. This is our “window seat” (our conscious view) of reality. And as our real-self moves forward in time through reality, we not only experience the most recent past experience, but also (with a little less clarity) the previous past experiences, thereby creating our conscious moments; i.e., the appearance of duration within our conscious experiences.

3. This imagination illustration above is not to imply that a conscious self exists within a real self. This is not logically possible. It is to imply that a body experiences many bodily reactions (bodily experiences), including that of recognition, that we call “consciousness”.

And now back to the Objections…

3. Claim P1 is false.
Claim that our conscious processes occur instantaneously, or claim that our consciousness of an event in reality is simultaneous with that event, or claim that the content of one’s consciousness is consciousness itself; i.e., it is just a particular mental representational state, and therefore has no time lag whatsoever.

Firstly, an “instantaneous process” is itself an oxymoron and therefore logically impossible. Processes consume time, and instantaneous means no-time. X=~X is a logical impossibility.

Secondly, occurring “simultaneously” requires “instantaneous processing” (instantaneous sensing/detecting), which again is logically impossible.

Thirdly, even if there were no time delay whatsoever, or the CTD value was effectively zero, conscious-causation would still be logically impossible. Even if we assume the false premise P1 below is true, the conclusion is still the same; conscious-causation is still logically impossible.
  • P1. The consciousness (-of-X) occurs simultaneously with (or is) X.
    C1. Therefore, consciousness does not precede X.
    C2. Therefore, consciousness cannot cause X.
    C3. Therefore, conscious-causation is logically impossible.
The consciousness-of-X would have to precede X in order to cause it, which of course is impossible.
  • "Once one becomes conscious of something, then it is too late to cause this something!”
  • P1. One can’t be conscious of something if there is no something yet to be conscious of.
    P2. And… once one becomes conscious of something, then it is too late to cause this something!
    C1. Therefore, even if CTD = 0 (or does not exist) conscious-causation is still logically impossible. X<X is logically impossible; one cannot be conscious of something before one is conscious of it!
4. Claim P1 is false. Claim that if CTD were true, we would be unable to play tennis or hit a fast-pitched baseball as the ball in both cases would be in a different spatial location than our conscious perception tells us.

This claim makes the mistake of assuming that our bodies operate (act/react) consciously. Our real bodies act/react in real-time, …and it is these bodily experiences (bodily reactions/sensations) that we consciously realize CTD seconds after they happen. Using the baseball scenario and assuming a 200 millisecond CTD, here is what the unfolding of the events would look like:
  • @t=0
    In Reality: pitcher releases the ball towards the plate.
    Conscious batter: sees the pitcher start his motion.

    @ t=200 ms
    In Reality: ball is 1/3 of the way to the plate.
    Conscious batter: sees the pitcher release the ball towards the plate.

    @ t=400 ms
    In Reality: ball is 2/3 of the way to the plate, the batter begins his swing.
    Conscious batter: sees the ball at 1/3 of the way to the plate

    @ t=600 ms
    In Reality: batter hits the ball.
    Conscious batter: sees the ball at 2/3 of the way to the plate and begins his swing.

    @ t=800 ms
    In Reality: ball goes over the fence; home run.
    Conscious batter: hits the ball.
Although reality leads consciousness (by 200 ms in this case) there is no added difficulty in hitting the ball because the speed/time of the ball (from pitcher to plate) is the same in both the conscious time and real time. The body reacts; responding to stimuli as it has been trained/conditioned to do so, and then 200 ms later, the body is then conscious of that particular bodily reaction.

5. Claim P1 is false. Claim that the “past” does not exist. Claim that real time does not exist therefore before-and-after conditions do not exist.

Much like Objection #3, this claim does not help defeat, but instead only reinforces, the logical impossibility of conscious-causation. If time, and before-and-after states of existence (sequential events) did not exist, then there could be no causation whatsoever. There could be nothing that precedes something else to cause it. There could be no cause-and-effect. Without time, conscious-causation would still be logically impossible.

6. Claim that C2 is false despite the trueness of its premises. Claim that our present consciousness (of a past event) is an event itself which then can have a causal effect on a future event, thereby making conscious-causation possible.

Firstly, since we can’t consciously cause something that we are conscious of, we certainly cannot consciously cause something that we are not-conscious of.

Secondly, for a conscious event to have a causal effect on a real-time event, it must occur before (i.e., in the future of) the real-time event. But since all conscious events themselves occur after the happenings of real time events, they therefore cannot have a causal effect on the happening of any real time event. In other words, there can never be a point in time where consciousness catches up to (and passes) reality to ever have a causal effect on it.

Side Note:
There exist two “nows”; the “now” happening in reality, and the “now” happening in our present conscious experiences. The conscious “now” lags the real “now” by the CTD value.


CTD Timeline - small.JPG



7. Claim that C2 is false because we can obviously consciously cause the lifting of our own arm whenever we want to, thereby making conscious-causation possible.

This claim puts the cart in front of the horse. One can’t be conscious-of-a-want without their first being a want to be conscious of. The want (desire; will) comes before (not after!) the consciousness-of-the-want. X always precedes the consciousness-of-the-X.

Logically, and contrary to popular belief, we don’t/can’t consciously cause our own wants, but instead, it is our wants that cause us to do as we do. If we are conscious of the want to raise our arm, then this want (a bodily experience; urge) existed prior to our consciousness of this want. And if we see and feel our arm raising upwards, we only know this after (not before!) the associative bodily experiences happened; i.e., the occurrence of visual and proprioception sensations.

Interesting sidenote:
The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer also recognized the logical impossibility of causing our own wants as he correctly states:
  • “Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.”
This means that although our wants dictate our actions, we can’t (consciously) dictate our own wants. Since it is logically impossible [X<X] to “want what we want” (without a preceding want to do so!), it is therefore, our wants that control us, and not the other way around, as we (many of us) have falsely been indoctrinated to believe.


Conclusion and Other Logical Implications

To conclude, because of CTD, our conscious view of reality is just a “window seat to the past”, therefore, conscious-causation is logically impossible. We cannot “consciously do” anything because everything we are conscious of has already been “done”; has already happened; has already been caused. And what is done is done.

This conclusion also leads to other logical truths, including:
1. The inability (impossibility) to consciously think our own thoughts - we can’t consciously think (cause/create/author/script) our own thoughts; we are only conscious of the thoughts that have already been created/scripted for us.

2. The inability (impossibility) to consciously move our bodies about - we can’t consciously cause our bodies to move about; we are only conscious of our bodies moving about.

3. The inability (impossibility) to consciously intend or desire anything - we can’t consciously cause our intentions or desires; we are only conscious of our intentions and desires.

Also, many benefits can be gained by understanding and accepting CTD and its logical implications. For example, one interesting benefit of understanding CTD, might be improved teaching and training methods in our schools and sports, where current methods rely heavily (and falsely) on consciousness as a means of teaching/training. Because of CTD, our response to any-and-all given situations (stimuli) are determined by our pre-conditionings, and NOT by our consciousness of the stimuli. In other words, we don’t consciously cause a particular response (to a given stimuli), we are only conscious of the particular response we (our body) made. Consciousness has no causal role in the body’s reaction/response to any given stimuli. The acceptance of this realization, by those in our education system, could have a profound effect on the learning efficiency and capacity of our students.

And to conclude, with one more benefit example of understanding CTD and its logical implications, is that our view of others will soften. For example, we will less likely judge a person by their “bad” behavior. We will instead, recognize that they, like us, are only conscious of their bodily actions (good, bad, or ugly), and are not the conscious controllers of these actions. Therefore, we will find ourselves becoming more empathetic towards others, and particularly to those who are trapped in disadvantaged positions in reality.

Final comment: If we, as a society, truly desire to move forward in increasing our knowledge of reality, then the acceptance of the impossibility of conscious-causation is a critical threshold to cross. Crossing this threshold may be impossible to most of us, since it is our desires (which we have no conscious say-so over) that ultimately dictate our actions. If the desire for true knowledge exceeds the desire to not relinquish our (imaginary) conscious power, then we can cross this threshold and move forward onto new truths, otherwise we will continue believing as we want.


*******
Footnotes:
1. The axioms of Simple Logic:
  • X=X is true
    X=~X is logically impossible (i.e. something can’t be what it is not)
    X<X is logically impossible (i.e. something can’t exist/happen before it exists/happens)
2. Quote by Obvious Leo. “Obvious Leo” is the moniker of a recently deceased anonymous Australian philosopher.
3. 11 feet is based on a CTD value of 200 milliseconds (40 mph = 58.7 fps; 58.7 x 0.2 = 11.7 feet)
4. There are probably many hundreds of scientific articles written in regards to conscious time delay, including the famous Benjamin Libet experiments. Most of them agree with the 200 - 500 millisecond range of CTD. One example is Velmans, M. (1993) British Journal of Psychology 90(4), 543-566. When Perception becomes Conscious -- http://cogprints.org/838/1/BJP2web.html
5. 10 inches is based on a CTD value of 200 milliseconds, at normal walking speed of 3 mph (3 mph = 52.8 ips; 52.8 x 0.2 = 10.6 inches).
6. Technically, thoughts are sensory experiences. They are a composition of sensory experiences compiled by the rules of one’s language, and therefore fall into the category of sensory experiences. Therefore, Feelings (emotions, urges, etc.) and Sensory experiences encompass all our bodily experiences. The subtle difference being these two types of bodily experiences may be the outwardly felt (feelings) and the inwardly sensed (sensory experiences). Nonetheless, both are bodily sensations; bodily experiences.
7. Experiencing/experiences are undeniably real as they are logically impossible to doubt or deny. For any experiencing of doubt/denial only affirms its existence. There can be nothing more absolutely certain and real than one’s own experiences. Even idealists cannot deny its realness!
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Yes, if "time is change" then I can't disagree with you. But if time is what "enables change", then it is as infinite as any other spatial dimension.

From a geometric perspective, time enables change (of 3D objects):
  • 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.
The 4th dimension is called "Time".
Steve3007 wrote:In my view "time is what enables change" is meaningless.
Without the dimension of time, there could be no 'motion'. Time is the means by which objects move/change. Without it, everything would be stationary; frozen; and no interactions of matter would be possible.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Steve3007 wrote: April 9th, 2021, 7:12 am
I disagree with your interpretation of the block universe and with the assertion that Newtonian Mechanics is known to be false.
My understanding is Newtonian Mechanics is known to be false, proven repeatedly by repeatable scientific experiment. Thus, I am not interested in arguing that point. If you think Newtonian Mechanics is not a known-to-be false, then I agree to disagree. I consider it a premise of my arguments and posts in this topic.

Steve3007 wrote: April 9th, 2021, 7:12 am If we decide to view space-time as a 4 dimensional "block", with time as one of those dimensions, I don't think our decision to view it in that way makes any difference to the fact that time passes; changes happen.
Under Newtonian Mechanics, what you are saying would be correct because in NM there is an objective present, in NM there is objective simultaneity, and in NM the time dimension is fundamentally distinct from the space dimensions in a non-relative way (i.e. in NM time-ness and space-ness are non-relative and non-emergent). None of those three things are true in Einstein's Mechanics. In Einstein's Mechanics, which absolutely contradict Newtonian Mechanics (and classic mechanics in general) by giving different predictions for what the results of certain observations and experiments will be. In Einstein's Mechanics, there is no universal now/present, and simultaneity is not objective but rather relative to a chosen axis of time, and timeness is not fundamentally distinct from spaceness. The 4D block universe does not have a preferred axis of time. One can just as easily say the X axis is the axis of time or the Y axis or the Z axis or any of the other infinite axises between them. There are infinite one-dimensional lines that could be drawn in the 4D block universe and treated as the dimension of time upon which to conceptually slice that unchanging 4D block universe into 3D frames, each 3D frame representing a point in the arbitrarily chosen axis of time.

RJG wrote: April 8th, 2021, 1:07 pm *
Scott, before discussing your comments on consciousness, I want to first try to understand your strong assertion that time does not exist (which, as you know, I see as a logical contradiction; impossibility). The disconnect in our views may simply be how we each define time.
Scott wrote:In analogy, imagine the entire universe was merely a single DVD. There was no DVD player or anything, and nothing existed except the one DVD. The DVD existed eternally in the unchanging unplayed state, and nothing else except the DVD existed. Maybe the DVD contains ten different video files, that if played could be played in any order (but again there is no DVD player). Is there change? No; ex hypothesi, no change is occurring and no change can occur.
RJG wrote:Agreed. A DVD by itself (without a DVD player) is useless. Nothing can happen. We can't [really] experience anything, including thoughts. ...Without a DVD player (being the causer of change; aka "time") nothing can happen.
Scott wrote:Yes, I agree. ...The existence of change requires a DVD player to timelessly/transcendentally interact with eternal reality.
1. Okay, so then it seems that you agree that "change" exists, and that a "causer/enabler of change" exists, but yet deny that "time" exists? ...right?
2. But if we define "time" as the "causer/enabler of change", then wouldn't you then agree that "time exists"?
1. Not exactly. If consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then I believe change does not truly fundamentally exist.

2. Not if consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful.

Another way of phrasing the above points could be this: If (1) both time-ness (versus space-ness) and time are relative (i.e. there is no objective simultaneity and no fundamentally preferred/objective axis of time in the 4D block universe) and (2) conscious subjectivity/agency is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then change is incompatible with determinism.

In other words, without transcendental DVD player(s)--be that (or those) transcendental player(s) consciousness itself or some other transcendental thing far more mystical and less parsimonious (e.g. an external god)--then there is nothing to add time or change to the unchanging timeless 4D block universe.

In yet other words, for the appearance of relative time (and by extension the appearance of change) to a subjective agent to be fundamentally real, then the subjective agent to which it is relative must be transcendental, fundamental, and/or physically forceful. If the would-be DVD player is fully contained within the unchanging DVD, and is unable to change the DVD, and is fundamentally reducible to other aspects of the unchanging DVD, then it cannot function as a DVD player playing the DVD and creating a transcendental relationship with the DVD that generates a real time or real change. A transcendental and/or fundamentally forceful DVD player can change what's on the screen without necessarily changing the unchanging DVD itself. Transcendence of the DVD provides transcendence of the DVD's unchangingness such that change can be had without changing the DVD.

The DVD player by definition transcends the unchanging DVD by entailing change, thereby creating the real but relative time that comes from the changing relationship between the unchanging DVD and the transcendental DVD player (which is not itself part of the DVD).

To be clear, I am not suggesting that metaphysical dualism would need to be true for it to be the case that consciousness is transcendental, fundamental, and/or physically forceful. I am not a dualist.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:1. Okay, so then it seems that you agree that "change" exists, and that a "causer/enabler of change" exists, but yet deny that "time" exists? ...right?
2. But if we define "time" as the "causer/enabler of change", then wouldn't you then agree that "time exists"?
Scott wrote:1. Not exactly. If consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then I believe change does not truly fundamentally exist.
2. Not if consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful.
The way I see it is that -- consciousness has absolutely no say-so in the matter. Logically, if A and B are one-in-the-same, and A exists, then B exists. B is not contingent on the status of C (or anything other than A).

Scott wrote:Another way of phrasing the above points could be this: If (1) both time-ness (versus space-ness) and time are relative (i.e. there is no objective simultaneity and no fundamentally preferred/objective axis of time in the 4D block universe)...
But this does not mean that time does not exist, or that change can't happen. It is precisely because of the 4th dimension of time that 3D objects/entities can move/change/interact within this 4D block universe. If the dimensions of time and space are "infinite" then yes, there is no objective "starting" point (or preferred/objective axis) of time (or space) in the 4D block universe.

Again, from a geometric perspective, time enables change (of 3D objects):
  • A 0D "point" cannot move/change (into a line) without a 1st dimension.
    A 1D "line" cannot move/change (into a plane) without a 2nd dimension.
    A 2D "plane" cannot move/change (into a object) without a 3rd dimension.
    A 3D "object" cannot move/change (into motion) without a 4th dimension (aka "Time").
And if you deny time (the 4th dimension) exists, then you likewise (by the same reasoning) also deny the other 3 dimensions. And in essence this is contradictorily claiming "nothing exists".

Scott wrote: ...and (2) conscious subjectivity/agency is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then change is incompatible with determinism.
It seems here that you are implying that something can't happen unless something transcendental (magically; mystically; spookily) happens/happened. If so, then this in essence is the same as the 'first cause' argument, i.e. the impossibility of a deterministic starting point, or a 'first cause' which is the root cause of all happenings/changes in the universe.

There is one logical solution to this seemingly paradoxical situation. And that solution, although unpalatable to many, is that the dimensions of time and space are INFINITE; i.e. they have no starting or ending points (no boundaries/limits). Logically, infinite regression is possible.

This is the ONLY solution that does not contradict logic. Whereas the proposed solution that claims "time is not real" or that "change doesn't happen" does not pass the muster of logic. For any such claim is as self-contradictory as claiming "nothing exists" (...which self-contradictorily includes, and thereby defeats, the claim itself).
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:Without the dimension of time, there could be no 'motion'. Time is the means by which objects move/change. Without it, everything would be stationary; frozen; and no interactions of matter would be possible.
I disagree with this reification of the abstract concept of dimension. Abstractions are created as generalizations from specific instances. Time is an abstraction and a generalization of the phenomenon of change, such as the changes that happen in physical systems that can be called clocks. In my view it would be incorrect to then say that it is the abstraction which gives rise to the phenomenon from which it was abstracted.

But we've essentially discussed this same idea countless times before and it's unlikely we will ever agree. I don't think you're going to suddenly stop reifying abstractions now! And I'm not suddenly going to be convinced of the merits of doing so because it seems clearly incoherent to me and is apt to lead to errors of extrapolation - i.e. creating an abstract generalisation from observations of Nature and then telling Nature that it ought to behave according to the rules of that generalization that we created.

Scott wrote:My understanding is Newtonian Mechanics is known to be false, proven repeatedly by repeatable scientific experiment.
That's not my understanding/interpretation. When General Relativity was invented it didn't suddenly mean that Newtonian physics/Galilean Relativity was wrong. It encompasses that earlier theory as a special case for a subset of all possible observations, just as whatever comes after it will do the same for it. That is the way that laws of physics work. So, similarly, the Standard Model of Particle Physics encompasses Maxwell's Equations as a special case. The equations of the later theory, generally, become the equations of the earlier theory when certain simplifying assumptions are made. If you're going to claim that Newtonian Physics is "proven to be false" then you'll have to say the same of General Relativity, for example because of its inconsistencies with Quantum Theory.
Thus, I am not interested in arguing that point. If you think Newtonian Mechanics is not a known-to-be false, then I agree to disagree. I consider it a premise of my arguments and posts in this topic.
OK. I'd better stop here then!
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Without the dimension of time, there could be no 'motion'. Time is the means by which objects move/change.
Steve3007 wrote:I disagree with this reification of the abstract concept of dimension. Abstractions are created as generalizations from specific instances. Time is an abstraction and a generalization of the phenomenon of change, such as the changes that happen in physical systems that can be called clocks. In my view it would be incorrect to then say that it is the abstraction which gives rise to the phenomenon from which it was abstracted.
Steve, I think the main difference in our views is that you view time as a 'measurement of change', whereas I view time as a 'dimension (or that which enables) change.

Although both our views are related to "change" (i.e. movement/motion of objects), I look at it from the geometric perspective and you look at it from the empirical perspective.

Steve3007 wrote:But we've essentially discussed this same idea countless times before and it's unlikely we will ever agree.
I agree that it is unlikely that we will ever agree :) because empiricists (you) and rationalists (me) view reality from two different perspectives.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:Steve, I think the main difference in our views is that you view time as a 'measurement of change', whereas I view time as a 'dimension (or that which enables) change.
Yes, as I said, you reify the concept of dimension...
Although both our views are related to "change" (i.e. movement/motion of objects), I look at it from the geometric perspective and you look at it from the empirical perspective.
...and more generally all of the concepts of geometry. And presumably all of mathematics.

If the total number of changes in the universe was finite I presume you'd still regard time as infinite and would therefore conclude that it's meaningful to talk of a period of time (of infinite extent) before and after all the changes happen. That, to me, is self-contradictory because it amounts to talking about a time before/after time.
I agree that it is unlikely that we will ever agree :) because empiricists (you) and rationalists (me) view reality from two different perspectives.
Well, I don't think I'd regard you as a rationalist because, to me, much of what you say is irrational. I guess I'd regard you as somewhere between a solipsist and and reificationist (if there is such a thing) - a person who regards abstract concepts as if they were real.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

Steve3007 wrote:If the total number of changes in the universe was finite I presume you'd still regard time as infinite and would therefore conclude that it's meaningful to talk of a period of time (of infinite extent) before and after all the changes happen.
Time is infinite as are the other 3 spatial dimensions. There cannot be "before and after changes happening" without time. Not only can there not be "before's and afters", but there can also be no "changes" (motion/interaction/movement) whatsoever in the absence of time.

Steve3007 wrote:That, to me, is self-contradictory because it amounts to talking about a time before/after time.
Your error is in falsely conflating time as change. Time is NOT change, ...time enables change, ...without before and afters (beginnings/endings), there can be no change. Without a means to change, there can be no change! Time is the means that enables change; by which change happens.

RJG wrote:I agree that it is unlikely that we will ever agree :) because empiricists (you) and rationalists (me) view reality from two different perspectives.
Steve3007 wrote:Well, I don't think I'd regard you as a rationalist because, to me, much of what you say is irrational.
You should probably consider the view that you are looking from. The inability to see a rational argument does not necessarily mean that the argument is irrational. ...or does that not make 'rational' sense to you? (...and should I now expect another typical Steve condescending remark back from you???).

Maybe if you spent less time trying to insult people and more time trying to understand, then you might actually start to understand others views?
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote:Another way of phrasing the above points could be this: If (1) both time-ness (versus space-ness) and time are relative (i.e. there is no objective simultaneity and no fundamentally preferred/objective axis of time in the 4D block universe)...
RJG wrote: But this does not mean that time does not exist, or that change can't happen. It is precisely because of the 4th dimension of time that 3D objects/entities can move/change/interact within this 4D block universe.
In the 4D block universe of "spacetime" there is not 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. There are four equal dimensions of spacetime. Each dimension is dimension of spacetime.

You can imagine drawing a line through that 4D block universe of spacetime and call that drawn-on 1D line the axis of time. But there are infinite different 1D lines that you could draw on, each possible 1D line just as worthy of being called the axis of time, which is the sense in which not only is (1) time relative but also it is the case that (2) the difference between timeness and spaceness is relative, analogous to the difference between hereness and thereness. Fundamentally, according to Einstein's physics, space is time, and time is space, and in that way there is no space and not time but just a singular spacetime.

What is space from one reference frame is time from a different reference frame, with neither one being objective more correct, analogous to how what is 'here' from one reference frame can be 'there' to another reference from. In Einstein's physics, it's not just time and space that are relative, but also timeness and spaceness.

In Einstein's physics, from the self-referential perspective of something moving in spacetime, everything moves through spacetime at the same speed (C, the constant), and thus from the self-referential perspective it sees itself as moving only through one dimension at the speed of C (i.e. each thing sees itself as moving only and always through time at the speed of C and thus not through space at all) and sees everything else either moving through space at the speed of C but not time at all, or moving through a mixture of space at sub-C levels and time at sub-C levels such that movement through space and the movement through time equal C, which is really just a way of saying that shortest point through spacetime is a line. Time is just the dimension in space that happens to be parallel to a chosen reference line. One experiences one's own line through spacetime as a special line, the line of time, but the timeless of that 1-D line as opposed to any other 1-D line is arbitrary and relative. Your 1-D line of time is different than my 1-D line of time through spacetime. There is no objective 1D line of time in 4D spacetime. There is no objective way to say which three dimensions of the 4D block universe are the three dimension of space as opposed to time. In other words, there are infinite ways to slice it up into 3D frames.


Scott wrote: ...and (2) conscious subjectivity/agency is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then change is incompatible with determinism.
RJG wrote: April 14th, 2021, 7:40 am It seems here that you are implying that something can't happen unless something transcendental (magically; mystically; spookily)
No, that's not what I mean. I imagine it's impossible to explain what I do actually mean without first being in agreement about the timelessness of the 4D block universe in Einstein's physics, which are utterly incompatible with Newtonian Mechanics and its concept of not only objective time but objective timeness (i.e. an objective difference between the seeming dimension of time versus the other 3 dimensions). In Einstein's physics (i.e. Special and General Relativity), the 4D block universe lacks objective time-ness or objective space-ness, and it instead has 4 indistinguishable dimensions that are fundamentally and objectively speaking indistinguishable, meaning none of the 4 dimensions are more time-like than the others.

In fact, to think of it as being 4 different dimensions each possibly being the dimension of time with none of the four being preferred is itself wrong (or at least an understatement) because there are infinite ways--not just four--to draw on the W, X, Y, and Z axises. There is no preferred way to orient oneself to the 4D block universe; There is no leftness or rightness, no upness or downness, no timeness or spaceness. It's just as right and wrong to hold the 4D block universe one way and say time starts on the left side and goes 3D-frame by 3D-frame to the right side as it would be to rotate it 5 degrees (of 365 degrees) in any random direction and then say that time runs from the new left to the new right, even though doing so utterly changes the order in which events occur and changes which events are simultaneous or not.

Scott wrote:My understanding is Newtonian Mechanics is known to be false, proven repeatedly by repeatable scientific experiment.
Steve3007 wrote: April 14th, 2021, 7:40 am That's not my understanding/interpretation. When General Relativity was invented it didn't suddenly mean that Newtonian physics/Galilean Relativity was wrong. It encompasses that earlier theory as a special case for a subset of all possible observations, just as whatever comes after it will do the same for it.
If you replace "a special case" with "an approximation that approximately works close enough for most intents and purposes in special cases, namely most of everyday life" then I agree.

In that way, Special Relatively and General Relativity are to Newtonian Mechanics what round earth theory is to flat earth theory. When engineering a baseball stadium, one probably can pretend like flat earth theory is true rather than wasting time calculating in the bending and rotation of the earth. Even when playing pool, one might simply pretend friction doesn't exist for the purposes of calculating a certain shot.

What we must remember about scientific approximation, as a way to simplistically describe emergent phenomenon in a practical away, is that approximation also by definition means 'known-to-be-false'.

When playing Legos, or designing and engineering a blue-print for a huge bridge made out of Legos, we can for the sake of simplicity and practicality treat the Legos like they are solid objects made of indivisible fundamental stuff, the indivisible ultra-fundamental building blocks of everything, being placed on a Flat Earth. But that doesn't mean solid objects truly exist in fundamental reality, or that such an idea even makes sense. Ultimately, the Legos are almost entirely--if not entirely--made of empty space, and then that space itself may be as emergent and illusionary as the illusionarily solid stuff that was in it.

The world isn't made of Legos or uncuttable atoms. Those are approximations that have practical uses, but approximate is wrong.

Newtonian Mechanics is wrong. It asserts something that doesn't exist: Objective Time and Objective Timeness (as objectively and funmdentally distinguishable from Spaceness).


****
RJG wrote:1. Okay, so then it seems that you agree that "change" exists, and that a "causer/enabler of change" exists, but yet deny that "time" exists? ...right?
2. But if we define "time" as the "causer/enabler of change", then wouldn't you then agree that "time exists"?
Scott wrote:1. Not exactly. If consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then I believe change does not truly fundamentally exist.
2. Not if consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful.
RJG wrote: April 13th, 2021, 6:43 am The way I see it is that -- consciousness has absolutely no say-so in the matter.
Then, if that's true, I believe neither change nor time really exist.

If consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then I believe neither change nor time not truly fundamentally exist.

If consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then I believe the timeless 4D block universe proposed by Einstein's physics is accurate.

Keep in mind, the 4D block universe does not have 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. It has 4 dimensions that are fundamentally indistinguishable as space or time in that each of the 4 dimensions is a dimension of so-called 'spacetime' which is neither time nor space.

In fact, as I wrote above in reply to Steve3007, to think of it as being 4 different dimensions each possibly being the dimension of time with none of the four being preferred is itself wrong because there are infinite ways--not just four--to draw on the W, X, Y, and Z axises. There is no preferred way to orient oneself to the 4D block universe; There is no leftness or rightness, no upness or downness, no timeness or spaceness. It's just as right and wrong to hold the 4D block universe one way and say time starts on the left side and goes 3D-frame by 3D-frame to the right side as it would be to rotate the whole block universe 5 degrees (of 365 degrees) in any random direction and then say that time runs from new left to the new right, even though doing so utterly changes the order in which events occur and changes which events are simultaneous or not.

There are infinite ways to draw a 1D line through a 4D block universe, and any one of the 1D lines is just as worthy of being the axis of time as any other because there is no objective axis of time. There is no dimension out of the four--no one line out of the infinite--that is objectively special.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Steve3007 »

Scott, the first two quotes in the post above are attributed to me but I think they're from RJG.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:If the total number of changes in the universe was finite I presume you'd still regard time as infinite and would therefore conclude that it's meaningful to talk of a period of time (of infinite extent) before and after all the changes happen.
Time is infinite as are the other 3 spatial dimensions. There cannot be "before and after changes happening" without time. Not only can there not be "before's and afters", but there can also be no "changes" (motion/interaction/movement) whatsoever in the absence of time.
Since, in my view, time is change, obviously I agree that there can be no changes in the absence of time, but I also say that there can be no time in the absence of change. Hence, as I've said before, if there are a finite number of changes then time is finite while also always having been. But since you believe that time can somehow exist in the absence of change, as I said, you presumably believe that if there are a finite number of changes but that time is still infinite, there must be an infinitely long stretch of time both before and after that finite set of changes. As I said, that, to me, is incoherent because it's a reification fallacy.
RJG wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:That, to me, is self-contradictory because it amounts to talking about a time before/after time.
Your error is in falsely conflating time as change. Time is NOT change, ...time enables change, ...without before and afters (beginnings/endings), there can be no change. Without a means to change, there can be no change! Time is the means that enables change; by which change happens.
Before and after are temporal terms. As such they are a product of change. Without any change there could not meaningfully be any time, any before, any after or any other temporal concept. But, as we've both noted, we'll never agree on this.
RJG wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:Well, I don't think I'd regard you as a rationalist because, to me, much of what you say is irrational.
You should probably consider the view that you are looking from. The inability to see a rational argument does not necessarily mean that the argument is irrational.
That is true. My own view is that this applies to a lot of the instances where you yourself tell various people that they are irrational, as you frequently do. There have, for example, been several instances in the past of you stating that various theories of physics are irrational because you've misunderstood what they've said. (This isn't me being condescending. It's simply a fact, based on what you've said.)
...or does that not make 'rational' sense to you? (...and should I now expect another typical Steve condescending remark back from you???).

Maybe if you spent less time trying to insult people and more time trying to understand, then you might actually start to understand others views?
Where have I insulted anyone? Do you regard me saying "to me, much of what you say is irrational" as an insult? Do you regard that as condescending? If so, as I've said to you before, you say precisely the same things about numerous other people over and over again. Your central theme throughout your posts here is that you are a rational person surrounded by irrational people, particularly with regard to science, isn't it? But when you say it, it's not an insult and it's not condescending. Is that right?
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021