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
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 »

RJG wrote: March 24th, 2021, 9:39 pm
RJG wrote:But illusions themselves are also not logically possible without time (change).
Scott wrote:Perhaps, what you mean to say is that illusions cannot exist without the appearance of time.
No, I mean illusions can't 'happen' without time. Nothing can happen/change in a timeless (un-changeable) reality. ...can't have change in the absence of change. X=~X is logically impossible.
Yes, if we take Einstein's block universe seriously, then essentially nothing happens and nothing changes.

In Einstein's physics, the events that illusionarily seem to happen from our first-person perspective do not actually happen (in the strict time-dependent sense of the word happen), but rather they all eternally exist, past and future, in the eternal unchanging timeless 4-D block universe.
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:No, I mean illusions can't 'happen' without time. Nothing can happen/change in a timeless (un-changeable) reality. ...can't have change in the absence of change. X=~X is logically impossible.
Scott wrote:Yes, if we take Einstein's block universe seriously, then essentially nothing happens and nothing changes.

In Einstein's physics, the events that illusionarily seem to happen from our first-person perspective do not actually happen (in the strict time-dependent sense of the word happen), but rather they all eternally exist, past and future, in the eternal unchanging timeless 4-D block universe.
But we can't have the "first-person perspective" if there is no time. We (and our perspectives) are not outside of reality looking down on it. We are part of this reality. Without time (change), we wouldn't be able to have the thought that "time is an illusion".

Logic does not adhere to Science (e.g. Einstein's physics, etc), but rather, it is the other way around - Science must adhere to Logic. The man-made (a posteriori; subjective) truths of Science can never defeat or overturn the universe-made (a priori; objective) truths of Logic. Logic always trump Science.

The science truth (claim) that "time is an illusion" is as logically false as saying "time had a beginning" or the "universe is finite". X=~X and X<X are logical impossibilities that science cannot overturn.
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 »

RJG wrote: March 27th, 2021, 7:59 am
RJG wrote:No, I mean illusions can't 'happen' without time. Nothing can happen/change in a timeless (un-changeable) reality. ...can't have change in the absence of change. X=~X is logically impossible.
Scott wrote:Yes, if we take Einstein's block universe seriously, then essentially nothing happens and nothing changes.

In Einstein's physics, the events that illusionarily seem to happen from our first-person perspective do not actually happen (in the strict time-dependent sense of the word happen), but rather they all eternally exist, past and future, in the eternal unchanging timeless 4-D block universe.
But we can't have the "first-person perspective" if there is no time.
Yes, we can; in this sense: We can talk about what things look like to Batman from his first person perspective when he looks at an optical illusion at a museum in Gotham, even though the whole story may already exist in a timeless eternal book or timeless eternal movie.

It doesn't mean that Batman's first-person experience of hereness versus thereness are indicative of a real difference between hereness and thereness, or that his experience of time or his experience of his entire reality is indicative that either his time or reality are real, or that the events he experiences are happening in the order he experiences them or in any real order at all (i.e. happening on some metaphysical stage/ dimension of objective/real time).

Insofar as we assume consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful (which are not things I actually assume), then as a matter of parsimony and Occam's Razor, I believe the logical and reasonable parsimonious conclusion is that time is an illusion, meaning we live in a timeless block universe.
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:Nothing can happen/change in a timeless (un-changeable) reality. ...can't have change in the absence of change. X=~X is logically impossible.
Scott wrote:In Einstein's physics, the events that illusionarily seem to happen from our first-person perspective do not actually happen (in the strict time-dependent sense of the word happen), but rather they all eternally exist, past and future, in the eternal unchanging timeless 4-D block universe.
RJG wrote:But we can't have the "first-person perspective" if there is no time.
Scott wrote:Yes, we can; in this sense: We can talk about what things look like to Batman from his first person perspective when he looks at an optical illusion at a museum in Gotham, even though the whole story may already exist in a timeless eternal book or timeless eternal movie.
But Batman's perception/illusion (along with our perception of Batman) can't happen if happenings can't happen. The story (illusion) in the book/movie cannot be revealed to Batman if the pages can't turn (page by page; event by event) to the next page. In other words, if events can't happen, then no event can happen (including our and Batman's illusions and perceptions).

I think the disconnect between our views is maybe our differing understandings of "time"?? I equate "time" as/with "change", whereas I think you view time as something else. For it seems to me that you are saying -- "change (via perceptions, illusions, etc) can happen in the absence of change". ...which is logically contradictory. X=~X is logically impossible.

Scott wrote:It doesn't mean that Batman's first-person experience of hereness versus thereness are indicative of a real difference between hereness and thereness, or that his experience of time or his experience of his entire reality is indicative that either his time or reality are real, or that the events he experiences are happening in the order he experiences them or in any real order at all (i.e. happening on some metaphysical stage/ dimension of objective/real time).
None of this (in red) can happen if time does not exist. Batman can't "experience" anything if there is no time. "Events" can't happen if there is no time. And "happenings" can't happen if happenings can't happen!

Not only that, but I would be unable to "experience" reading your words above (one by one) if time did not exist.


*********************
To put it more succinctly -- It is logically impossible to deny the existence of time, because it takes time to deny time. (...and logic trumps any science that tries to convince us otherwise).
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 »

RJG wrote: March 31st, 2021, 6:46 am
RJG wrote:Nothing can happen/change in a timeless (un-changeable) reality. ...can't have change in the absence of change. X=~X is logically impossible.
Scott wrote:In Einstein's physics, the events that illusionarily seem to happen from our first-person perspective do not actually happen (in the strict time-dependent sense of the word happen), but rather they all eternally exist, past and future, in the eternal unchanging timeless 4-D block universe.
RJG wrote:But we can't have the "first-person perspective" if there is no time.
Scott wrote:Yes, we can; in this sense: We can talk about what things look like to Batman from his first person perspective when he looks at an optical illusion at a museum in Gotham, even though the whole story may already exist in a timeless eternal book or timeless eternal movie.
But Batman's perception/illusion (along with our perception of Batman) can't happen if happenings can't happen.
Yes, as I wrote in the post quoted above: "the events that illusionarily seem to happen from [Batman's] perspective do not actually happen".

In a block universe, things don't happen over time (and thus don't really happen at all) because there is no axis of time distinguishable from space over which for them to happen. Indeed, Newtonian space is an illusion too. It feels like we are standing on a flat Earth in space over time; but the flat Earth, the space, and the time are known to be falsehoods, and thus so is the feeling itself (i.e. we aren't really feeling or really doing anything over time ever because there is no time). In a block universe, it is a self-referential illusion that is not truly happening over true time but rather eternally exists in an eternity reality that does not have space or time. Things don't happen in a block universe because there is no true space for them to happen in and no true time for them to happen during. In a block universe, time and happening are illusions, illusions that do not happen but just exist eternally like everything else.
RJG wrote: March 31st, 2021, 6:46 amThe story (illusion) in the book/movie cannot be revealed to Batman if the pages can't turn (page by page; event by event) to the next page.
They aren't revealed to Batman by the turning of the pages. They don't happen because of the turning of the pages. The whole story eternally exists in a predetermined eternal way. Events that would seem to be "in the past" relative to Batman from Batman's illusionary fictional pseudo-perspective (i.e. his place in the eternal block universe) are no more the cause of the events that seem like future events from Batman's illustionary fictional pseudo-perspective than vice versa. In a block universe, the appearance that the future is truly yet to happen is indeed an illusion because nothing is ever really happening but already all exists, eternally an unchanging.

RJG wrote: March 31st, 2021, 6:46 am In other words, if events can't happen, then no event can happen (including our and Batman's illusions and perceptions).
Indeed, they don't really happen. That is the point. The ordering of events into a sequence is an illusion. The difference between past and present, and between here and there, is an illusion. In a deterministic block universe, the feeling that the past exists in a fixed way but the future is yet to happen and/or yet to be decided is an illusion. In a block universe, pastness and futureness are like hereness and thereness; all illusions. In a block universe, there is no pastness and futreness, no hereness and thereness, but just an eternal everythingness without time or space.



RJG wrote: March 31st, 2021, 6:46 am I think the disconnect between our views is maybe our differing understandings of "time"?? I equate "time" as/with "change", whereas I think you view time as something else. For it seems to me that you are saying -- "change (via perceptions, illusions, etc) can happen in the absence of change". ...which is logically contradictory. X=~X is logically impossible.
The false appearance of change to Batman does not require that actual change exists in his universe/reality.

I wouldn't define time as change but it's moot since both are absence in the block universe. There is no true change or true time in a block universe. There is no happening in a block universe. A block universe is eternal, timeless, spaceless, hereless, thereless, pastless, and futureless.

Like flat earth, Newtonian time (i.e. objective/real time) and Newtonian space (i.e. objective/real space) have been disproven. Yes, they (flat earth and Newtonian mechnics) are intuitive, and yes our day-to-day language and day-to-day good-enough layman's physics typically utilize those false assumption. Even the structure of sentences with verbs often depends on the false assumption of Newtonian time and Newtonian space in which things exist in space over time, but the things, space, and time are all illusions and falsehoods, illusions that do no happen in a real objective time but rather exist eternally in an unchanging block universe. (That is, insofar as we assume consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful, which are not things I assume).

Scott wrote:It doesn't mean that Batman's first-person experience of hereness versus thereness are indicative of a real difference between hereness and thereness, or that his experience of time or his experience of his entire reality is indicative that either his time or reality are real, or that the events he experiences are happening in the order he experiences them or in any real order at all (i.e. happening on some metaphysical stage/ dimension of objective/real time).
RJG wrote: March 31st, 2021, 6:46 am None of this (in red) can happen if time does not exist. Batman can't "experience" anything if there is no time. "Events" can't happen if there is no time. And "happenings" can't happen if happenings can't happen!

Not only that, but I would be unable to "experience" reading your words above (one by one) if time did not exist.

To put it more succinctly -- It is logically impossible to deny the existence of time, because it takes time to deny time. (...and logic trumps any science that tries to convince us otherwise).
I believe your argument is fallacious. As I wrote in my March 24th post, I believe it is fallacious for the same reason the following is fallacious: "You cannot say hereness and thereness are not real because you are saying it from over there to me over here."

The fact that time is an illusion (i.e. Newtonian mechanics are false) utterly undermines all kinds of false assumptions we use to speak including this sentence (e.g. the verb undermines can falsely seem to imply that the undermining is really happening over real time). We are like engineers building a bridge who treat the earth as flat. However, that does not prove time exists but rather instead results in a risk of committing a begging the question fallacy.

That is why it is helpful to compare ourselves and our hallucinated relativistic VR-reality with its known-to-be-false premises like flat earth and Newtonian time as a dream or fiction, like Batman in the DC Universe. Then we can talk relativistically about what is (i.e. would be) true from the false pseudo-view of the fictional avatars, but under the known premise that such a pseudo-perspective is utterly wrong and illusionary and thus indeed in some sense is not even a real perspective but just a pseudo-perspective.

Insofar as our words assume time or space, then our words describes a fictional world, like Batman in the DC Universe.

Do they describe it over real time? No. Are the words written in real space? No. It's all an illusion, an illusion that is not really happening because nothing happens in a block universe. Nothing happens anywhere or anywhere because there is no stage-like real space over stage-like real time for it to really happen on, in, or during.

If we assume consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful (which are not things I assume), then it follows that generally none of this is real. It's like a dream or fictional story except one that isn't written in space over time or dreamt in space over time but rather exists eternally, unchanging, timeless, spaceless.
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 »

Scott wrote:Things don't happen in a block universe because there is no true space for them to happen in and no true time for them to happen during. In a block universe, time and happening are illusions, illusions that do not happen but just exist eternally like everything else.
If everything is illlusionary, then do illusions happen?

If nothing ever happens, then how can illusions (or experiences) happen? For example, right now I am experiencing typing a response to you on my keyboard. Are you saying my experience (or my illusion) of typing these words did not happen?

*************
It seems to me that it is logically impossible to deny the existence of happenings (aka time), because then the denial itself couldn't happen.
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 »

RJG wrote: April 1st, 2021, 6:39 am
Scott wrote:Things don't happen in a block universe because there is no true space for them to happen in and no true time for them to happen during. In a block universe, time and happening are illusions, illusions that do not happen but just exist eternally like everything else.
If everything is illlusionary, then do illusions happen?
I think that depends on whether or not one thinks consciousness (and by extension the conscious subject) is fundamental, transcendental, or physically forceful. If we assume for the sake of argument that consciousness is not fundamental, not transcendental, and not physically forceful (which are things I do no assume), then the subjective illusions could not be anything more than physically moot epiphenomenon and thus in that sense no they do not really happen but rather exist as part of the unchanging eternal timeless block universe. In other words, if consciousness is neither transcendental nor forceful then ipso facto it does not transcend nor forcefully change the unchanging eternalness of the block universe.

In contrast, if consciousness is transcendental, fundamental, or physically forceful in some way, then one can argue that a dream is real insofar as it is consciously dreamt. More importantly, conscious presence would provide a new subjective time-like aspect to the physics, but consciousness not time would be fundamental; the relative time would be the epiphenomenon. Perhaps the most epitimizing example would be libertarian free will. If libertarian free will exists, then it seems something is happening even if all conscious observation about the external world are illusions.

However, an epiphenomenonal illusion that is physically indistinguishable from that which a philosophical zombie could have does not provide real subjective time that transcends the eternalness of the block universe.

If a philosophical zombie looks at an optical illusion and sees something that doesn't exist, none of that really happened in real time (because there is no objective time in which it could happen) but rather it all exists timelessly in the block universe.

If consciousness is irrelevant to the physics, meaning if consciousness is a non-transcendental non-forceful non-fundamental epiphenomenon, then it's illusions are no more incompatible with the unchangingness of the timeless block universe than a zombie's illusions.

If consciousness is non-transcendental, non-forceful, and non-fundamental, then illusions no more 'happen' (i.e. cause change) then the Moon revolving around the Earth happens. They happen in the wrong everyday sense that Newtonian Mechanics are true and the Earth is generally treated as flat, but they do not really happen. Rather, they all exist in the timeless unchanging block universe.

RJG wrote: April 1st, 2021, 6:39 am If nothing ever happens, then how can illusions (or experiences) happen? For example, right now I am experiencing typing a response to you on my keyboard. Are you saying my experience (or my illusion) of typing these words did not happen?
Yes, in a sense. In another sense, some like to think of the block universe by thinking as though everything has already happened, as if past, present, and future all already exist in eternal reality. Thus, in one way of speaking about the block universe, we can say that nothing past nor future actually happens, but in another way of speaking about it we can say that the past even and future events have both already happened.

Regardless of the wording, in either way of wording it, the block universe view is incompatible with indeterminism, hence why Einstein famously said that he believed god does not play does.

Thus, change (i.e. something happening) is thus being defined as inherently indeterministic.

The everyday meaning of the word 'change' (and by extension 'happening') may refer instead to a process that requires Newtonian Mechanics (i.e. space and objective time). Newtonian Mechanics and flat earth theory are useful falsehoods for certain engineering projects and everyday life, but both are known to be false.


RJG wrote: April 1st, 2021, 6:39 am It seems to me that it is logically impossible to deny the existence of happenings (aka time), because then the denial itself couldn't happen.
As I said in my previous posts, I believe that is fallacious for the same reason the following is fallacious: "You cannot say hereness and thereness are not real because you are saying it from over there to me over here."

Hereness, thereness, time, change, and happenings all exist within the illusion that is our everyday Newtonian world. If I go to the grocery store and ask for the milk, and the clerk says, "the milk is over there", I don't scream at him, "Thereness isn't real!" Nonetheless, the fact that we use those terms to very abstractly discuss pseudo-reality does mean they are actually real. Realizing that time and thereness (versus hereness) aren't real contradicts much of what we say and believe on an everyday practical basis.

If you are a building a bridge, designing a house, or doing biology, then fundamental physics is probably not your friend. It's better to use known-to-be-false drastic physical oversimplifications to sidestep the actual physics, hence the sense in which we live in a dream world in which everything is an illusion including the human and brain we see in the mirror, and the mirror.

If we accept the block universe idea, which I do insofar as we assume consciousness is non-transcendental, non-forceful, and non-fundamental (which I don't actually assume), then me writing this post is not really happening in the time-dependent sense of the word happening. Nothing is actually being changed. The seeming change is an illusion, not an an illusion happening over time but a time-independent illusion, eternally existing like everything else in the unchanging block universe. That is, if we assume consciousness is non-transcendental, non-forceful, and non-fundamental.
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
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by The Beast »

It is a Universal truth. The brightest stars in the firmament might be extinguished. We are looking at the past. We are in the present looking at the past.
Financial companies look for the fastest machines. By the time I look at the financial data it has changed. But the change I do counts. The fastest machine calculates my change and do a correction to maximize profit. If I am aware of how slow my machine is I might (with the majority of machines) coordinate a trend response. Majority rules.
The spectrum that is consciousness might be aware of the impending Death of a relative. The certainty is the phone call. If this is true, then my consciousness is a spectrum connected in the Space/Time along the line of slow to Eternal. Eternal is the soul. Consciousness might be the spectrum delay.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:It seems to me that it is logically impossible to deny the existence of happenings (aka time), because then the denial itself couldn't happen.
Scott wrote:As I said in my previous posts, I believe that is fallacious for the same reason the following is fallacious: "You cannot say hereness and thereness are not real because you are saying it from over there to me over here."
I don't see how your example statement refutes the obvious logical contradiction of "X=~X is logically impossible" ...i.e. we can't have the denial if denials don't exist.

Scott wrote:Hereness, thereness, time, change, and happenings all exist within the illusion that is our everyday Newtonian world.
But remember, logic does not care about, nor adhere to any science. If something is logically impossible, then no amount of science, whether Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum, etc could ever defy Simple Logic.

Logic is our ONLY means of "making sense", and once we crack open the door and allow non-logic to make sense for us, then we lose the ability to make sense of anything at all. To me, in my opinion, if our scientific beliefs don't adhere to Simple Logic, then it is time to dump those beliefs.

*********
The axioms of Simple Logic:
1. X=X
2. X=~X is logically impossible
3. X<X is logically impossible
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 »

RJG, I deeply appreciate this thought-provoking discussion. Thank you for it!

RJG wrote:It seems to me that it is logically impossible to deny the existence of happenings (aka time), because then the denial itself couldn't happen.
Scott wrote:As I said in my previous posts, I believe that is fallacious for the same reason the following is fallacious: "You cannot say hereness and thereness are not real because you are saying it from over there to me over here."
RJG wrote: April 2nd, 2021, 8:49 am I don't see how your example statement refutes the obvious logical contradiction of "X=~X is logically impossible" ...i.e. we can't have the denial if denials don't exist.
I am not refuting that "X=~X is logically impossible", nor am I asserting that X = -X.

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.


Scott wrote:Hereness, thereness, time, change, and happenings all exist within the illusion that is our everyday Newtonian world.
RJG wrote: But remember, logic does not care about, nor adhere to any science. If something is logically impossible, then no amount of science, whether Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum, etc could ever defy Simple Logic.

Logic is our ONLY means of "making sense", and once we crack open the door and allow non-logic to make sense for us, then we lose the ability to make sense of anything at all. To me, in my opinion, if our scientific beliefs don't adhere to Simple Logic, then it is time to dump those beliefs.
I agree, which is why we must dump Newtonian Mechanics.

Einstein's block universe does not entail logical contradictions. That is, at least, if we assume consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful.
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
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by The Beast »

If I consider consciousness x a function or a spectrum then I define x’ as what is (reality) then to say x=x’ is to say that the total Universe reality = my consciousness. This might be true at infinity and also as zero. To say exist or not. The periodic is the boundary of Infinity and nothingness. Although, my consciousness is in touch with the boundary at zero and at Infinity I am only in control of my own space. I am making my own reality or my universe within the bigger Universe. My operational consciousness is a thought of the smaller number I could think to the larger number I could think or the distance between my eyes or my camera or my telescope. Observing reality requires less delay/time than changing reality. Whether this could be my own time block is for me to say: “I don’t know where my particles are and least to change their reality with my will or their reality is my will”. As they become substance then the gross operational mode is installed. Their reality is my reality within the operational boundaries of A and B and along the Universal function or whatever abstracts I could imagine like zero and Infinity. If I pinch myself does it happen in the past? Do the particles in my body answer to reality or to my will? Why do I feel pain if it is in the past? I could only imagine a point past the present that might be the past and call the future where my pain disappears. I am taking a pill to change the future. In conclusion: I do see a trivial/more than zero significance. If I were a teenager, I could take the pill faster. Or we could say we could change the results of some voting machine and imagine trivia as factual of some imagined reality.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:RJG, I deeply appreciate this thought-provoking discussion. Thank you for it!
Same here. It is somewhat refreshing to have a serious but 'civil' discussion. We need more of this in today's crazy world!

RJG wrote:I don't see how your example statement refutes the obvious logical contradiction of "X=~X is logically impossible" ...i.e. we can't have the denial if denials don't exist.
Scott wrote:I am not refuting that "X=~X is logically impossible", nor am I asserting that X = -X.

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).
Firstly, if we were to parse out (remove) your words contained within the parenthesis above, then yes, - if we live in a timeless universe, then events couldn't happen (...since events themselves are time dependent).

BUT our conversation here (which is a composition of many events) is undeniably happening. Therefore, not only does this conversation defy/defeat the possibility of a timeless universe, but it is likewise logically impossible for us to ever claim that a timeless universe exists, as our claim itself defeats the words within our claim.

Secondly, if we include your words within the parentheses, then I do not understand how the acceptance of the existence of "passive consciousness" changes anything; how does it somehow make the impossible, possible? If events are logically impossible in a timeless universe, then the event of consciousness; i.e. the event of being conscious-of-events is also logically impossible.

So, no matter what, with or without consciousness, a timeless universe is logically impossible. And again, it is logically impossible for us to deny this; to deny the existence of time, as the denial itself only affirms the existence of time.

Scott wrote:...we mustn't falsely conflate existence with happening.
Happenings are Events, and "events" are typically understood as the inter-'action' of stuff (consisting of "before and after" states of existence; i.e. time dependent), whereas "existence" typically refers to the 'stuff' (objects; nouns), but can also apply to the 'interactions' themselves, ...as in the existence of the happening.

Scott wrote:The denial eternally exists in the timeless eternal block universe, and thus does not really happen (over real time)...
This, to me, is saying X=~X (i.e. time exists in a timeless universe), which of course is a logical impossibility. There can be no "denial" (a happening/event) in a timeless universe because the denial itself is composed of time (and therefore dependent upon). The denial (a happening/event itself) cannot contradictorily exist and not exist.

X=~X is logically impossible, which trumps any science that might say otherwise. Therefore, the science that claims a "timeless eternal block universe" must therefore be false (...as it is self-defeating; logically impossible).
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 »

RJG wrote:I don't see how your example statement refutes the obvious logical contradiction of "X=~X is logically impossible" ...i.e. we can't have the denial if denials don't exist.
Scott wrote:I am not refuting that "X=~X is logically impossible", nor am I asserting that X = -X.

Rather, I am asserting that (if we assume consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful) we live in a timeless block universe in which events do not really happen (over real time).
RJG wrote: Firstly, if we were to parse out (remove) your words contained within the parenthesis above, then yes, - if we live in a timeless universe, then events couldn't happen (...since events themselves are time dependent).

BUT our conversation here (which is a composition of many events) is undeniably happening.
I disagree. Einstein would deny that it is happening, and neither that denial itself nor the physics upon which it is based are illogical.

If we assume consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then I assert we live in a timeless block universe, and thus this conversation is not really happening (over time).

It (this conversion as a 4-D whole) could be said to timelessly exist in a timeless eternal unchanging 4-D block universe.

Scott wrote:The denial eternally exists in the timeless eternal block universe, and thus does not really happen (over real time)...
RJG wrote:here can be no "denial" (a happening/event) in a timeless universe because the denial itself is composed of time
That seems to me to be a begging the question fallacy. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to assume that 'the denial' must be composed of time or of really happening over time.

It can just refer to the way certain things eternally are in the unchanging 4-D block universe.


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.

Is there time? Possibly arguably there could be, but not if time is defined as change (which I wouldn't define it as). Whether or not there is arguably time might depend on whether there was a preferred playing order for the videos or any of the frames in the would-be videos. In fact, to even state there is a video file in the DVD would suggest that there was an objective time at least within that particular video file in the sense calling it a video implies the frames that make-up the would-be video have a preferred/objective playing order defined by the DVD itself (not defined by an external player/watcher since ex hypothesi there is no player or watcher). But what if there was no video file, just a bunch of still images with no preferred order or objective sorting mechanism at all? Then, I assert, in addition to there being no change, there would be no time either. That last example is an analogy for the way our universe is a timeless block universe in Einstein's physics, but even that analogy understates it.

According to Einstein's physics, our universe is even more utterly timeless than that because there aren't even still images in the would-be DVD of our universe. There is no such thing as a universal 3-D snapshot of the universe. There is no such thing as a universal now. There is no such thing as a point in time. There is no objective simultaneity. There is no preferred axis of time. There is no preferred way to play the DVD and no preferred order to the would-be events that would happen if the DVD was played in a certain way. Even the still images are undefined, making it even more timeless than a DVD of still images that have no objective order.

Our conversation including my denial of time and your assertion of it can eternally exist on the unchanging DVD without time.
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:BUT our conversation here (which is a composition of many events) is undeniably happening.
Scott wrote:I disagree.
If our conversation here is just an illusion; not really happening (i.e. a product of my delusion/hallucination/dream), then it is this delusion (inside my head) that is really happening.

There is no way to logically avoid that 'something' is really happening. We cannot logically claim "everything is an illusion", as this is self-contradictory. Without something really happening, there could be nothing illusionary. If everything was an illusion, there could be no illusions whatsoever!

In other words, and for example, if we were to also claim "everything is false", then it is easier to see the obvious self-contradiction (i.e for this statement itself would also be false). Without something "true", there could be nothing deemed as "false". If everything were false, there could be no falses whatsoever!

...something has gotta be really (undeniably) happening!

Scott wrote:Einstein would deny that it is happening, and neither that denial itself nor the physics upon which it is based are illogical.
Einstein can't do the impossible. He can't deny experiences without experiencing the denial. He can't experience the thought that thoughts can't be experienced, without experiencing thoughts.

There is nothing more absolutely certain and real than one’s own experiences. It is logically impossible to deny the happening of our own experiences. It is from this undeniable point of certainty from which we start to build our man-made truths. But our man-made truths (e.g. Einstein's science) can never defy the certainty of our experiences.

Scott wrote:The denial eternally exists in the timeless eternal block universe, and thus does not really happen (over real time)...
RJG wrote:There can be no "denial" (a happening/event) in a timeless universe because the denial itself is composed of time.
Scott wrote:That seems to me to be a begging the question fallacy. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to assume that 'the denial' must be composed of time or of really happening over time.
Is it possible to experience thoughts within a timeless (unchangeable) universe???

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.
Agreed. A DVD by itself (without a DVD player) is useless. Nothing can happen. We can't experience anything, including thoughts.

Without a DVD player (being the causer of change; aka "time") nothing can happen. Without time/change, we would be unable to experience anything. BUT something is obviously undeniably happening/changing (...we experience stuff!!!), therefore this universe is not solely just a DVD, but also includes the DVD player (the causer of change; time).

Scott wrote:Our conversation including my denial of time and your assertion of it can eternally exist on the unchanging DVD without time.
I don't necessarily disagree with this part. But I do disagree that we can deny that time exists without the pre-existence of time. In other words, we can't experience anything (including the denial of time, or the content on the DVD) if the universe is timeless (has no DVD player). The content of our experiences may exist on this DVD (in reality), but without 'time' (the DVD player) we wouldn't be able to experience this content, nor experience the denial of time.
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 »

RJG wrote: April 6th, 2021, 9:39 am
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.
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.
Yes, I agree.

The existence of change requires a DVD player to timelessly/transcendentally interact with eternal reality. The interaction must be timeless or transcendental if it as acting the source of relativistic time. (In other words, we must remember the wise classic idea that whatever transcendental or super-fundamental thing creates time cannot be said to create it in time over time, and thus cannot be thought of as a thing in time or a thing in space. 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. Thus, we need to use words like timeless creation or eternal creation, or timeless causation, or eternal causation, or 'first cause' to refer to such out-of-time initial, transcendental, or fundamental acts or processes to reflect that they aren't literal or mechanical processes or actions in the everyday Newtonian sense..)

Our consciousness, conscious presence itself, or an external god(s), or some other transcendental and undiscovered fundamental force or such could act as that DVD player. Regarding, the DVD player if it exists must be transcendental, meaning the interaction between the DVD player and the 4-D block universe (i.e. the DVD) does not happen within the DVD. In other words, a live recording video file showing the DVD player playing the DVD cannot exist in the files on the DVD.

However, if we assume consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful, then it cannot be the source (or even a source) of any change and cannot be the DVD player (i.e. the source of actual change or true happening). Assuming we exclude less parsimonious explanations like external gods or dreaming aliens, then we are left with the timeless unchanging block universe.

In other words, without a transcendental DVD player, the unchaning DVD sits unplayed, eternally, unchanging, timeless.




RJG wrote: April 6th, 2021, 9:39 am Without time/change, we would be unable to experience anything. BUT something is obviously undeniably happening/changing (...we experience stuff!!!), therefore this universe is not solely just a DVD, but also includes the DVD player (the causer of change; time).
I agree that a static/deterministic model seems incompatible with our experience of consciousness as being DVD-player-like. In other words, I would reject the proposition that consciousness is non-fundamental, non-transcendental, and non-forceful. Consciousness is DVD-player-like (i.e. interacts with eternal reality). Presence and relative non-fundamental time emerge from the interaction between a conscious presence and the otherwise eternal unchanging block universe.

In other words, I would accept that idea that not only do we know objective time does not exist but we know determinism is false because some kind of interaction with eternal reality is going on; some kind of change/interaction is occurring, not necessarily on a universal scale but in terms of conscious presence. In other words, we know relative time is created. We know eternal creation exists (i.e. something exists), and we know we are interacting with that, and from that interaction emerges relativistic time.

Objective time is certainly unreal, and relative time cannot be fundamental by definition. Nonetheless, I agree that our subjective and arguably illusionary experience of presence and free will/creation (of being a transcendental alterer/creator of reality/information who creates not in time but instantaneously from out of time)--of being the DVD player--indicates that there is a DVD player. The DVD player is more fundamental than relative time. (Objective time simply does not exist.) The DVD player could be in part or in whole an external god or god-like thing (e.g. a non-human alien with multiple personality disorder dreaming all of this up). However, being parsimonious, I would personally avoid ideas like external gods and alien-dreamers, and just settle for the fact that consciousness itself is somehow either fundamental and/or forceful, and is at least more fundamental than time and at least equally fundamental to if not more fundamental than the four physical forces of electromagnetism, gravity, strong force, and weak force. Granted, there could be some even more fundamental and thus mystical-seeming force or aspect of reality that is even more fundamental than consciousness and electromagnetism etc. from which those currently mo



Scott wrote:Our conversation including my denial of time and your assertion of it can eternally exist on the unchanging DVD without time.
RJG wrote: April 6th, 2021, 9:39 am I don't necessarily disagree with this part. [...] we can't experience anything (including the denial of time, or the content on the DVD) if the universe is timeless (has no DVD player). The content of our experiences may exist on this DVD (in reality), but without 'time' (the DVD player) we wouldn't be able to experience this content, nor experience the denial of time.
The DVD player isn't time. Rather, relative time emerges from the trancsendetal interaction between the DVD player (or a DVD player) and the DVD. The DVD includes all of spacetime, which is timeless. When a transcendental DVD player plays the DVD then a relativistic time emerges from that interaction, but the DVD and the player are more fundamental than that emergent relativistic time.

If there can be one DVD player, there can be two, three, and infinite DVD players--even if the DVD itself never changes. Images on the DVD can be played in all sorts of different orders by different transcendental DVD players but the DVD could never change. Relative time(s) emerge from the transcendental interaction between a DVD player and the eternal 4-D reality (i.e. the information on the DVD). The order one DVD-player plays the images on the DVD can be different from the order another DVD-player plays it. The emergence of relative time from a DVD player is not singular, but infinite and relativistic and non-fundamental. Even with a DVD player, time is not fundamental, because the DVD player is transcendental to the DVD. Take the DVD away, take the DVD player away, or take the interaction between them away, and the relativistic time disappears; the relativistic time is not fundamental.

Relative time is not singular. It's really relative times.

A DVD player (possibly consciousness itself) can be fundamental, and certainly is more fundamental than time. And it can be--and perhaps must be-- an agent of change, including transcendental change (i.e. eternal creation).

A character who would be shown doing things in a would-be video file on the unchanging DVD cannot really do anything, at least not without a DVD player to play the video and cause the would-be happenings to actually happen. But a transcendental DVD player could change the information on DVD. The DVD player could add new information. It's possible that a character on a video on the DVD that is being played could be the avatar of a transcendental DVD player, used as an icon while making changes and/or adding information to eternal reality.
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.
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