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 »

RJG wrote:Yes. We can 'recognize' some of our bodily experiences (bodily reactions), but not 'all' our bodily experiences.
Count Lucanor wrote:That's an assertion, but what will be the empirical or logical support of that assertion. It cannot be that "it's not logical", you have to prove that it is not logical.
It is "empirically" true.

Try it yourself:
1. Can you recognize (be conscious of) your urge to scratch an itch?
2. Can you recognize (be conscious of) your heart beating?
3. Can you recognize (be conscious of) your kidneys removing fluids?
4. Can you recognize (be conscious of) your gall bladder contracting?

We can "empirically" recognize some of our bodily experiences/reactions, but not all of them.

RJG wrote:Being conscious of 'some' of our bodily experiences does not mean we are conscious of 'all' our bodily experiences. Consciousness cannot logically be conscious of itself. X<X is logically impossible.
Count Lucanor wrote:My body can "self-touch". According to you that would be a logical impossibility, but it is not.
1. The tip of our index finger can touch many things, but can it touch itself?
2. Our consciousness can be conscious of many things, but can it be conscious of itself?
3. A stone can tap many things, but can it tap itself?

According to Simple Logic, the answer is NO to all these questions, because X<X is logically impossible; X can't exist outside itself (...so as to then experience or affect itself).

Consciousness cannot logically be conscious of itself, no more than a stone can tap itself.
Therefore, true "self-awareness" is a myth (a logical impossibility). -- The awarer (experiencer) can't logically be aware of (experience) itself.
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 2nd, 2021, 9:30 am
RJG wrote:If there is nothing (no-somethings) to be conscious of, then there can be no-consciousness.
Scott wrote:I am not sure I agree with this premise, but it depends what you mean.
All I'm really saying here is that the experience of consciousness is not possible without 'something' (a bodily experience) to be conscious of. Much like reading is not possible without 'something' (a word; words) to read.

Scott wrote:What if it turns out that you are just an omnipotent god having a dream, and none of this is real?
If everything we are conscious of is just a dream (or an hallucination of some type), this doesn't mean that nothing is real. Certainly at the very least, the dream, and the dreamer would still be undeniable certain; real.

RJG wrote:Similarly, when we are reading, we are reading of 'words'. If there is nothing (no-words) to be reading, then there can be no-reading.
Scott wrote:Again, I am not sure I can agree…
Can you read if there is nothing to read? ...or do you need words to read? In other words, I'm saying that the experience of reading is not possible without 'something' to read.
I think having the perception of words on a page does not require there to be words on a page. So I think the answer to your question is, yes, a person could read if there was nothing to read. In other words, the person could be hallucinating.

Scott wrote:What we all often call "this world" or "external reality" is yet another dreamy relative contingent realty of relative truths that are true relatively and contingently, which is what I meant to convey in my previous post when I brought up that fact that we are all undeniably hallucinating our entire pseudo-reality that we regularly confusingly call simply "reality". We each live in our own unique VR-world, that seems to created by a material brain, but we only know and see that so-called brain as an object in the VR-reality itself. In other words, what we see as our own brain is part of the hallucination. It's an object, and we know objects don't really exist, not absolutely; they are artifacts of made-up Newtonian-like space and unreal time, and an observer-dependent scale-selection that acts as basis for scientific approximation (a.k.a. demonstrable wrongness).
RJG wrote: I don't necessarily disagree except for the implication that "everything is uncertain", as this is a logical contradiction in itself. One cannot logically assert (with certainty) that everything is uncertain. For if everything was uncertain, then so is the assertion that "everything is uncertain". So then at least something must be certain.
I agree, which is why I generally wouldn't say simply that everything is uncertain. Rather, I think we can distinguish between types of reality, namely on the one hand relative/contingent/synthetic/changeable/doubtable/non-absolute realities (e.g. Batman's existence and what his 'real' identity is) versus eternal/analytic/absolute reality (e.g. pi; 2 + 2 = 4; all bachelors are unmarried, etc.). The antithesis of any statement in the former category is possible at least hypothetically or in a dream world or a meta-reality we awaken to, hence the plurality of realities which reflect the plurality of possibilities. Eternal truth in contrast is timeless and absolute. The antithesis of an absolute truth is not possible.

Some things are certain, absolutely. Thus, they don't have a fully meaningful opposite. A married bachelor is a non-thing, gibberish.

Consciousness is a certainty. Thus, by being conscious, a conscious person has access to eternal truth in a way that a philosophical zombie does not.



Scott wrote:Indeed, but so too might the mirror you see be unreal. So too might the human body you see in that mirror be unreal. You and I might each be an AI in a Matrix, created by non-human aliens in a universe with no real humans. Or it could just be a fleeting dream that a non-human alien is having about to wake up and forget forever. Just as the ghost you see may be unreal, so too may humans be unreal. Humans may be no more real than unicorns, and in a way that fact alone proves that they are not absolutely real…
RJG wrote: I agree that our subjective perceptions, by themselves, are not trustworthy to reveal true reality, as we have no way of (experientially) knowing if that which we perceive is a hallucination, or if it actually represents something real. But we can know true reality. We can trust absolute and logical truths to reveal true reality, as there is nothing more real in all of our reality than absolute and logical truths. We can trust them because they are non-man-made (a priori) truths, and are likewise impossible for man to deny.
  • Truth Hierarchy:
    1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
    2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
    3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
    4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
    5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities
I generally agree with that hierarchy.

I do want to note that I prefer to not look at it one-dimensionally as if a relative/contingent/non-absolute truth is simpler a lesser form of an eternal/absolute truth, but rather I prefer to see those as two different dimensions. One is a bag of eternal (a.k.a. timeless) truths that you can carry with you to any place and any time and any possible world. It's truth when I am a sword-wielding chacther in a video game, it's true when I am a unicorn avatar in a dream world of unicorns, and it is true when I get pulled out of The Matrix. It's true yesterday and tomorrow.

It's a different type of truth, not merely a different amount of certainty.

Amount of certainty is one dimension on which we can rate a possible contingent truth (e.g. the likelihood that Batman is really Bruce Wayne versus the likelihood that Spiderman is really Peter Parker) and those likelihood will change if the world changes (i.e. if we change our reference blob), such as if we switch our relative truths from being contingent to the DC Universe versus Marvel Universe.

Eternalness is another conceptual dimension entirely. The transcendence of spacetime is another dimension entirely.

The way consciousness i more fundamental and real than time or motion is more than mere certainty.

To say motion is relative isn't just about certainty (i.e. that we could be mis-measuring the motion of an object) but about the nature of that reality no matter how certain it is. It is exemplified by the fact that motion is a meaningless concept in a world with one single point object because motion refers to a quality of a relationship between objects. In parallel, contingent truth represent a relationship between a proposition and a specific possible world of many possible worlds (e.g. The DC Universe versus The Marvel Universe versus the dream world I lived in for a bit last night). Even if we are talking about a dream within a dream, declaring one of those relative realities as the base-reality for contingent truth still requires a relationship between that contingent truth and the so-called base reality; it's relatively true in that world at that relative time (from that reference blob in spacetime in some relative here and now). There's an inherent circularity to it because it only tells us about relationships. No amount of certainty can make a contingent truth absolutely real. Its certainty is always contingent on the other side of the relationship. For instance, a measurement of speed will always be a contingent relative non-fundamental truth rather than absolute non-relative truth. The truth of we say about Batman will be contingent on which world it is relative to, and possibly contingent to a time or space in that world, which themselves are just as relative, contingent, and presumably imaginary.



Scott wrote:Rather, I would assert that the words "past" and "future" make no sense without consciousness, and they are both relative to consciousness and consciousnesses experience. Consciousness is much more fundamental and much more absolutely real than time, if time can be said to be real at all.
RJG wrote:I would think it is the other way around. I think time is fundamental to reality.
We know Newtonian time is an illusion.

We know there is no universal now.

Einstein proved all of that, and GPS satellites wouldn't function if they didn't take it into account.

Rather, as conscious blobs in a relative spacetime that all pseudo-move at the same speed (lightspeed) in 4-D space, we experience our first-person trajectory in 4-D spacetime as special (as being the linear trajectory of time), and then the 3 perpendicular planes from that are seen as space. Your time is space from another reference blob/point, and vice versa. Space and time can not be distinguished any more than left and right can be, or front of you and in back of you can be. They are relative. And indeed the left is always on your left, and time is always a direction you seem to be moving that is thus special compared to the perpendicular directions in 4-D spacetime, but that's all relative to you. Without you, it's gone. There is no absolute left and right, or leftness and rightness, or forwardness or backness, or spaceness or timeness.
RJG wrote: And without time there could be no consciousness.
I think we can agree that these two things are interlinked, but I think it's clear that consciousness is more fundamental than that which is relative to it, such as scale, fowardness, backness, pastness, futureness, leftness, rightness, hereness, nowness, etc.

Time is not real.

Consciousness is real.

Time is not fundamental.

Consciousness may be like the projector that projects the frames of a movie onto a screen, creating the illusion of movement and time even though it is playing (and perhaps re-playing) an unchanging movie. Consciousness may be like the movie viewer viewing frame after frame of an eternal movie. Consciousness may be like the video game player playing a video game with multiple endings all pre-programmed into the video game DVD.


RJG wrote:If we define "time" as equivalent to "change"
I wouldn't define time that way, and I don't see how we can even generate a concept of change without first presupposing the illusion of time by at least treating it as relatively real.
RJG wrote:Without time, absolutely nothing could ever happen (change). All of reality would be frozen; no movement;
Eternal reality presumably has that quality, yes.

If we consider the physics of the world without consciousnesses, it appears to be an eternal 4-D block universe using Einstein's physics. Quantum physics would give a similar picture but may give it more dimensions and have it be a superpositioned multiuniverse in terms of Many World Interpretation (i.e. the absence of the collapse the wave function), but that superposition of possibilities could be seen as just one more dimension in the enteral block universe.



Scott wrote:I respectfully disagree with the statement, "We can't get the 'consciousness-of-X' without there first being an 'X' to be conscious of.". We can hallucinate an X that never existed and never will.
RJG wrote: I think you are referring to a different X. The X in the consciousness-of-X refers to the actual physical bodily experience (thought, feeling, sensation), and not to the contents of said experience. So if we are hallucinating ghosts flying about, then we are conscious-of-the-sight (of ghosts flying about). X is the "sight" or visual experience (of seeing ghosts flying about). X is absolutely certain; real. Whereas, the objects represented in the content of X are not-certain.

Again, it is much like reading. When we read, we read actual 'words', so if we are reading about ghosts flying about, we are still only reading actual 'words', whereas the objects (ghosts flying about) represent the content of these words, and are therefore not-certain (as the 'words' themselves).
The book itself may not exist. The word may not exist. We may not have bodies. Atoms may not exist. Carbon and water may not exist. Electrons may not exist.


Scott wrote:Nonetheless, as a way to describe fundamental reality, I agree with the sentiment of avoiding the term causality, due to its implication of time.

Instead, I prefer the concept of eternal or transcendental creation. Keep in mind, I believe in nothing supernatural. Even Einstein saw fundamental reality as eternal (a.k.a. timeless). To Einstein, presumably the past and the future were mutually causal. Have you seen the movie Predestination?
RJG wrote: Nope, but I'll look it up!
If you watch it, please do let me know what you think. :)
Scott wrote:In relative time as perceived by a conscious observer, the seeming pattern of causality represents a relationship between past conditions and future conditions, but without assuming the fundamental reality of time, there is no reason to believe that the past causes the future anymore than the future causes the past. Rather, in Einstein's eternal block universe they mutually cause each other, in a timeless unchanging 4-D block universe.
RJG wrote:So, then how would causality work if there were no time? How can something cause something else?
In an eternal block universe without a preferred arrow of time and without consciousness, causality could refer to a mutual relationship between different aspects of the block universe. For instance, consider the fact that if I show you half of a chess board, you would be able to determine the rest of the chest board by the half I showed you, regardless of which half of the board I showed you.

In Einstein's block universe, if we ignore consciousness and assume the universe obeys causal determinism (i..e assume "god does not play dice"), then presumably if I showed you half of that 4-D block universe you would be able to determine the rest of it regardless of which half I showed you, even if that half was only what you from your current reference point in that relative spacetime would consider the future.

In other words, the future would determine the past in the same way the past determines the future, in an eternal block universe with no randomness (i.e. no metaphorical god's playing dice) and no libertarian free will.

In Einsteins physics, there's no reason to believe that there aren't creatures who experience time in the opposite direction as us. Indeed, if you looked at what's before the Big Bang ('before' from the perspective of a human on Earth) then you might get mostly mirror image of our universe post-Big-Bang but with the arrow of time seeming to point in the opposite direction, especially assuming the Big Bang represented a peak of low entropy, so that the entropy-based arrow of time points away from it in all directions.
RJG wrote: How could we get motion or change or anything to happen in a timeless universe/reality? Wouldn't everything be frozen if "change" (aka "time") were not possible?
The 4-D block universe in Einstein's physics doesn't change.

Plato's eternal reality, his world of forms, or what I like to call Plato's Heaven, presumably doesn't change and doesn't have ticking clocks.

The eternal is timeless by definition.
Scott wrote:But with conscious presence, a relative time emerges, much like a DVD player can pull out a scene at a certain point in a movie even though the disc--without the DVD-player or movie-watcher--contains all events.

But it may not be like a DVD movie. It may be more like a DVD video game. All the possibilities are programmed onto that eternal DVD, different cut scenes depending on which options the player chooses.
RJG wrote: How can the player "choose"? Or is he predetermined to react (choose) in a certain/specific/predetermined way?
I don't know.

If I (meaning Scott) was a philosophical zombie, I (meaning unconscious Scott) wouldn't even believe consciousness exists, let alone conscious will.

Why does eternal creation exist (or as others sometimes put it, 'why is there something rather than nothing'), and why do we experience it in this seemingly transcendental way through these focal point avatars, and why does it at least seem like we as synthetic conscious creatures/avatars are taking part in eternal creation (i.e. exercising transcendental free will)? I can only speculate, and I assume my speculations would be lucky to barely scratch the surface.

RJG wrote: In a conscious reality (where befores and afters exist) "conscious causation" and "consciously choosing" are logically impossible because of CTD. (...we can't logically come 'before' and cause that which we consciously realize/come 'after').
Consciousness could be like a time-traveler from the future who edits past events based on future experiences.

But it doesn't require literal time travel because time isn't real.

Assuming Newtonian time is real will lead to all sorts of contradictions, even ignoring consciousness.

Consciousness isn't what causes the illogical contradictions. Those are already there in Newtonian time without consciousnesses.

Yes, Newtonian time plus consciousness entails contradictions, but so does Newtonian time plus apple pie. The problem is time, not consciousnesses or pie.

Newtonian time is illogical. It can't exist. It's like a married bachelor.

Scott wrote:How accurate of an analogy that turns out to be, I do not know. But I believe the possibility that it is accurate proves that conscious will does not logically require time to be fundamentally real for it (conscious will) to be fundamentally real.
RJG wrote: It seems to me that if conscious causation (and a "conscious will") are logically impossible in a reality with time, then it is even more so impossible in a reality without time (in a timeless reality).
Everything is logically impossible with Newtonian time because Newtonian time is impossible.

Consciousness is real, so anything that is incompatible with consciousness is impossible.

If green beans and consciousness cannot co-exist, then green beans don't exist.

It won't be consciousness that we throw out if something is revealed to be incompatible with consciousness.

Granted, one can conjecture an eternal universe like Einstein's 4-D Block Universe, imagining it as existing eternally separate from consciousness, and then see their consciousness as merely experiencing it, like a movie-watcher watching frame after frame of a movie from a unchanging DVD. That is to see the universe more like a DVD movie than a DVD video game (in which the player gets to choose backstory and choose from multiple endings). Either way, the 4-D block universe (without consciousness) is represented by the unchanging DVD. Consciousness is transcendental to that DVD. Is it just a transcendental watcher or does it take part in eternal creation? Either possibility is consistent with Einstein's physics as far as I can tell. Either possibility is consistent with quantum mechanics as best I can tell.

Either way, what we know for certain is that:

A. Eternal creation exists (a.k.a. there is something rather than nothing)

B. Our individual consciousness exists, absolutely, and seemingly eternally

Whether B is part of the contributor to A (i.e. we are each a part of the eternal creator, like a bunch of little eternal transcendental god-heads painting the world into existence), or whether some separate independent third entity is the creator, or whether A and B both exist independently by pure happenstance without an eternal creator (i.e. there is no eternal creator despite their being the eternal creation), is all perhaps mostly a matter of religion.

Those who would answer those questions will likely find that their answers fall into #4 of your wise hierarchy of truth.

But the claim that time is real would fall into #5, I believe.
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
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by Count Lucanor »

RJG wrote: March 9th, 2021, 8:23 am
RJG wrote:Yes. We can 'recognize' some of our bodily experiences (bodily reactions), but not 'all' our bodily experiences.
Count Lucanor wrote:That's an assertion, but what will be the empirical or logical support of that assertion. It cannot be that "it's not logical", you have to prove that it is not logical.
It is "empirically" true.

Try it yourself:
1. Can you recognize (be conscious of) your urge to scratch an itch?
2. Can you recognize (be conscious of) your heart beating?
3. Can you recognize (be conscious of) your kidneys removing fluids?
4. Can you recognize (be conscious of) your gall bladder contracting?

We can "empirically" recognize some of our bodily experiences/reactions, but not all of them.
You're just confusing bodily experiences, which already imply the participation of consciousness, with bodily events. You are also confusing sensation with consciousness, which is why you define it as "recognition".

For sure, one is not instantly conscious of many bodily events, such as metabolic processes in any cell of our body, but when we talk about a bodily experience, we mean the real-time consciousness of a bodily event. And that is the consciousness of the whole self, the whole sentient organism and its body. If pain comes to my leg, it is my whole body experiencing that sensation in real time and becoming aware (conscious) of that event, but even if I cannot feel the sensation of the work my kidneys and bladder are doing, I am aware (conscious), by means of my learning and rational understanding, that these bodily events are going on. And that's a real time conscious experience, too.
RJG wrote: March 9th, 2021, 8:23 am
RJG wrote:Being conscious of 'some' of our bodily experiences does not mean we are conscious of 'all' our bodily experiences. Consciousness cannot logically be conscious of itself. X<X is logically impossible.
Count Lucanor wrote:My body can "self-touch". According to you that would be a logical impossibility, but it is not.
1. The tip of our index finger can touch many things, but can it touch itself?
I'm pretty sure my finger can touch itself, and so my hand, my leg, etc. The shapes and configurations of many structures in the world will make it possible or impossible for some things or parts of things to be in contact, but that has absolutely nothing to do with logical possibilities. There are entire disciplines dedicated to the science of shapes and structures, such as Morphology and Topology, and they deal with physical attributes of space, not with logical parameters.
RJG wrote: March 9th, 2021, 8:23 am 2. Our consciousness can be conscious of many things, but can it be conscious of itself?
Consciousness is a state in which a person is. A person can perfectly be aware of their own state, it is not a logical impossibility. I know that I am awake and responsive to stimuli now while writing this sentence. How is that not awareness of my state of awareness?
RJG wrote: March 9th, 2021, 8:23 am3. A stone can tap many things, but can it tap itself?
See my response to #1.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:All I'm really saying here is that the experience of consciousness is not possible without 'something' (a bodily experience) to be conscious of. Much like reading is not possible without 'something' (a word; words) to read.
Scott wrote:So I think the answer to your question is, yes, a person could read if there was nothing to read.
Then what is he/she reading?

Scott wrote:In other words, the person could be hallucinating.
Even in a hallucination or dream, can they be 'reading' if there is 'nothing' to read?

The realness/non-realness of the words is irrelevant to my point. My point of the analogy is more about the logical 'relationship' of the two, not necessarily about the 'realness' of one or the other. In other words, the act of reading itself, requires 'something' to read. Without this 'something' (that we call 'words') then there can be no 'reading' - is the point I was trying to make.

In this same respect - consciousness is not possible without 'something' to be conscious of. It does not matter if this 'something' is an imaginary ghost flying about or is a real tree outside my window. The point is that we cannot be conscious of something without 'something' to be conscious of. We cannot logically be conscious of 'nothing'. Being conscious of nothing is not being conscious.

Without "X", there can be no "consciousness-of-X". ...these are two different animals, and we can't have one (consciousness) without the other (X).

Scott wrote:I do want to note that I prefer to not look at it one-dimensionally as if a relative/contingent/non-absolute truth is simpler a lesser form of an eternal/absolute truth, but rather I prefer to see those as two different dimensions. One is a bag of eternal (a.k.a. timeless) truths that you can carry with you to any place and any time and any possible world. It's truth when I am a sword-wielding chacther in a video game, it's true when I am a unicorn avatar in a dream world of unicorns, and it is true when I get pulled out of The Matrix. It's true yesterday and tomorrow.

It's a different type of truth, not merely a different amount of certainty.

Amount of certainty is one dimension on which we can rate a possible contingent truth (e.g. the likelihood that Batman is really Bruce Wayne versus the likelihood that Spiderman is really Peter Parker) and those likelihood will change if the world changes (i.e. if we change our reference blob), such as if we switch our relative truths from being contingent to the DC Universe versus Marvel Universe.

Eternalness is another conceptual dimension entirely. The transcendence of spacetime is another dimension entirely.
As I see it, there is only ONE true absolute truth/certainty. And that is "conscious experiences exist". Period. That is all we can truly know with "absolute certainty". And then the only way to gain true ("objective") knowledge, from this point, is via logic (/math). We can logically derive truths from this starting seed, and also we can weed out the "non-truths" from our current pool of contaminated knowledge (via logical impossibilities).
  • Truth Hierarchy:
    1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
So then where do we go from here? Do we just blindly trust the 'content' of our experiences to tell us what is truly real and certain? How can we decipher what is really real?

I propose the next step/method is to logically derive truths from this starting seed, and to also "weed out everything that is logically impossible" from the content of our experiences. Since logic is our ONLY means of making sense (and is humanly impossible to doubt/deny), then this seems to be our only course of action if we wish to gain more true knowledge. And then any truths that we do uncover using logic (or math) should then be qualified as "logical truths"; not quite as certain as "absolute truths", but still undoubtable and undeniable, ...meaning that it is humanly impossible to doubt/deny these truths.
  • Truth Hierarchy:
    1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
    2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
I believe this is where we have to STOP our search for true knowledge. Relying on the (deniable/doubtable) 'content' of our experiences by themselves (without logical confirmation) is not trustworthy to yield true (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful.
  • Truth Hierarchy:
    1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
    2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
    3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
So, this being said, the truths of science are experientially derived (i.e. they are "man-made" truths) and fall into this category #3, and are therefore not trustworthy to yield true or certain knowledge.

So any scientific "truth" of how reality really works, is not reliable enough to tell us anything with real certainty. The truths of Science rely upon the 'uncertain' nature of experiential objects/evidence. The truths of Science are man-made and are therefore ‘subjective’, and therefore non-trustworthy to yield true knowledge. Whereas, the truths of Logic/Math are beyond question. For any attempt to deny them only defeats the validity of the attempt. The truths of logic/math are therefore undeniably ‘objective’.

The truths of Science are man-made (a posteriori; subjective) truths.
The truths of Math/Logic are given-to-man (a priori; objective) truths.

The truths of Science constantly evolve and change.
The truths of Math/Logic never change.

The truths of Science are fallible.
The truths of Math/Logic are not fallible.


******************
RJG wrote:Consciousness cannot logically be conscious of itself. X<X is logically impossible.
...
1. The tip of our index finger can touch many things, but can it touch itself?
Count Lucanor wrote:I'm pretty sure my finger can touch itself...
But can the "tip" of your finger touch itself? (i.e. the same "tip" of your finger?)
Can a stone tap itself?
Can X<X be possible?
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Logical Implication of CTD

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:Everything is logically impossible with Newtonian time because Newtonian time is impossible.

Consciousness is real, so anything that is incompatible with consciousness is impossible.

If green beans and consciousness cannot co-exist, then green beans don't exist.

It won't be consciousness that we throw out if something is revealed to be incompatible with consciousness.

Granted, one can conjecture an eternal universe like Einstein's 4-D Block Universe, imagining it as existing eternally separate from consciousness, and then see their consciousness as merely experiencing it, like a movie-watcher watching frame after frame of a movie from a unchanging DVD. That is to see the universe more like a DVD movie than a DVD video game (in which the player gets to choose backstory and choose from multiple endings). Either way, the 4-D block universe (without consciousness) is represented by the unchanging DVD. Consciousness is transcendental to that DVD. Is it just a transcendental watcher or does it take part in eternal creation? Either possibility is consistent with Einstein's physics as far as I can tell. Either possibility is consistent with quantum mechanics as best I can tell.

Either way, what we know for certain is that:

A. Eternal creation exists (a.k.a. there is something rather than nothing)

B. Our individual consciousness exists, absolutely, and seemingly eternally

Whether B is part of the contributor to A (i.e. we are each a part of the eternal creator, like a bunch of little eternal transcendental god-heads painting the world into existence), or whether some separate independent third entity is the creator, or whether A and B both exist independently by pure happenstance without an eternal creator (i.e. there is no eternal creator despite their being the eternal creation), is all perhaps mostly a matter of religion.

Those who would answer those questions will likely find that their answers fall into #4 of your wise hierarchy of truth.

But the claim that time is real would fall into #5, I believe.
It seems that we have very different understandings of "consciousness". I view consciousness as nothing more than another physical bodily experience (bodily reaction) whereas it seems your view has it is as something "mystical" or "transcendental" or "magical" in someway.

All we can really say with certainty about consciousness is that everything we are conscious of are of physical bodily experiences (relating to this seemingly blob of matter that is called "I"). That is the limit of consciousness as far as I can tell. We can't logically derive anymore truth (that I know of) than that, ...right?

Here is my definition/understanding of "consciousness":
Consciousness is the singular bodily experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory. For it is 'recognition' that converts a non-conscious physical bodily experience into a 'conscious' experience, that we then call “consciousness”.
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 12th, 2021, 10:34 am
RJG wrote:All I'm really saying here is that the experience of consciousness is not possible without 'something' (a bodily experience) to be conscious of. Much like reading is not possible without 'something' (a word; words) to read.
Scott wrote:So I think the answer to your question is, yes, a person could read if there was nothing to read.
Then what is he/she reading?
I think that's a loaded question, and thus it doesn't necessarily have an answer. In analogy, we could ask, what color is the bald man's hair?

Scott wrote:In other words, the person could be hallucinating.
RJG wrote: March 12th, 2021, 10:34 am Even in a hallucination or dream, can they be 'reading' if there is 'nothing' to read?
I suspect so. I don't see why not.

I don't see any reason a hallucinater cannot drink when there is nothing to drink or eat when there is nothing to eat.


Scott wrote:I do want to note that I prefer to not look at it one-dimensionally as if a relative/contingent/non-absolute truth is simply a lesser form of an eternal/absolute truth, but rather I prefer to see those as two different dimensions. One is a bag of eternal (a.k.a. timeless) truths that you can carry with you to any place and any time and any possible world. It's truth when I am a sword-wielding character in a video game, it's true when I am a unicorn avatar in a dream world of unicorns, and it is true when I get pulled out of The Matrix. It's true yesterday and tomorrow.

It's a different type of truth, not merely a different amount of certainty.

Amount of certainty is one dimension on which we can rate a possible contingent truth (e.g. the likelihood that Batman is really Bruce Wayne versus the likelihood that Spiderman is really Peter Parker) and those likelihoods will change if the world changes (i.e. if we change our reference blob), such as if we switch our relative truths from being contingent to the DC Universe versus Marvel Universe.

Eternalness is another conceptual dimension entirely. The transcendence of spacetime is another dimension entirely.

[Emphasis added.]
RJG wrote: March 12th, 2021, 10:34 amAs I see it, there is only ONE true absolute truth/certainty. And that is "conscious experiences exist". Period.
I agree that on the one dimension of certainty, the statement "conscious experiences exist' is the proposition of which we are most certain. To be clear, I fully agree with you about that.

A certainty value is just one characteristic (i.e. dimensional value) that a proposition, a truth, or an alleged truth can have.

Eternalness is another. Relativity, subjectivity and/or contingency is another.

For example, motion is relative (i.e. deals with relations between multiple objects), and thus the would-be concept of motion is meaningless and non-existent in a one-object universe. The relativity of motion, and by extension the relativity of truth of any proposition involving motion (e.g. the car is moving at 60mph) is a completely different value of the proposition than its certainty. It's analogous to talking about height versus weight. One can be tall and heavy, tall and light, short and heavy, or short and light. Height is a different dimension than weight. Certainty is a different dimension than relativity/contingency. Certainty is a different dimension than eternalness.

In another example, I am very certain that Batman's real identity is Bruce Wayne, while I'm pretty sure but not quite as certain that Bane weighs more than 200lbs. Regardless of the variation in certainty values, both propositions are equally relative to the DC Universe and thus contingent upon the reference point/blob being in the DC Universe (i.e. contingent upon the DC Universe being treated as base reality in relation to the chosen reference point).

The word absolute can be equivocal because sometimes it can mean certain (i.e. referring to a certainty value on the dimension of certainty) and other times it can mean non-relative (i.e. referring to a relativity value on the dimension of relativity) and other times it is used to refer to both at once.

RJG wrote: March 12th, 2021, 10:34 am The truths of Science are man-made (a posteriori; subjective) truths.
The truths of Math/Logic are given-to-man (a priori; objective) truths.

The truths of Science constantly evolve and change.
The truths of Math/Logic never change.

The truths of Science are fallible.
The truths of Math/Logic are not fallible.
I generally agree.

It's worth noting that there are other dimensional values of truth (i.e. other types of reality), and keeping those other dimensional values of truth/reality in mind actually help us remember why science is so useful. Even if we live in the Matrix, science would still work contingently within The Matrix to make predictions about what will happen in the Matrix World.

If Batman finds a scientist with a nice scale, he can weigh Bane and give certainty to my currently uncertain guesstimation that Bane weighs more than 200lbs.

Even if we live in The Matrix or in some alien's comic book world, we can still use science to make accurate predictions about what is relatively real versus relatively unreal from the reference point of this being base reality. In other words, we can still use the scientific method to find certainty within relativity.

Whether Batman is a fictional character is contingent to the reference point for base reality.

Whether your watch is ticking slower than one second per second, or my watch is ticking slower than one second per second, is relative to whether we use you as the reference point (in which case ipso facto as an a priori eternal truth we can say your clock is ticking at one second per second, in relation to itself). In contrast, if we use me as the reference point (in which case ipso facto as an a priori eternal truth we can say my clock is ticking at one second per second, in relation to itself). Assuming we each use ourselves as the respective reference point/blob, we each always experience our own watch as ticking at one second per second (as measured by our watch), which is a logical and mathematical rule, a priori, not just a scientific theory or mere empirical data.

If you and I are moving in Newtonian space in relation to each other, we will each see ourselves as being stationary in space, the other person as moving in space, and thus the other person's watch as ticking slower than one second per second because we each--a priori as an undeniable eternal truth--experience our own watch as ticking at one second per second. In other words, we always experience ourselves as moving solely through time and as always stationary in space (insofar as we use ourselves as our own reference point/blob). We see the other person as moving partly through time and partly through space, so that even though they are going the same one universal speed in spacetime at us they appear to be partly moving in space and thus slower in time, which also results in the illusion of the force gravity (as well as the illusion of the of time itself). In 4-D spacetime, what you see as the one axis of time (versus the three perpendicular axises of space) is not the same as what I see as the axis of time. There is no universal axis of time in 4-D spacetime. There is no universal now.

When it comes to measuring relative movement (or basically any other physical measurement in physics which are generally all relative), certainty is a different issue than the relativity. How certain I am that a car is moving at 60mph (in relation to the reference point/blog) is an entirely different question than how utterly relative the physics is and how blatantly fictional Newtonian physics are.

Generally speaking, any physical measurement is utterly relative.

However, time is worse than relative. Time is clearly unreal. It's like what one sees when looking at an optical illusion. Newtonian time cannot exist; it is illogical. It not only has been disproven by empirical observation, but I believe it is also disproven by simple logic (namely the logic used in Einstein's special relativity). The fact that time is not real is, I believe, an eternal a priori truth that we can know with certainty.


Scott wrote:Everything is logically impossible with Newtonian time because Newtonian time is impossible.

Consciousness is real, so anything that is incompatible with consciousness is impossible.

If green beans and consciousness cannot co-exist, then green beans don't exist.

It won't be consciousness that we throw out if something is revealed to be incompatible with consciousness.
RJG wrote: March 12th, 2021, 12:04 pm It seems that we have very different understandings of "consciousness". I view consciousness as nothing more than another physical bodily experience (bodily reaction) whereas it seems your view has it is as something "mystical" or "transcendental" or "magical" in someway.
I do not believe in anything supernatural (i.e. magic). I do not believe in anything paranormal (e.g. vampires, werewolves, mediums, alien abductions, etc.).

I elaborated on my views on that matter in the following topics:

RJG wrote: March 12th, 2021, 12:04 pm All we can really say with certainty about consciousness is that everything we are conscious of are of physical bodily experiences (relating to this seemingly blob of matter that is called "I").
I don't think we can say that with certainty. These dream-like avatars we call our bodies are in some ways known to not be fundamentally real (that is in the sense that all physics and physical propositions are relative and generally based in Newtonian-like known-to-be-false scientific approximations). In other dimensions of truth, these known-to-be-false so-called scientific approximations may be approximately accurate or totally not.

We both agree consciousness is real.

I see no absolute certainty in the seeming dualism you seem to me to be proposing. Such dualism may or may not be the case. We may have a body, or we may not. It may turn out that only consciousness is fundamentally real in terms of the mind-body problem. I am not saying I believe that is the case, but I see no certainty in the opposite either.

To me from my perspective, what you are proposing seems supernatural, magical, and mystical. (Granted, appearances can be deceiving, and in this case I assume they are. In other words, I assume I am seeing things wrongly here in some way or another.)

RJG wrote: March 12th, 2021, 12:04 pm Consciousness is the singular bodily experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory. For it is 'recognition' that converts a non-conscious physical bodily experience into a 'conscious' experience, that we then call “consciousness”.
I don't think that we can safely include references to the body and memory in a definition of consciousness. However, if we slightly rephrase your definition to remove those I think it is very good:

Consciousness is the singular experience of 'recognition'. For it is 'recognition' that converts a non-conscious experience into a 'conscious' experience, that we then call “consciousness”.
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:Then what is he/she reading?
Scott wrote:I think that's a loaded question, and thus it doesn't necessarily have an answer. In analogy, we could ask, what color is the bald man's hair?
This is not intended to be a loaded question. My point is that he/she must be reading 'something' (not nothing) to claim to be reading. In other words, we can't have the 'action' of reading, without also logically implying 'something' to be reading.

Scott wrote:I don't see any reason a hallucinater cannot drink when there is nothing to drink or eat when there is nothing to eat.
If he is imagining drinking, then isn't it an imaginary drink that he is imagining drinking?

Without both ends (subject and object) of an action, there can be no action. The realness/non-realness of the action is irrelevant to the logical relationship of subject-to-object in any action.

Scott wrote:However, time is worse than relative. Time is clearly unreal. It's like what one sees when looking at an optical illusion. Newtonian time cannot exist; it is illogical. It not only has been disproven by empirical observation, but I believe it is also disproven by simple logic (namely the logic used in Einstein's special relativity). The fact that time is not real is, I believe, an eternal a priori truth that we can know with certainty.
If we equate "time" as "change", then it seems that "time exists" is an undeniable truth.

Scott wrote:I see no absolute certainty in the seeming dualism you seem to me to be proposing. Such dualism may or may not be the case.
I don't believe in dualism (separate mind and body). I'm a monist (materialist). There is no separate "mind". There is only a physical body that experiences 'recognition' of bodily experiences. The "mind" (or the "experiencer" or "consciousness") is nothing more than just another bodily experience.

RJG wrote:Consciousness is the singular bodily experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory. For it is 'recognition' that converts a non-conscious physical bodily experience into a 'conscious' experience, that we then call “consciousness”.
Scott wrote:I don't think that we can safely include references to the body and memory in a definition of consciousness. However, if we slightly rephrase your definition to remove those I think it is very good:

Consciousness is the singular experience of 'recognition'. For it is 'recognition' that converts a non-conscious experience into a 'conscious' experience, that we then call “consciousness”.
I understand your point, and maybe I should leave my definition in a simpler form as you have suggested. But the reason I include "memory" and "body" is because these are the "means" to recognize and experience. Logically they exist and are necessary to have consciousness. (Though they might not exist in the form or shape that we may think).

For example:
Without a means ("eyes") to see, there can be no seeing.
Without a means ("ears") to hear, there can be no hearing.
Without a means ("memory") to recognize, there can be no recognition.
Without a means ("body") to experience, there can be no bodily experiencing.

This does not mean that "eyes", "ears", "memory", or "body" are anything like we think they are. These are just the names that we call the means to be able to see, hear, recognize, and experience.
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:I don't see any reason a hallucinater cannot drink when there is nothing to drink or eat when there is nothing to eat.
RJG wrote: March 20th, 2021, 2:48 amIf he is imagining drinking, then isn't it an imaginary drink that he is imagining drinking?
Yes, I think that's fair to say.

RJG wrote:If we define "time" as equivalent to "change"
Scott wrote:I wouldn't define time that way, and I don't see how we can even generate a concept of change without first presupposing the illusion of time by at least treating it as relatively real.
Scott wrote:However, time is worse than relative. Time is clearly unreal. It's like what one sees when looking at an optical illusion. Newtonian time cannot exist; it is illogical. It not only has been disproven by empirical observation, but I believe it is also disproven by simple logic (namely the logic used in Einstein's special relativity). The fact that time is not real is, I believe, an eternal a priori truth that we can know with certainty.
RJG wrote:If we equate "time" as "change", then it seems that "time exists" is an undeniable truth.
As quoted above from my March 10th post, I wouldn't define time as change. Regardless, in Einstein's block universe there is no change either; the 4-D eternal block universe exists timelessly and unchanging.

Newtonian time has already been proven to be false. It's an illusion.

Time is not real.

Needless to say, appearances are deceiving. The false appearance (i.e. illusion) of time is a symptom of the presence of subjective experience (namely consciousnesses).

If there is a subject, the appearance of illusionary relative time falsely appears to exist from the perception of that subject, relative to that subject. Take away the subject, and the subject's subjective illusion/perception disappears too. Take away the hallucinater, and the hallucination disappears.

The difference between space and time is analogous to the difference between there and here. In that way, time-ness is analogous to hereness. (And space-ness is like thereness.) Hereness and thereness and time are all relative and illusionary. There is nothing to objectively distinguish here from there except the optical illusion caused by (consciously) perceiving the world from somewhere (an thus making that somewhere a seemingly special subject-dependent subjective 'here'); "here" is simply where you the conscious subject are; otherwise there is no here and there but just an every-where. Likewise, without a subject (namely a conscious subject), there is no axis of time (just as there is no 'here'), but rather there is only eternal timeless 4-D pseudo-space. Without a subject, there is no here and there. Without a subject, there is no three dimensions of space and one dimension of time but rather only four timeless eternal dimensions that are fundamentally indistinguishable. The seemingly special axis of time that falsely seems to be different from space is just your subjective word-line through 4-D pseudo-space, existing as a timeless unchanging 4-D block. My axis/worldline is different then yours. Your here is different from my here, your axis of time is different than my axis of time in the eternal 4-D block universe, and your now is different from my now, and your simultaneous is not my non-simultaneous. It is subject-dependent because all illusions are. The illusion cannot exist without the subject that is having the illusion.

(1) Space-ness, (2) time-ness), (3) here-ness, (4) there-ness, (5) now-ness, (6) then-ness, (7) simultaneousness, and (8) non-simultaneousness are all subject-dependent subjective projections (i.e. hallucinations, or optical illusions) projected onto the eternal 4-D material universe (if that even exists). As illusionary hallucinations, those illusions do not exist at all if the subject does not exist, and each different subject has a different experience of those things (i.e. a different projected illusion).

Granted, even a fiction or a dream does have a type of indirect existence. To a degree, a dream is real insofar is it is dreamt. In that way, time is as real as Batman or the unicorn I dreamt about last night, or the imaginary book I imagined myself reading in my dream last night. Indirectly they are real because they are consciously experienced, but they are not directly non-relatively real. One's conscious experience of the illusion of time is real (in a contingent relative way). One's conscious experience of a fictional movie is real (in a contingent relative way). One's conscious experience of a hallucination is real (in a contingent relative way). One's conscious experience of a dream is real (in a contingent relative way).

Consciousness seems to necessarily entail the subjective experience of the hallucination of time, space, hereness, and thereness. In other words, the existence of consciousness seems to necessarily cause the false appearance of such illusions (time-ness, space-ness, here-ness, there-ness, etc.). Consciousness itself is undeniably real, but it also entails the creation of false appearances, such as the specialness of the subject's location in the timeless 4-D block universe and the specialness of the subject's worldline through that eternal 4-D block universe as falsely seeming like a special axis.

If one considers consciousness itself to be special or fundamental, then the corresponding appearance of specialness relative to that conscious subject could grant some true specialness to its otherwise would-be illusions. In other words, if the common feeling that one is the special protagonist of their own story is actually in part true, then the specialness of their perspective would actually be realized to the degree that they (the conscious observer) are in fact truly special. The easiest example is solipsism: If solipsism turned out to be true, then the one and only conscious person's here and now, and their subjective axis of time in the 4-D universe, would actually all be truly special. In other words, if consciousness is transcendental and/or fundamental in some special way, then that which is relative to its unique point of reference also becomes transcendentally special in some parallel way.

However, if we ignore consciousness (i.e. develop the physics as if only p-zombies could exist), then here-ness and time-ness are clearly not real at all. If we ignore consciousness, time clearly does not exist. Without consciousness, only an eternal timeless block universe exists.

With consciousness, we then get the conscious illusion of time (a unique axis relative to each conscious observer). The illusion could be made real to some actual degree if consciousness is transcendental or physically fundamental, but it would still be subjective and relative; it's just that then the conscious subject to which it's relative would actually be fundamental or transcendentally special in some way.
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:If we equate "time" as "change", then it seems that "time exists" is an undeniable truth.
Scott wrote:As quoted above from my March 10th post, I wouldn't define time as change. Regardless, in Einstein's block universe there is no change either; the 4-D eternal block universe exists timelessly and unchanging.

Newtonian time has already been proven to be false. It's an illusion.

Time is not real.
If "time" and "change" did not exist, then "before & after's" could not exist. And if before & after's did not exist, then not only could you not compose the sequential letters and words (one after another) in your sentences above, nor could I experience the sequential sensory experiences needed to interpret the meaning of your words.

Scott wrote:Needless to say, appearances are deceiving. The false appearance (i.e. illusion) of time is a symptom of the presence of subjective experience (namely consciousnesses).

If there is a subject, the appearance of illusionary relative time falsely appears to exist from the perception of that subject, relative to that subject. Take away the subject, and the subject's subjective illusion/perception disappears too. Take away the hallucinater, and the hallucination disappears.

The difference between space and time is analogous to the difference between there and here. In that way, time-ness is analogous to hereness. (And space-ness is like thereness.) Hereness and thereness and time are all relative and illusionary. There is nothing to objectively distinguish here from there except the optical illusion caused by (consciously) perceiving the world from somewhere (an thus making that somewhere a seemingly special subject-dependent subjective 'here'); "here" is simply where you the conscious subject are; otherwise there is no here and there but just an every-where. Likewise, without a subject (namely a conscious subject), there is no axis of time (just as there is no 'here'), but rather there is only eternal timeless 4-D pseudo-space. Without a subject, there is no here and there. Without a subject, there is no three dimensions of space and one dimension of time but rather only four timeless eternal dimensions that are fundamentally indistinguishable. The seemingly special axis of time that falsely seems to be different from space is just your subjective word-line through 4-D pseudo-space, existing as a timeless unchanging 4-D block. My axis/worldline is different then yours. Your here is different from my here, your axis of time is different than my axis of time in the eternal 4-D block universe, and your now is different from my now, and your simultaneous is not my non-simultaneous. It is subject-dependent because all illusions are. The illusion cannot exist without the subject that is having the illusion.

(1) Space-ness, (2) time-ness), (3) here-ness, (4) there-ness, (5) now-ness, (6) then-ness, (7) simultaneousness, and (8) non-simultaneousness are all subject-dependent subjective projections (i.e. hallucinations, or optical illusions) projected onto the eternal 4-D material universe (if that even exists). As illusionary hallucinations, those illusions do not exist at all if the subject does not exist, and each different subject has a different experience of those things (i.e. a different projected illusion).

Granted, even a fiction or a dream does have a type of indirect existence. To a degree, a dream is real insofar is it is dreamt. In that way, time is as real as Batman or the unicorn I dreamt about last night, or the imaginary book I imagined myself reading in my dream last night. Indirectly they are real because they are consciously experienced, but they are not directly non-relatively real. One's conscious experience of the illusion of time is real (in a contingent relative way). One's conscious experience of a fictional movie is real (in a contingent relative way). One's conscious experience of a hallucination is real (in a contingent relative way). One's conscious experience of a dream is real (in a contingent relative way).

Consciousness seems to necessarily entail the subjective experience of the hallucination of time, space, hereness, and thereness. In other words, the existence of consciousness seems to necessarily cause the false appearance of such illusions (time-ness, space-ness, here-ness, there-ness, etc.). Consciousness itself is undeniably real, but it also entails the creation of false appearances, such as the specialness of the subject's location in the timeless 4-D block universe and the specialness of the subject's worldline through that eternal 4-D block universe as falsely seeming like a special axis.

If one considers consciousness itself to be special or fundamental, then the corresponding appearance of specialness relative to that conscious subject could grant some true specialness to its otherwise would-be illusions. In other words, if the common feeling that one is the special protagonist of their own story is actually in part true, then the specialness of their perspective would actually be realized to the degree that they (the conscious observer) are in fact truly special. The easiest example is solipsism: If solipsism turned out to be true, then the one and only conscious person's here and now, and their subjective axis of time in the 4-D universe, would actually all be truly special. In other words, if consciousness is transcendental and/or fundamental in some special way, then that which is relative to its unique point of reference also becomes transcendentally special in some parallel way.

However, if we ignore consciousness (i.e. develop the physics as if only p-zombies could exist), then here-ness and time-ness are clearly not real at all. If we ignore consciousness, time clearly does not exist. Without consciousness, only an eternal timeless block universe exists.

With consciousness, we then get the conscious illusion of time (a unique axis relative to each conscious observer). The illusion could be made real to some actual degree if consciousness is transcendental or physically fundamental, but it would still be subjective and relative; it's just that then the conscious subject to which it's relative would actually be fundamental or transcendentally special in some way.
I interpret what you say here as:
  • P1. Without a conscious subject, time would not exist.
    C1. Therefore, time is dependent (not independent) of a conscious subject.
    P2. Objective truths are independent (not dependent) of conscious perceptions (subjectivity).
    C2. Therefore, time is an illusion of consciousness.
If so, then I think the error is with P1. It is not that time would 'not' exist without a conscious subject, it is more correct to say - that time could not be 'known' to exist without a conscious subject. And because of this error, C1 and C2 are therefore invalid (and therefore unsound).

In other words. P1 should state:
  • P1. Without a conscious subject, time would not be known to exist.
    C1. Therefore, the 'knowing' (not the 'existence') of time is contingent on a conscious subject.
I think it is more correct to say that "without a conscious subject, time could not be known to exist", which is much different than saying "without a conscious subject, time does not exist".
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 21st, 2021, 10:49 am
RJG wrote:If we equate "time" as "change", then it seems that "time exists" is an undeniable truth.
Scott wrote:As quoted above from my March 10th post, I wouldn't define time as change. Regardless, in Einstein's block universe there is no change either; the 4-D eternal block universe exists timelessly and unchanging.

Newtonian time has already been proven to be false. It's an illusion.

Time is not real.
If "time" and "change" did not exist, then "before & after's" could not exist. And if before & after's did not exist, then not only could you not compose the sequential letters and words (one after another) in your sentences above, nor could I experience the sequential sensory experiences needed to interpret the meaning of your words.
I don't necessarily disagree.

Realizing time is not real, and by extension realizing Newtonian space is not real either, can also logically lead to realizing many other things are unreal and/or impossible.

I have heard many neurologists describe it as a waking dream, hence my earlier comparisons to contingent realities such as the DC Universe or the Marvel Universe or the sleeping dream I had last night. What we often call the "real world" is just the waking dream-world, known to be unreal in the absolute sense of the word. It's a virtual reality which is known to contradict actual timeless reality.

Here is a good Ted Talk on the subject by Anil Seth, a British professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex: Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Scott wrote: March 20th, 2021, 8:02 pm I wouldn't define time as change. Regardless, in Einstein's block universe there is no change either; the 4-D eternal block universe exists timelessly and unchanging.

Newtonian time has already been proven to be false. It's an illusion.

Time is not real.

Needless to say, appearances are deceiving. The false appearance (i.e. illusion) of time is a symptom of the presence of subjective experience (namely consciousnesses).

If there is a subject, the appearance of illusionary relative time falsely appears to exist from the perception of that subject, relative to that subject. Take away the subject, and the subject's subjective illusion/perception disappears too. Take away the hallucinater, and the hallucination disappears.

The difference between space and time is analogous to the difference between there and here. In that way, time-ness is analogous to hereness. (And space-ness is like thereness.) Hereness and thereness and time are all relative and illusionary. There is nothing to objectively distinguish here from there except the optical illusion caused by (consciously) perceiving the world from somewhere...
RJG wrote: March 21st, 2021, 10:49 am I interpret what you say here as:

P1. Without a conscious subject, time would not exist.
Not exactly. Rather, it could be phrased as this: Without a conscious subject, the illusion of time would not exist.
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:If "time" and "change" did not exist, then "before & after's" could not exist. And if before & after's did not exist, then not only could you not compose the sequential letters and words (one after another) in your sentences above, nor could I experience the sequential sensory experiences needed to interpret the meaning of your words.
Scott wrote:I don't necessarily disagree.

Realizing time is not real…
We can't realize this because time (aka "change") is impossible to deny.

Scott wrote:What we often call the "real world" is just the waking dream-world, known to be unreal in the absolute sense of the word.
I agree that we cannot experientially experience the "real world" as we live in the subjective world (i.e. the "waking dream world") but I don't think this prohibits us from (subjectively) knowing objective reality (the real world).

Scott wrote:It's a virtual reality which is known to contradict actual timeless reality.
In a timeless (unchangeable) reality, nothing happens. If nothing happens in the real world, then nothing can happen in our subjective world.

Scott wrote:Here is a good Ted Talk on the subject by Anil Seth, a British professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex: Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality.
I don't disagree with most of this. This is why we can't trust our conscious experiences to tell us what is objectively true (in the real world).

RJG wrote:I interpret what you say here as:

P1. Without a conscious subject, time would not exist.
Scott wrote:Not exactly. Rather, it could be phrased as this: Without a conscious subject, the illusion of time would not exist.
But this pre-assumes "time is an illusion" (i.e. does not exist) which logically is not true. It is logically impossible to deny the existence of time (change) because the denial itself only confirms (proves) the existence of time. The denial is composed of "before and after" sequential letters, words, and sensory experiences.
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:If "time" and "change" did not exist, then "before & after's" could not exist. And if before & after's did not exist, then not only could you not compose the sequential letters and words (one after another) in your sentences above, nor could I experience the sequential sensory experiences needed to interpret the meaning of your words.
Scott wrote:I don't necessarily disagree.

Realizing time is not real…
RJG wrote: March 21st, 2021, 10:25 pm We can't realize this because time (aka "change") is impossible to deny.
I deny it; therefore it is possible to deny.

Time is not real.

Time is an illusion.

Illusions appear to be real.

Appearances are deceiving.


Scott wrote:I have heard many neurologists describe it as a waking dream, hence my earlier comparisons to contingent realities such as the DC Universe or the Marvel Universe or the sleeping dream I had last night. What we often call the "real world" is just the waking dream-world, known to be unreal in the absolute sense of the word. It's a virtual reality which is known to contradict actual timeless reality.
RJG wrote: March 21st, 2021, 10:25 pm In a timeless (unchangeable) reality, nothing happens. If nothing happens in the real world, then nothing can happen in our subjective world.
That does seem intuitive, but I think it is nonetheless a non-sequitur. If Batman eats cupcakes every Tuesday in the DC Universe (something happening in a virtual reality), that does not mean something is happening in the real world.

Putting the strict logic aside, there's a difference between the (1) 'something happening' of subjectively consciously experiencing unchanging eternal physical reality, like a movie-watcher watching a movie that exists on an unchanging DVD, versus (2) the 'something happening' in the movie is in part an illusion to the movie watcher. In the case of a movie watcher, of course they have their own secondary time in their base-reality, but assuming one is not a dualist (and one does not think consciousness has any causal role in singular true reality) that meta-time doesn't apply to consciousness, even though we as human beings have the experience (illusion) of Newtonian time and Newtonian space.

The Einsteinian physics that give us a 4-D unchanging eternal block universe ignore consciousness.

If it turns out consciousness can initiate or cause or do anything irreducible (i.e. fundamental), namely physically do something beyond the four current known physical forces in some way, then things will at least get more complicated.

As previously mentioned in earlier posts, a real albeit relative subject-dependent time could be in some sense recovered in that way. Some kind of time-like change or relative time could be recovered if consciousness is fundamental in some way, such as (just an example) being a fifth force on par with the the four current forces in physics: electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity), or being even more fundamental to those forces, perhaps being a crucial ingredient in a so-called physical Theory of Everything. A so-called Theory of Everything (in physics) and/or a physical theory of consciousnesses could shed light on or resolve the observer problem too. But none of that can be the case if consciousness is physically moot, meaning it cannot really do anything irreducible/fundamental (i.e. add something to the currently accepted physics).

If for the sake of argument, we pretend we are all philosophical zombies, then there definitely is no real time. It's definitely an illusion.

If consciousnesses is utterly impotent and non-fundamental, meaning it cannot really do anything, in terms of physics, then it is moot.

In the physics, Newtonian time and Newtonian space do not exist. They are illusions.

There is no universal 'now'/present in which events could occur.

Presence comes from consciousnesses and is relative to it.





RJG wrote: It is logically impossible to deny the existence of time (change) because the denial itself only confirms (proves) the existence of time. The denial is composed of "before and after" sequential letters, words, and sensory experiences.
The before and afterness is a relative subjective illusion. Ignoring consciousness, the physics show that the so-called before stuff and the so-called after stuff all exist eternally in a timeless way, in a 4-D block universe (using Einstein's physics) or an ~11-d block universe (using quantum physics which are incompatible with Einstein's physics and even more incompatible with Newtonian time, such as shown by the Delayed Choice Experiment and by seemingly locality-breaking causality-breaking faster-than-light quantum entanglement).

Your beforeness and afterness you reference are analogous to hereness and thereness. Hereness and thereness are just as illusionary and relative as time, as simultaneity, and as sequentiality.

I believe your objection is as much a non-sequitur as the following would be, "You cannot say hereness and thereness are not real because you are saying it from over there to me over here."

It appears to you the human that I am over here and you over there, and it appears to me the human vice versa. It can appear to you that two events were simultaneous while it will appear to me they are not. It can appear to you that your clock is ticking at one second per second, and my clock is ticking at half a second per second, while it can appear vice versa to me, and we would both be just as right (i.e. both our clocks would be ticking slower in relation to the other because there is no universal now or time in which they actually tick, and no universal axis of time in the 4-D block universe); it's just an appearance, utterly relative to the subject. Appearances are deceiving.

To say hereness and thereness exist (or time exists) in that way is a begging the question fallacy. You seem to be assuming that time is real, and assuming that the relative pastness and relative futureness relative to your reference frame have some actual basis in the physics or in reality when there is no evidence for that (without appealing to the alleged fundamentalness, transcendence, or physical forcefulness of consciousnesses). The fact that one event seems to happen before from your human perspective and another event seems from your perspective to happen after in no proves that there are before and afters; it's an illusion of subjective perspective.

Einstein proved that Newtonian time is impossible with logic and math, and his conclusions have been repeatedly validated by empirical results. It is scientifically proven that there is no universal now in physics. There is no objective frame of reference such that one of the infinite axises in the 4-D block universe can be distinguished as the time of axis, let alone a point on the axis being distinguished as the line (a 3-D plane representing a universal 3-D now) slicing between would-be present and would-be future.

To be parsimonious we must conclude that time does not exist. The only way to get away from that would be with new physics, presumably new physics in which consciousness does something fundamental and/or irreducible.
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:...time (aka "change") is impossible to deny.
Scott wrote:I deny it; therefore it is possible to deny.
I mean time/change is 'logically' impossible to deny. Logic is our only means of reasoning. And if we abandon logic, then anything becomes possible, ...and then nothing makes sense.

RJG wrote:It is logically impossible to deny the existence of time (change) because the denial itself only confirms (proves) the existence of time. The denial is composed of "before and after" sequential letters, words, and sensory experiences.
Scott wrote:The before and afterness is a relative subjective illusion.
But illusions themselves are also not logically possible without time (change).

Scott wrote:Ignoring consciousness, the physics show…
But the truths of "physics" are purely subjective (reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects) and therefore should never be trusted to yield true knowledge (objective truths).

Scott wrote:The only way to get away from that would be with new physics, presumably new physics in which consciousness does something fundamental and/or irreducible.
It seems that you hold physics (or science) in higher regard than logic. From my viewpoint - logic always trumps science. If something is logically impossible then all the science (or physics) in the universe can't make the impossible, 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 »

RJG wrote:It is logically impossible to deny the existence of time (change) because the denial itself only confirms (proves) the existence of time. The denial is composed of "before and after" sequential letters, words, and sensory experiences.
Scott wrote:The before and afterness is a relative subjective illusion.
RJG wrote:But illusions themselves are also not logically possible without time (change).
I believe that's ipse dixit. I don't believe it to be true, and see no valid reason to believe it to be true.

I believe illusions can exist in the eternal timeless block universe.

Batman can look at optical illusions in the DC universe.

Perhaps, what you mean to say is that illusions cannot exist without the appearance of time. I could concede that point, noting that appearances can be deceiving.

Otherwise, I see no reason to believe the seeming ipse dixit.




Scott wrote:The only way to get away from that would be with new physics, presumably new physics in which consciousness does something fundamental and/or irreducible.
RJG wrote: March 23rd, 2021, 10:44 pm It seems that you hold physics (or science) in higher regard than logic.
I'm sorry I accidentally made it falsely seem that way. I do not hold physics/science in higher regard than logic/math.

Roughly speaking, we can say that I am more certain of logical and/or mathematical truths (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4) than I am of empirical data and scientific theories (e.g. human exist, werewolves do not, the Earth is round not flat, etc.). Technically, we could get into deeper philosophical nuance in which comparing them is arguably meaningless (i.e. they are on two different ladders rather than being higher and lower on a single ladder). Or one could argue that a priori statements do not actually contain real information, such that a posteriori statements could arguably be seen as more valuable or such on account of containing more information (namely some info rather than allegedly none). But for current intents and purposes, I think we can put all those potential philosophical arguments aside, and just treat logical/mathematical truths (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4) as absolute certainties known with more certainty than any kind of empirical data or scientific theory.

The argument you provided to argue that time is a logical necessity is fallacious for the same reason the following argument would be fallacious: "You cannot say hereness and thereness are not real because you are saying it from over there to me over here."

I believe such an argument is a case of the begging the question fallacy.

Thus, I see no convincing argument or evidence, logical or otherwise, to believe time really exists, unless consciousness is fundamental, transcendental and/or physically forceful in some way.

Thus, as a matter of parsimony and Occam's Razor, I conclude time is an illusion.

Insofar as we assume consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful (which are not things I actually assume), then I accept the eternal timeless block universe proposed by Einstein's physics, which is just another way of saying I conclude time is an illusion.
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 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.

Scott wrote:Roughly speaking, we can say that I am more certain of logical and/or mathematical truths (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4) than I am of empirical data and scientific theories (e.g. human exist, werewolves do not, the Earth is round not flat, etc.). Technically, we could get into deeper philosophical nuance in which comparing them is arguably meaningless (i.e. they are on two different ladders rather than being higher and lower on a single ladder). Or one could argue that a priori statements do not actually contain real information, such that a posteriori statements could arguably be seen as more valuable or such on account of containing more information (namely some info rather than allegedly none). But for current intents and purposes, I think we can put all those potential philosophical arguments aside, and just treat logical/mathematical truths (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4) as absolute certainties known with more certainty than any kind of empirical data or scientific theory.
I'm in agreement with you here.
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