The Infiniteness of Time

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:In other words, how do you get from A to B? How do you get Something from Nothing? ...just saying that it does, does not logically make it so. We could also as easily say "pigs can fly", but our saying so does not necessarily mean that it is so. There must be some logical connection making it so.
So you're now claiming that statements like "pigs can't fly" are logical certainties? You are and seemingly always have been confused between things that are logically certain and things that our senses strongly indicate must be true due to strong patterns in observations.

Your central theme on here for years and years has been logic. You're going to call me condescending for suggesting this, but why not try to learn something about the subject in which you're interested? The great thing about studying a subject in which you're interested is that you get to see what other people in the past, who've thought about it for a long time, think. That's why I studied physics and the mathematical language in which it's expressed. Because I found it interesting. Others study other things and we can learn from them.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:Why would the change be "transcendental"?
It's an odd word to use but he explains his usage a bit to RJG in a subsequent post.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

I'd have thought a word like "orthogonal" would have been a bit more appropriate.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:The oxymoron itself is in the words "coming from" and "nothing". Coming from implies something [X], and nothing implies not-something [not-X]. Married implies X, and Bachelor implies not-X. X=~X is logically impossible. "Something coming from Nothing" and "Married bachelors" are oxymorons [X=~X].
So you're telling me "something coming from nothing" is self-contradictory by deciding that "coming from" means "something" and that the sentence really means "something is nothing". I guess that's one of doing it! :D . You could do that with pretty much any sentence.

Steve3007 wrote:at one time there was nothing and at a later time there was something
Show me the thing that is both asserted and denied in the above sentence without first turning it into a self-contradictory sentence. Show me the logical contradiction which makes it logically impossible. Don't just repeat something along the lines of "but how can something come from nothing?" As I've said, that would not demonstrate a logical contradiction. It would be an expression of strong belief in the empirically derived law of conservation of matter. And don't just redefine the words to make them self-contradictory as you did above!

As you know, we've been through this exact discussion before and previously it always disintegrated into long, vaguely worded posts that amounted to you simply saying "but something can't come from nothing!", which is an observation, not an argument.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:In other words, how do you get from A to B? How do you get Something from Nothing? ...just saying that it does, does not logically make it so. We could also as easily say "pigs can fly", but our saying so does not necessarily mean that it is so. There must be some logical connection to making it so.
Steve3007 wrote:So you're now claiming that statements like "pigs can't fly" are logical certainties?
No, you are missing my point. My point is that "something comes from nothing" is just a claim, just as is the claim "pigs can fly". So then, how does something come from nothing? How do pigs fly? What it the logic or rationale that justifies the truth of the claim? ...just saying that they are true, does not necessarily mean that they are.

If there is no rational/logical connection that "something comes from nothing", or that "pigs can fly", then why would we even bother to believe it?

RJG wrote:The oxymoron itself is in the words "coming from" and "nothing". Coming from implies something [X], and nothing implies not-something [not-X]. Married implies X, and Bachelor implies not-X. X=~X is logically impossible. "Something coming from Nothing" and "Married bachelors" are oxymorons [X=~X].
Steve3007 wrote:So you're telling me "something coming from nothing" is self-contradictory by deciding that "coming from" means "something" and that the sentence really means "something is nothing".
Yes, if "somethings" don't exist, then "events" (and "coming froms") don't exist! The words "coming from" lack any meaning in the absence of matter ("somethings"). This is as contradictorily equivalent to talking about "beginnings" (or "before and afters") in the absence of time.

Steve3007 wrote:at one time there was nothing and at a later time there was something.

...Show me the thing that is both asserted and denied in the above sentence without first turning it into a self-contradictory sentence.
There is no logical contradiction, nor logical connection as it is written. Your statement/claim "at one time there was nothing and at a later time there was something" is no more true or false than saying "at one time pigs walk and at another time pigs fly".

The self contradiction (oxymoron; logical impossibility) is in the claim "Something comes from Nothing".

Steve3007 wrote:As you know, we've been through this exact discussion before and previously it always disintegrated into long, vaguely worded posts that amounted to you simply saying "but something can't come from nothing!", which is an observation, not an argument.
It is a "logical certainty" (...not just an "observation").
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 Infiniteness of Time

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

RJG wrote: April 18th, 2021, 9:51 am
Scott wrote:...I firmly conclude nothing is really happening, meaning real change does not exist.
My difficulty in understanding you is because of statements like these (...which, to me, come across as obvious logical contradictions).

For example, if I said to you "I firmly conclude married bachelors exist", could you understand and accept that? ...neither can I. And likewise, when you say "nothing is really happening" or "change does not exist" or "everything is an illusion", these are unfathomable to me, because I can't get past its obvious impossibility (i.e. the words in the claim defeat the claim itself).

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if you preface the statement with "If consciousness is real or not real; passive or not, etc", a married bachelor is still logically impossible.
A married bachelor is a logical contradiction.

An unchanging 4D block universe that contains this entire conversion is not a logical contradiction.

Einstein's physics are not contradictory or illogical.

The following statement does not contain a logical contradiction: "Nothing is really happening."

The following statement does not contain a logical contradiction: "Real change does not exist."

The following statement does not contain logical contradiction: "This entire conversion including the above statements and this one all exist in the unchanging 4D block universe that contains all of reality across all of would-be time and/or would-be space, noting that neither time nor space really exist, much like hereness and thereness don't really exist, just everything that would be everywhere and would be everywhen if there even could be true theres and true thens."


Scott wrote:If I make that non-parsimonious assumption, then I must therefore reject any appeal to claim that your own personal seeming conscious experience is proof that 'something is really happening' or 'real change is really occurring'.
RJG wrote: April 18th, 2021, 9:51 am But my own personal "conscious experience" is still part of and within this [unchanging] 4D universe.
Then your so-called "conscious experience" is not really happening. It just exists in an unchanging state as part of the unchanging 4D universe.

In that case, your so-called "conscious experience" is like Batman's experience in terms of what he experiences during any given scene in the movie on an unchanging unplayed DVD that contains the whole story of his life.

Batman and Robin may have a conversion in that movie as contained on the unchanging unplayed DVD (maybe titled "Batman and Robin talk philosophy"), but the conversion never really happens if it is never played by something outside (i..e transcendental to) the DVD containing the whole conversation. The DVD has no eternal presence, just as timeless spacetime has no objective simultaneity and cannot have a universal now (i.e. a present).

If frames from the movie aren't played consecutively on a screen or such, then there is no way to say which would-be frame is now, and there is no screen on which for changing frames to appear. In other words, there is no present or simultaneity. Nothing is on-screen (i.e. now) versus off-screen (i.e. not now) because there is no screen, no present, no here-and-now, on which for it to be.

There is no screen in the DVD, and there is no screen or screen-like thing within 4D spacetime.

That's because 4D spacetime does not contain time. Perhaps more importantly, in Einstein's physics there is no objective simultaneity. There is nothing within the 4D spacetime to say what would be on the screen (if there was a screen), and there is nothing in 4D spacetime to say which things from 4D spacetime would even be on the screen at the same time as each other (if there even was a screen). In terms of a screen or time, both do not exist within the 4 dimensions of timeless unchanging spacetime. In other words, analogies aside, there is neither objective simultaneity nor presence in timeless 4D spacetime.


RJG wrote: April 18th, 2021, 9:51 am Even if it is an illusion, this illusion is nonetheless real and happening within this universe, ...not outside it.
Not if "this universe" refers to the 4D block universe of timeless spacetime.

The unchanging 4D spacetime contains everything and anything that exists within the 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime (including both what you would categorize as "past" versus "future" or as "here in space" versus "not here in space" or "forward in space (i.e. in front of you)" versus "backward in space (i.e. behind you). All of that exists together in an unchanging timeless 4D state.

In terms of those 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime that contain everything, there is neither objective simultaneity nor presence.

Any conversations and/or illusions Batman and Robin would have in the unchanging DVD containing the whole movie in which the conversion or illusions would occur do not happen because the unplayed unchanging DVD is unplayed.


Scott wrote:The unchanging 4D universe contains all so-called "events". The conversation we are having (in which I deny that change happens) exists in an unchanging state…
RJG wrote: April 18th, 2021, 9:51 am We cannot have a conversation that did not happen. Either it happened or it didn't. Either it exists or it doesn't.
It exists, but it did not happen, and it is not happening, and it cannot happen. (That is, assuming real happening requires real change.) It exists in full on the unchanging DVD that contains the entirety of unchanging timeless 4D spacetime. No change happens. The 4D block universe (i.e. the unchanging DVD movie that contains the entirety of unchanging timeless 4D spacetime) does not change.

There is neither objective simultaneity nor presence in the timeless 4D spacetime that contains everything including real dinosaurs, this entire conversion, the big bang, and my great grand-kids deaths.


Scott wrote:...in the unchanging 4D block universe (which is like an unplayed unchanging DVD with no DVD player that contains this conversation including my denial of change).
RJG wrote: April 18th, 2021, 9:51 am If it is "unplayed" then it didn't happen, but since this denial did happen, it therefore[...]
You have committed the begging the question fallacy. The denial did not happen because without objective simultaneity, change is incompatible with determinism. The full conversation including the denial simply exists in full in an unchanging eternal state, as everything else exists in the unchanging timeless 4D block universe (i.e. the unchanging DVD containing everything in timeless 4D spacetime including this full unchanging conversation). In a loose sense of the words, this full conversion (plus dinosaurs, the big bang, and my great grandchildrens' deaths) have always existed and always will in an unchanging 4D state, but with the caveat that there is no time and thus the word 'always' is a bit of a misnomer that actually refers to unchanging timeless eternity.

As you correctly say, if it is "unplayed" (i.e. if there is nothing outside of or beyond the timeless unchanging 4D spacetime to play the unchanging DVD containing all of 4D spacetime), then it is not happening. Nothing happens; no change exists.

In analogy, if there is no DVD player(s) and (no screens attached to those players), then there is no present(s) or presence(s). If the DVD contains the whole movie in an unchanging state, then there is no "presence" (i.e. no here-and-now) without a DVD player (i.e. something transcendental to the timeless DVD containing everything) to define that present, to cut out that present from the rest of the full movie containing everything.

In timeless spacetime, a 'present' would not be a point in 1D time (because there is no dimension of time in spacetime) but rather a 'present' would be an inseparable here-and-now (a small changing 4D blob highlighted out of the full 4D block universe).

In the 4D block universe that is all of spacetime, there is no 'now', there is no 'present', and there is no time. In 4D spacetime, there is no objective simultaneity. There is nowhere and nowhen within the 4 dimension of timeless spacetime upon which or within which for things to happen.


***
Terrapin Station wrote: April 20th, 2021, 9:17 am By no means have I read all of this discussion, so I'm probably missing some stuff I need, though I am familiar with the topic overall.

At any rate, there are a number of things in your comments that I don't get. To start with:
Scott wrote: April 16th, 2021, 8:08 pm If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that, because you have a conscious experience that appears to be happening, something must be happening (i.e. some kind of transcendental change is occurring),
Why would the change be "transcendental"?
1. Because it definitely doesn't exist within the 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime. I am not claiming it does exist, but if it does exist, it must therefore exist beyond, meaning outside of (i.e. "transcendental" to), the 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime that contain everything including this whole conversion, the big bang, real dinosaurs, and the death of the Sun.

2. Because as I understood his comments, RJG seemed to specifically appealing to his own consciousness as somehow providing evidence that something exists outside of or beyond the unchanging 4D block universe of 4D timeless spacetime, like a DVD player and/or a movie-watcher existing outside of an unchanging DVD that contains an entire movie including all scenes that could be played. In other words, it seems to me he was proposing that he had a consciousness that was really having a changing relationship with the otherwise unchanging 4D block universe that contains everything including this whole conversion, the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, and the death of the Sun. In other words, he seemed to be claiming that through consciousness itself he had access to some kind of true real presence, even though there is no present (i.e. universal now) within the entirety of the timeless 4D spacetime that contains everything including this whole conversion, the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, and the death of the Sun.

Terrapin Station wrote: April 20th, 2021, 9:17 am I also say that the "block" picture can't be right because change at least occurs phenomenally. Why would that be interpreted as saying that some "transcendental" change is occurring?
If the 4D block universe can't be right/complete because X exists and X is incompatible with the timeless 4D block universe being all that there is, then by definition X is transcendental to the block universe, similar to how the 2D imaginary number plane is transcendental to the 1D real number line, or that way that the Y axis transcends the X axis on a 2D graph.

Regardless, perhaps you and I are using the terms "phenomenally" and "transcendentally" as synonyms or near-synonyms, but I can't be sure. What do you men by phenomenal change? What phenomenal change can scientifically be shown to be "happening" (whatever that means) that isn't already covered by the timeless 4D physics of 4D timeless spacetime? If it is something that exists in addition to what is contained within the 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime, then how could that not, ipso facto, mean by definition that it transcends that 4D would-be block universe?

Nothing contained within the 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime is changing, so are you proposing something that exists 'outside' of or 'beyond' the 4D spacetime in some way and that the relationship between (1) that extra phenomenal thing and (2) the unchanging 4D spacetime is what's changing (in analogy to the way a movie-watcher can have a changing relationship to an unchanging DVD containing the full movie that creates a presence (i.e. which frame/scene from the movie is 'now') and thus gives the appearance of flowing time to that movie-watcher through a consecutive series of on-screen frames flowing by one-by-one in order?
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
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

Scott wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:27 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: April 20th, 2021, 9:17 am By no means have I read all of this discussion, so I'm probably missing some stuff I need, though I am familiar with the topic overall.

At any rate, there are a number of things in your comments that I don't get. To start with:
Scott wrote: April 16th, 2021, 8:08 pm If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that, because you have a conscious experience that appears to be happening, something must be happening (i.e. some kind of transcendental change is occurring),
Why would the change be "transcendental"?
1. Because it definitely doesn't exist within the 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime. I am not claiming it does exist, but if it does exist, it must therefore exist beyond, meaning outside of (i.e. "transcendental" to), the 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime that contain everything including this whole conversion, the big bang, real dinosaurs, and the death of the Sun . . .
So are you just saying that it exists "outside of that model"? That I'd agree with. But the model is obviously wrong (even if it has some practical utility as a model). By "phenomenal change" I'm saying that we experience change as an apparent phenomenon. That apparent phenomenon is at least changing, and can't itself be an "illusion" (or rather we could say that it is the illusion, but the point would be that that illusion exists and is changing (and the illusion isn't itself an illusion; that would make no semantic sense)). That might be "outside" of the model, but it's not outside of what is/what exists, so then the model would be missing something about the world, and there's a problem with it if it's supposed to model what the world is like.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:A married bachelor is a logical contradiction.
Correct. Married and bachelor contradict each other. X=~X is a logical impossibility.

Scott wrote:An unchanging 4D block universe that contains this entire conversion [conversation] is not a logical contradiction.
Not correct. This "conversation" is an action. Actions require change. Unchanging and changing contradict each other. X=~X is a logical impossibility.

Scott, conversations require "changing" and differing words and thoughts. Our thoughts are composed of changing sensory experiences that make up and give meaning to each and every word, and to each and every sentence that composes our thoughts. Without change, there could be no thoughts whatsoever!

And without our (changing) thoughts, we couldn't have the thought (or make the claim) that "thoughts don't change/exist/happen"!

RJG wrote:We cannot have a conversation that did not happen. Either it happened or it didn't. Either it exists or it doesn't.
Scott wrote:It exists, but it did not happen... ...no change happens...
Which part of the conversation exists? ...all of it? ...if so, then isn't this conversation composed of differing "changing" words (in sequential order)? ...the second word has changed from the first word, and the third word has changed from the second word, etc etc.

If we didn't have these sequential changing words then we could not have a conversation. If conversations exist, then "changing" (and sequential) words also exist.


************
Terrapin Station wrote:That apparent phenomenon is at least changing, and can't itself be an "illusion" (or rather we could say that it is the illusion, but the point would be that that illusion exists and is changing (and the illusion isn't itself an illusion; that would make no semantic sense)).
Bingo! ...hence the logical impossibility of the claim "everything (all happenings) are just an illusion". ...i.e. it is logically impossible for the illusion to happen if illusions can't happen.


************
RJG wrote:But my own personal "conscious experience" is still part of and within this [so-called unchanging] 4D universe.
Scott wrote:Then your so-called "conscious experience" is not really happening. It just exists in an unchanging state as part of the unchanging 4D universe.
Not everything can be an illusion (i.e. not really happening). Something real must be happening for illusions to happen. Dreams can't happen without the real happening of a dreamer dreaming. Hallucinations can't happen without the real happening of a hallucinator hallucinating.

Scott wrote:...your so-called "conscious experience" is like Batman's experience in terms of what he experiences during any given scene in the movie on an unchanging unplayed DVD that contains the whole story of his life.
But I could not know of my illusion of Batman's illusion if my illusion did not really happen! ...and we can't logically have "turtles (illusions) all the way down".
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 Infiniteness of Time

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 7:22 am
Scott wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:27 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: April 20th, 2021, 9:17 am By no means have I read all of this discussion, so I'm probably missing some stuff I need, though I am familiar with the topic overall.

At any rate, there are a number of things in your comments that I don't get. To start with:
Scott wrote: April 16th, 2021, 8:08 pm If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that, because you have a conscious experience that appears to be happening, something must be happening (i.e. some kind of transcendental change is occurring),
Why would the change be "transcendental"?
1. Because it definitely doesn't exist within the 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime. I am not claiming it does exist, but if it does exist, it must therefore exist beyond, meaning outside of (i.e. "transcendental" to), the 4 dimensions of timeless spacetime that contain everything including this whole conversion, the big bang, real dinosaurs, and the death of the Sun . . .
So are you just saying that it exists "outside of that model"? That I'd agree with.
Sort of, but (in this forum topic) I'm not saying that "it" exists at all, with "it" being that which if true would make solipsism false (and by extension also render false what I would call the super-solipsism that is Dennett's theory of consciousness).

Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 7:22 am By "phenomenal change" I'm saying that we experience change as an apparent phenomenon. That apparent phenomenon is at least changing, and can't itself be an "illusion" (or rather we could say that it is the illusion, but the point would be that that illusion exists and is changing (and the illusion isn't itself an illusion; that would make no semantic sense)). That might be "outside" of the model, but it's not outside of what is/what exists, so then the model would be missing something about the world, and there's a problem with it if it's supposed to model what the world is like.
In a different context, I would be inclined to agree if I wasn't working under the assumption that consciousness (i.e. the alleged apparent phenomenon to which you refer) is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful.

Normally, I do not assume that consciousness (i.e. the alleged apparent phenomenon to which you refer) is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful. In other words, I let myself at least remain agnostic about whether consciousness may be either fundamental, transcendental, or physically forceful, or at least symptomatic of some kind of yet undiscovered unknown thing that is fundamental, transcendental, and/or physically forceful.

However, in this particular forum topic, I am tentatively accepting for the sake of argument RJG's premise/assertion (as I understand it) that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful.


****
Scott wrote:An unchanging 4D block universe that contains this entire conversion [conversation] is not a logical contradiction.
RJG wrote: April 21st, 2021, 7:58 am This "conversation" is an action. Actions require change.
If actions require change, then this conversation is not an action, and actions do not really exist.

Without objective simultaneity in the DVD (which contains the whole conversation), change is incompatible with determinism.

RJG wrote:We cannot have a conversation that did not happen. Either it happened or it didn't. Either it exists or it doesn't.
Scott wrote:It exists, but it did not happen... ...no change happens...
RJG wrote: April 21st, 2021, 7:58 am Which part of the conversation exists? ...all of it?
The whole conversation, the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, the death of the Sun, and everything else all exist together in the unchanging entirety of 4D timeless spacetime.

This is analogous to the sense in which a conversation between Batman and Robin can be said to exist in its entirety along with everything else that exists on an unplayed unchanging DVD containing the whole conversation and everything else.

However, the timelessness of the physical entirety of 4D spacetime is even more significant, conceptually inescapable, and fundamental than the timelessness of an unplayed unchanging DVD movie existing alone in a reality with no DVD player and nothing but the unchanging unplayed DVD movie. That's because, if the DVD contains merely a regular movie file, then the DVD/movie at least has objective simultaneity. The entirety of 4D spacetime lacks objective simultaneity. It's not merely like an unplayed unchanging movie file containing the movie, but more timeless than that. There not only is no now, but--unlike in a timeless universe that lacks a now but still has objective simultaneity across one dimension--in 4D timeless spacetime there isn't even the possibility of a universal now (i.e. there is no objective simultaneity). It's not merely that there isn't a way to distinguish which point on the would-be axis of time is now (like an unplayed DVD movie), but there is not even an axis of time (a series of points in time from which that now could be chosen/highlighted).

In other words, the physics of 4D spacetime are less like an unplayed DVD movie and much more like an unplayed unchanging choose-your-own-adventure-style DVD video game--with no player that is unplayed. That's because, since there is objective simultaneity, the physics do not say what would be on-screen together (i.e. at the same time) if there was a screen (i.e. if there was time) which there isn't.

The entirety of 4D spacetime which includes this whole entire conversation plus the Big Bang and the death of the Sun is more timeless than an unchanging unplayed DVD movie existing alone as the only thing that exists in a reality with no DVD player and no change. It's not a movie file. It's not a collection of 3D frames each representing a possible different would-be now. It's an unplayed unchanging DVD containing timeless 4D spacetime that could be played infinite ways if there was any DVD players which there aren't.

RJG wrote:But my own personal "conscious experience" is still part of and within this [so-called unchanging] 4D universe.
Scott wrote:Then your so-called "conscious experience" is not really happening. It just exists in an unchanging state as part of the unchanging 4D universe.
RJG wrote: April 21st, 2021, 7:58 am Not everything can be an illusion (i.e. not really happening).
Sure it can. There is nothing contradictory about the following sentence: "Nothing is happening."
RJG wrote: Something real must be happening for illusions to happen.
Then the illusions aren't really happening.

Nor is the illusion of the illusion happening.

Nothing is happening.

Without objective simultaneity (or something--presumably somethings plural and subjective--that is transcendental to the otherwise eternal physics of block-universe-like 4D timeless spacetime), change is incompatible with determinism.

RJG wrote: Dreams can't happen without the real happening of a dreamer dreaming.
Then dreams don't happen.
RJG wrote: Hallucinations can't happen without the real happening of a hallucinator hallucinating.
Then, hallucinations don't really happen. The may pseudo-happen in the sense that Batman has a hallucination that he is talking to Robin during one scene in the movie stored on the unchanging unplayed DVD. But the whole unchanging movie already exists in its entirety in an unchanging unplayed state. In the unplayed movie Batman says it happens, but neither it nor his false claim actually happen.


You might then argue that my statements above mean I must either be a solipsist (i.e. one who thinks every other human except himself is an actual philosophical zombie) or more extremely what I call a Dennett-style 'super-solipsist' (i.e. one who thinks every human including himself is an actual philosophical zombie). In other words, you could argue that I am suggesting that fundamentally we humans are no more truly conscious than a fictional character like Batman in an unplayed DVD movie.

I would likely find such an argument fairly convincing and compelling if you were to make it.

In other words, I do suspect that the assuming of the things we've assumed in this discussion so far may likely logically lead to either (1) solipsism or (2) what I call Dennett-style 'super-solipsism'.
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
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

Scott wrote: April 21st, 2021, 3:08 pm Normally, I do not assume that consciousness (i.e. the alleged apparent phenomenon to which you refer) is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful.
How are you using the term "fundamental"? That was another thing that I was mystified about. (Is that something from Dennett or something? I don't recall it if so.)

And "transcendental" to the block time model? Or to what?

"Physically forceful" as in "causal"?
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 Infiniteness of Time

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:54 pm
Scott wrote: April 21st, 2021, 3:08 pm Normally, I do not assume that consciousness (i.e. the alleged apparent phenomenon to which you refer) is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful.
How are you using the term "fundamental"?
There's countless different proposals for possible resolutions to the hard problem of consciousness, and thus countless if not infinite possible ways consciousness could be believed to be or proposed to be fundamental. All of those possibilities have been thrown out by premise/assumption as impossible/untrue for the context of this discussion. (Even though, I don't agree with the assumption, I am not complaining about it because the physics are much simpler to contemplate if we side-step things like the observer problem, the mind-body problem, and consciousness.)

For the purposes of this discussion, I would suggest interpreting the word fundamental in the broadest reasonable sense it could be interpreted for the purposes of this discussion.

Nonetheless, I was roughly using the term fundamental in the same sense of the word fundamental as we use it to refer to the so-called fundamental forces like electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force, or the fields in quantum field theory.

If--for example--we think of consciousnesses (plural) as more fundamental than apparent time, which is relative, there could be a degree of indirect quasi-reality to the relative timelines (and relative spaces) in that the quasi-real relative emergent times would (with the fictionalness of abstract emergence) reflect changing relationships between the more fundamental consciousnesses (plural) and the rest of reality (i.e. the unchanging 4D block universe). As I understand it, that possibility has been thrown out in the context of the discussion by premise/assumption.

In analogy, the phenomenal experiences of all the countless consciousnesses across timeless spacetime would be like movie-watchers or game-players each playing the same unchanging DVD movie or unchanging DVD video game on their own screen, but the change is occurring on each of the screens outside of the seemingly deterministic 4D spacetime (i.e. outside of the unchanging DVD) in the sense that it reflects a relationship with that DVD and that DVD player (one relationship of countless if not infinite). However, that would suggest that it may be meaningless to talk about (or at least impossible to know) what's happening 'simultaneously' on different figurative screens, because the screens do not exist in spacetime and are not even physically real in terms of currently known physics but merely metaphors to reflect the changing relationships between infinite instances of consciousness(es) and the rest of unchanging timeless reality. In other words, in the (meaningless if not just wrong) sense that you and I are both consciously experiencing something simultaneously than all conscious experiences ever are being had simultaneously--because there is no such thing as simultaneous in time across space, so simultaneous multiple conscious experiences would not be happening in 1D time over across 3D space. In that case, we are talking about some kind of eternal now that exists beyond or beneath spacetime and encompasses all of spacetime. In this way of thinking, it would mean that in the same sense you and I are having conscious experiences simultaneously, so too is it that you, I, my ten-year-old-self, real dinosaurs, and Plato himself are all having our conscious experiences simultaneously, in that they are all happening in the eternal reality that contains the rest of the otherwise unchanging block universe. Then there would still be no objective time but there would be some kind of mysterious quantum soup of infinite subjective experiences happening together on equal par with each other, each experiencing its own version of spacetime with its own emergent timeline. Time would be an emergent relativistic phenomenon emerging in part from underlying fundamental consciousness(es), rather than consciousness(es) emerging in objective space over objective time, neither of which exist.

In the context of this discussion, all of those vague confusing different possibilities have been rejected by premise/assumption, which on the bright side does make certain things much more simple to analyze.

If the would-be fundamental or transcendental subjects (i.e. consciousnesses, plural, each with their own different present) are rejected as not fundamental or transcendental, or in other words as physically moot, then in terms of physics we need not worry about the would-be quasi-real emergent relative time that would emerge from their mysterious seemingly transcendental subjectivity if it was really transcendental or forceful or even really happening at all.

Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:54 pm And "transcendental" to the block time model? Or to what?
I was thinking primarily of the possibility of consciousness being transcendental to the otherwise deterministic 4D spacetime (i.e. the timeless block universe), thus not existing within 4D spacetime but outside or beyond 4D spacetime. For instance, there could be a 5th dimension in which it exists, or this whole observable universe could be a cheap video game on a 54-dimensional alien's xbox, and our consciousness reflects the alien's fiddling around with our universe. Again, there's countless if not infinite ways it could turn out to be, some possibilities being much more parsimonious than others, but all of them have been rejected in the context of this discussion as a matter of premise/assumption. As I understand it, a premise/assumption being made for the context of this discussion is that there is nothing transcendental to 4D spacetime--in any sense of the word transcendental.


Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:54 pm "Physically forceful" as in "causal"?
I am not sure what you mean by "causal".

Nonetheless, I was thinking in terms of either (1) being at least on par with electromagnetism or the strong force or (2) something even more mysteriously forceful or creative than that.

Again, there is presumably infinite possibilities.
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
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

Scott wrote: April 21st, 2021, 7:01 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:54 pm
Scott wrote: April 21st, 2021, 3:08 pm Normally, I do not assume that consciousness (i.e. the alleged apparent phenomenon to which you refer) is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful.
How are you using the term "fundamental"?
There's countless different proposals for possible resolutions to the hard problem of consciousness, and thus countless if not infinite possible ways consciousness could be believed to be or proposed to be fundamental. All of those possibilities have been thrown out by premise/assumption as impossible/untrue for the context of this discussion. (Even though, I don't agree with the assumption, I am not complaining about it because the physics are much simpler to contemplate if we side-step things like the observer problem, the mind-body problem, and consciousness.)

For the purposes of this discussion, I would suggest interpreting the word fundamental in the broadest reasonable sense it could be interpreted for the purposes of this discussion.

Nonetheless, I was roughly using the term fundamental in the same sense of the word fundamental as we use it to refer to the so-called fundamental forces like electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force, or the fields in quantum field theory.

If--for example--we think of consciousnesses (plural) as more fundamental than apparent time, which is relative, there could be a degree of indirect quasi-reality to the relative timelines (and relative spaces) in that the quasi-real relative emergent times would (with the fictionalness of abstract emergence) reflect changing relationships between the more fundamental consciousnesses (plural) and the rest of reality (i.e. the unchanging 4D block universe). As I understand it, that possibility has been thrown out in the context of the discussion by premise/assumption.

In analogy, the phenomenal experiences of all the countless consciousnesses across timeless spacetime would be like movie-watchers or game-players each playing the same unchanging DVD movie or unchanging DVD video game on their own screen, but the change is occurring on each of the screens outside of the seemingly deterministic 4D spacetime (i.e. outside of the unchanging DVD) in the sense that it reflects a relationship with that DVD and that DVD player (one relationship of countless if not infinite). However, that would suggest that it may be meaningless to talk about (or at least impossible to know) what's happening 'simultaneously' on different figurative screens, because the screens do not exist in spacetime and are not even physically real in terms of currently known physics but merely metaphors to reflect the changing relationships between infinite instances of consciousness(es) and the rest of unchanging timeless reality. In other words, in the (meaningless if not just wrong) sense that you and I are both consciously experiencing something simultaneously than all conscious experiences ever are being had simultaneously--because there is no such thing as simultaneous in time across space, so simultaneous multiple conscious experiences would not be happening in 1D time over across 3D space. In that case, we are talking about some kind of eternal now that exists beyond or beneath spacetime and encompasses all of spacetime. In this way of thinking, it would mean that in the same sense you and I are having conscious experiences simultaneously, so too is it that you, I, my ten-year-old-self, real dinosaurs, and Plato himself are all having our conscious experiences simultaneously, in that they are all happening in the eternal reality that contains the rest of the otherwise unchanging block universe. Then there would still be no objective time but there would be some kind of mysterious quantum soup of infinite subjective experiences happening together on equal par with each other, each experiencing its own version of spacetime with its own emergent timeline. Time would be an emergent relativistic phenomenon emerging in part from underlying fundamental consciousness(es), rather than consciousness(es) emerging in objective space over objective time, neither of which exist.

In the context of this discussion, all of those vague confusing different possibilities have been rejected by premise/assumption, which on the bright side does make certain things much more simple to analyze.

If the would-be fundamental or transcendental subjects (i.e. consciousnesses, plural, each with their own different present) are rejected as not fundamental or transcendental, or in other words as physically moot, then in terms of physics we need not worry about the would-be quasi-real emergent relative time that would emerge from their mysterious seemingly transcendental subjectivity if it was really transcendental or forceful or even really happening at all.

Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:54 pm And "transcendental" to the block time model? Or to what?
I was thinking primarily of the possibility of consciousness being transcendental to the otherwise deterministic 4D spacetime (i.e. the timeless block universe), thus not existing within 4D spacetime but outside or beyond 4D spacetime. For instance, there could be a 5th dimension in which it exists, or this whole observable universe could be a cheap video game on a 54-dimensional alien's xbox, and our consciousness reflects the alien's fiddling around with our universe. Again, there's countless if not infinite ways it could turn out to be, some possibilities being much more parsimonious than others, but all of them have been rejected in the context of this discussion as a matter of premise/assumption. As I understand it, a premise/assumption being made for the context of this discussion is that there is nothing transcendental to 4D spacetime--in any sense of the word transcendental.


Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:54 pm "Physically forceful" as in "causal"?
I am not sure what you mean by "causal".

Nonetheless, I was thinking in terms of either (1) being at least on par with electromagnetism or the strong force or (2) something even more mysteriously forceful or creative than that.

Again, there is presumably infinite possibilities.
Gah! Most of that seems like a complete mess to me.
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 Infiniteness of Time

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote: April 21st, 2021, 7:01 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:54 pm
Scott wrote: April 21st, 2021, 3:08 pm Normally, I do not assume that consciousness (i.e. the alleged apparent phenomenon to which you refer) is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful.
How are you using the term "fundamental"?
There's countless different proposals for possible resolutions to the hard problem of consciousness, and thus countless if not infinite possible ways consciousness could be believed to be or proposed to be fundamental.[...]

Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:54 pm And "transcendental" to the block time model? Or to what?
I was thinking primarily of the possibility of consciousness being transcendental to the otherwise deterministic 4D spacetime (i.e. the timeless block universe), thus not existing within 4D spacetime but outside or beyond 4D spacetime. For instance, there could be a 5th dimension in which it exists, or this whole observable universe could be a cheap video game on a 54-dimensional alien's xbox [...]

Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:54 pm "Physically forceful" as in "causal"?
I am not sure what you mean by "causal".

Nonetheless, I was thinking in terms of either (1) being at least on par with electromagnetism or the strong force or (2) something even more mysteriously forceful or creative than that.

Again, there is presumably infinite possibilities.
Terrapin Station wrote: April 21st, 2021, 7:07 pm Gah! Most of that seems like a complete mess to me.
Indeed, it generally seems a lot less messy to assume consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful, in the broadest sense of the words.

It was presumably more about the unsolved mysteries of quantum mechanics than the unsolved mysteries of consciousness, but nonetheless I've heard that Richard Feynman's personal motto was, "Shut up and calculate." :lol:
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 Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Not everything can be an illusion (i.e. not really happening).
Scott wrote:Sure it can. There is nothing contradictory about the following sentence: "Nothing is happening."
Not true. "Nothing is happening" is a self-defeating statement. It is as logically impossible as "all statements are false" and "married bachelors". All three statements are in the form of X=~X.

For example, if "all statements are false", then this statement ("all statements are false") itself is false, which thereby defeats itself, and is therefore logically impossible.

And likewise, if "nothing is happening", then this claim ("nothing is happening") itself did not happen (onto my computer screen this morning!) which thereby defeats itself, and is therefore logically impossible.

The claim "nothing is happening" is logically impossible. (...i.e. can't make the claim if claims can't happen!).

RJG wrote:Something real must be happening for illusions to happen.
Scott wrote:Then the illusions aren't really happening.
There can be nothing more certain in all of reality than one’s own experiences (or "illusions" if you prefer). It is from these experiences/illusions that we derive meaning and understanding of the world (reality) around us.

Logically, we cannot deny our own experiences ("illusions"). For any experience of denial only affirms the certainty of our experiences.

RJG wrote:Dreams can't happen without the real happening of a dreamer dreaming. Hallucinations can't happen without the real happening of a hallucinator hallucinating.
Scott wrote:Then, [dreams and] hallucinations don't really happen. The may pseudo-happen in the sense that Batman has a hallucination that he is talking to Robin during one scene in the movie stored on the unchanging unplayed DVD. But the whole unchanging movie already exists in its entirety in an unchanging unplayed state. In the unplayed movie Batman says it happens, but neither it nor his false claim actually happen.
But our "knowing" of Batman's actions could not happen, if our ability to know could not happen. You can't rationally continue with the "turtles-all-the-way-down" argument by then claiming - "but "our knowing of Batman's actions" didn't really happen" either - by invoking another iteration example of Batman having another illusion/hallucination of Batman talking to Robin, or Batman having another hallucination/illusion of hallucinating the hallucination of talking to Robin. There cannot be an endless stack of "turtles" without a 'real' turtle upon which to stack.

Scott wrote:You might then argue that my statements above mean I must either be a solipsist (i.e. one who thinks every other human except himself is an actual philosophical zombie) or more extremely what I call a Dennett-style 'super-solipsist' (i.e. one who thinks every human including himself is an actual philosophical zombie). In other words, you could argue that I am suggesting that fundamentally we humans are no more truly conscious than a fictional character like Batman in an unplayed DVD movie.
No, not at all. I see no need to deny consciousness whatsoever and still be compatible with our 4D universe. We are conscious specifically because "stuff happens"! Objects/entities in this universe experience bodily reactions (physical experiences) when interacting with other internal/external objects. Those entities that "know" they experience are those that are considered "conscious". To "know" requires memory and the ability to recognize (replay past experiences held in memory). Much like those with eyes have the capability to see, and those with memory have the capability to know (be conscious).

This universe may be truly 4D as you say, but it certainly is not "static" (like an unplayed DVD), it is undeniably "dynamic". Change (and therefore Time) absolutely and undeniably exist. Stuff happens!
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

There sometimes seems to be not much that me and RJG agree on, but I agree with the thrust of his argument against Scott here. I appreciate Scott's points about General Relativity/The Block Universe and the point that, within that model, the notion of a universal time and the fundamental separation of the dimensions representing time and space don't apply. But to conclude that things like time, change and stuff-happening are illusions is clearly silly. If you think your model tells you that stuff doesn't happen then either the model is wrong or you've misunderstood the model.

I come back to the analogy with the conclusion people make from time to time that solid objects, on closer inspection, are not really solid, because atomic nuclei are so dense. In my view, that's the wrong conclusion to come to. The right one is that they're as solid as they ever were, but we've understood a bit more about what it means for something to be solid. Likewise, General Relativity doesn't tell us that change/time doesn't exist. Rather, it gives us a deeper understanding of how time and change work.
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