There's that great reading comprehension you used to display so often.Atla wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 8:44 amWell the first thing you didn't understand is that if you don't understand a topic, then that's not automatically other people's fault.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 8:33 amThat would be far more convincing if you were capable of making explicit just what I'm not understanding.Atla wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 8:11 amYou've demonstrated plenty of times that you don't understand the problem of the mind-body connection. You can't solve a problem if you don't even know what it is. That's what you get for redefining key philosophical concepts, thereby sweeping the problems under the rug, and then crowning yourself for such achievement.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 7:56 am
Rather, you're mistaken that mental necessarily implies "not material."
That's all that that is about.
And then you can't accept that someone can disagree that there's a big problem with the mind-body connection.
The Infiniteness of Time
- 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
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: The Infiniteness of Time
So, from Nothing to Eternity. The static imagination is a cartesian cube called Eternity that contains all other cubes/frames along the Z axis. In the paradox: Nothing Frame/cube (0,0) (0,0,0) is contain in Eternity cube. Enter the “switch” and we have a dynamic imagination in the on position and the off position and the on position to the off position. In this experiment it is the imagination turning the switch on and off. In a biblical/Scientific construct it is the pre forces and post forces of the Big Bang moving along the (∞, ∞, ∞) as matter. This is my imagination moving on and off until another transformation. Obviously, it is the question of actions happening in Eternity as I do them. As time is a construct of my imagination, I cannot say the same for matter or perhaps I could if I can count to Eternity. It is the original paradox of matter is thought or thought is matter. There are many redundancies spiraling out of the imagination web trapping the thought that could judge it real or not. In the old Kabala it is a deterministic conversation top to bottom. In modern Kabala, it is a dualistic position and in some Free Will traditions it is One to two and then 3 to 4…imagination. In a cube.
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: The Infiniteness of Time
Atla wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 4:34 pmWell not quite. First we think that the material universe is fundamental and consciousness is secondary, then we think that consciousness is fundamental and the material universe is secondary. But actually we've just inverted the dualism, ended up with another dualism. But it's usually necessary to go through this stage, before it hits us what nondualism actually is.Thomyum2 wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 10:59 am Yes, I think you've successfully articulated that very succinctly here, which isn't easy to do with the language we have.
I would perhaps add that whether we're describing the 'universe' as a 4D block model that is unchanging, or as a 3D model of matter in space that changes across time, these both carry the assumption of an 'objective' universe - a material and mechanistic world in which we find ourselves and which we observe and experience for the duration of our conscious experience as an individual organism. It's a dualistic assumption that holds that the universe of space, time and matter is the primary substance, into which consciousness, incidentally and as a sort of detached observing entity, either emerges from that substance, or descends into it from some outside and as-yet undiscovered additional dimension.
But isn't there another, non-dualistic, option? Namely, that consciousness itself is what is fundamental, and that this universe of matter, space and time, rather than being an objective reality, is rather a construction or projection, or we could even say manifestation, of the greater mind and consciousness to which you refer?
In the nondual view, consciousness and the material world collapse into one and the same thing. Because they always were one and the same, we just had a weird cognitive double vision since early childhood.
Of course we are used to think about the material world in an abstract and third-person-view way, so it's difficult first to view in a concrete, first-person-view way. What's even more difficult is to realize that this first-person view we thought belonged to our own mind, is actually shared with everyone and everything else.
I think I understand what you're saying, and I believe we're thinking along the same lines here, but the very dualistic nature of the language makes it hard to avoid sounding like we're talking about different things. But I don't want to sidetrack the discussion into dualism (though I'd enjoy pursuing that separately ).Atla wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 4:21 am It should be noted that from the nondual perspective, materialism and idealism are also subtle forms of dualisms, people just don't realize it / have forgotten it. One says: the world is fundamentally material but not mental, the other says: the world is fundamentally mental but not material. Both are already based on the weird cognitive double vision we had since early childhood, and then one of the two is denied.
They are exclusory dualisms, not genuine monisms. I consider this subtlety to be the main reason why Western philosophy didn't get anywhere for hundreds of years, when it comes to the fundamentals, nor can it get anywhere using this paradigm.
I guess what I'm trying to get at here though, in the context of the thread, is that both of these models of a 'universe', whether 3D in time or a 4D block, postulate the nature of an 'objective' reality, namely a reality that exists independently of the conscious observer, a world which persists even if the observer is taken out of the picture. As I see it, worlds without observers are hypothetical, and must be, by this very definition. (It's the old 'if a tree falls in the woods' argument, the answer to which depends on the premises and definitions each person bring to it.) There is no way to establish the 'truth' of either model, because the models themselves are describing something beyond the observed - of regions of a material universe beyond the presence of consciousness. The success or failure of any such model rests largely on whether or not one accepts the premises behind them. But the premises themselves are not verifiable in the absence of an observer - i.e. in the absence of consciousness. In short, these models are not right or wrong, they are simply different ways of thinking about things, which may or may not be useful to different people in different situations.
But I think when we postulate consciousness as an integral (or 'fundamental', if you will), part of all reality and not simply an emergent property of a material world, this opens up the possibilities of other models which might work more effectively to understand some of our observations and experiences.
— Epictetus
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The Infiniteness of Time
In physics, the idea of the "human conscious observer" that exists independently of reality, was refuted a century ago, so as I see it, today only physicists take this stance who aren't up-to-date.Thomyum2 wrote: ↑April 29th, 2021, 9:06 am I think I understand what you're saying, and I believe we're thinking along the same lines here, but the very dualistic nature of the language makes it hard to avoid sounding like we're talking about different things. But I don't want to sidetrack the discussion into dualism (though I'd enjoy pursuing that separately ).
I guess what I'm trying to get at here though, in the context of the thread, is that both of these models of a 'universe', whether 3D in time or a 4D block, postulate the nature of an 'objective' reality, namely a reality that exists independently of the conscious observer, a world which persists even if the observer is taken out of the picture. As I see it, worlds without observers are hypothetical, and must be, by this very definition. (It's the old 'if a tree falls in the woods' argument, the answer to which depends on the premises and definitions each person bring to it.) There is no way to establish the 'truth' of either model, because the models themselves are describing something beyond the observed - of regions of a material universe beyond the presence of consciousness. The success or failure of any such model rests largely on whether or not one accepts the premises behind them. But the premises themselves are not verifiable in the absence of an observer - i.e. in the absence of consciousness. In short, these models are not right or wrong, they are simply different ways of thinking about things, which may or may not be useful to different people in different situations.
But I think when we postulate consciousness as an integral (or 'fundamental', if you will), part of all reality and not simply an emergent property of a material world, this opens up the possibilities of other models which might work more effectively to understand some of our observations and experiences.
We have different models, like the 4D spacetime block with circular dimensions, and the best we can do is try to came up with ways to guess which model could be the most logical one / most likely one to be correct.
The problem with the model of the original 3D universe changing through time, is that it presupposes a framework of absolute time, through which this change occurs. Einstein has shown that there is no such thing as absolute time, in the real world there is no such framework. It's also full of asymmetry problems, so if I'm to guess, I'd say that this model is probably worse than the 4D block universe.
- 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
Like electricity and magnetism, the seemingly two different things that are would-be time and would-be space are actually the same one thing: timeless spaceless spacetime. The two phantoms reduce to one much realer thing.
For more on that, please see these other more specific topics of mine that prove the case step-by-step, starting with agreeable premises:
- Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
- Would Flat-Land Four-Eyed Freddy Notice a Difference?
- Your left is not the left. There is no "the left". Likewise, there is no "the past" or "the future". Time is not real.
- In the same sense leftness is not real, time is not real.
- Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.
- Commentary on self-transcendence, ego death, and dying before you die; with a finger snap more brutal than Thanos
"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.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Infiniteness of Time
Scott, I think it all depends on how we define/understand “time”. If we define/understand time as being synonymous with “change”, or a change of state, then logically time exists.”Scott” wrote:Time is not infinite because time is not real.
- P1. “Time” refers to a change of state (the change/movement of objects).
P2. If time did not exist then there could be no change or movement of objects whatsoever.
P3. Change undeniably exists. It is logically impossible to deny change, without affirming it (as it takes a changing sequential action of letters/words to do this denying.)
C1. Therefore, “time” undeniably exists.
...and since it is logically impossible for there to be a beginning of time, or a time before time [X<X], then time is infinite!
- Agent Smyth
- Posts: 71
- Joined: March 21st, 2023, 6:43 am
Re: The Infiniteness of Time
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Infiniteness of Time
- A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Infiniteness of Time
It is difficult to argue with, or challenge, this, as far as I can see.
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023