How many illusions of Time are possible?

[3017Metaphysician]

Thank you Alta for a wonderfully lucid contribution. A whole lot to discuss there, and I look forward to a spirited dialogue.

I'm going to start from the top and take one concept at a time (no pun intended) in which to parse. I will also be thinking aloud. You stated that time relates to many things. I agree! One thing it relates to is paradox of course. For instance, we certainly know from philosophy that the so-called logic associated with Platonism which, like it or not, is still alive and well. Why? Because the laws of the universe (time/relativity) and other pragmatic uses of math (calculating a moving vehicle's time/speed, engineering a structural object, so on and so forth), are laws of unchanging truths. They are metaphysical laws that can create and describe objects and their movements, which have no Darwinian survival advantages. And those unchanging truths are based upon a priori logic, which, also result in paradox (tautologies/statements of self-reference/'Gödel incompleteness', etc.) Perhaps you can touch on some Kantian CPR/transendental kinds of things there!

I said time refers to many things, time is a word for different things.

You don't know that the laws of our universe are unchanging. Some claim that they may in fact, be changing. But if they would change too much (too much here means still extremely, sometimes unfathomably little), we would immediately die. So according to the Anthropic principle, we necessarily have to observe a universe with no, or very little change in laws.

Again, with different laws we also may have different mathematics.

So unchanging truths are just an assumption. A priori logic is just an assumption. But even if the laws of our universe are in fact unchanging, and our mathemathics will never change either, that still wouldn't mean that these are metaphysical laws that have an actual existence of their own. Laws of the universe are just descriptions of how the universe behaves. And abstractions like mathemathics are probably just a way of thinking, so yeah, Platonism is as dead as it gets, it has driven humanity insane for long enough.

I generally don't see Platonism as anything more than a tool to exploit/hurt other people. We reify the abstractions we want to reify, and then use these now "real" objects, to tell others what to do, how to behave.

Atla!

Sorry, please add this to the query:

6. You mentioned a priori logic as well as unchanging truths are an assumption. What kind of assumption do you mean? Are you thinking synthetic a priori judgements? I'm trying to parse that notion of an 'assumption'.

Thanks Atla!

[Tegularius]

Perceived rate of change bears out the idealist's stance that time , in the above case, duration,is mind dependent.

I gather that traditional Indian philosophy is much like western idealism.

What idealism has to do with either case, I have no idea; they are completely two separate realms of inquiry. I can't comment on something I don't understand. Maybe others do, I don't.

[JackDaydream]

@Tegularius
I will say that the entry which I read by you this morning was extremely inspiring. You wrote of time and hallucinatory states of consciousness as depicted in the Bardo Thodol., and how the moment after death may be the one of most enlightenment. My mother died yesterday and I thought myself ridiculous for logging into the site, but your entry gave me something so positive to reflect upon.It was so strange that it appeared amidst this thread discussion.

[3017Metaphysician]

@Tegularius
I will say that the entry which I read by you this morning was extremely inspiring. You wrote of time and hallucinatory states of consciousness as depicted in the Bardo Thodol., and how the moment after death may be the one of most enlightenment. My mother died yesterday and I thought myself ridiculous for logging into the site, but your entry gave me something so positive to reflect upon.It was so strange that it appeared amidst this thread discussion.

...OMG Jack. Sorry to hear about your mom. I suppose another reason to be glass half-full instead of empty...at least I would suspect she'd want that for you. Existentially, indeed a time for all seasons.

[Pattern-chaser]

[To Atla:] As a segue to the foregoing, you also 'suggested' (my interpretation) that metaphysics is something beyond sense experience and unknowable.

Metaphysics, and metaphysical problems are often (always???) beyond verifiability and falsifiability. This causes problems for philosophers who can only work with facts and evidence, lots and lots of repeatable and testable evidence. Sadly, not all issues or problems can be described thus. That's metaphysics for you.

[3017Metaphysician]

[To Atla:] As a segue to the foregoing, you also 'suggested' (my interpretation) that metaphysics is something beyond sense experience and unknowable.

Metaphysics, and metaphysical problems are often (always???) beyond verifiability and falsifiability. This causes problems for philosophers who can only work with facts and evidence, lots and lots of repeatable and testable evidence. Sadly, not all issues or problems can be described thus. That's metaphysics for you.

PC!

For the most part, I would agree that that's a false paradigm. A good refresher of course would be Kantian metaphysics things-in-themselves. For example ,there are all kinds of meta-physical phenomena that exist in the world including our own conscious existence. Within the context of my initial discussion with Atla, I think he had taken a metaphysical position on whether abstract mathematics (metaphysical laws of the universe) had an independent existence, hence my question:

" As a segue to the foregoing, you also 'suggested' (my interpretation) that metaphysics is something beyond sense experience and unknowable. When we talk about the laws of the universe (metaphysically abstract structures-mathematics), and we talk about the laws explaining the initial conditions, do they not in-themselves imply a metaphysically transcendent existence? If not, why not?"

PC, you are certainly welcome to chime-in on that particular subject matter if you wish to. At the risk of redundancy, here's the 101 (or anyone could certainly Wiki-it if you like/Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) from Physicist Paul Davies :

….metaphysics means the study of topics about physics, as apposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature , and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying " reality" and order, the relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of the will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues, but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them, or any meaning-of-life questions.

Too, you're also welcome to review the wonderfully lucid Closer to Truth video where there were several philosophy & science interviews in my viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17546 thread. Obviously this is my passion (maybe in-part has to do with my musician background).


Anyway, as philosopher's although Metaphysic's has had much antiquity to draw from, I usually always recommend Kant's. Analogous to this particular part (initial discussion) of 'the reality of Time' discussion, I think Atla had also initially made a type of synthetic a priori judgement that you may find intriguing (if/when he responds, that is...). The question relates to what was happening before the BB. I'm hoping it will uncover some intriguing 'world views'.

Maybe the irony for some might be, Time itself, appears to the senses as a metaphysical phenomena of sorts (even in a cognitive science- subconscious- kind of way). (Feel free to unpack your thoughts on the 'apperception' of Time, if you will!) Metaphysics covers a lot of ground... .

Thanks PC!

[JackDaydream]

@3017Metaphysican

Thanks for your reply and I am trying to cope the best I can. I am at least glad that I did see my mum on the day before she died and that she enjoyed life so much. I will probably be on the site less in the next couple of weeks because I have so many duties. However, I can't give up reading and writing completely.

As far as this thread discussion goes I have found a quote which I think is relevant in a book called, 'Oneself the Mystic and Philosopher' by Tony Hosking(2013), referring to Wittgenstein's idea of logic as a mirror,
'Wittgenstein used the metaphor of 'the all-embracing world-mirrorring logic...the great mirror. ..Logic is likened to a looking-glass of transcendental a priori form, which must make possible and contain completely the reflections (that is, the stated claims of all possible thoughts) made true or false according to the facts of empirical content (existence or non existence.'
This seems to be relevant for thinking about the various illusory images and philosophical ideas which human beings have about time and the way in which they can be verified or refuted according to explorations within the physical sciences, especially physics.

[Tegularius]

JackDaydream

My condolences at your loss. It's always hard losing a parent at any age. I'm gratified to know that my mentioning the Bardo Thodol at this time caused a degree of consolation for what remains inevitable but nonetheless painful for most people. We learn to cope; we have no choice. For those who are no-longer, time ceases to be the enemy. As for the Bardo, though less a relgious truth, it remains a very potent psychological one for the living and their need for insight and consolation.

[Belindi]

Perceived rate of change bears out the idealist's stance that time , in the above case, duration,is mind dependent.

I gather that traditional Indian philosophy is much like western idealism.

What idealism has to do with either case, I have no idea; they are completely two separate realms of inquiry. I can't comment on something I don't understand. Maybe others do, I don't.

I'm not a scholar, but it seems to me that the simple concept 'Atman is Brahman' is contained also within metaphysical idealism. When you add the Buddhists' idea of all creatures being souls reincarnated until pure consciousness, you also have a parallel to panpsychism.

Metaphysical idealists hold that subjective experiences are prior to physical matter. Maya is the illusion that what presents to our senses is real.

[Pattern-chaser]

...Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, from physicist Paul Davies :

….metaphysics means the study of topics about physics, as opposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying "reality" and order, the relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of the will.

I deleted the final sentence of your 'definition', as it contained an (incorrect) assertion concerning how "empirical science" might or could address metaphysical issues: "Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues, but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them, or any meaning-of-life questions". I believe that science is not, and cannot be, "involved in such issues". It is not that "empirical science alone may not be able to answer them", it is that science has no contribution to make in the solution of such problems. IMO, of course.

OK. That's your preferred definition, here is mine.

Metaphysics is the attempt to answer questions that can only be fully answered by making non-empirical claims about what there is or could be, or about the nature or defining essence of some concrete thing, or about the proper analysis of concepts other than those used specifically for the evaluation of agents and their institutions.

But I won't fight you over which one we accept! I think the majority of questions and issues that are most often labelled metaphysical are defined in the first part of Rea's definition: "Metaphysics is the attempt to answer questions that can only be fully answered by making non-empirical claims about what there is or could be". Science cannot address these issues because they are "non-empirical", leaving science with nothing to grasp, nothing to analyse, and therefore nothing from which to draw conclusions.

The question relates to what was happening before the BB.

I think we assume that time began with the BB? Therefore, there was nothing before the BB. No time, no anything. I think the embeddedness of time in our words makes it difficult even to phrase this question. However, my best guess is that the question itself is a nonsense.

[3017Metaphysician]

...Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, from physicist Paul Davies :

….metaphysics means the study of topics about physics, as opposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying "reality" and order, the relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of the will.

I deleted the final sentence of your 'definition', as it contained an (incorrect) assertion concerning how "empirical science" might or could address metaphysical issues: "Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues, but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them, or any meaning-of-life questions". I believe that science is not, and cannot be, "involved in such issues". It is not that "empirical science alone may not be able to answer them", it is that science has no contribution to make in the solution of such problems. IMO, of course.

OK. That's your preferred definition, here is mine.

Metaphysics is the attempt to answer questions that can only be fully answered by making non-empirical claims about what there is or could be, or about the nature or defining essence of some concrete thing, or about the proper analysis of concepts other than those used specifically for the evaluation of agents and their institutions.

But I won't fight you over which one we accept! I think the majority of questions and issues that are most often labelled metaphysical are defined in the first part of Rea's definition: "Metaphysics is the attempt to answer questions that can only be fully answered by making non-empirical claims about what there is or could be". Science cannot address these issues because they are "non-empirical", leaving science with nothing to grasp, nothing to analyse, and therefore nothing from which to draw conclusions.

The question relates to what was happening before the BB.

I think we assume that time began with the BB? Therefore, there was nothing before the BB. No time, no anything. I think the embeddedness of time in our words makes it difficult even to phrase this question. However, my best guess is that the question itself is a nonsense.

PC!

Without disputing definition standards, I'll take exception to your 'supposition of nonsense' as it were. Is the question of why mathematics so effectively describes the initial cosmological conditions (priori to BB) meaningless?

Of course PC, I don't think you would agree because you've already taken an implied position that there was something before the BB. What is that something, dark energy? What is dark energy? Accordingly, I think you/we would have the intellectual burden of broaching the philosophical conundrum of why there is something and not nothing. No?

[PoeticUniverse]

Of course PC, I don't think you would agree because you've already taken an implied position that there was something before the BB. What is that something, dark energy? What is dark energy? Accordingly, I think you/we would have the intellectual burden of broaching the philosophical conundrum of why there is something and not nothing. No?

Dark energy is a good candidate for the inflation at the Big Bang that had to make the universe rather smooth and flat as going from the micro realm to the macro realm.

Of course, an Eternal Existence has to be, given that Existence has no alternative (no 'Nothing') and that there is something here. It is always and ever, as Permanent. What becomes of its rearrangements are temporaries, such as us and the universe.

[Pattern-chaser]

Of course PC, I don't think you would agree because you've already taken an implied position that there was something before the BB.

??? How do you get that, from this?

I think we assume that time began with the BB? Therefore, there was nothing before the BB. No time, no anything.

How is it that I can write X, and someone here will read it as Not(X)?

[Steve3007]

How is it that I can write X, and someone here will read it as Not(X)?

I think that's one of the great unsolved mysteries of this forum!

[3017Metaphysician]

Of course PC, I don't think you would agree because you've already taken an implied position that there was something before the BB.

??? How do you get that, from this?

I think we assume that time began with the BB? Therefore, there was nothing before the BB. No time, no anything.

How is it that I can write X, and someone here will read it as Not(X)?

Hey PC!

Sorry I missed your reply. The reason there has to be something is because nobody knows what it is like for there to be nothing. And so, if you think there was absolutely nothing before the BB, as a thought experiment, try to describe no-thing? I'll argue it's logically impossible.

Thanks!