The Metaphysics of permanence and change
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
The Metaphysics of permanence and change
Basic Metaphysics uncovers the problem relating to change and the permanent features of the universe which are seemingly incompatible. If everything changes, there could be nothing permanent. And if there was a permanent element of the universe, it could not change. However, those same changing and permanent descriptions/qualities seemed to give the world a sense of inconsistency.
At one time, if everything changed, then nothing was permanent, and if nothing were permanent, nothing could be studied or understood. But if the world contained a permanent entity, then it could not change or ‘account’ for any change that took place in the world.
One might ask, what comprises a belief system primarily associated with change, yet in-itself, is cognized as a timeless 'unchanging truth'? Time and eternity (the stoppage of time/change/relativity) is one element of this paradox (and there are others), but I shall focus on two for now (language and mathematics). Here are a few notions about describing reality that are up for possible resolution:
In certain aspects of reality, language itself cannot change. While concepts can evolve, and new words/meanings can be developed (urban dictionary), the meaning of those established concepts/words themselves have to stay the same and cannot change. If they changed, there would be no coherence in most communication. Yet, the world around us is in a constant state of change and/or 'flux'. A simple example of that inconsistency would relate to the act of speaking or writing. If we took change literally, as in everything is changing around us, one cannot even discuss anything absolute since no permanence exists. But what about mathematics (more on that in a bit)?
In Greek philosophy, it has been said that one cannot only step into the river twice, but not even once. This is because it is impossible to step into the same river twice since by the time one steps into it again, the river has changed; it’s a different river entirely. The argument went even further to say that one cannot even step into the same river once, because by the time the step is taken, the river has changed. Hence, these acts of speaking, writing and cognizing (thinking) themselves act similarly since it requires change to arrive at a thought, yet the concepts themselves don’t. Thus, if one took the notion of change literally, one could not make sense out of it because there would be no lasting features that one could seek to understand. That in turn, leads to another problem of how we use mathematics.
Mathematics are unchanging truths, purely objective, and do not depend on how we feel about them for their own truth value (or do they ). In language, a priori analytic truths are similar. Yet, both are logically necessary to describe (and to a large degree) explain and discuss the world around us and its existence (both physical/metaphysical). Math itself, is permanent yet abstract. The permanent cannot change into anything without ceasing to be permanent. Something that ‘is’ cannot change into what ‘is not’ without passing out of existence (to some other state of being). This makes math and its reality not even part of a changing reality. Hence, the permanent, the real, ‘is’ yet can’t be part of reality or even ‘become’ part of reality. What is permanent must remain forever the same, like mathematical and objective truths as found in our language.
And so, a few philosophical questions can be asked: Behind the creation of a material structure, lies a metaphysical mathematical formula 'of truth'. If change and permanence can’t be reconciled, what are some of its implications? Alternatively, what other unchanging truths are logically necessary for there to be any process of thought to take place at all? And can permanence and change coexist like the physical and the metaphysical? And finally, can we explain reality and cognition itself, logically and consistently without paradox or contradiction?
― Albert Einstein
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
Relativity and time are associated with change. The Tao Te Ching has a poetic rendering of the nature of change.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 11:51 am Greetings fellow philosophers!
Basic Metaphysics uncovers the problem relating to change and the permanent features of the universe which are seemingly incompatible. If everything changes, there could be nothing permanent. And if there was a permanent element of the universe, it could not change. However, those same changing and permanent descriptions/qualities seemed to give the world a sense of inconsistency.
At one time, if everything changed, then nothing was permanent, and if nothing were permanent, nothing could be studied or understood. But if the world contained a permanent entity, then it could not change or ‘account’ for any change that took place in the world.
One might ask, what comprises a belief system primarily associated with change, yet in-itself, is cognized as a timeless 'unchanging truth'? Time and eternity (the stoppage of time/change/relativity) is one element of this paradox (and there are others), but I shall focus on two for now (language and mathematics). Here are a few notions about describing reality that are up for possible resolution:
In certain aspects of reality, language itself cannot change. While concepts can evolve, and new words/meanings can be developed (urban dictionary), the meaning of those established concepts/words themselves have to stay the same and cannot change. If they changed, there would be no coherence in most communication. Yet, the world around us is in a constant state of change and/or 'flux'. A simple example of that inconsistency would relate to the act of speaking or writing. If we took change literally, as in everything is changing around us, one cannot even discuss anything absolute since no permanence exists. But what about mathematics (more on that in a bit)?
In Greek philosophy, it has been said that one cannot only step into the river twice, but not even once. This is because it is impossible to step into the same river twice since by the time one steps into it again, the river has changed; it’s a different river entirely. The argument went even further to say that one cannot even step into the same river once, because by the time the step is taken, the river has changed. Hence, these acts of speaking, writing and cognizing (thinking) themselves act similarly since it requires change to arrive at a thought, yet the concepts themselves don’t. Thus, if one took the notion of change literally, one could not make sense out of it because there would be no lasting features that one could seek to understand. That in turn, leads to another problem of how we use mathematics.
Mathematics are unchanging truths, purely objective, and do not depend on how we feel about them for their own truth value (or do they ). In language, a priori analytic truths are similar. Yet, both are logically necessary to describe (and to a large degree) explain and discuss the world around us and its existence (both physical/metaphysical). Math itself, is permanent yet abstract. The permanent cannot change into anything without ceasing to be permanent. Something that ‘is’ cannot change into what ‘is not’ without passing out of existence (to some other state of being). This makes math and its reality not even part of a changing reality. Hence, the permanent, the real, ‘is’ yet can’t be part of reality or even ‘become’ part of reality. What is permanent must remain forever the same, like mathematical and objective truths as found in our language.
And so, a few philosophical questions can be asked: Behind the creation of a material structure, lies a metaphysical mathematical formula 'of truth'. If change and permanence can’t be reconciled, what are some of its implications? Alternatively, what other unchanging truths are logically necessary for there to be any process of thought to take place at all? And can permanence and change coexist like the physical and the metaphysical? And finally, can we explain reality and cognition itself, logically and consistently without paradox or contradiction?
Time and eternity are not paradoxical, because these are two mutual aspects of being. Permanence and transience apply to eternity and temporality respectively.
Language always changes as it reflects social life. Latin and ancient Greek are 'dead' languages which are used for scientific nomenclature as their lexicons are more enduring.
It's true that we thingify changing events. That is one of the disadvantages of language. Some modern artists incorporate changing perspectives in their works of art.
Mathematics is basically a big tautology. (This may have been disputed but what do I know!).
Some people believe in certain unchanging Platonic truths which are independent of the relative temporal world.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
Belindi!Belindi wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 1:53 pmRelativity and time are associated with change. The Tao Te Ching has a poetic rendering of the nature of change.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 11:51 am Greetings fellow philosophers!
Basic Metaphysics uncovers the problem relating to change and the permanent features of the universe which are seemingly incompatible. If everything changes, there could be nothing permanent. And if there was a permanent element of the universe, it could not change. However, those same changing and permanent descriptions/qualities seemed to give the world a sense of inconsistency.
At one time, if everything changed, then nothing was permanent, and if nothing were permanent, nothing could be studied or understood. But if the world contained a permanent entity, then it could not change or ‘account’ for any change that took place in the world.
One might ask, what comprises a belief system primarily associated with change, yet in-itself, is cognized as a timeless 'unchanging truth'? Time and eternity (the stoppage of time/change/relativity) is one element of this paradox (and there are others), but I shall focus on two for now (language and mathematics). Here are a few notions about describing reality that are up for possible resolution:
In certain aspects of reality, language itself cannot change. While concepts can evolve, and new words/meanings can be developed (urban dictionary), the meaning of those established concepts/words themselves have to stay the same and cannot change. If they changed, there would be no coherence in most communication. Yet, the world around us is in a constant state of change and/or 'flux'. A simple example of that inconsistency would relate to the act of speaking or writing. If we took change literally, as in everything is changing around us, one cannot even discuss anything absolute since no permanence exists. But what about mathematics (more on that in a bit)?
In Greek philosophy, it has been said that one cannot only step into the river twice, but not even once. This is because it is impossible to step into the same river twice since by the time one steps into it again, the river has changed; it’s a different river entirely. The argument went even further to say that one cannot even step into the same river once, because by the time the step is taken, the river has changed. Hence, these acts of speaking, writing and cognizing (thinking) themselves act similarly since it requires change to arrive at a thought, yet the concepts themselves don’t. Thus, if one took the notion of change literally, one could not make sense out of it because there would be no lasting features that one could seek to understand. That in turn, leads to another problem of how we use mathematics.
Mathematics are unchanging truths, purely objective, and do not depend on how we feel about them for their own truth value (or do they ). In language, a priori analytic truths are similar. Yet, both are logically necessary to describe (and to a large degree) explain and discuss the world around us and its existence (both physical/metaphysical). Math itself, is permanent yet abstract. The permanent cannot change into anything without ceasing to be permanent. Something that ‘is’ cannot change into what ‘is not’ without passing out of existence (to some other state of being). This makes math and its reality not even part of a changing reality. Hence, the permanent, the real, ‘is’ yet can’t be part of reality or even ‘become’ part of reality. What is permanent must remain forever the same, like mathematical and objective truths as found in our language.
And so, a few philosophical questions can be asked: Behind the creation of a material structure, lies a metaphysical mathematical formula 'of truth'. If change and permanence can’t be reconciled, what are some of its implications? Alternatively, what other unchanging truths are logically necessary for there to be any process of thought to take place at all? And can permanence and change coexist like the physical and the metaphysical? And finally, can we explain reality and cognition itself, logically and consistently without paradox or contradiction?
Time and eternity are not paradoxical, because these are two mutual aspects of being. Permanence and transience apply to eternity and temporality respectively.
Language always changes as it reflects social life. Latin and ancient Greek are 'dead' languages which are used for scientific nomenclature as their lexicons are more enduring.
It's true that we thingify changing events. That is one of the disadvantages of language. Some modern artists incorporate changing perspectives in their works of art.
Mathematics is basically a big tautology. (This may have been disputed but what do I know!).
Some people believe in certain unchanging Platonic truths which are independent of the relative temporal world.
Thank you for those thoughts! As you can imagine, lots to unpack there. Let's start with the easier one(s) first:
You said "mathematics is basically a big tautology." How does that relate to philosophical Objectivity and the world of 'change' (i.e., is there any connection/are there universally objective truths that are tautologies)?
Thank you again for your contribution.
― Albert Einstein
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
What I am thinking as I read your post is about how there may be changes but there are some aspects of reality which do not change, especially underlying principles. When you speak of mathematics, it would seem foolish to imagine that these are going to alter. It would be extremely strange to wake up oneday and discover that 2 x2 did not equal 4 any longer and that the answer was now 5.
In regard to ideas, there is the question of what universal truths may exist. People's ideas about good and evil, justice and so many ideas differ, as captured in the philosophy of relativism. However, despite varying angles for formulating concepts and philosophy viewpoints there may similarities and, to some extent universal aspects. For example, most people view pain in a negative way, and ideas about good and evil are often based on suffering. What probably makes concepts variable forms of 'truth' may be connected to how descriptions of the world are based on sensory experiences and, thereby, subjective, whereas the truths of mathematics are experienced as something more concrete, as aspects outside of the human mind. Science aims to look at 'truth' objectively, but the role of participant observer comes in, and beyond the mathematics of science, descriptions within theories are based on language, which is far more subtle and less precise than numbers.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
Find out what is the permanent existent. It is the only thing there is and it must ever remain. Thus, it can only rearrange itself into what comes and goes as the temporary events. The permanent doesn't change by rearranging; it is all still there. Some temporary events may be long lasting. The permanent existent doesn't come from anything, thus it isn't composite; it is fundamental and partless.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 11:51 am Basic Metaphysics uncovers the problem relating to change and the permanent features of the universe which are seemingly incompatible. If everything changes, there could be nothing permanent. And if there was a permanent element of the universe, it could not change.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
'The world before as it is before mediation Kant calls the noumenal world world, or, in the memorable phrase, Das Ding an sich, a phrase which literally means "The thing in itself'", but whose sense would be more accurately caught by translating it as "the thing (or world) as it really is (as distinct from how it appears to us). He calls the world as it appears to the senses (after mediation through the tools of understanding) the phenomenal world.'
So, the basis of Kant's picture of reality is of a transcendent nature which underlies appearances and of 'ideas which transcend or go beyond any one person's ideas and are shared by all human beings. Blumenau argues that, 'a full blown Kantian would have to say that science can comes to our rescue only as far as the phenomenal world is concerned.' However, Kant did see rationality
as the a priori. Kant maintained that the senses, as a part of 'rational
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
Mathematics is a system of measurement at its beginning in history when men had to measure tracts of land for cultivation and pasture. The Nile region in ancient Egypt, I think. Maths remains a system for quantifying, and has no ontic substance. Quantity, which maths was invented to measure, is an aspect of change; quality is another aspect of change.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 3:16 pmBelindi!Belindi wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 1:53 pmRelativity and time are associated with change. The Tao Te Ching has a poetic rendering of the nature of change.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 11:51 am Greetings fellow philosophers!
Basic Metaphysics uncovers the problem relating to change and the permanent features of the universe which are seemingly incompatible. If everything changes, there could be nothing permanent. And if there was a permanent element of the universe, it could not change. However, those same changing and permanent descriptions/qualities seemed to give the world a sense of inconsistency.
At one time, if everything changed, then nothing was permanent, and if nothing were permanent, nothing could be studied or understood. But if the world contained a permanent entity, then it could not change or ‘account’ for any change that took place in the world.
One might ask, what comprises a belief system primarily associated with change, yet in-itself, is cognized as a timeless 'unchanging truth'? Time and eternity (the stoppage of time/change/relativity) is one element of this paradox (and there are others), but I shall focus on two for now (language and mathematics). Here are a few notions about describing reality that are up for possible resolution:
In certain aspects of reality, language itself cannot change. While concepts can evolve, and new words/meanings can be developed (urban dictionary), the meaning of those established concepts/words themselves have to stay the same and cannot change. If they changed, there would be no coherence in most communication. Yet, the world around us is in a constant state of change and/or 'flux'. A simple example of that inconsistency would relate to the act of speaking or writing. If we took change literally, as in everything is changing around us, one cannot even discuss anything absolute since no permanence exists. But what about mathematics (more on that in a bit)?
In Greek philosophy, it has been said that one cannot only step into the river twice, but not even once. This is because it is impossible to step into the same river twice since by the time one steps into it again, the river has changed; it’s a different river entirely. The argument went even further to say that one cannot even step into the same river once, because by the time the step is taken, the river has changed. Hence, these acts of speaking, writing and cognizing (thinking) themselves act similarly since it requires change to arrive at a thought, yet the concepts themselves don’t. Thus, if one took the notion of change literally, one could not make sense out of it because there would be no lasting features that one could seek to understand. That in turn, leads to another problem of how we use mathematics.
Mathematics are unchanging truths, purely objective, and do not depend on how we feel about them for their own truth value (or do they ). In language, a priori analytic truths are similar. Yet, both are logically necessary to describe (and to a large degree) explain and discuss the world around us and its existence (both physical/metaphysical). Math itself, is permanent yet abstract. The permanent cannot change into anything without ceasing to be permanent. Something that ‘is’ cannot change into what ‘is not’ without passing out of existence (to some other state of being). This makes math and its reality not even part of a changing reality. Hence, the permanent, the real, ‘is’ yet can’t be part of reality or even ‘become’ part of reality. What is permanent must remain forever the same, like mathematical and objective truths as found in our language.
And so, a few philosophical questions can be asked: Behind the creation of a material structure, lies a metaphysical mathematical formula 'of truth'. If change and permanence can’t be reconciled, what are some of its implications? Alternatively, what other unchanging truths are logically necessary for there to be any process of thought to take place at all? And can permanence and change coexist like the physical and the metaphysical? And finally, can we explain reality and cognition itself, logically and consistently without paradox or contradiction?
Time and eternity are not paradoxical, because these are two mutual aspects of being. Permanence and transience apply to eternity and temporality respectively.
Language always changes as it reflects social life. Latin and ancient Greek are 'dead' languages which are used for scientific nomenclature as their lexicons are more enduring.
It's true that we thingify changing events. That is one of the disadvantages of language. Some modern artists incorporate changing perspectives in their works of art.
Mathematics is basically a big tautology. (This may have been disputed but what do I know!).
Some people believe in certain unchanging Platonic truths which are independent of the relative temporal world.
Thank you for those thoughts! As you can imagine, lots to unpack there. Let's start with the easier one(s) first:
You said "mathematics is basically a big tautology." How does that relate to philosophical Objectivity and the world of 'change' (i.e., is there any connection/are there universally objective truths that are tautologies)?
Thank you again for your contribution.
Universally objective truths can't be tautologies because universally objective truths are indefinable in language so only the most talented artists can even attempt to describe them. (Dogmatic religionists would disagree universally objective truths are indefinable.)
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
(Sorry I knocked my phone while I was writing and it sent my message through before I had finished it . So my previous post was intended as a reply to you, and I will continue the final sentence I started there.)
Blumenau points to the way Kant maintained that the senses are part of 'rational apparatus' and that 'Reason, properly handled, will give us a wholly reliable and coherent account of the phenomenal world, and an increasingly perfect understanding of the Laws of Nature which govern the phenomenal world.'
What is most contentious about Kant's metaphysical outlook is that it suggests that there is knowledge as independent of the human mind, and this is an aspect which many people in the twentieth first century would challenge. However, he is not the only thinker who came from this perspective. Plato's theory of Forms rests on such a view, and so do any systems of thought which maintain the existence of archetypes.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
Belindi!Belindi wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 7:11 amMathematics is a system of measurement at its beginning in history when men had to measure tracts of land for cultivation and pasture. The Nile region in ancient Egypt, I think. Maths remains a system for quantifying, and has no ontic substance. Quantity, which maths was invented to measure, is an aspect of change; quality is another aspect of change.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 3:16 pmBelindi!Belindi wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 1:53 pmRelativity and time are associated with change. The Tao Te Ching has a poetic rendering of the nature of change.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 11:51 am Greetings fellow philosophers!
Basic Metaphysics uncovers the problem relating to change and the permanent features of the universe which are seemingly incompatible. If everything changes, there could be nothing permanent. And if there was a permanent element of the universe, it could not change. However, those same changing and permanent descriptions/qualities seemed to give the world a sense of inconsistency.
At one time, if everything changed, then nothing was permanent, and if nothing were permanent, nothing could be studied or understood. But if the world contained a permanent entity, then it could not change or ‘account’ for any change that took place in the world.
One might ask, what comprises a belief system primarily associated with change, yet in-itself, is cognized as a timeless 'unchanging truth'? Time and eternity (the stoppage of time/change/relativity) is one element of this paradox (and there are others), but I shall focus on two for now (language and mathematics). Here are a few notions about describing reality that are up for possible resolution:
In certain aspects of reality, language itself cannot change. While concepts can evolve, and new words/meanings can be developed (urban dictionary), the meaning of those established concepts/words themselves have to stay the same and cannot change. If they changed, there would be no coherence in most communication. Yet, the world around us is in a constant state of change and/or 'flux'. A simple example of that inconsistency would relate to the act of speaking or writing. If we took change literally, as in everything is changing around us, one cannot even discuss anything absolute since no permanence exists. But what about mathematics (more on that in a bit)?
In Greek philosophy, it has been said that one cannot only step into the river twice, but not even once. This is because it is impossible to step into the same river twice since by the time one steps into it again, the river has changed; it’s a different river entirely. The argument went even further to say that one cannot even step into the same river once, because by the time the step is taken, the river has changed. Hence, these acts of speaking, writing and cognizing (thinking) themselves act similarly since it requires change to arrive at a thought, yet the concepts themselves don’t. Thus, if one took the notion of change literally, one could not make sense out of it because there would be no lasting features that one could seek to understand. That in turn, leads to another problem of how we use mathematics.
Mathematics are unchanging truths, purely objective, and do not depend on how we feel about them for their own truth value (or do they ). In language, a priori analytic truths are similar. Yet, both are logically necessary to describe (and to a large degree) explain and discuss the world around us and its existence (both physical/metaphysical). Math itself, is permanent yet abstract. The permanent cannot change into anything without ceasing to be permanent. Something that ‘is’ cannot change into what ‘is not’ without passing out of existence (to some other state of being). This makes math and its reality not even part of a changing reality. Hence, the permanent, the real, ‘is’ yet can’t be part of reality or even ‘become’ part of reality. What is permanent must remain forever the same, like mathematical and objective truths as found in our language.
And so, a few philosophical questions can be asked: Behind the creation of a material structure, lies a metaphysical mathematical formula 'of truth'. If change and permanence can’t be reconciled, what are some of its implications? Alternatively, what other unchanging truths are logically necessary for there to be any process of thought to take place at all? And can permanence and change coexist like the physical and the metaphysical? And finally, can we explain reality and cognition itself, logically and consistently without paradox or contradiction?
Time and eternity are not paradoxical, because these are two mutual aspects of being. Permanence and transience apply to eternity and temporality respectively.
Language always changes as it reflects social life. Latin and ancient Greek are 'dead' languages which are used for scientific nomenclature as their lexicons are more enduring.
It's true that we thingify changing events. That is one of the disadvantages of language. Some modern artists incorporate changing perspectives in their works of art.
Mathematics is basically a big tautology. (This may have been disputed but what do I know!).
Some people believe in certain unchanging Platonic truths which are independent of the relative temporal world.
Thank you for those thoughts! As you can imagine, lots to unpack there. Let's start with the easier one(s) first:
You said "mathematics is basically a big tautology." How does that relate to philosophical Objectivity and the world of 'change' (i.e., is there any connection/are there universally objective truths that are tautologies)?
Thank you again for your contribution.
Universally objective truths can't be tautologies because universally objective truths are indefinable in language so only the most talented artists can even attempt to describe them. (Dogmatic religionists would disagree universally objective truths are indefinable.)
Let's stay on the subject of tautologies and objective truths, if we could. The reason is because of your reply there. You seem to be saying that "objective truths can't be tautologies." How do arrive at that conclusion? Maybe an example would make your point a bit clearer there. In other words, if objective truths are unchanging truths that cover knowledge about your world, is that not the best form of reasoning?
You seem to be saying the opposite.
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
Jack!JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 7:06 am The nature permanence does connect strongly with the point you make, 'It is thing there is and it must ever remain. I realised how essential this is to Kant's perspective on the ideas and concepts being independent of the human mind while reading an article recently Ralph Blumenau, 'Kant and the Thing in Itself' in 'The Ultimate Guide to Knowledge', (Philosophy Now), 2021. The author points to the way in which for Kant, concepts and categories are ' built into the mind.' He suggests,
'The world before as it is before mediation Kant calls the noumenal world world, or, in the memorable phrase, Das Ding an sich, a phrase which literally means "The thing in itself'", but whose sense would be more accurately caught by translating it as "the thing (or world) as it really is (as distinct from how it appears to us). He calls the world as it appears to the senses (after mediation through the tools of understanding) the phenomenal world.'
So, the basis of Kant's picture of reality is of a transcendent nature which underlies appearances and of 'ideas which transcend or go beyond any one person's ideas and are shared by all human beings. Blumenau argues that, 'a full blown Kantian would have to say that science can comes to our rescue only as far as the phenomenal world is concerned.' However, Kant did see rationality
as the a priori. Kant maintained that the senses, as a part of 'rational
No exceptions to Kant's CPR. It is still relevant in today's world, that's for sure!
Thanks!
― Albert Einstein
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
Tautologies pertain to propositions. Propositions are about synthetic truths but not objective, or rational, truths.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 9:21 amBelindi!Belindi wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 7:11 amMathematics is a system of measurement at its beginning in history when men had to measure tracts of land for cultivation and pasture. The Nile region in ancient Egypt, I think. Maths remains a system for quantifying, and has no ontic substance. Quantity, which maths was invented to measure, is an aspect of change; quality is another aspect of change.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 3:16 pmBelindi!Belindi wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 1:53 pm
Relativity and time are associated with change. The Tao Te Ching has a poetic rendering of the nature of change.
Time and eternity are not paradoxical, because these are two mutual aspects of being. Permanence and transience apply to eternity and temporality respectively.
Language always changes as it reflects social life. Latin and ancient Greek are 'dead' languages which are used for scientific nomenclature as their lexicons are more enduring.
It's true that we thingify changing events. That is one of the disadvantages of language. Some modern artists incorporate changing perspectives in their works of art.
Mathematics is basically a big tautology. (This may have been disputed but what do I know!).
Some people believe in certain unchanging Platonic truths which are independent of the relative temporal world.
Thank you for those thoughts! As you can imagine, lots to unpack there. Let's start with the easier one(s) first:
You said "mathematics is basically a big tautology." How does that relate to philosophical Objectivity and the world of 'change' (i.e., is there any connection/are there universally objective truths that are tautologies)?
Thank you again for your contribution.
Universally objective truths can't be tautologies because universally objective truths are indefinable in language so only the most talented artists can even attempt to describe them. (Dogmatic religionists would disagree universally objective truths are indefinable.)
Let's stay on the subject of tautologies and objective truths, if we could. The reason is because of your reply there. You seem to be saying that "objective truths can't be tautologies." How do arrive at that conclusion? Maybe an example would make your point a bit clearer there. In other words, if objective truths are unchanging truths that cover knowledge about your world, is that not the best form of reasoning?
You seem to be saying the opposite.
E.g. " my brother is a bachelor" and "That bachelor is getting married soon" are synthetic truths. "Bachelors are unmarried men" is a tautology.
" Water is H2O" is a synthetic truth. "5+5=10" is a tautology.
You wrote:
That is so for Rationalist philosophers.if objective truths are unchanging truths that cover knowledge about your world, is that not the best form of reasoning?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
Belindi!Belindi wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 12:00 pmTautologies pertain to propositions. Propositions are about synthetic truths but not objective, or rational, truths.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 9:21 amBelindi!Belindi wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 7:11 amMathematics is a system of measurement at its beginning in history when men had to measure tracts of land for cultivation and pasture. The Nile region in ancient Egypt, I think. Maths remains a system for quantifying, and has no ontic substance. Quantity, which maths was invented to measure, is an aspect of change; quality is another aspect of change.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 3:16 pm
Belindi!
Thank you for those thoughts! As you can imagine, lots to unpack there. Let's start with the easier one(s) first:
You said "mathematics is basically a big tautology." How does that relate to philosophical Objectivity and the world of 'change' (i.e., is there any connection/are there universally objective truths that are tautologies)?
Thank you again for your contribution.
Universally objective truths can't be tautologies because universally objective truths are indefinable in language so only the most talented artists can even attempt to describe them. (Dogmatic religionists would disagree universally objective truths are indefinable.)
Let's stay on the subject of tautologies and objective truths, if we could. The reason is because of your reply there. You seem to be saying that "objective truths can't be tautologies." How do arrive at that conclusion? Maybe an example would make your point a bit clearer there. In other words, if objective truths are unchanging truths that cover knowledge about your world, is that not the best form of reasoning?
You seem to be saying the opposite.
E.g. " my brother is a bachelor" and "That bachelor is getting married soon" are synthetic truths. "Bachelors are unmarried men" is a tautology.
" Water is H2O" is a synthetic truth. "5+5=10" is a tautology.
You wrote:That is so for Rationalist philosophers.if objective truths are unchanging truths that cover knowledge about your world, is that not the best form of reasoning?
Okay. I'm following that, however, I'm a bit confused here. On the point about mathematics/tautologies that you are referring (from your initial post) you are implying that the world is all figured out by mathematics and a priori logic and that there are no discrepancies (please correct me if I'm wrong). Analytical propositions/truths are a priori and its truth does not change with time (just like mathematical truths), yet the world is in a constant state of changing and is time dependent. How did you reconcile that?
Let's stay on this topic until we get it resolved, before we move on to your other points.
Thank you kindly Belindi.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
So, 3017, look for the bottommost level as to what is permanent. It's not a star or a proton; go lower, simpler.PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 11:19 pmFind out what is the permanent existent. It is the only thing there is and it must ever remain. Thus, it can only rearrange itself into what comes and goes as the temporary events. The permanent doesn't change by rearranging; it is all still there. Some temporary events may be long lasting. The permanent existent doesn't come from anything, thus it isn't composite; it is fundamental and partless.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 11:51 am Basic Metaphysics uncovers the problem relating to change and the permanent features of the universe which are seemingly incompatible. If everything changes, there could be nothing permanent. And if there was a permanent element of the universe, it could not change.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
...do or, could, you mean any of these things: the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space?PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 2:18 pmSo, 3017, look for the bottommost level as to what is permanent. It's not a star or a proton; go lower, simpler.PoeticUniverse wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 11:19 pmFind out what is the permanent existent. It is the only thing there is and it must ever remain. Thus, it can only rearrange itself into what comes and goes as the temporary events. The permanent doesn't change by rearranging; it is all still there. Some temporary events may be long lasting. The permanent existent doesn't come from anything, thus it isn't composite; it is fundamental and partless.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 11:51 am Basic Metaphysics uncovers the problem relating to change and the permanent features of the universe which are seemingly incompatible. If everything changes, there could be nothing permanent. And if there was a permanent element of the universe, it could not change.
….the doctrine that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience", instead of shared or communal, and that there is no external or objective truth?
….a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles that are not predictable/only their probabilities exist.
...or is there a more universally 'absolutely certain' or "simpler" view (as you say) of this "bottommost level" of realty that you're alluding to... ?
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 2:54 pm ….a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles that are not predictable/only their probabilities exist.
Go lower than the subatomic elementary 'particles' and their measurements of positions that are probabilistic to find the permanent. The 'particles' are not permanent/fundamental, although some are quite stable and can persist for a while, which is a clue to what is behind them.
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