The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

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?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by Belindi »

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?
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.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Belindi wrote: October 25th, 2021, 1:53 pm
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?
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.
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.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by JackDaydream »

3017Metaphysican

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.
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by PoeticUniverse »

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.
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.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by JackDaydream »

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
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by Belindi »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:16 pm
Belindi wrote: October 25th, 2021, 1:53 pm
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?
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.
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.
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.

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.)
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by JackDaydream »

@PoeticUniverse

(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.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Belindi wrote: October 26th, 2021, 7:11 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:16 pm
Belindi wrote: October 25th, 2021, 1:53 pm
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?
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.
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.
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.

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.)
Belindi!

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.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

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
Jack!

No exceptions to Kant's CPR. It is still relevant in today's world, that's for sure!

Thanks!
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by Belindi »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 9:21 am
Belindi wrote: October 26th, 2021, 7:11 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:16 pm
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.
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.
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.

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.)
Belindi!

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.
Tautologies pertain to propositions. Propositions are about synthetic truths but not objective, or rational, truths.

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:
if objective truths are unchanging truths that cover knowledge about your world, is that not the best form of reasoning?
That is so for Rationalist philosophers.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Belindi wrote: October 26th, 2021, 12:00 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 9:21 am
Belindi wrote: October 26th, 2021, 7:11 am
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.
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.

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.)
Belindi!

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.
Tautologies pertain to propositions. Propositions are about synthetic truths but not objective, or rational, truths.

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:
if objective truths are unchanging truths that cover knowledge about your world, is that not the best form of reasoning?
That is so for Rationalist philosophers.
Belindi!

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.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by PoeticUniverse »

PoeticUniverse wrote: October 25th, 2021, 11:19 pm
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.
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.
So, 3017, look for the bottommost level as to what is permanent. It's not a star or a proton; go lower, simpler.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

PoeticUniverse wrote: October 26th, 2021, 2:18 pm
PoeticUniverse wrote: October 25th, 2021, 11:19 pm
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.
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.
So, 3017, look for the bottommost level as to what is permanent. It's not a star or a proton; go lower, simpler.
...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?

….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... ?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: The Metaphysics of permanence and change

Post by PoeticUniverse »

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.
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