Is Time Just an Idea?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 22nd, 2020, 12:10 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 8:07 am
Greta wrote:Failure to accept the baselines of our knowledge is how flat Earthism and Moon landing conspiracy theories took hold.
Nevertheless, we're still free to propose arguments purporting to show the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings didn't happen. So long as we're prepared to clearly and unambiguously state our evidence and arguments, and are prepared to listen to critiques of those arguments. And so long as we don't make false claims as to what other people have said.
Do the ones who make critiques of those arguments also have to be prepared to listen to critiques of their critiques?

Obviously their critiques could actually be false, misleading, nonsensical, or illogical as well, correct?

Steve3007 wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 8:07 am
We've argued about far more bizarre things than that here. For example, people regularly argue, here, about whether anything at all exists other then their own mind! That's surely more bizarre than merely having an argument as to whether a particular historical event happened in the way that it is claimed to have happened.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am


viewtopic.php?p=345897#p345897
viewtopic.php?p=345949#p345949
creation wrote:First I make it clear that I dispute that time is what is measured by a clock and number 1, but, for the sake of this discussion I agree on the 9 numbered points above.
Understood.
You said, As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own, and, if they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own, correct?
Yes. It is my understanding that in experiments that are analogous to the one we're considering, this is what has been observed. And it is my understanding that this is what is predicted by a theory which ultimately traces logically back to everyday observations that we ourselves could observe if we wanted to. (As I've said many times: my understanding could be mistaken.) If we wanted to, we could gradually discuss the line of reasoning and the observations that led from everyday observations that we ourselves could observe to what I have said here. We could thereby [re-]assess whether that line of reasoning appears to either or both of us to be valid.
If this is correct, then you also said that the faster the relative velocities, then the more extreme the effect. As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped, correct?
Yes, if they're receding from each other at close to the speed of light.
If both of these are correct, then the first flaw I see, which obviously may not be with clarification, is how could a faster relative velocity towards each other each see the other's clock now tick rate tend towards stop, (meaning slower?) when at constant velocity they see each other's clock ticking faster than their own....
"(meaning slower?)" - Yes. Meaning slower.

Clarification: I didn't say it quite as you've said it above. What I said was this: In both cases they're moving at constant velocity relative to each other. When moving away from each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking slower than their own. When moving towards each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking faster than their own. If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme.

It's important to remember something that you pointed out a while ago (I think). I think you pointed out somewhere that what they directly observe, is not necessarily what we might think is "really happening". You were right to point out that critical distinction. But in my view, as a general rule, the first thing to do is to be clear as to what is observed in experiments, and what the theory predicts would be observed (and see if the two agree). Once we're absolutely clear on that, only then do we move onto our speculations as to what is "really happening" under the hood (as it were) which might be consistent with what is observed. And, in so doing, we examine just what we mean when we talk about what is "really happening". We may even find ourselves questioning whether the notion of what is "really happening" makes any sense without reference to what might possibly be observed. Or we may not.
...So, why at a constant velocity towards each other they see the other's clock tick rate is faster than their own clock but as soon as the relative velocities towards each other is faster then the other's clock tick rate slows down, than their own?
As clarified above, that's not quite what I said. Let's make sure we've got that clarified before we move on.
What does "faster the relative velocities" actually refer to? Does it just mean, in lay people's terms, 'speeding up' or "going faster", relative to each other? Or, is there some whole completely different meaning that one has to be a part of some particular group to fully understand the "actual meaning of the term "relative velocity"?
No, you don't have to be part of a particular group. The word "velocity" has a standard meaning in physics that can be looked up by anyone with access to the internet or a physics textbook. It simply means "change of position with respect to time". So it has a size and a direction. It can be visualised as an arrow. Conventionally, the word "speed" is just used to refer to the direction part, not the size. So if I am travelling at 60mph north, my velocity is "60mph north" and my speed is "60mph". So the term "a high velocity" means that the size of that arrow is long compared to what it would be for "a low velocity".

The significance of the word "relative" is that we're talking about the change of position of one object, as measured from the other object, with respect to time. Example: if I am on a train travelling at a speed of 60mph - a velocity of 60mph north - I'm implicitly talking about my velocity relative to the surface of the Earth. My velocity relative to my seat is zero. If somebody is walking down the aisle of the train from the front to the back at 4mph, then their velocity relative to me is 4mph south. Their velocity relative to the Earth is 56mph north.

I find it easier to see this more clearly if I draw a diagram.
If, and when, one is putting forward an idea, then commenting by something like; "current knowledge is sufficient", " current knowledge has already been proven, verified, or confirmed", or "current knowledge should be the baseline from which to move forward on", then obviously these people are not at all trying to be clear about what the idea actually is. They are just attacking, without ever even knowing what the idea actually is.
I agree. That's one reason why I have never said those things and why I stated to Greta that I disagree with her on that point.

In my personal view, it is a good idea to try not to conflate different posters'/people's words. Nobody has any control over what other people say.

In my personal view, it is also a mistake to rely either on appeals to authority or appeals against authority. We should not assume that just because a particular view is labelled the "status quo" it is right. But equally, we should not assume that just because a particular view is labelled the "status quo" it is wrong. Being the "status quo", or applying any other label, should be irrelevant to whether the view is deemed right or wrong. All that matters is the reproducible evidence put forward and the arguments made. Saying something like "Science says it, so, for that reason alone, it must be right" is a mistake. Equally, saying something like "Science says it, so it's part of a religious cult" is a mistake. The label we attach to the person or body of people who said something does not affect the validity or otherwise of their arguments. If somebody repeatedly fixates on such labels, without having read what the people to whom the labels have been attached actually said, then that somebody is (in my view) not making an argument. They are (to use a sporting analogy) tackling the man, not the ball.

(Note: I am not accusing you of either of the two things that I have listed above, which I believe to be mistakes. I'm just giving my view of them.)
Do the ones who make critiques of those arguments also have to be prepared to listen to critiques of their critiques?
Yes. But listening and replying takes time...
Obviously their critiques could actually be false, misleading, nonsensical, or illogical as well, correct?
...Correct. So the difficult question for all of us then becomes this: with finite time available, and an indefinitely large number of potential critiques (and critiques of critiques, and critiques of critiques of critiques...), how do we decide which critiques to address and which to leave for another day? Could we think of some method of filtering critiques and concentrating most of our attention on those that have the most chance of advancing knowledge by having a genuine point to make, so that the task is manageable? In a world filled with people, all with different views, how do we decide who to talk to and who to respectfully decline to engage with?

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1978
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 22nd, 2020, 6:50 am

RJG wrote:Firstly, how is it possible for an object to move "freely" about?? ...Objects are NOT "free" to move about. An object at rest, remains at rest. It is not free. It cannot decide to move or to not move.
RJG wrote:Firstly, how is it possible for an object to move "freely" about??
creation wrote:Space is HOW it is possible for an object to move.
You are avoiding the question. Space is not a HOW. Space is a PLACE for movement to occur.

For example, if I asked you how do fish swim, and you replied "The ocean is HOW fish swim", you would see that answer is just avoiding the question.

Okay, let me try again:

1. Do you believe an object at rest remains at rest until acted upon?

2. Do you believe an object in motion remains in motion (in same direction) until acted upon?

3. Or do you believe an object can decide to move, or not to move, all by itself (and then move/not move accordingly)?

4. So again, how is it possible for an object to "freely" move about?

5. How does movement of objects "occur"? (Look closely at the word "occur" to give you a hint).

Without the interaction of objects occurring somewhere there can be no motion. Without matter+time+space, nothing can move/change.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 22nd, 2020, 7:58 am

Typo. I said this:
Conventionally, the word "speed" is just used to refer to the direction part, not the size.
I should have said this:
Conventionally, the word "speed" is just used to refer to the size part, not the direction.
Apologies for any confusion that this may have caused.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 22nd, 2020, 7:58 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
creation wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 8:48 am
You have MISSED THE MARK.
This is equivalent to a "No" reply, which is supposed to be avoided here.
Once again you are completely misinterpreting and so missing what I am actually saying and meaning.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
Okay, when you talk about the Universe consisting ONLY of an object (x).

Then what size is object (x)?

What is around object (x)?

And, what is in between object (x)?

Also, what does a 'singularity' refer to, to you?
Size--depends on just what the object is. The size would be a matter of the object's extension, which depends solely on the object itself.

What's around it? Nothing. Otherwise the universe wouldn't consist solely of that object.
EXACTLY.

Even you just said the Universe consists of 'nothing' AND 'objects'. So, if we removed the object(s) from the Universe, then what is left? Nothing, which is what some people refer to as 'space', itself.

What is 'space' to you?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
What's "in between it"--again, nothing.
Do you mean here that the object is one singular piece of object without absolutely anything else within it? Or, do you mean it is like ALL the objects in the Universe, which are themselves made up of 'space' AND 'matter', except of course for the smallest singular particles of matter that can not be broken down any further?

For example, the object 'table' is said to be actually made up of a percentage of 'nothing' or 'space', and even an atom is said to be mostly made up of 'space' or 'nothing'. So, when you answered above here, which definition of 'nothing' were you referring to exactly?

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
Singularities are mathematical concepts. They're the point at which a mathematical function takes on an infinite value.
Okay, but what I was going to get to is that if the Universe consisted of one object (x) as you were saying, then that object must be one singular object with absolutely no other thing existing as well. 'Space' is some thing, and 'nothing' can be defined as 'space' or as absolutely no thing. So, if the Universe consisted of just one object (x), then that object must be singularity in the sense of; an infinite compression of matter, (absolutely no space in between it) and if there is no 'space' or absolutely no thing around it, then that that single object would be infinite in size; spatially.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
Obviously, then, if 'space' is not some sort of thing, to you, then matter is needed that has extension of matter, then the size of the matter would just get larger.
I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to say there.
That is fine. I thought I was losing you.

See, the way I see the Universe, and what It actually is, and how It actually works is not really understood yet.

I find it extremely difficult to express my ideas, especially when they are new ideas and when others do not have a clue as to what I am talking about from the outset.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
What is it that you are trying to say and/or prove here?
I don't know how I could type this stuff any more simply/straightforwardly than I am. The idea is not a "proof" by the way. My point is, as always, simply what I'm typing. Otherwise I'd type something else instead.
Okay, so tell me I have you wrong here. You state that with change absolutely nothing can be the same, correct?

I state that no matter what changes, the Universe, because of the way It actually is, what It actually fundamentally consists of, and therefore because of the way that It actually works, then the Universe, Itself, will always be and remain the same (just in different shape and form). You totally disagree with this idea, correct?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
Once you start showing how smart and clever you are with words that I have never even seen before, and thus I have absolutely no idea nor clue about, then I obviously can not understand what you are saying. I am just a very slow and very simple kid in Life.
Aren't you here because you're interested in philosophy?
This all depends on your version of what the word 'philosophy' means, what definition you are using here, and/or what meaning you have behind asking this clarifying question.

I am just here in this philosophy forum to essentially just learn how to communicate my ideas better. Learning what views of mine are false, wrong, incorrect, and/or inaccurate will help me to learn how to reach my goal.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
Why not look up philosophical terms you're not familiar with? It's tough to talk about philosophy without using any terms of art. And attempting to do that would just make things murkier.
Because just about everyone can have a completely different idea of what a term means.

Even when I have looked up what a so called "philosophical term" is or means, and then repeat it that way to another poster, I have still got accused of not knowing the subject well enough.

I think that people do not yet fully understand just how individual their own thinking and views are, and that they cannot even see this happening, which is clearly evidenced in the writings here in this forum. This inability to fully see that everyone is just using different definitions for the same words is the very reason WHY human beings on a whole are still discussing and squabbling over the exact same issues, which they have for thousands upon thousands of years, without actually getting any closer to resolving the issues.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
What is a 'non-equivocated contradiction'?
Equivocation occurs when you use a term in two or more instances with two or more different senses--to refer to at least slightly different things.

For example, if you say, "It's a contradiction to say that you're free to go to the movies--it will cost you $20, and that's not free." That's using two different senses of the word "free."

We only have a contradiction when we don't equivocate--when the terms in the contradiction are used to refer to exactly the same thing, in the same sense/the same respect, at the same time, the same context, etc.

Contradictions are in the form of P & ~P (P being a proposition, "~" being one common symbol for "not"--so claiming that some proposition is the case AND claiming that the very same proposition is not the case). If we say, "That's a contradiction, it's stating that x is y and x is not y (or not-x is y)." In order for it to be a contradiction, we have to be using x and y exactly the same on both sides of that--the same senses/respects, the same time, the same context, etc.

So for example, (P) The cat is on the mat, and (~P) The cat is not on the mat. If for P we mean that the front half of the cat's body is on the mat, and for ~P we mean that the back half of the cat's body is not on the mat, we're equivocating. We're referring to different parts of the cat's body in each case. For contradictions, we can not do this. It's not a contradiction if we equivocate.
Thank you so much for the clarification.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
There are different, often-incompatible species of logic. Because logic is something we construct, as ways to think abstractly about relations. Paraconsistent logic is a general term for species of logics where contradictions are not automatically false. In paraconsistent logics, at least some contradictions are allowed, or in other words, some contradictions are assigned "T" (true). This is due to the definitions and basic rules of the logic that are set up from the outset.

What is P in this case (for our P & ~P that you're claiming?)
Instead of using symbols, which we then have to decipher what 'word' they are in relation to, and then decipher how that 'word' is being defined in that sentence, and then decipher what that 'definition' actually 'means' in that context, why do we not just use words, and their actual meanings, instead?

The whole point of symbolic logic is that the things that we plug into the variables do not matter. Symbolic logic is about the relations, in a general, abstract way, of statements (or objects, or whatever we might be dealing with). It's similar to algebra, or more generally to the usage of variables in mathematics. When we state the Pythagorean theorem we state it as a2 + b2 = c2 (the 2s should be superscripts, they're squared numbers). We state it that way because it doesn't matter what numbers we plug into the variables. The relationship holds.

If we're focusing on the logic of something, plugging a specific thing into a variable is often distracting, because people focus on that specific thing instead, and it's irrelevant. If we're focusing on the logic of something, we talking about relations, in a more general, abstract manner.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
Yes, very simply. if something isn't logically impossible then it's logically possible. What it means for something to be logically impossible is that it is or entails a logical contradiction (which has to be non-equivocated--as I explained above). "X 'came from nothing'" is not and does not entail a contradiction. Therefore, it's logically possible.
So, according to you absolutely anything is possible, as long as it does not entail a logical contradiction correct?

To me, however, something has to appear logical possible before it could, to me, be logically possible. To me, 'something coming from nothing' appears logically impossible. And as far as I have observed and experienced there is nothing that I have heard nor seen, so far, that has even remotely explained how 'something could even logically possibly come from nothing'. Therefore, hitherto, to me, 'something coming from nothing' is just not logically possible. Whereas, what I view is actually the case is extremely not just logically possible but fits in perfectly with what else I have observed and experienced.

But like I say, I do look at and see things very differently from how most people look at and see things.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 22nd, 2020, 8:14 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 11:02 am
creation wrote:I am extremely interested in 'you' providing 'your', so called, "logically consistent account of what the Theory of Relativity actually says about time", then I have something to work on which I could then show where the errors have been made in 'your' version, if I do see any
It's a post that I've referred back to a few times over the past few posts. It's a very brief starting point for what Relativity actually predicts (as opposed to what various people say that it predicts). You've seen it and commented on it. To your credit, you're the only person (as far as I recall) who has actually done that. For reference, the post is here:

viewtopic.php?p=345897#p345897

and your comments are here:

viewtopic.php?p=345949#p345949

I will address your comments as best I can.

I will point out first that I'm simply describing my understanding of what Relativity predicts and my understanding of the reasons, in terms of experimental evidence and logical argument, why it predicts it.
When you say, "why 'it' predicts 'it', what are the two 'its' in relation to exactly?

And, are they in regards to what 'relativity' predicted before the experiments were conducted, or after experiments were conducted, and the results provided that are said to confirm the predictions of 'relativity' already?
Steve3007 wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 11:02 am
Who knows, I may have completely misunderstood it and someone can correct me with references. And the mere act of elucidating it here doesn't mean I'm implicitly saying: "this is the unquestionable truth and you mortals must bow down and worship it" or anything similar to that. It's not a holy relic. It's simply an idea that someone once had, and they told other people about it to see if they agreed with it. Some did. Some didn't.

If you already know that, sorry for pointing out the obvious. But, as a rule, I think it's better to point out the obvious (and be told "I already knew that!") than to leave something out and be misunderstood.
But if I were to write, as a rule, and point out the obvious rather than leaving something out and be misunderstood here, then I would have to write a huge novel. For what I intend to explain and have understood there are just way to many things, of which to point out the obviousness of them all. This would just be way too much time for one simple little philosophy forum.

But we will get there, if we work together.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 22nd, 2020, 8:20 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 11:29 am
viewtopic.php?p=345949#p345949
Steve3007 wrote:Given those clarifications of terminology and setup, this is what is predicted by SR:

As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each can look at their own clock and compare it to their view of the other's clock. Each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own. If they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own. Obviously (tautologically), in both cases, each sees their own clock ticking at the same rate as their own clock. So, regardless of their velocity relative to the other observer (or relative to anything else) they see all of their local clocks ticking at the same rate as each other. More generally: there are no local measurements that they can perform which will tell them anything at all about non-local observers or their clocks, or how those non-local observers are moving relative to them.

The faster the relative velocities, the more extreme the effect. As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.

This is sometimes referred to as the Relativistic Doppler Effect.

If each observer makes observations of the other to determine the other's spatial dimensions, each will observe the other to be shortened in the direction of motion.
creation wrote:From my perspective, this is NOT what I observe.

But as I say, I do see things very differently from what most other people do.
Fair enough. I think I understand why you would say that this is not what you would observe if you were one of those travellers. From what I recall of your words in previous posts, I think you would say that the travellers do not see each other's clocks ticking more slowly than their own but see them as ticking at the same rate? Do I recall correctly?
I do not recall saying that, but that is more or less what I would say anyway.

I also would like to clarify here, when the phrase "see each other's clocks" is this meant as it is something that is obviously known to be actually impossible to do, but is just generally accepted that we can do this? Or, is it said actually meaning that it is a possible thing to do?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 22nd, 2020, 8:29 am

Steve3007 wrote:I will point out first that I'm simply describing my understanding of what Relativity predicts and my understanding of the reasons, in terms of experimental evidence and logical argument, why it predicts it.
creation wrote:When you say, "why 'it' predicts 'it', what are the two 'its' in relation to exactly?
1st 'it': The Theory of Relativity.
2nd 'it': What that theory predicts.
And, are they in regards to what 'relativity' predicted before the experiments were conducted, or after experiments were conducted, and the results provided that are said to confirm the predictions of 'relativity' already?
Before the experiments were conducted. The Special Theory of Relativity was invented in 1905. The General Theory in 1915. They were created as a result of the results of various previous experiments conducted by the likes of Galileo Galilei (concerning the movements of object) and Michael Faraday et al (concerning electricity and magnetism) over hundreds of years.
But if I were to write, as a rule, and point out the obvious rather than leaving something out and be misunderstood here, then I would have to write a huge novel.
Yes, that is a problem that we all face: how much detail to give in order to be understood but not have to spend the rest of our lives writing it.
For what I intend to explain and have understood there are just way to many things, of which to point out the obviousness of them all. This would just be way too much time for one simple little philosophy forum.
I agree. Hence the problems we all face. For example. I briefly mentioned Galileo and Faraday above. These people and their actions are a small part of a much bigger historical story, spanning hundreds of years and numerous experiments/observations. To follow, in detail, the series of experiments and deductions that led from Galileo to Einstein would be the work of a huge book. That's one reason why posters like gater don't bother with it and just conclude, without having bothered looking into it, that modern physicists are "morons".

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 22nd, 2020, 8:49 am

Greta wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 6:43 pm
I admit that should have spoken about balancing one's own judgement with the science. Obviously, first comes one's own perceptions. Then we ideally check our ideas against what other people have found out on the subject (aka "science").

Having worked in a scientific institution for a decade, getting to know the scientists and their technical staff and their work, it is clear that a number of people here do not understand how science is conducted, or of the passion, obsession and dedication scientists, curators and technical officers have for their subject matter.
How many people called "scientists" and how many of their labeled "technical staff" actually work in the scientific institution?

The less number of the whole group, which you have personally made observations on, then the less accuracy your findings may well be.
Greta wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 6:43 pm
No one goes into science for the money.
Is this "no one" concluded finding, and/or judgement, that you have arrived at, which is based on how many actual people again, your absolute, without doubt, finding?

Was it a 'peer reviewed' finding? Or, was this just your own made up experiment, of which the results you have kept to yourself only?
Greta wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 6:43 pm
A research scientist with a PhD earns less than accountants with just a degree, and they will work far longer hours.
But they get to keep their 'phd', correct? And, from the way you wrote this, it appears those with a 'phd' are somehow more 'something".

Also, "laborers" can sometimes earn well more than both "research scientists", with a phd, and "accountants, with 'just' a degree, combined earn together. But so what?

Do ALL "accountants", with 'just' a degree, always earn more then ALL "research scientists", with phd's do?

If no, then why propose this is as though that is the case?

But if yes, and money is a bases for anything here, then that might show that the ones with a 'phd's' are not always as smart as those with 'just' a degree.

Or, if a "laborer" with absolutely no degree at all, and who actually dropped out of school at say 13 years of age, and who is now earning more than both of the other two combined, then what does that say about being 'smart', and 'degrees'?
Greta wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 6:43 pm
When it comes to the question of this thread, which forum do you think has addressed it with the most focus, information, depth and civility - this one or this: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_time_an_illusion ? :oops:
But how much actual focus, information, depth, and civility does one need to make up a decision about what 'time' is, to them?

By the way, what 'conclusion' did they arrive at, and agree with?

From the very little I read, I saw about as much division in that forum as I do in this forum, and as I have seen for over 2000 years. To me, not much has really changed at all regarding 'time', itself.

Also, is 'time' just an idea to you, or is 'time' some actual phenomena or physical thing?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 22nd, 2020, 10:23 am

Greta wrote:I admit that should have spoken about balancing one's own judgement with the science. Obviously, first comes one's own perceptions. Then we ideally check our ideas against what other people have found out on the subject (aka "science")...
I think what this shows is simply that it's so easy to be misunderstood. I think what you were essentially saying before was that there's no point in reinventing the wheel. Unless we want to re-visit the wheel's design to see (a) why it was designed as it was and (b) whether we've all been taking its design for granted and it could actually be improved on.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3047
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 22nd, 2020, 11:15 am

Greta wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 11:45 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 7:33 pm
It's ridiculous that scientists ignorantly and often incoherently dabbling in philosophy get a pass, but philosophers talking about science ...
Talking about science? If only. For pages and pages it's just been baseless assertions and claims that scientists are stupid, along with regular insults, both implied and explicit.

It's not even philosophy. It's social media, at times Twitteresque.
You must be talking about posts I haven't paid much attention to (which isn't difficult to do--I don't read every post in long threads, especially when the posts themselves are long).

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3047
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 22nd, 2020, 11:17 am

Greta wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 11:45 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 7:33 pm
It's ridiculous that scientists ignorantly and often incoherently dabbling in philosophy get a pass, but philosophers talking about science ...
Talking about science? If only. For pages and pages it's just been baseless assertions and claims that scientists are stupid, along with regular insults, both implied and explicit.

It's not even philosophy. It's social media, at times Twitteresque.
I forgot to add that that's it's also comical that you're taking my comment to be referring to people participating on this board overall. Most people here aren't qualified as philosophers. Why would you think that I'm characterizing everyone posting here as being a philosopher?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3047
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am

creation wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 7:58 am
Even you just said the Universe consists of 'nothing' AND 'objects'. So, if we removed the object(s) from the Universe, then what is left? Nothing, which is what some people refer to as 'space', itself.
Nothing isn't space, it's nothing.
What is 'space' to you?
I've already explained this to you a couple times, and you even countered with an alternate but similar claim. I'm guessing you didn't really understand what I said and you just Mad-Libbed the contrasting claim in one of those punky Internet moves?

Space is (a) the extensional properties of matter, and (b) the extensional relations between matter. This means that if there is no matter, there is no space.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am
What's "in between it"--again, nothing.
Do you mean here that the object is one singular piece of object
No.
without absolutely anything else within it?
Again no.
Or, do you mean it is like ALL the objects in the Universe, which are themselves made up of 'space' AND 'matter'
Again, no. Space is not a thing. It's not a container. It exists in no way "on its own." Space is a term for the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter. Those extensional relations obtain simply because there is matter that is separated extensionally from other matter. There is literally nothing in between the separated matter. An extensional relation is simply the fact that matter A is separated by 3 inches (or whatever, based on whatever arbitrary scale we'd use to reference this) from matter B, for example. That doesn't make something exist "in" that extensional relation.
'Space' is some thing, and 'nothing' can be defined as 'space' or as absolutely no thing.
I can't fathom why you wouldn't be able to see how blatantly contradictory this is.

Some thing contradicts no thing, right? "I have some candies" contradicts "I have no candies." Some x contradicts no x, whatever we plug into x.

So if space is some thing, space can't be no thing (it can't be defined as "absolutely no thing" as you say--not if it's some thing, as you say).

Space isn't nothing, but it doesn't obtain on its own. It only obtains when matter does. No matter, no space.
So, if the Universe consisted of just one object (x), then that object must be singularity in the sense of; an infinite compression of matter, (absolutely no space in between it) and if there is no 'space' or absolutely no thing around it, then that that single object would be infinite in size; spatially.
You're intuitively thinking of space as a thing, as something that exists on its own, as a container to place things in. On my view, space isn't at all a thing, something that exists on its own, or a container to place things in.

This is getting way too long. I hate long posts. That's why I'd prefer to chat. I want to go back and forth like a conversation, not like people "lecturing" at each other. So I'll cut this off here for now.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3047
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 22nd, 2020, 11:39 am

I'll just address this quickly, though,in case we don't get back to it, because it's important:
creation wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 7:58 am

Okay, so tell me I have you wrong here. You state that with change absolutely nothing can be the same, correct?
I'm not saying that as a generalization at all.

I'm saying that it's possible to have a change where we're not talking about a "unified" thing changing, so that something stays the same.

I'm not saying that that would be all change, or that it would be typical, or anything like that. I'm just saying that it's a logical possibility, and it's important to understand that logical possibility in talking about change.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7328
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 22nd, 2020, 3:51 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:Physicists have gotten in the habit of positing a bunch of ridiculous crap due to mathematics worship.
No examples or evidence were given to support this sweeping, vague claim. On closer examination, a basic misunderstanding of what has actually been posited was revealed. I say again: if you want to pass your judgment on something, first read what it says. You don't have to be a "qualified philosopher" to understand the logic of that, do you?
Terrapin Station wrote:Most people here aren't qualified as philosophers. Why would you think that I'm characterizing everyone posting here as being a philosopher?
A strong theme in your posts appears to be an obsession with "status" and its use for avoiding having to do the work of assessing arguments on their own merits, and instead assessing them on the status (either negative or positive) you perceive in their makers. In many posts, rather than assessing the actual arguments, you simply tell the arguers that they represent what you declare to be a "status quo" and somehow see that assertion as an argument in itself.

So you attach a label and then attack the label.

Whether it's the status quo that you perceive to exist in Science, which allows you to pass your judgments on its arguments without troubling to read or understand them, or whether you're touting what you perceive to be your own authoritative status as a "qualified philosopher" in order to appeal to authority when it suits you, a common theme of yours appears to be: authority trumps argument.

The irony of this vain appeal for people to respect your own authority in one subject, when you've spent so many posts falsely stating that another subject claims absolute authority, is striking.

Post Reply