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
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
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 »

Steve3007 wrote: January 22nd, 2020, 3:51 pm
How about instead presenting a citation of something that addresses the epistemological questions I was asking about how we know that we're releasing one particular at a time in double-slit (and similar) experiments?

I explained how the Feynman text didn't address the questions I was asking. You said I was looking in the wrong place in that text. You never answered with a few words from what you believed was the right place in the text in question. And you never offered another source, after claiming that many of them address the epistemological issue I brought up.

So how about some content?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
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 »

Type correction: "one particular" should have been "one particle"
gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by gater »

The speed of light has nothing to do with time - unrelated topics.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: 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.
Exactly. Humanity has assembled a vast body of knowledge. The observations of millions of geniuses in the past, building on each other's work over time. You have to respect that. Aside from being an incredible (continuing) achievement, our body of knowledge is a huge asset, just sitting there waiting to be used. A bottomless well of knowledge, with a great deal of it available at any time. So I struggle to understand those fighting over subject matter where it's clear they have not utilised existing bodies of knowledge.

Still, I will question aspects of human knowledge in terms of interpretation (which reaches into non-science territory, such as philosophy, psychology and spirituality). I also question some common unproven assumptions, eg. that qualia can only be generated by nervous systems. However, I have confidence in the execution of the science by the vast majority of scientists - far more faith than I have in myself in the same way as I will tend to trust a computer expert's view of my PC's health over my own, less informed, judgement.

Do we, as a society, value expertise and knowledge, or do we consider such things to be philosophical frippery? If we value expertise, then we must take what physicists say about time seriously. Not as gospel, but seriously. A quick look at the public conversation and current polities makes clear that expertise is not respected as it once was.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
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 »

The same "geniuses" of whom approximately 85% are still religious.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Sy Borg »

85% of what are religious? It's certainly not scientists.

As for the past, religiosity was common everywhere. Does that mean we throw out everything they said and start again because their thinking might be infected with religious ideas? Might it be possible for many people, past and future, to be religious to some extent and not necessarily be misogynist, gun-worshipping, foetus-favouring etc?

So yes, our bodies of knowledge were built by the geniuses who successfully questioned the orthodoxy, creating new ones. These geniuses were usually already scientists who had thought, studied and worked tirelessly in the field rather than outsiders trying to bully others with harsh words into accepting their views.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
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 »

85% of the world's population. If we limit it to scientists, it's closer to 50%.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Sy Borg »

Would that 50% figure include scientists in countries where open atheism is a punishable offence?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:The same "geniuses" of whom approximately 85% are still religious.
Greta wrote:85% of what are religious? It's certainly not scientists.
Terrapin Station wrote:85% of the world's population. If we limit it to scientists, it's closer to 50%.
Greta wrote:Would that 50% figure include scientists in countries where open atheism is a punishable offence?
...and so the conversation might irrelevantly continue. You might as well be arguing as to the percentage of scientists (or anyone else) who break their eggs at the big end and the little end. Not being a qualified philosopher, like Terrapin, perhaps I struggle with rational reasoning and need someone with that celebrated status to help me. So perhaps someone could help me ot here:

Isaac Newton predicted that any mass which is not subject to an external force will remain at constant velocity. Isaac Newton was religious. If we wanted to assess whether his prediction is correct would we:

a. Examine the prediction and the reasoning and evidence on which it was based. Do an experiment to test it.
b. Ignore the prediction and investigate how religious Newton was. Perhaps come up with a percentage figure of religiosity in 17th Century England.

a or b?


Play the ball, not the man.

A simple sporting analogy that surely even qualified philosophers can understand?





Steve3007 wrote:No, he's arguing that something which hasn't been claimed isn't coherent.
Steve3007 wrote:...But the simple point I keep trying to make is that in order to critique something you first have to know what its' saying. And if somebody appears not to know what the thing they're attempting to refute is saying, ....
Steve3007 wrote: Propositions that are not challenged are not tested. But we need to challenge the actual propositions being made, not something else. That, really, is my only point.
Steve3007 wrote:As I said, I (humbly) propose that one thing that is relevant is that those who seek to analyse an idea must be clear as to what the idea says so that they're not attacking an imaginary foe - a.k.a a straw man.
Steve3007 wrote: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".
etc, etc, etc, etc
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: January 23rd, 2020, 4:10 am
Terrapin Station wrote:The same "geniuses" of whom approximately 85% are still religious.
Greta wrote:85% of what are religious? It's certainly not scientists.
Terrapin Station wrote:85% of the world's population. If we limit it to scientists, it's closer to 50%.
Greta wrote:Would that 50% figure include scientists in countries where open atheism is a punishable offence?
...and so the conversation might irrelevantly continue. You might as well be arguing as to the percentage of scientists (or anyone else) who break their eggs at the big end and the little end. Not being a qualified philosopher, like Terrapin, perhaps I struggle with rational reasoning and need someone with that celebrated status to help me.

I think Terry Pratchett summed it up best in his novel, "Small Gods":
"What do philosophers look like?" said Brutha, "When they're not having a bath, I mean."
"They do a lot of thinking," said Om. "Look for someone with a strained expression."
"That might just mean constipation."
"Well, so long as they're philosophical about it . . ."
The city of Ephebe surrounded them. Dogs barked. Somewhere a cat yowled. There was that general susurration of small comfortable sounds that shows that, out there, a lot of people are living their lives.
And then a door burst open down the street and there was the cracking noise of a quite large wine amphora being broken over someone's head. A skinny old man in a toga picked himself up from the cobbles where he had landed, and glared at the doorway.
"I'm telling you, listen, a finite intellect, right, cannot by means of comparison reach the absolute truth of things, because being by nature indivisible, truth excludes the concepts of "more" or "less" so that nothing but truth itself can be the exact measure of truth. You bastards," he said.
Someone from inside the building said, "Oh yeah? Sez you."
The old man ignored Brutha but, with great difficulty, pulled a cobblestone loose and hefted it in his hand. Then he dived back through the doorway. There was a distant scream of rage.
"Ah. Philosophy," said Om.
Brutha peered cautiously round the door. Inside the room two groups of very nearly identical men in togas were trying to hold back two of their colleagues. It is a scene repeated a million times a day in bars around the multiverse-both would-be fighters growled and grimaced at one another and fought to escape the restraint of their friends, only of course they did not fight too hard, because there is nothing worse than actually succeeding in breaking free and suddenly finding yourself all alone in the middle of the ring with a madman who is about to hit you between the eyes with a rock.
"Yep," said Om, "that's philosophy, right enough."
"But they're fighting!"
"A full and free exchange of opinions, yes."
Now that Brutha could get a clearer view, he could see that there were one or two differences between the men. One had a shorter beard, and was very red in the face, and was waggling a finger accusingly.
"He bloody well accused me of slander!" he was shouting.
"I didn't!" shouted the other man.
"You did! You did! Tell 'em what you said!"
"Look, I merely suggested, to indicate the nature of paradox, right, that if Xeno the Ephebian said, `All Ephebians are liars-' "
"See? See? He did it again!"
"-no, no, listen, listen . . . then, since Xeno is himself an Ephebian, this would mean that he himself is a liar and therefore-” Xeno made a determined effort to break free, dragging four desperate fellow philosophers across the floor.
"I'm going to lay one right on you, pal!"
Brutha said, "Excuse me, please?"
The philosophers froze. Then they turned to look at Brutha. They relaxed by degrees. There was a chorus of embarrassed coughs.
"Are you all philosophers?" said Brutha.
The one called Xeno stepped forward, adjusting the hang of his toga.
"That's right," he said. "We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am."
"Are," said the luckless paradox manufacturer automatically.
Xeno spun around. "I've just about had it up to here with you, Ibid!" he roared.
He turned back to Brutha. "We are, therefore we am," he said confidently. "That's it."
Several of the philosophers looked at one another with interest.
"That's actually quite interesting," one said. "The evidence of our existence is the fact of our existence, is that what you're saying?"
"Shut up," said Xeno, without looking around.
"Have you been fighting?" said Brutha.
The assembled philosophers assumed various expressions of shock and horror.
"Fighting? Us? We're philosophers," said Ibid, shocked.
"My word, yes," said Xeno.
"But you were-” Brutha began.
Xeno waved a hand.
"The cut and thrust of debate," he said.
"Thesis plus antithesis equals hysteresis," said Ibid. "The stringent testing of the universe. The hammer of the intellect upon the anvil of fundamental truth—”
"Shut up," said Xeno. "And what can we do for you, young man?"
"Ask them about gods," Om prompted.
"Uh, I want to find out about gods," said Brutha.
The philosophers looked at one another.
"Gods?" said Xeno. "We don't bother with gods. Huh. Relics of an outmoded belief system, gods."
There was a rumble of thunder from the clear evening sky.
"Except for Blind Io the Thunder God," Xeno went on, his tone hardly changing.
http://dedroidify.blogspot.com/2013/02/ ... small.html
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 »

Good one. I like the fact that Xeno has trouble moving. (A joke at the expense of Zeno?)

Here's the part from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when the machine "Deep Thought" has been designed to calculate the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. Designed by a society so "advanced" that philosophers have the status (there's that word again) of unionised blue collar workers, and talk in the stereotypical style of union shop stewards (at least British ones).
Douglas Adams wrote:"You just let the machines get on with the adding up,"

warned Majikthise,

"and we'll take care of the eternal verities, thank you very much. You want to check your legal position, you do, mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we’re straight out of a job, aren’t we? I mean, what’s the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives you his bleeding phone number the next morning?"

"That's right,"

shouted Vroomfondel,

"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Also a parody of the Luddites.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
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 »

Steve3007 wrote: January 23rd, 2020, 4:10 am
Terrapin Station wrote:The same "geniuses" of whom approximately 85% are still religious.
Greta wrote:85% of what are religious? It's certainly not scientists.
Terrapin Station wrote:85% of the world's population. If we limit it to scientists, it's closer to 50%.
Greta wrote:Would that 50% figure include scientists in countries where open atheism is a punishable offence?
...and so the conversation might irrelevantly continue. You might as well be arguing as to the percentage of scientists (or anyone else) who break their eggs at the big end and the little end. Not being a qualified philosopher, like Terrapin, perhaps I struggle with rational reasoning and need someone with that celebrated status to help me. So perhaps someone could help me ot here:
What not having much of a background in philosophy resulted in here is an inability to understand what the relevance was of pointing out that a large percentage of scientists are still religious in the context of what I was responding to.

It also contributed to you apparently missing the word "still," missing its semantic and rhetorical significance.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:What not having much of a background in philosophy resulted in here is an inability to understand what the relevance was of pointing out that a large percentage of scientists are still religious in the context of what I was responding to.
And, of course, you won't simply, unambiguously explain the intended relevance? Keep 'em guessing, eh? Just tell them that the reason they don't understand is because they're not qualified.

Anyway, a or b?
It also contributed to you apparently missing the word "still," missing its semantic and rhetorical significance.
The "rhetorical significance of the word 'still'"? Yes, you've lost me there. Clear as mud. As I said before, speak as plainly as possible using widely agreed upon (i.e. standard) definitions of words wherever possible. Say what you mean. Don't say the opposite of what you mean. Quote specifically what you're referring to. Avoid personal attacks. Tackle the argument, not the arguer. Tackle the argument not a completely different argument. Don't rely on empty appeals either to or against authority. Authority is relevant only insofar as it has already had its arguments/evidence tested in a way that can, if necessary, be referenced.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
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 »

Steve3007 wrote: January 23rd, 2020, 11:52 am
Terrapin Station wrote:What not having much of a background in philosophy resulted in here is an inability to understand what the relevance was of pointing out that a large percentage of scientists are still religious in the context of what I was responding to.
And, of course, you won't simply, unambiguously explain the intended relevance? Keep 'em guessing, eh? Just tell them that the reason they don't understand is because they're not qualified.
It can be more fun to watch someone peacock their attitude and fragility.
It also contributed to you apparently missing the word "still," missing its semantic and rhetorical significance.
The "rhetorical significance of the word 'still'"? Yes, you've lost me there. [/quote]

I don't include words in what I write purely for decoration. If the word "still" was in the sentence, it was there for at least one good reason. Otherwise I wouldn't have added it.
Say what you mean. Don't say the opposite of what you mean.
People on the spectrum who are (or at least who used to be) classified as having Asperger's syndrome have a lot of problems with implicature, literary devices, looser manners of speaking, etc. Using any of those approaches is one easy way to identify folks on the spectrum online.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:People on the spectrum who are (or at least who used to be) classified as having Asperger's syndrome have a lot of problems with implicature, literary devices, looser manners of speaking, etc. Using any of those approaches is one easy way to identify folks on the spectrum online.
It's related to autism. I'm familiar with the symptoms. So that's one of the reasons you post on this site? To find people who you deem to suffer from a spectrum developmental disorder and poke them? Would you do that if you were face to face with 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