Is Time Just an Idea?

[creation]

Does it also seem to you obvious the simple point I am making? And, does it seem to you obvious that my point is valid also?

If I say "yes" will that help us to concentrate on examining the foundations, walls and roof (in that order) of the metaphorical house I mentioned earlier?

Well, when you clarify how two observers moving towards each other, at a constant velocity, they see each other's clock tick faster, than their own clock, but when the velocity becomes larger, then for unknown reasons to me, you say they now see each others' clock tick slower, than their own clock.

Then, we can start examining the foundations. But, if you will not even explain and clarify this, first of many to come, contradictions, then how could 'we' even concentrate on examining the foundations.

When are you going to start with the foundations, by the way?

Also, I only want you to say the TRUTH, always.

[Terrapin Station]

The post you're quoting has nothing to do with that.

You intimated that we are incapable of comprehending others' comments properly, which is a stereotype akin to saying that white men can't jump.[/quote]

I made a comment about him not understanding the comment in question, on that occasion. That in no way amounts to a "stereotype." (As if there's anything inherently wrong with stereotypes, by the way, but that's another discussion.) The reasons I gave for him not understanding the comment on that occasion had nothing to do with "being on the spectrum."

You didn't understand the comment you were responding to, either. Is that a "stereotype" somehow.

And there's no "proper comprehension" by the way.

Your response is scientifically orthodox.

That would be fine if it were--it's not as if I'm categorically opposed to that. I'd prefer that everyone agree with me, really, as I actually hate "arguing." But physicists, particularly, usually argue with my ontology of time, because they see motion as being defined as change of position over time. Without thinking about it much, they balk at the idea of defining motion as "change of position over motion"--since the word being defined occurs in the definition in that case, and in general, I commonly get the tactic of objections based on word substitution not working, a la "The time of object A relative to object B" being a substitution for "The motion of object A relative to object B."

Of course, my ontology of time isn't a claim about word substitution in natural languages as they're conventionally used, and it's not a claim about how most people normally think about time (which leads to word usage).

If you are basing your ideas on our bodies of knowledge, why disagree when it's suggested that commentators should consult the specialist bodies of knowledge established by the geniuses of the past before deciding on such things?

The only thing I'm objecting to is anything that smells of either arguments from authority or argumentum ad populums (with respect to particular populations).

If people considered experts are right about something, it's not because they're experts[//i] or because the majority of them agree with each other. It would be a contingent matter that they're right. They could just as well be wrong. Someone being considered an expert in something is a social fact, about how they've adapted to particular sets of social norms.

[Terrapin Station]

You've missed the point of my questions.

Look. It's that Internet clone guy (which I say because apparently there are 10,000 of you who might as well be the same guy with 10,000 aliases) who thinks that any reply is required to address his "point" in a way that he considers addressing his point.

[Terrapin Station]

I hate doing long posts back and forth. It's so laborious.

I especially hate doing it when some of what you're asking in numerous long posts requires me to keep explaining the same things over and over. If I say something you don't understand or aren't sure about, tell me right off the bat so I don't keep saying it thinking you understand because you're not saying you do not.

Re "obtain," in philosophy, that term is used in the sense of "is established (by)" or "is/becomes the case (via)," which is closely related to the more colloquial senses of "(to) acquire" or "(to) get."

Re your comment about "nothing 'being a thing'," you're talking about "nothing" being a concept we have. That's definitely the case, but it doesn't make nothing a "thing" ontically--which is basically a way of saying "outside of that concept, as things exist (with a connotation of they way they exist objectively). Nothing, what we're referring to with the conventional concept, precisely does not exist objectively.

The thing to remember about my view is simply that space can not exist if there's no matter. So no matter, no space. Period. That's all you need to know to understand the "intuition pump" I presented about change being possible where there's not something that remains the same throughout the change.

[Terrapin Station]

I'll just address this quickly, though,in case we don't get back to it, because it's important:



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.

This has not cleared anything up for me here.

To me, the Universe, Itself, always stays the same no matter what change is happening and occurring.

If the universe is all that exists, and all that exists is object A, but object A disappears, then does the universe exist?

[Steve3007]

When are you going to start with the foundations, by the way?

I suggest a new topic in the Science section. I'll create one if you like.

[Steve3007]

I've added it. Had to make it look like it was making a philosophical point to get it past the censors.

[NickGaspar]

People don't use the same standards to evaluate knowledge and learning or understanding what a framework describes are not among them.
Their priorities are for a framework to be in agreement with their ideology.

Is that what 'people' actually do?

By the way what if the framework is already in agreement with their ideas, which, just do not happen to be in line with current scientific knowledge?

This is exactly what people do. They accept the technology but reject the framework on which the technology is based .
They make up excuses for not accepting the theory but they are more than happy to use the goods it provides.
"By the way what if the framework is already in agreement with their ideas"
-Everybody has a different "story". The important thing is that they deny real life observations supportive of our theories.

[Terrapin Station]

Is that what 'people' actually do?

By the way what if the framework is already in agreement with their ideas, which, just do not happen to be in line with current scientific knowledge?

This is exactly what people do. They accept the technology but reject the framework on which the technology is based .
They make up excuses for not accepting the theory but they are more than happy to use the goods it provides.
"By the way what if the framework is already in agreement with their ideas"
-Everybody has a different "story". The important thing is that they deny real life observations supportive of our theories.

We can look at the framework instrumentally or non-instrumentally, as a statement of "what's really going on ontologically." They're disagreeing non-instrumentally, but not denying the instrumental utility.

[NickGaspar]

This is exactly what people do. They accept the technology but reject the framework on which the technology is based .
They make up excuses for not accepting the theory but they are more than happy to use the goods it provides.
"By the way what if the framework is already in agreement with their ideas"
-Everybody has a different "story". The important thing is that they deny real life observations supportive of our theories.

We can look at the framework instrumentally or non-instrumentally, as a statement of "what's really going on ontologically." They're disagreeing non-instrumentally, but not denying the instrumental utility.

you can do that, but you are not entitled to your own facts..............

[Terrapin Station]

We can look at the framework instrumentally or non-instrumentally, as a statement of "what's really going on ontologically." They're disagreeing non-instrumentally, but not denying the instrumental utility.

you can do that, but you are not entitled to your own facts..............

The whole point of instrumentalism is that we're not making claims about what's really going on ontologically.

[Sy Borg]

If you are basing your ideas on our bodies of knowledge, why disagree when it's suggested that commentators should consult the specialist bodies of knowledge established by the geniuses of the past before deciding on such things?

The only thing I'm objecting to is anything that smells of either arguments from authority or argumentum ad populums (with respect to particular populations).

If people considered experts are right about something, it's not because they're experts or because the majority of them agree with each other. It would be a contingent matter that they're right. They could just as well be wrong. Someone being considered an expert in something is a social fact, about how they've adapted to particular sets of social norms.

It's only basic logic to avail oneself of existing information to check one's ideas.

Any mug can pretend to know what's going on (eg. most current Anglosphere leaders), but expertise requires passion, clarity and hard work - and that is the expertise I respect. Not revere. Respect. Disrespect for expertise is just as muddle-headed as blindly accepting authority, and the former is endemic in the west at present.

When it comes to unresolved questions, I am more inclined to listen to scientists when they say x does exist than when they say y does not - evidence rather over assumptions.

[Terrapin Station]

The only thing I'm objecting to is anything that smells of either arguments from authority or argumentum ad populums (with respect to particular populations).

If people considered experts are right about something, it's not because they're experts or because the majority of them agree with each other. It would be a contingent matter that they're right. They could just as well be wrong. Someone being considered an expert in something is a social fact, about how they've adapted to particular sets of social norms.

It's only basic logic to avail oneself of existing information to check one's ideas.

Any mug can pretend to know what's going on (eg. most current Anglosphere leaders), but expertise requires passion, clarity and hard work - and that is the expertise I respect. Not revere. Respect. Disrespect for expertise is just as muddle-headed as blindly accepting authority, and the former is endemic in the west at present.

When it comes to unresolved questions, I am more inclined to listen to scientists when they say x does exist than when they say y does not - evidence rather over assumptions.

You know that philosophers are actually the experts on stuff like epistemology, ontology, etc., though, right?

[Sy Borg]

I find that it depends on the philosopher. Scientists, while being almost as argumentative, are relatively more homogeneous in their views and approaches.

you can do that, but you are not entitled to your own facts..............

The whole point of instrumentalism is that we're not making claims about what's really going on ontologically.

Yes, the instruments are not measuring what is, but what is relative to humans. However, there is ontic reliability within the relativities. Despite variances in human culture in perceptions of time https://www.businessinsider.com/how-dif ... 014-5?IR=T, each cultures' scientists will take the same approaches in space and other engineering projects, because it works.

[NickGaspar]

you can do that, but you are not entitled to your own facts..............

The whole point of instrumentalism is that we're not making claims about what's really going on ontologically.

You are referring to the instrumental value of an observation as if it is a draw back. Our observations points to a quantifiable fact of reality. Any technical application based on this fact gives extra value to this observation.
Again, you are not entitled to your own facts.