Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[creation]

Could be, but again, it all depends on how one is looking at this. Do you see it as not the same?

If yes, then why?

Also, what are the words "for one" at the end of your question in relation to exactly?

So, the first question, again, is whether you're using "duration or change" and "duration" so that they're synonyms. Yes or no?

Depends in what context exactly?

Are you aware the definition and/or meaning of words change when words are used in different contexts.

'Duration' can be in relation to the measured length of change. So, we can have 'duration or change' depending on how one wants to look at it, or we can have 'duration' meaning more or less the same.

See, because of the logical possibility that the Universe is infinite and the logical impossibility that the Universe is finite the above is of no real concern nor issue. Unless of course you do have some specific concern or issue that you would like to make known here. So, if you do, then please feel free to bring that concern or issue to light.

But until then, some people will use and see 'duration' and 'change' as synonyms in some contexts and in other contexts they may or may not see them as synonyms. And, at other times in different contexts 'duration or change' and 'duration' may or may not be seen and accepted as synonyms. Again, it all depends in what context you are referring to specifically.

[Wossname]

I have heard it argued that, mathematically, in an infinite universe, whatever can be true must be true. So, in an infinite universe my red dragon Bluebell, mentioned earlier, must exist.

Absolutely anything can be argued. But, if what is argued is not sound and/nor valid, then it is not really an argument that is best accepted.

Also, why do you think your red dragon, which you call bluebell, could be true.


I don't think it is true. In fact I insist it isn't. In all possible worlds it is mathematically certain. There's even a world where you are insisting space is finite. I find such views interesting but do not believe the universe works like this. I could be wrong. Some versions of quantum theory say I am wrong.

I am not as sure as you are that the universe is as endless. Our intuitions differ here. You see it as a matter of logic. Fair enough. I don't and do not know if we can resolve this. I am content to respect your view while disagreeing with it.

By miniverses I mean there may be other regions of the universe so distant that we can never know them and which may be quite different to our own. My argument presupposed the idea that the observable universe could be closed, or in some sense finite, and perhaps these regions could be separated by a vast void. It occurs to me that If they were close enough that one region could "contaminate" another with a different set of physical laws then it might be problematic given the delicate balance required for life as we know it. It doesn't keep me awake nights though. This seems logically possible to me. It won't do for you if you won't allow this.

I'm not sure here if you won't. It might reflect a linguistic difference in the way we use "universe"? I think you use it as "all there is" so I thought miniverse might add clarity. If it doesn't then I am happy to drop the term. I was arguing that even if the observable universe is closed, it does not mean space is not infinite. The evidence presented shows the CMB appears so flat that any curvature may not be enough to close it, but nothing seems certain and arguments will remain here for a while yet I think.

I still think an infinite universe could have a finite amount of matter. Three footballs is three footballs whether in a box, a lorry, or a field. You can extend the space infinitely and still have just three footballs. So, no Bluebell.

[Wossname]

Sorry Creation.
I'm getting better at managing replies but still learning.
I couldn't find your bit on the reply section and did my best.
Something on FAQ would be useful I think?

[Terrapin Station]

So, the first question, again, is whether you're using "duration or change" and "duration" so that they're synonyms. Yes or no?

Depends in what context exactly?

You said both "duration" and "duration of change" in what I just quoted from you. I'm asking you, re what I just quoted from you, were you using the terms as synonyms or not?

[creation]

Depends in what context exactly?

You said both "duration" and "duration of change" in what I just quoted from you. I'm asking you, re what I just quoted from you, were you using the terms as synonyms or not?

I forget now.

But let us just say it is a "Yes".

[Terrapin Station]

You said both "duration" and "duration of change" in what I just quoted from you. I'm asking you, re what I just quoted from you, were you using the terms as synonyms or not?

I forget now.

But let us just say it is a "Yes".

Okay, so you said "The word 'time' refers to duration of change and/or the measurements of this duration."

Then you said, "'Duration' is not exclusively a human activity."

If the terms are synonyms, then we can swap out "duration of change" for "duration" and vice versa without a problem.

But you also said, "What the word 'time' refers to is an exclusive human activity."

So if the word time refers to duration (as well as other things), and duration is not exclusively a human activity, then we can't say that what time refers to is exclusively a human activity. You just said that duration is NOT exclusively a human activity.

[Present awareness]

Time= A measurement of an objects movement through space. The starting point of the time measurement is “now”, either before now or from now.
Change= Any movement through space will necessarily be a change in position. A change in position may also include a change in appearance.
Infinite= “Now” is the infinite zero point, since it is always “now”. “Now” does not arrive nor does it leave.

[creation]

I forget now.

But let us just say it is a "Yes".

Okay, so you said "The word 'time' refers to duration of change and/or the measurements of this duration."

You wrote, "duration 'or' change" before, and not "duration 'of' change", so I was replying to that before.

But anyway,

Then you said, "'Duration' is not exclusively a human activity."

If the terms are synonyms, then we can swap out "duration of change" for "duration" and vice versa without a problem.

But you also said, "What the word 'time' refers to is an exclusive human activity."

So if the word time refers to duration (as well as other things), and duration is not exclusively a human activity, then we can't say that what time refers to is exclusively a human activity.

Okay.

Is that now settled for you?

Obviously you have no interest at all in clarifying and understanding what I actually meant, and so prefer to just assume what is being said and meant. So, I will leave this to your own assumptions and beliefs here.

You just said that duration is NOT exclusively a human activity.

I may have said that, but I am renown for speaking in ways that get completely and utterly misunderstood and misinterpreted.

I do not like to misinterpret and misunderstand others so I just prefer to ask them what are they actually saying and meaning instead of doing what you are doing here. That is; telling me what I am saying.

If that is what I am saying, to you, then so be it. There is absolutely nothing I can do whatsoever to change how you have already interpreted or misinterpreted my words.

If you want to tell me what I am saying, then that is perfectly fine with me. Even no matter how completely and utterly wrong it is.

I am renown for making mistakes, as well as getting completely misunderstood, if you are at all interested.

Now, does this at all help in clearing up if the Universe is endless and infinite or not?

[Terrapin Station]

Is that now settled for you?

lol, we're quoting things that YOU said. You said a set of statements that are contradictory in conjunction with each other.

Obviously you have no interest at all in clarifying and understanding what I actually meant, and so prefer to just assume what is being said and meant.

That's fine, but then just state the correction. You can admit that you wrote something that wasn't clear, that wasn't what you would have ideally written, etc. There's no problem with that.

It just suggests that we should try to write more carefully. Note "we" there. It's something we should all try to do--including the fact that I tend to write so many typos and not proofread well enough before submitting posts.

So if you were redoing things and writing more carefully, would you say that duration is exclusively a human activity?

[creation]

Is that now settled for you?

lol, we're quoting things that YOU said. You said a set of statements that are contradictory in conjunction with each other.

Obviously you have no interest at all in clarifying and understanding what I actually meant, and so prefer to just assume what is being said and meant.

That's fine, but then just state the correction. You can admit that you wrote something that wasn't clear, that wasn't what you would have ideally written, etc. There's no problem with that.

It just suggests that we should try to write more carefully. Note "we" there. It's something we should all try to do--including the fact that I tend to write so many typos and not proofread well enough before submitting posts.

So if you were redoing things and writing more carefully, would you say that duration is exclusively a human activity?

No.

This is the careless quote I wrote:
'Duration' is not exclusively a human activity.

What the word 'time' refers to is an exclusive human activity.

'Time', by itself, is an exclusive human activity. 'Time' exists in concept or thought only.

The word 'time' refers to duration of change and/or the measurements of this duration.

So, that is exactly how we are (or I am anyway) talking about "something" that is not exclusively a human activity. To make it absolutely clear, it is 'duration', itself, that is not exclusively a human activity.

Now, if I was writing more carefully then I would have added the word 'not' in between the words 'is' and 'an', in the second sentence.

[Terrapin Station]

lol, we're quoting things that YOU said. You said a set of statements that are contradictory in conjunction with each other.



That's fine, but then just state the correction. You can admit that you wrote something that wasn't clear, that wasn't what you would have ideally written, etc. There's no problem with that.

It just suggests that we should try to write more carefully. Note "we" there. It's something we should all try to do--including the fact that I tend to write so many typos and not proofread well enough before submitting posts.

So if you were redoing things and writing more carefully, would you say that duration is exclusively a human activity?

No.

This is the careless quote I wrote:
'Duration' is not exclusively a human activity.

What the word 'time' refers to is an exclusive human activity.

'Time', by itself, is an exclusive human activity. 'Time' exists in concept or thought only.

The word 'time' refers to duration of change and/or the measurements of this duration.

So, that is exactly how we are (or I am anyway) talking about "something" that is not exclusively a human activity. To make it absolutely clear, it is 'duration', itself, that is not exclusively a human activity.

Now, if I was writing more carefully then I would have added the word 'not' in between the words 'is' and 'an', in the second sentence.

So "What the word 'time' refers to is not an exclusive human activity" and "'Time,' by itself,is an exclusive human activity. 'Time' exists in concept or thought only"?

[creation]

No.

This is the careless quote I wrote:
'Duration' is not exclusively a human activity.

What the word 'time' refers to is an exclusive human activity.

'Time', by itself, is an exclusive human activity. 'Time' exists in concept or thought only.

The word 'time' refers to duration of change and/or the measurements of this duration.

So, that is exactly how we are (or I am anyway) talking about "something" that is not exclusively a human activity. To make it absolutely clear, it is 'duration', itself, that is not exclusively a human activity.

Now, if I was writing more carefully then I would have added the word 'not' in between the words 'is' and 'an', in the second sentence.

So "What the word 'time' refers to is not an exclusive human activity" and "'Time,' by itself,is an exclusive human activity. 'Time' exists in concept or thought only"?

Yes. Until you expose the contradiction, inconsistency, incoherency, misconception, misunderstanding, and/or misinterpretation here.

And remember "exclusive human activity" is your use of terms here.

[Terrapin Station]

So "What the word 'time' refers to is not an exclusive human activity" and "'Time,' by itself,is an exclusive human activity. 'Time' exists in concept or thought only"?

Yes. Until you expose the contradiction, inconsistency, incoherency, misconception, misunderstanding, and/or misinterpretation here.

And remember "exclusive human activity" is your use of terms here.

So "time," "by itself," has nothing to do with what the term refers to?

[creation]

Yes. Until you expose the contradiction, inconsistency, incoherency, misconception, misunderstanding, and/or misinterpretation here.

And remember "exclusive human activity" is your use of terms here.

So "time," "by itself," has nothing to do with what the term refers to?

No.

[Terrapin Station]

So "time," "by itself," has nothing to do with what the term refers to?

No.

"Time" referring to something is "not by itself" then?

(I don't know what "by itself"/"not by itself" really amounts to here)