Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[impermanence]

If George Carlin were alive today, my bet is that he could come up with a routine every bit as effective [and entertaining] as was his assertion that the ultimate BS story was religion. Although by only a hair, I believe that science has outdone religion in almost every regard.

I will submit but two examples, Time and Mathematics, and hope that others will add to the evidence.

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"]. The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

Mathematics [the language of science] is problematic for a host of reasons, paramount among them being that there is no such thing as more than "1," but just as troubling is the fact that math breaks down at its extremes.

If Time and Math do not hold-up, how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion? After all, at least religion points in the right direction.

[Terrapin Station]

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"].

Time is change/motion. That's real.

[Count Lucanor]

If George Carlin were alive today, my bet is that he could come up with a routine every bit as effective [and entertaining] as was his assertion that the ultimate BS story was religion. Although by only a hair, I believe that science has outdone religion in almost every regard.

I will submit but two examples, Time and Mathematics, and hope that others will add to the evidence.

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"]. The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

Mathematics [the language of science] is problematic for a host of reasons, paramount among them being that there is no such thing as more than "1," but just as troubling is the fact that math breaks down at its extremes.

If Time and Math do not hold-up, how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion? After all, at least religion points in the right direction.

Science is not perfect, but it rests on methodical critical thinking and self-correction. Religion is dogma and rests on reinforcing delusions and pure ignorance.

[impermanence]

Time is change/motion. That's real.

Consider the following...

You [the observer] are standing in a room surrounded by numerous objects. Each object is a different distance from you and therefore exists in a different time. Therefore you are observing [simultaneously] many [actually, an infinite number of] time periods at once.

How is that possible?

[impermanence]

Science is not perfect, but it rests on methodical critical thinking and self-correction. Religion is dogma and rests on reinforcing delusions and pure ignorance.

Count, although quite kind to science, your take on religion misses the mark. Religion is simply the intellectualization of spirituality, the key understanding being that realization is a non-intellectual pursuit.

[Atla]

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"].

Then why was Einsteinian space-time confirmed by every experiment so far?

The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties.

Not really, human consciousness is representational, and the representation itself is happening in the present.

Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

Now that's where things get interesting, how do these two different notions of time fit together, this is the unknown part.
One possibility is that our universe is shaped like a closed loop that returns into itself. So while we humans are bound by Einsteinian spacetime, the universe as a whole is actually timeless, it's just sitting there in timeless eternity. In other words, from our point of view, the distant future and the distant past are the same point in time, which is a very counterintuitive idea.

[Steve3007]

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"].

Could you give an example of something that, in your view, does "have a basis in reality" so I can try to figure out what you might mean by that expression.

The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

If anyone were to make self-contradictory statements like those two they wouldn't "present many difficulties". There would just be the one difficulty of them being self-contradictory. The solution would be to not make the statements. Do you think that someone other than you, here, has said those things? If so, who?

[baker]

If Time and Math do not hold-up, how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion?

By pointing out the difference between science and scientism.

[Terrapin Station]

Time is change/motion. That's real.

Consider the following...

You [the observer] are standing in a room surrounded by numerous objects. Each object is a different distance from you and therefore exists in a different time. Therefore you are observing [simultaneously] many [actually, an infinite number of] time periods at once.

How is that possible?

Given that time is identical to change/motion, consider that you're saying, "each object . . . therefore exists 'in' a different change/motion."

Does that make sense, and if so, is it perplexing? Why?

[chewybrian]

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"].

Could you give an example of something that, in your view, does "have a basis in reality" so I can try to figure out what you might mean by that expression.

The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

If anyone were to make self-contradictory statements like those two they wouldn't "present many difficulties". There would just be the one difficulty of them being self-contradictory. The solution would be to not make the statements. Do you think that someone other than you, here, has said those things? If so, who?

Zeno of Elea

For the first part (what does have a basis in reality), I would say our sense of being, a la Descartes.

I took the part about not being in the present to be a type of Zeno's paradox. If I drive to California, I surely pass through any selected point along the way. But, the points are abstractions. Each is infinitesimally small, such that I am never at any given point for any length of time at all. If you make time into an axis of a graph, then we don't really stop at any given point on the line, and we are never at any point for any measurable amount of time. In a sense, whatever we call the present, we are never there (even though we are).

The part about infinite times occurring together also seems like a similar paradox. As you look at your computer monitor, the light arriving to your eye from each point on the screen actually travels a different distance to get there, and so each component of the image represents a different moment in the past. Since you can break up the screen into an infinite number of points (though perhaps only a finite amount of light rays can come out of the screen or pass into your eye), then you are effectively viewing an infinite number of moments in time with each glance.

I'm not sure if any of that has much practical value unless you are really stoned, but people do say these things.

[impermanence]

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"].

Then why was Einsteinian space-time confirmed by every experiment so far?

The fact that you can prove something doesn't mean it's true.

The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties.

Not really, human consciousness is representational, and the representation itself is happening in the present.

I am not sure what you mean by, "representational," but just the same, human beings have no intellectual access to the present.

Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

Now that's where things get interesting, how do these two different notions of time fit together, this is the unknown part.
One possibility is that our universe is shaped like a closed loop that returns into itself. So while we humans are bound by Einsteinian spacetime, the universe as a whole is actually timeless, it's just sitting there in timeless eternity. In other words, from our point of view, the distant future and the distant past are the same point in time, which is a very counterintuitive idea.

Perhaps, but it would seem more likely that we have no clue [and that goes for everything]. For example, if you subscribe to the idea that each event is caused by an infinite number of events preceding, how is it possible to understand anything?

[impermanence]

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"].

Could you give an example of something that, in your view, does "have a basis in reality" so I can try to figure out what you might mean by that expression.

I wish I could, good sir, but I can not.

The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

If anyone were to make self-contradictory statements like those two they wouldn't "present many difficulties". There would just be the one difficulty of them being self-contradictory. The solution would be to not make the statements. Do you think that someone other than you, here, has said those things? If so, who?

The idea is to point out that science is just another attempt to access Reality [taking up where religion left off]. I am not saying that it doesn't serve useful purposes, but it is no more than a gross approximation of how things might work using what our meager intellect allows. The key is in understanding its limitations [mostly due to the constant transformation of all things knowable].

[impermanence]

Consider the following...

You [the observer] are standing in a room surrounded by numerous objects. Each object is a different distance from you and therefore exists in a different time. Therefore you are observing [simultaneously] many [actually, an infinite number of] time periods at once.

How is that possible?

Given that time is identical to change/motion, consider that you're saying, "each object . . . therefore exists 'in' a different change/motion."

Does that make sense, and if so, is it perplexing? Why?

Why is time identical to change/motion?

[impermanence]

The part about infinite times occurring together also seems like a similar paradox. As you look at your computer monitor, the light arriving to your eye from each point on the screen actually travels a different distance to get there, and so each component of the image represents a different moment in the past. Since you can break up the screen into an infinite number of points (though perhaps only a finite amount of light rays can come out of the screen or pass into your eye), then you are effectively viewing an infinite number of moments in time with each glance.

I'm not sure if any of that has much practical value unless you are really stoned, but people do say these things.

Maybe everybody is stoned because they accept the notion of time as a given.

Accepting this concept allows one the same privilege of access to all the other non-sense that is derived from such similar to how being born a citizen in any particular country bestows upon that individual the right to give half [or more] of their labor-value earned to their respective governments.

Most people absolutely adore their chains [be they intellectual or otherwise].

[hegel]

If George Carlin were alive today, my bet is that he could come up with a routine every bit as effective [and entertaining] as was his assertion that the ultimate BS story was religion. Although by only a hair, I believe that science has outdone religion in almost every regard.

I will submit but two examples, Time and Mathematics, and hope that others will add to the evidence.

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"]. The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

Mathematics [the language of science] is problematic for a host of reasons, paramount among them being that there is no such thing as more than "1," but just as troubling is the fact that math breaks down at its extremes.

If Time and Math do not hold-up, how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion? After all, at least religion points in the right direction.

As epistemology, science is incoherent.

As practical affair, it is incredibly successful.