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

[Steve3007]

[11] An objective line of vertical-ness does not really exist.

As well as confusing relativity with non-existence I think, as in examples like this, you also confuse "objective" with "absolute". If I say "that rake is standing vertically" that's an objective proposition. The property of vertical-ness of that object exists, in the sense in which you've declared you're using the term "exist" in the OP. So vertical-ness is objective but it is not absolute. That means it only makes sense relative to other objects. In the example I just gave, as with a lot of examples, that other object is implicitly the Earth.

[Atla]

.

Besides, as Scott has argued, Einstein has more or less proven that change in the ordinary sense is an illusion. What we normally think of as change, is something that happens in absolute time. We had the past, now we have the present, and we will have the future, in succession in absolute time. But absolute time was refuted, it's a Newtonian idea / a Kantian a priori feature of the human mind. We naturally think in absolute space and time.
But in the real world, time is relative, there is no genuine past and future. Every experiment confirmed Einstein's view so far.

[RJG]

What we experience as change, are all existing "snapshots" of an unchanging block universe.

Snapshots by themselves cannot give us the experience (or illusion) of "change", ...i.e. without the "flipping" of this flipbook of snapshots, there can be no illusion to experience.

Then you took "snapshot" too literally. The block universe contains every moment past present future all at once in one structure.

"Moment" is a 'temporal' word; an increment of time/change. If time/change did not exist, then neither do "moments".

Think of these moments as infinitessimal snapshots in space and time, that are all connected with each other.

Okay, but this still doesn't help any.

Firstly, if we do that, then these snapshot/moments don't exist at all. If we could make each of these snapshots so infinitesimally small so as to remove the component of time/change from it, then we would take them right out of existence. There would be nothing there. These "moments" cannot exist without time/change.

Secondly, it does not matter how small we make a "moment of time", ...it is still "time/change".

In other words, without time/change, not only would there be no-existence of each snapshot, but there would be no way to sequentially connect and playback (or "flip") these snapshots into a temporal illusion.

We can only talk about space, time and change as relative features within the block universe.

But we humans wouldn't be able to talk about the relative-ness of space, time and change in the first place, if the absoluteness of space, time, and change did not first exist!

Denying the existence of change (and therefore Time and Space) means that we deny our own experiences, which is contradictorily non-sensical. It is logically impossible to deny our experiences. For any ('experience' of) denial only affirms the existence of our experiences.

But the block universe as a whole does not change, is spaceless and timeless.

If so, then we (as members of this block universe) would not be having this conversation.

What is illogical is the idea of genuine change, you are taking an illogical stance. Change is an accepted form of magic.

The illogic (self-contradiction) is making this claim if claims can't be made.

Stuff disappears into nothingness, stuff appears out of nothingness, the whole thing is somehow driven in one direction.

Who says "stuff disappears/appears into/from nothingness"? ...that is logically impossible.

I think it is best to base our understanding of reality on simple 'logic' and not on 'bad science' (or 'bad philosophy'). Note: Bad Science = Science that disregards logic.


*****************

Besides, as Scott has argued, Einstein has more or less proven that change in the ordinary sense is an illusion.

Logically there can be no illusion if there is no real change. Einstein cannot defy logic. Logic always trumps Science.

[Atla]

What we experience as change, are all existing "snapshots" of an unchanging block universe.

Snapshots by themselves cannot give us the experience (or illusion) of "change", ...i.e. without the "flipping" of this flipbook of snapshots, there can be no illusion to experience.

Then you took "snapshot" too literally. The block universe contains every moment past present future all at once in one structure.

"Moment" is a 'temporal' word; an increment of time/change. If time/change did not exist, then neither do "moments".

Think of these moments as infinitessimal snapshots in space and time, that are all connected with each other.

Okay, but this still doesn't help any.

Firstly, if we do that, then these snapshot/moments don't exist at all. If we could make each of these snapshots so infinitesimally small so as to remove the component of time/change from it, then we would take them right out of existence. There would be nothing there. These "moments" cannot exist without time/change.

Secondly, it does not matter how small we make a "moment of time", ...it is still "time/change".

In other words, without time/change, not only would there be no-existence of each snapshot, but there would be no way to sequentially connect and playback (or "flip") these snapshots into a temporal illusion.

We can only talk about space, time and change as relative features within the block universe.

But we humans wouldn't be able to talk about the relative-ness of space, time and change in the first place, if the absoluteness of space, time, and change did not first exist!

Denying the existence of change (and therefore Time and Space) means that we deny our own experiences, which is contradictorily non-sensical. It is logically impossible to deny our experiences. For any ('experience' of) denial only affirms the existence of our experiences.

But the block universe as a whole does not change, is spaceless and timeless.

If so, then we (as members of this block universe) would not be having this conversation.

What is illogical is the idea of genuine change, you are taking an illogical stance. Change is an accepted form of magic.

The illogic (self-contradiction) is making this claim if claims can't be made.

Stuff disappears into nothingness, stuff appears out of nothingness, the whole thing is somehow driven in one direction.

Who says "stuff disappears/appears into/from nothingness"? ...that is logically impossible.

I think it is best to base our understanding of reality on simple 'logic' and not on 'bad science' (or 'bad philosophy'). Note: Bad Science = Science that disregards logic.


*****************

Besides, as Scott has argued, Einstein has more or less proven that change in the ordinary sense is an illusion.

Logically there can be no illusion if there is no real change. Einstein cannot defy logic. Logic always trumps Science.

You don't seem to be addressing anything I write. The block universe is a 4 dimensional block of spacetime. You seem to treat it like it was 3 dimensional.

[RJG]

You don't seem to be addressing anything I write. The block universe is a 4 dimensional block of spacetime. You seem to treat it like it was 3 dimensional.

So then you agree with me that "change", and the 4th dimension called Time exist (in the absolute sense) along with the other 3 dimensions? Do you further agree that our view of these dimensions is relative, but their existence is absolute?

[Atla]

You don't seem to be addressing anything I write. The block universe is a 4 dimensional block of spacetime. You seem to treat it like it was 3 dimensional.

So then you agree with me that "change", and the dimension of Time exist (in the absolute sense) along with the other 3 dimensions? Do you further agree that our view of these dimensions is relative, but their existence is absolute?

No, this view was refuted by Einstein and is also logically impossible.

[RJG]

No, this view was refuted by Einstein and is also logically impossible.

1. Einstein can't defy logic.
2. Please show me the logic that contradicts the logical impossibility of X=~X

[Atla]

No, this view was refuted by Einstein and is also logically impossible.

1. Einstein can't defy logic.
2. Please show me the logic that contradicts the logical impossibility of X=~X

Einstein doesn't defy logic. Absolute, one-directional time is the illogical one, several times over: the future appears out of nothing, the present disappears into nothing. And the whole arrow of time business is an arbitrary, asymmetrical direction of existence. The future is different from the past, with nothing to compensate for the difference.

[RJG]

Einstein doesn't defy logic. Absolute, one-directional time is the illogical one, several times over: the future appears out of nothing, the present disappears into nothing. And the whole arrow of time business is an arbitrary, asymmetrical direction of existence. The future is different from the past, with nothing to compensate for the difference.

Whether the arrow of time is forward, backwards, or whatever is irrelevant. Denying the existence of Time (i.e. "change") is logically impossible, as the denial itself relies on its existence.

Anyone, including Einstein, that makes the claim that "claims can't be made" is contradicting themselves. Einstein is part of this 4D block universe. If there is no real change in this universe then Einstein can't do anything. He can't claim change does not exist.

[Atla]

Einstein doesn't defy logic. Absolute, one-directional time is the illogical one, several times over: the future appears out of nothing, the present disappears into nothing. And the whole arrow of time business is an arbitrary, asymmetrical direction of existence. The future is different from the past, with nothing to compensate for the difference.

Whether the arrow of time is forward, backwards, or whatever is irrelevant. Denying the existence of Time (i.e. "change") is logically impossible, as the denial itself relies on its existence.

Ok whatever, this topic requires 4 dimensional thinking, in one sense there is change in another sense there isn't.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

[7] Leftness and rightness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless to ask if Mars is on the left side of the universe or the right side of the universe. Those concepts only have meaning in fictional contexts relative to arbitrary mathematical metaphysical fictions. For instance, one needs to first conceive of a fictional geometric model with an arbitrary fictional origin point and an arbitrary fictional axis (e.g. a Y-axis) with which to relativistically distinguish things as left of that fictional axis or right of that fictional axis. Thus, the relativity of left and right isn't merely a matter of relations between real things (e.g. one pool ball versus another ball), which is a lesser form of relativity, but more deeply than that they are also relative to fictional mathematical constructs such as an imaginary conceived axis and orientation, conceptually projected or imagined in some way. Asking if something is left or right is like asking if Santa gained weight recently, or if he is generous with his gift-giving on Christmas; strictly speaking; it is incoherent and meaningless because such ideas are relative to fictions that vary.

Is that (#18) the first of the 48 numbered statements with which you disagree?

No. The first one I disagree with is [7]. Given the explanation you gave as to how you're using the term "really exist" (the one with the Santa Claus example) I agree that, when used in that sense, mathematical tools/constructs like points, lines and axes do not exist. i.e. they're not extra-mental things or properties of those things. But leftness and rightness are. As I've said, I think you're erroneously conflating relativity (properties that make sense as relationships between extra-mental things) with not existing. Relative properties, such as relative spatial position (such as leftness and rightness), exist in a sense that Santa Claus does not.

Thank you for clarifying. That's very helpful to me for understanding where we diverge.

Indeed, if we cannot agree on #7 and more generally speaking on what leftness and rightness mean, let alone what senses the concepts of left and right refer to objectively real things, then the rest of the would-be argument goes totally off the rails. In other words, if we don't agree on leftness and rightness, certainly we won't agree about timeness and spaceness.

Regarding your reasoning for the alleged falsehood of #7, you mention that "relative spatial position", but I'm not sure I disagree with what you are saying about "relative spatial position" being realer than Santa Claus.

Instead, my point is that rightness and leftness themselves are relative to fictional constructs, such as an imaginary y-axis on a pool table.

Assuming one is not positing consciousness (presumably some kind of metaphysical subjectivity) or what could be called "conscious presence" as some kind of reference-frame-like thing but real, in other words if we just assume for the sake of argument that we are all actually philosophical zombies, then I ask the following question:

Do you agree that it is meaningless to ask if Mars is on the right side of the left side of the universe; that is, without specifying or conceiving of some kind of fictional reference frame? If so, that would be analogous to how it doesn't make sense to ask if a pool ball is on the right side or the left side of the pool table without imagining or conceptually inventing a y-axis or similar imaginary dividing line on the pool table, with the imaginary conceptual line of division being able to be imagined in infinite ways, including but not limited to going from narrow end to narrow end or wide end to wide end or diagonally from a corner pocket to a corner pocket?

Needless to say, that is what is analogous to asking if Santa Claus lives at the North Pole or the South Pole. The question is not meaningless in the context of a fictional reference frame (one in which Santa Claus exists). Similarly, it is not meaningless to ask if a pool ball is on the left or the right of the table within the context of an imaginary y-axis, or a similar conceptual dividing line/frame that is 1D lower than that which is being conceptually dividing into relativistic left and right, which makes the leftness and rightness not just a factor of relative relationships between real things, but more importantly relative to fictional things: namely conceptual made-up imaginary dividing lines/frames.

It's in that sense that I argue that I argue neither fundamental reality nor the universe as a whole has leftness or rightness.

[Terrapin Station]

[7] Leftness and rightness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless to ask if Mars is on the left side of the universe or the right side of the universe. Those concepts only have meaning in fictional contexts relative to arbitrary mathematical metaphysical fictions. For instance, one needs to first conceive of a fictional geometric model with an arbitrary fictional origin point and an arbitrary fictional axis (e.g. a Y-axis) with which to relativistically distinguish things as left of that fictional axis or right of that fictional axis. Thus, the relativity of left and right isn't merely a matter of relations between real things (e.g. one pool ball versus another ball), which is a lesser form of relativity, but more deeply than that they are also relative to fictional mathematical constructs such as an imaginary conceived axis and orientation, conceptually projected or imagined in some way. Asking if something is left or right is like asking if Santa gained weight recently, or if he is generous with his gift-giving on Christmas; strictly speaking; it is incoherent and meaningless because such ideas are relative to fictions that vary.

Is that (#18) the first of the 48 numbered statements with which you disagree?

No. The first one I disagree with is [7]. Given the explanation you gave as to how you're using the term "really exist" (the one with the Santa Claus example) I agree that, when used in that sense, mathematical tools/constructs like points, lines and axes do not exist. i.e. they're not extra-mental things or properties of those things. But leftness and rightness are. As I've said, I think you're erroneously conflating relativity (properties that make sense as relationships between extra-mental things) with not existing. Relative properties, such as relative spatial position (such as leftness and rightness), exist in a sense that Santa Claus does not.

Thank you for clarifying. That's very helpful to me for understanding where we diverge.

Indeed, if we cannot agree on #7 and more generally speaking on what leftness and rightness mean, let alone what senses the concepts of left and right refer to objectively real things, then the rest of the would-be argument goes totally off the rails. In other words, if we don't agree on leftness and rightness, certainly we won't agree about timeness and spaceness.

Regarding your reasoning for the alleged falsehood of #7, you mention that "relative spatial position", but I'm not sure I disagree with what you are saying about "relative spatial position" being realer than Santa Claus.

Instead, my point is that rightness and leftness themselves are relative to fictional constructs, such as an imaginary y-axis on a pool table.

Assuming one is not positing consciousness (presumably some kind of metaphysical subjectivity) or what could be called "conscious presence" as some kind of reference-frame-like thing but real, in other words if we just assume for the sake of argument that we are all actually philosophical zombies, then I ask the following question:

Do you agree that it is meaningless to ask if Mars is on the right side of the left side of the universe; that is, without specifying or conceiving of some kind of fictional reference frame? If so, that would be analogous to how it doesn't make sense to ask if a pool ball is on the right side or the left side of the pool table without imagining or conceptually inventing a y-axis or similar imaginary dividing line on the pool table, with the imaginary conceptual line of division being able to be imagined in infinite ways, including but not limited to going from narrow end to narrow end or wide end to wide end or diagonally from a corner pocket to a corner pocket?

Needless to say, that is what is analogous to asking if Santa Claus lives at the North Pole or the South Pole. The question is not meaningless in the context of a fictional reference frame (one in which Santa Claus exists). Similarly, it is not meaningless to ask if a pool ball is on the left or the right of the table within the context of an imaginary y-axis, or a similar conceptual dividing line/frame that is 1D lower than that which is being conceptually dividing into relativistic left and right, which makes the leftness and rightness not just a factor of relative relationships between real things, but more importantly relative to fictional things: namely conceptual made-up imaginary dividing lines/frames.

It's in that sense that I argue that I argue neither fundamental reality nor the universe as a whole has leftness or rightness.

"Is Mars on the left or right side of the universe" makes no sense.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't objective relations a la "that elm is to the left of that oak from reference 'point' R." You'd have to better explain why you'd think that there aren't real(/objective/extramental) relations of that sort.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Scott

Alan Watts said that the godhead can't know itself just like light does not illuminate itself and a knife doesn't cut itself. The way I like to say it is this: even when we look in a mirror, the unfathomably beautiful essence is still always clothed in form. But yet maybe we can have some small rough indirect sense of the infinitely beautiful nakedness underneath.

Would you say then that noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles) and dianoia (discursive thought) are really complimentary?

I think that's fair to say, yes.

Consider beauty as a veil. As an atheist, Richard Feynman seeks to explore fragments while Simone Weil ponders the wholeness beauty conceals

Wholeness and fragments. Is there any reason why one side should attack the other as so often happens? Yet it happens. Is there any reason why a person cannot strive to experience Platonic forms yet at the same time put partial truths or fragments into a higher perspective. It seems to me that if our species could learn to do this, machines would serve Man rather than Man serving machines as happening now.

I agree.

Two scientists who that I think had a balanced spiritual approach to life include Albert Einstein and Max Planck. I think their metascientific, spiritual, philosophical and/or religious sides complimented their approach to the effable and sharable sciences.

"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" ~ Richard P. Feynman

"Beauty is the only finality here below. As Kant said very aptly, it is a finality which involves no objective. A beautiful thing involves no good except itself, in its totality, as it appears to us. We are drawn toward it without knowing what to ask of it. It offers its own existence. We do not desire something else, we possess it, and yet we still desire something. We do not know in the least what it is. We want to get behind beauty, but it is only a surface. It is like a mirror that sends us back our own desire for goodness. It is a sphinx, an enigma, a mystery which is painfully tantalizing. We should like to feed upon it, but it is only something to look at; it appears only from a certain distance. The great trouble in human life is that looking and eating are two different operations. Only beyond the sky, in the country inhabited by God, are they one and the same operation. ... It may be that vice, depravity and crime are nearly always ... in their essence, attempts to eat beauty, to eat what we should only look at." ~ Simone Weil

Two great quotes! Thank you for sharing! I especially like Weil's comments about humans wanting to feed on beauty when it is only something to be looked at. While Simone is a bit more gentle in wording it, I might instead say greedy humans tend to foolishly want to feed on beauty thereby sacrificing their chance to more truly and fully appreciate it.

I've heard more than one wise person say that to love is very different than to own. For that reason, generally speaking, even in the sense of me being a specific conscious human being (versus arguably not really being this one little human avatar at all), I seek to let go and unpossessively consciously appreciate as much as reasonably possible.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

[1] A 0D point is a mathematical construct.

[2] 0D points do not really exist.

If you can tell me which is the first of the 48 numbered statements with which you disagree, I think it will help me understand the exact nature and context of your objection to the argument in the OP.

To start with I disagree with #2 and the subsequent similar statements --it's not that those mathematical constructs don't exist, it's that they don't exist, at least not with any semantic content attached, as some objective/something external to minds.

I'm not sure what you mean by minds in that context, let alone externality in relation to those minds, but if you are talking about conscious minds (i.e. consciousness or what could be called conscious presents), then I point you to the last three paragraphs of the original post, which appear under the label, "Important Clarification about Consciousness".

Otherwise, if you disagree with #2 then of course you will almost certainly not agree with the rest of the numbered statements, either because our initial beliefs (i.e. premises) are too utterly different, our terminology is utterly different, or both. In short, I concede that time is as real as a 0D point.

[Nick_A]

Hi Scott

I've heard more than one wise person say that to love is very different than to own. For that reason, generally speaking, even in the sense of me being a specific conscious human being (versus arguably not really being this one little human avatar at all), I seek to let go and unpossessively consciously appreciate as much as reasonably possible.

This question could provoke the zombies as you call them but it is obvious you are not so limited. A lot of young people look in on these sites but do not participate. Yet understanding coming from an administrator could be meaningful for them if they have ever endured "metaphysical repression." Jacob Needleman explains:

https://www.conversations.org/story.php?sid=1

I remember I was a freshman at Harvard, in one of my first philosophy classes there. The professor started by asking—like I do sometimes, like professors do—what do you expect to get out of philosophy? I put up my hand and said, "I want to know why I'm living, why we die. Does God exist? What are we here for?" I went on an on like that, and I could see around me that there was this silence. My throat got dry, and I just felt awful. At first I'd thought that I was going to speak for the whole human race. And the professor, of course, was saying, "Yes. Go on." He knew he had one. Finally I just couldn't go on any more. Then he said, "Yes. But you see, that's not philosophy. If you want to know those things, you have to see a psychiatrist or a priest. This is not philosophy." It was such a shock.

I recovered quite well, but I had to find a few other people who shared my hunger. It is the hunger you're speaking of. That is what Plato called eros—a word that's come down to us which has taken on a sexual association. But for Plato it had to do, in part, with a striving that is innate in us, a striving to participate with one's mind, one's consciousness, in something greater than oneself. A love of wisdom, if you like, a love of being.

Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy often translates the word "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.

I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.

My students at SF State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.

RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

JN: It's what I call metaphysical repression. It's in our culture and It's much worse than sexual repression. It represses eros and I think that maybe that's where art can be of help sometimes. Some art............................

It seems the first thing wanted in universities and philosophy sites should be to encourage freedom from metaphysical repression. Can you imagine being a kid who when told to answer questions represses the great questions of the heart. It is a psychological danger in our culture and what we can do to convince these kids they re normal