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

[Steve3007]

...you are saying on the one hand, propositions are objective truths...

viewtopic.php?p=395357#p395357

I don't know why you keep telling people that they've said the opposite of what they've said. If you're not willing to deal with anything else I've said, could you at least settle my curiosity on that one?

[Belindi]

Just as space measures the distance between objects, time measures the distance between events, intra and inter. Both time and space operate as distance paradigms.

Expressively and evocatively put.

I agree Pattern-chaser, they are both measurements. But they are psychologically different because you can go backwards in space but you can't go backwards in time.

That seems unfair. We assign to space, as we understand it, three dimensions through which we are free to move in any direction. We assign to time, as we understand it, less than one dimension. By this I mean we assign one dimension, through which we are free to move in one direction (and at one velocity) only.

Psychologically, we 'live' our lives more in our minds, and within the cocoon of human culture, than we do in the physical world. In our mental 'world' we can move back in time through memory, and also move in space. Theoretically, we can explore Alpha Centauri in space; in practice, we can only do this in our minds.

I definitely do NOT disagree that our psychological view of space and time is different. But this merely reflects the difference between these two concepts. If we separate and compare them, we end up confused. The two are inextricably connected, as Einstein illustrated. This might be better expressed, therefore, as "spacetime", as opposed to "space" ... and "time". If we do that, we end up looking at both at the same time, and avoid the misleading confusion caused by considering them in isolation.

So what is our psychological view on 'spacetime'?

I forgot that space is three dimensional and time only one.
I do remember that Einstein showed they are inextricably connected.

In view of your corrections I'd say that our psychological view on spacetime, if we want to stay alive, is that it is life-affirming to accept change, and unhealthy to yearn overmuch for spacetime that is accomplished and done. The psychological view is the only view available because nobody can shed their subjective status and become disembodied and unrelated to environment.

[3017Metaphysician]

...you are saying on the one hand, propositions are objective truths...

viewtopic.php?p=395357#p395357

I don't know why you keep telling people that they've said the opposite of what they've said. If you're not willing to deal with anything else I've said, could you at least settle my curiosity on that one?

Steve!

For the time being, (no pun intended) if you want, you could try to answer/or respond to the last post to TS, if that works for you. That might be a way to kill two birds with one stone relative to mathematics, objectivity and paradox... ! There's much more we haven't got to yet, but that particular discourse has yet to be vetted. No worries though, I'm patient

I'll go back through our thread... , but one glaring omission...did you ever answer the question about calculus and measuring the 'now'?

[Steve3007]

I'll go back through our thread... , but one glaring omission...did you ever answer the question about calculus and measuring the 'now'?

Read some posts Meta.

[3017Metaphysician]

I'll go back through our thread... , but one glaring omission...did you ever answer the question about calculus and measuring the 'now'?

Read some posts Meta.

Steve!

Would you like me to re-state the questions you avoided thus far?

[Steve3007]

Before of after reading the relevant posts?

[JackDaydream]

@3017Metaphysican
One aspect which I don't think that you have considered about the question of time being an illusion is what is an 'illusion'? I am not sure that it is simply a matter of what is objective or subjective because it is not as if one must be real and the other as not real. Illusion is about a matter of perspectives and different images and different from delusions. I feel that the nature of time is interconnected with perception, and it is bound up with all aspects of physical and psychological existence and that thinking about it involves looking at on this level. Of course, measurement of time has important objective aspects but even then, thinking about time and the illusions is more about being able to see outwards from the subjective to the objective, rather split up subjectivity and objectivity into two distinct categories.

[3017Metaphysician]

Before of after reading the relevant posts?

Steve!

I'll be happy to re-state the particular questions you avoided, after I thoroughly vet TS's posts. In the meantime, consider running the mathematical formula associated with your previous calculus argument, (then translate that into the human calibration of change-time). That way you could make a better case in answering the question of what is considered a 'slice of now' (past, present, future). Also, at a glance, if you would like to resolve the tautological paradox, feel free to do so... .

I think those might-could strengthen your arguments and help support your case (that you're trying to make). Just an observation.

[Steve3007]

I'll be happy to re-state the particular questions you avoided, after I thoroughly vet TS's posts.

But not after reading my posts eh? Great stuff.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure. (I noticed much like Steve you didn't answer the previous questions(s).

Right. As I said above, I wanted to "break this down into something simpler so we can understand the different views."

You had written, "You said no objective thing is abstract. Mathematics' are abstract things that are objective."

So, as explained above, my view is actually what I explained as "Person B:"

"Mathematics is merely a way that people think about the world. Mathematical objects and mathematical statements do not exist as mathematical objects and statements in the world itself, independently of our thinking. If there were no people, there would be no mathematics, because there would be no one to think about anything that way."

So on my view, mathematics isn't something both objective and abstract--because it's not objective.

By the way, when I said "period" in my earlier post, it wasn't an "appeal to authority." It's a way to indicate that on my view, there are no exceptions. (So, for example, there would be no need to keep asking, "But what about this?" "But what about that?" etc.--there are no exceptions in my view.)

Re "Person B has . . . the burden to explain/describe the transcendental/metaphysical quality of abstract mathematical structures in the mind from conscious existence." It wouldn't be clear to me what you're even getting at re "metaphysical qualities," and I wouldn't say that anything is "transcendent." If you're just using "transcendent" to mean "objective," which it seems like maybe you were doing, then obviously, again, on my view, mathematics isn't objective.

I'm cutting this off here to make sure that we have all of this straight before we move on.

[3017Metaphysician]

@3017Metaphysican
One aspect which I don't think that you have considered about the question of time being an illusion is what is an 'illusion'? I am not sure that it is simply a matter of what is objective or subjective because it is not as if one must be real and the other as not real. Illusion is about a matter of perspectives and different images and different from delusions. I feel that the nature of time is interconnected with perception, and it is bound up with all aspects of physical and psychological existence and that thinking about it involves looking at on this level. Of course, measurement of time has important objective aspects but even then, thinking about time and the illusions is more about being able to see outwards from the subjective to the objective, rather split up subjectivity and objectivity into two distinct categories.

JD!

Great question. I'm thinking we would need to start at the basic level relative to the logic of language:

Illusion: a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.

Some simple/fun questions involve:

What causes time to elapse more quickly when one is saturated with cognitive activity.
What causes time to elapse more quickly as one ages.
What causes time to elapse more slowly when bored.
What causes time to elapse more quickly when dreaming/sleeping.
So on and so forth...

Although this phenomena is more subjective (the observer's perspective can change 'relative' to the situation) than objective, it does relate to 'relativity' (What causes time to slow when speeding up). Alternatively, ( as you hinted) one could consider 'all that is perceived by the senses' in order to arrive at some kind of paradox that relates to time and change. For instance (generally speaking), if time is just a human calibration of change (clocks), and time becomes only 'relative' physically, (physical theories/relativity/special relativity), time also becomes some sort of subjective illusion or an arbitrary calibration of change depending on the observer perspective (who has the subjective experience of change/time).

To that end, I would recommend reviewing the basics of Einstein's relativity & block universe theories... . The takeaway is that the existence of Time is just a 'theory' full of paradox associated with temporal change. Cosmologically, it's kind of like asking what is the difference between time and eternity.

[3017Metaphysician]

Sure. (I noticed much like Steve you didn't answer the previous questions(s).

Right. As I said above, I wanted to "break this down into something simpler so we can understand the different views."

You had written, "You said no objective thing is abstract. Mathematics' are abstract things that are objective."

So, as explained above, my view is actually what I explained as "Person B:"

"Mathematics is merely a way that people think about the world. Mathematical objects and mathematical statements do not exist as mathematical objects and statements in the world itself, independently of our thinking. If there were no people, there would be no mathematics, because there would be no one to think about anything that way."

So on my view, mathematics isn't something both objective and abstract--because it's not objective.

By the way, when I said "period" in my earlier post, it wasn't an "appeal to authority." It's a way to indicate that on my view, there are no exceptions. (So, for example, there would be no need to keep asking, "But what about this?" "But what about that?" etc.--there are no exceptions in my view.)

Re "Person B has . . . the burden to explain/describe the transcendental/metaphysical quality of abstract mathematical structures in the mind from conscious existence." It wouldn't be clear to me what you're even getting at re "metaphysical qualities," and I wouldn't say that anything is "transcendent." If you're just using "transcendent" to mean "objective," which it seems like maybe you were doing, then obviously, again, on my view, mathematics isn't objective.

I'm cutting this off here to make sure that we have all of this straight before we move on.

TS!

Well you didn't answer all my questions, again. Let me start with the basic 'objective'' question that relates to paradox, third request:

3017 Metaphysician: What Terrapin Station is about to say is false.
Terrapin Station: Metaphysician 3017 has just spoken truly.

Which statement is true ?


Secondly, you didn't reconcile the paradox between mathematics being an objective truth (tautologies), yet subjectively real and metaphysically abstract. Did you?

(With respect to appeal to authority, I could not find where your 'exceptions' supported your conclusions. It was more or less, 'because you said so' with no objective reasoning or justification.)

Anyway, try those two problems and answer which statement is true, as well as reconciling your statements about 'Objectivity'.

Thanks TS!

[3017Metaphysician]

I'll be happy to re-state the particular questions you avoided, after I thoroughly vet TS's posts.

But not after reading my posts eh? Great stuff.

Don't be afraid of yourself Steve! LOL

Tell yourself; I'm good enough, smart enough, and daggonit, some people like me

[Terrapin Station]

Well you didn't answer all my questions, again.

Holy cow. Yes, I just explained that I did that on purpose. I want to tackle one thing at a time to make sure that we understand it and don't have to go over it again.

3017 Metaphysician: What Terrapin Station is about to say is false.
Terrapin Station: Metaphysician 3017 has just spoken truly.

Which statement is true ?

What this has to do with anything else we were talking about I don't know. I don't consider it a paradox, because there's not really any content to it. "What TS is about to say" isn't a claim about something that can be true or false. What is capable of being true or false is a statement claiming that something is the case re states of affairs. There needs to be something predicated of something, so we need to name the thing and then we need to make a claim about a property it has or does not have. If we don't do that, we can't have a truth value. The truth value itself can't be what we're predicating of something, because truth value is an issue of whether a predicated property obtains or not--true/false is the judgment about whether the property obtains. "What TS is about to say" isn't predicating a property of anything, it's instead specifying what we'd predicate a property about, but we never got to that part.

Again, I'm not addressing anything else unless it's clear we understand the above and we'd not need to go over it again. One thing at a time. You can write as much as you like, but I'm only addressing one thing at a time.

[Terrapin Station]

Just to illustrate a different way, it's like if we said, "The cat is true" or "The cat is false."

There's no content there, because "The cat" isn't the sort of thing that can be true or false. We need to say something about the cat in order to have something that can be true or false, like "The cat is three-legged" or "The cat is a Persian."

" . . . is true" and ". . . is false" only work when they follow a statement that can be true or false, a la "'The cat is three-legged' is false." You can't just say, "The cat is false." "The cat" isn't a proposition. And propositions are what are true or false.