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

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

TS!

Not correct. They are tautologies. Tautologies, as you may know, are true statements/propositions true by definition. They are also a priori like mathematical truths. You know, like Kantian pure reason/analytical truths. In his case, it's similar to the liar's paradox, but something completely different, which is what you need to resolve to strengthen your case about paradox generally. And so please resolve, fourth request:

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

Which statement is true ?

[Tegularius]

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.

You can call it psychological if you like, but that doesn't explain very much except our perception of it, which, not least, depends a lot on one's state of consciousness. It's entropy which causes time to move in one direction only...also called the arrow of time. Being the agent of change moving forward, ...much of it not in our favor (call it free will limited by direction) time would have a far greater psychological impact than space.

[JackDaydream]

@3017Metaphysican

I think that it may be going too far to see 'time' entirely as a subjective illusion because it involves shared experience of what happens in life. For example, in talking about different experiences of an event, there is a frame of reference of what happened at a certain moment or period of time. However, there may be distortions according to the subjective states of individuals, especially when people experience heightened states of consciousness, especially in extremely difficult life experiences.it is possible to feel as if time is speeding up or slowing down in various states of mind ranging sadness to boredom or in the midst of the most ecstatic of moments.

I think that one aspect of how the subjective aspect is played out in the experiences encoded within memories, and I think that this can be an area of distortion, and it is interesting that different individuals can recall what happened differently in specific situations. Also, some people seem to be able to recall so much, like early childhood experiences whereas other people cannot do so in such a clear way,. It may be connected to the nature of attention, and the stream of consciousness itself, and how these are played back in memories, and even worked upon in autobiographical narrative of personal identity.

[Terrapin Station]

Not correct. They are tautologies. Tautologies, as you may know, are true statements/propositions true by definition.

There's no problem with something being a tautology, but in order for a proposition to be a tautology, it needs to be a proposition. "What TS is about to say" isn't a proposition, just like "Cat" isn't. Again, what we're predicating of something in a proposition can't itself be a truth-value, because what truth-value is in the first place is a judgment about the way a proposition relates to something else. If we don't have a proposition, we can't make a judgment about how it relates to something else.

So, "What TS is about to say" isn't true or false. "What TS is about to say is false" is incoherent, because "is false" needs to be about a proposition, and "What TS is about to say" isn't a proposition. "is false" and "is true" are only coherent when they're asserted about a proposition.

Do you understand why this is so? If you don't understand it, then we need to break it down to simpler steps to aid in understanding.

[Terrapin Station]

You can have "is true/is false" as part of a proposition, by the way, but only if it's something that's a proposition without "is true/is false."

So, for example, "The cat on the mat is true" is a proposition, but only because "The cat is on the mat" is a proposition. You can't have "The cat is true" as a proposition, because "The cat" isn't a proposition.

[3017Metaphysician]

Not correct. They are tautologies. Tautologies, as you may know, are true statements/propositions true by definition.

There's no problem with something being a tautology, but in order for a proposition to be a tautology, it needs to be a proposition. "What TS is about to say" isn't a proposition, just like "Cat" isn't. Again, what we're predicating of something in a proposition can't itself be a truth-value, because what truth-value is in the first place is a judgment about the way a proposition relates to something else. If we don't have a proposition, we can't make a judgment about how it relates to something else.

So, "What TS is about to say" isn't true or false. "What TS is about to say is false" is incoherent, because "is false" needs to be about a proposition, and "What TS is about to say" isn't a proposition. "is false" and "is true" are only coherent when they're asserted about a proposition.

Do you understand why this is so? If you don't understand it, then we need to break it down to simpler steps to aid in understanding.

TS!

The word "cat" is obviously not a statement of self-reference.

Just an observation, and don't take this the wrong way, but logic does not seem to be in your wheelhouse. That explanation is sounding more like a bit of a non sequitur. Based on this particular subject then, are we to conclude that you are basically unable to identify a simple proposition of self-reference that seems indeterminate? Would a proposition like the liars paradox be easier for you to make such determination?

Anyway, I'll keep asking. I hope you're not throwing in the towel already (?). I mean we haven't even gotten to Time yet TS, and you seem to be struggling with basic logic. Let me see if you've answered the other question about Subjectivity/Objectivity and how that relates to truth and the nature of other existence things...

[Terrapin Station]

That explanation is sounding more like a bit of a non sequitur.

So you're not quite understanding it, and we need to break it down into simpler steps. Can you tell me specifically in my explanation where it starts not being clear to you?

[Terrapin Station]

To make it easier, I'll suggest two things that may be causing confusion:

Do you understand that a proposition has forward a predication (posit properties) of or about something?

And do you understand that truth value is a judgment about how a proposition connects with something else (such as states of affairs if we're using correspondence theory)?

[Belindi]

Teguarius wrote:

You can call it psychological if you like, but that doesn't explain very much except our perception of it, which, not least, depends a lot on one's state of consciousness. It's entropy which causes time to move in one direction only...also called the arrow of time. Being the agent of change moving forward, ...much of it not in our favor (call it free will limited by direction) time would have a far greater psychological impact than space.

Time is psychological because like all other concepts it is created by minds. Everything is mind stuff.

True, it depends on state of consciousness, and waking awareness is the state of consciousness that is the most accomplished creator better than dreaming consciousness or hallucinatory consciousness.

I understand the materialist, physicalistic, ontology as I once held to it.

[JackDaydream]

@Belinda

I think the important point you raise is that it is the conceptual grasp of time which is realised psychologically, as the connection between experience and reality 'out there' in the way we experience past, present and future in the sequence of events. One way of seeing this is the idea which goes back to Plato, of the microcosm and the macrocosm, with the psychological realisation being the way 'time' is an awareness of events in the microcosm of human experience.

[3017Metaphysician]

That explanation is sounding more like a bit of a non sequitur.

So you're not quite understanding it, and we need to break it down into simpler steps. Can you tell me specifically in my explanation where it starts not being clear to you?

TS!

Sure! Let's break it down. Provide your basic understanding of the following:

1. A Paradox
2. Self-referential statements
3. Tautologies
4. Truth value
5. Analytic a priori
6. A Contradiction

Based on your reply (or non-reply), we can determine whether it's fruitful to continue with any level of discourse.

Thanks TS!

[Terrapin Station]

That explanation is sounding more like a bit of a non sequitur.

So you're not quite understanding it, and we need to break it down into simpler steps. Can you tell me specifically in my explanation where it starts not being clear to you?

TS!

Sure! Let's break it down. Provide your basic understanding of the following:

1. A Paradox
2. Self-referential statements
3. Tautologies
4. Truth value
5. Analytic a priori
6. A Contradiction

Based on your reply (or non-reply), we can determine whether it's fruitful to continue with any level of discourse.

Thanks TS!

Why are you completely ignoring what I'm asking you?

[3017Metaphysician]

That explanation is sounding more like a bit of a non sequitur.

So you're not quite understanding it, and we need to break it down into simpler steps. Can you tell me specifically in my explanation where it starts not being clear to you?

TS!

Sure! Let's break it down. Provide your basic understanding of the following:

1. A Paradox
2. Self-referential statements
3. Tautologies
4. Truth value
5. Analytic a priori
6. A Contradiction

Based on your reply (or non-reply), we can determine whether it's fruitful to continue with any level of discourse.

Thanks TS!

Why are you completely ignoring what I'm asking you?

Does that mean you don't understand paradox, amongst the other things?
LOL

[Steve3007]

Does that mean you don't understand paradox, amongst the other things?
LOL

What do you get out of this kind of thing Meta?

I mean: You don't accept something about what someone has told you. They ask you which part of it you have the problem with. You ignore the question and ask a whole load more questions (which we know will just follow that same pattern if answered). They ask you why you're ignoring the question. You reply with a "ha ha you're stupid!" kind of jibe.

Why? How does that do it for you? You're far from unique in doing this kind of thing. (There was a very similar poster who kept this up for quite a long time but who hasn't been here for a while now.). But of all the posters who do this, it's never entirely clear to me what they get out of it, other than being able to tell themselves that they're the, so to speak, king of the castle.

[Terrapin Station]

So you're not quite understanding it, and we need to break it down into simpler steps. Can you tell me specifically in my explanation where it starts not being clear to you?

TS!

Sure! Let's break it down. Provide your basic understanding of the following:

1. A Paradox
2. Self-referential statements
3. Tautologies
4. Truth value
5. Analytic a priori
6. A Contradiction

Based on your reply (or non-reply), we can determine whether it's fruitful to continue with any level of discourse.

Thanks TS!

Why are you completely ignoring what I'm asking you?

Does that mean you don't understand paradox, amongst the other things?
LOL

If you won't answer a question, this isn't exactly a conversation.