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

[Terrapin Station]

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.

Without going into too much detail, my suspicion is that there are some people interested in back and forth interaction in topics like this who unfortunately aren't comfortable with it if they're not completely in control at all times, I suspect due to feeling like they've tread into territory where they lack confidence in their knowledge/abilities, so they're kind of paranoid at the notion of becoming "trapped" or having the rug pulled out from under them or simply losing face. That leads to avoiding answering questions, and it leads to posting in a manner that can resemble a telemarketing script.

It's frustrating to me, because ultimately I prefer approaching philosophical interaction as if we're doing a Socratic dialogue--which is why I prefer chatting, because doing a Socratic dialogue on a message board is laborious. My aim isn't to "trap" anyone, it's just to explore different views and to encourage everyone to think about the implications of those views more, while taking the opportunity to better shore up their own stance in the light of objections to it, so that those objections won't be the same sort of problem for their stance in the future.

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

Steve!

Rather than digress towards a type of extraneous narrative that would only serve to highlight the lack of reciprocity (amongst other things), in following along, you might say we are navigating through the discovery phase of discourse. We'll see if TS can step up to the plate... .

Now, if you prefer to pinch-hit for TS, by all means, please feel free to jump in... !

BTW STeve, since you're chiming in, were you ever able to develop a mathematical formula that precludes paradox relative to 'the now'?

Thanks!

[Pattern-chaser]

It's entropy which causes time to move in one direction only...also called the arrow of time.

I think perhaps looking for the 'cause' of time moving as we observe it to move is a tad ambitious. And, whatever the 'cause', our perception remains. That, and we don't know how to move along the time axis of the 'graph' in any direction other than the one we observe, or at any 'velocity' other than the one it seems to adopt. Looking for causes should probably wait until our understanding of what time is is improved...?

[Pattern-chaser]

...

If you won't address other posters' questions, I rather think you give up the expectation that they will address yours, don't you?

[Steve3007]

It's entropy which causes time to move in one direction only...also called the arrow of time.

I think perhaps looking for the 'cause' of time moving as we observe it to move is a tad ambitious. And, whatever the 'cause', our perception remains. That, and we don't know how to move along the time axis of the 'graph' in any direction other than the one we observe, or at any 'velocity' other than the one it seems to adopt. Looking for causes should probably wait until our understanding of what time is is improved...?

So instead, I guess we could say that the physical quantity known as entropy is described by the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics contain irreversible processes. So those laws describe the "arrow of time".

It's been discussed in more detail in a few previous topics. E.g:
viewtopic.php?p=345848#p345848

As I said in an earlier post in this topic, I've always found this notion that the directionality of time is a statistical phenomenon intriguing. That's why it was my answer to point 7 in the OP.

[Terrapin Station]

highlight the lack of reciprocity

Which requires being both capable of and willing to answer questions one asks you.

[3017Metaphysician]

...

If you won't address other posters' questions, I rather think you give up the expectation that they will address yours, don't you?

PC!

For the record, both Steve/TC , have equivocated at the onset. It's a shame I know. (Feel free to read through all the questions they were unable to answer in support of their belief... .) I suppose it's just another rhetorical device (a political statement/red herring) that was intended for trolling purposes and to pivot when necessary in order to save face (Ad hoc). An example was at the get-go they both did one-liner's with no logical support. And when I called them out on it (TS's appeal to authority fallacy), they pivoted.

Overall, I'm thinking it was some sort of emotional response, not exactly sure what's driving it (unfortunately based on their 'acquiescence' in the 'Atheism is not logical' thread it's entirely possible). Anyway, I've seen it all before and call it out where appropriate. The irony is that during normal discourse when one ignores, or has to distract, during the tough questioning part (to support their position), they do so for obvious reasons...you know, it only serves as an acquiescence by silence. LOL

Since it's my OP, I'll be vigilant in pointing out the logical fallacies and more, for revelatory purposes...after all, we are all just seekers of the truth. But like the perception of time itself (as TS alluded), truth can be quite a subjective confabulation of words

But don't take my word for it:

Ad hoc fallacy is a fallacious rhetorical strategy in which a person presents a new explanation – that is unjustified or simply unreasonable – of why their original belief or hypothesis is correct after evidence that contradicts the previous explanation has emerged.

As such, it’s an attempt to protect one’s claim from any potential refutations and thus preserve their existing beliefs. Furthermore, the explanation is specifically constructed to be used in a particular case and is created hastily at the moment rather than being the result of deliberate, fact-based reasoning.


I'll still leave the invite open for TS/Steve to explore the basic discursive discovery process, but I can bet they'll decline for the foregoing reasons. I hope I'm wrong. Again, as TS alluded to, emotions are powerful!!

[PoeticUniverse]

It's a shame I know.

Rather an illusion of a response, plus now they have to hang their heads in the shame and blame of it all.

[Tegularius]

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.

Of course that's obviously true, but that wasn't the point. My point was simply that the state of consciousness determines that affective rate at which time passes, not its so-called statistical ones, of which we're all familiar. The mystery, if one may call it that, lies in the experience of time retreating under any intense magnification of consciousness, almost as if one were unconscious of the usual passing moments not unlike reaching a certain quantum state of awareness in which time has little or no meaning. In short, it's the ability of cognizance at any human maximum to impede time as a psychological experience for as long as it can be maintained.

Hallucinatory or dreaming consciousness also manifest different time perspectives on a psychological scale, which, in both cases, is not only true for humans. If I remember correctly, according to The Bardo Thodol the most extreme moments of enlightened concentration occur immediately upon and after death which supposedly determine one's next life if not enlightened enough to reach that ultimate moment of insight avoiding further rebirth.

[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.

Of course that's obviously true, but that wasn't the point. My point was simply that the state of consciousness determines that affective rate at which time passes, not its so-called statistical ones, of which we're all familiar. The mystery, if one may call it that, lies in the experience of time retreating under any intense magnification of consciousness, almost as if one were unconscious of the usual passing moments not unlike reaching a certain quantum state of awareness in which time has little or no meaning. In short, it's the ability of cognizance at any human maximum to impede time as a psychological experience for as long as it can be maintained.

Hallucinatory or dreaming consciousness also manifest different time perspectives on a psychological scale, which, in both cases, is not only true for humans. If I remember correctly, according to The Bardo Thodol the most extreme moments of enlightened concentration occur immediately upon and after death which supposedly determine one's next life if not enlightened enough to reach that ultimate moment of insight avoiding further rebirth.

Perceived rate of change bears out the idealist's stance that time , in the above case, duration,is mind dependent.

Thus Romeo's duration with Juliet was too short, and the horse pulling the tumbril is too sprightly for the woman who is being carted to the gallows.

I had to look up The Bardo Thodol so thanks for the introduction!

According to Tibetan tradition, in the bardo, an 'intermediate state' in the endless round of birth and death, we are free for an instant from that round.

That near death experience is ecstatic isn't it?

Origin
late Middle English (in ecstasy (sense 2)): from Old French extasie, via late Latin from Greek ekstasis ‘standing outside oneself’, based on ek- ‘out’ + histanai ‘to place’.

The etymological origin becomes extended to mean 'exalted in affect or mood'. It is tempting to put this down to endomorphins but for an absolute idealist endomorphins and all physiology is mind dependent. I gather that traditional Indian philosophy is much like western idealism.

[Terrapin Station]

. . . and I see you're done with even the pretense that you might be willing to have a conversation.

[Steve3007]

Perceived rate of change bears out the idealist's stance that time , in the above case, duration,is mind dependent.

Thus Romeo's duration with Juliet was too short, and the horse pulling the tumbril is too sprightly for the woman who is being carted to the gallows.

Yes, this is the rate at which time is perceived, based on what's going on in the mind of the perceiver, that I was referring to in my reply to 3017Metaphysician's question: "Can you explain why the perception of time changes?".

If there were literally no measures of time other than our personal estimate of how much has passed, without reference to any external "clocks" (using that word in its general sense), then I guess we could regard time as a subjective phenomenon. (Difficult to imagine what a world like that would be like!). But the fact that those extra-mental "clocks" exist means that time is an objective phenomenon. But it's also a local phenomenon, because it's what real "clocks", at specific spatial locations, moving at specific velocities relative to other real "clocks", measure. Not a real universal, as Newton's worldview had us believe.

[Belindi]

Perceived rate of change bears out the idealist's stance that time , in the above case, duration,is mind dependent.

Thus Romeo's duration with Juliet was too short, and the horse pulling the tumbril is too sprightly for the woman who is being carted to the gallows.

Yes, this is the rate at which time is perceived, based on what's going on in the mind of the perceiver, that I was referring to in my reply to 3017Metaphysician's question: "Can you explain why the perception of time changes?".

If there were literally no measures of time other than our personal estimate of how much has passed, without reference to any external "clocks" (using that word in its general sense), then I guess we could regard time as a subjective phenomenon. (Difficult to imagine what a world like that would be like!). But the fact that those extra-mental "clocks" exist means that time is an objective phenomenon. But it's also a local phenomenon, because it's what real "clocks", at specific spatial locations, moving at specific velocities relative to other real "clocks", measure. Not a real universal, as Newton's worldview had us believe.

Objective phenomena really do exist. Phenomena are subjective experience's relations with their environments of other subjective experiences. NB for a panpsychist /idealist , for other subjects read also inanimate subjects.
All clocks from the Greenwich mean time clock to the incubation period of covid are arbitrary criteria of durations. We should beware of clocks that are artefacts as these are often set to coerce and enslave.

[Steve3007]

Objective phenomena really do exist. Phenomena are a subjective experience's relations with its environment of other subjective experiences.NB for a panpsychist /idealist , for other subjects read also inanimate subjects.

Ah, just to be clear: I use the word "phenomenon/phenomena" just to mean a thing that happens. I don't use it to mean "a subjective experience's relations...". Whether I'm right to do that, I'm not sure. But that's how I use it. So when I referred to "local phenomena" I just meant "stuff that happens locally".

[Atla]

Hello Philosophers!

I'm not sure whether this subject matter has been vetted before, but was thinking about some fun questions about the paradox(s) of Time:

Time refers to many things, here maybe one should first look at the difference between intuitive "Newtonian"/"Kantian" absolute time, and counterintuitive "Einsteinian" relative time.

1. When we travel from east coast to west, why don't you get to have back the lost time?

Absolute time doesn't exist, so we can't have amounts of it or lose amounts of it either.

2. Is the Twin Paradox really a paradox, and can it be resolved?

It's only a paradox of absolute time, it's simply how relative time works.

3. What is considered 'present' time (how big of a slice of time represents ' the now' )?

Relative time has no slices, "now" has no extension in relative time. More like "now" can be seen as a point in spacetime.
(Which is not to be confused with "now" as the "eternal present", two different things that may co-occur.)

4. Is Time itself a metaphysical feature or quality of existence, and/or reality?

Relative time is a real way how the observable universe behaves.

5. Is time just a human calibration (clocks) of change?

No, it's a real way how the observable universe behaves. And there's no reason to think why "change" couldn't also happen outside time, outside our observable world, change may exist that has nothing to do with time.

But I don't think the arrow of time and relative time are the same thing either, they seem to be two co-occuring behaviours. In the observable universe, relative time usually changes in the direction of increasing entropy, which is the arrow of time. Usually, because it's a statistical behaviour.

6. Are unchanging truths like mathematical truths paradoxical vis-à-vis a contingent/determinate world of causation?

Don't know, are there even unchanging truths? Maybe in a universe with different physics, mathematics would also be different. Maybe our universe will change, and our mathemathics will change with it.