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

[Belindi]

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".

To quote your previous post

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.:

How could time as duration be an objective phenomenon and also be not a real universal?

[Steve3007]

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.

(I didn't see this bit before. You've got that magic moderator ability of being able to add more to your posts haven't you? Can us proles have it? )

What do you mean by "clocks that are artefacts"?

[Steve3007]

To quote your previous post

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.:

How could time as duration be an objective phenomenon and also be not a real universal?

Because it's real (extra-mental) but not universal. i.e. there isn't a single universal time. That's what I meant when I said that time is what real specific "clocks" measure. A universal clock is an abstract (i.e. not real) concept that we created because it worked (i.e. modelled successfully what we can see of the real world) up to a point and because, in our limited experience at low relative velocities on the Earth's surface, it seems intuitively right. It took until the time of Einstein to realize that it doesn't map to all phenomena (stuff happening) in the real world.

[Steve3007]

What do you mean by "clocks that are artefacts"?

Sorry, Think I realize what you mean. You just mean clocks that are manufactured for the purpose of being clocks; clocks without the scare-quotes.

[Belindi]

Sorry about the unfair edition!

Clocks that are artefacts are man made things such as the machines of the industrial revolution which forced workers to labour without regard to their biological clocks. Some modern slaves in sweat shops are allowed only two minutes to relieve themselves, if that some workers have to wear nappies. Some cultures force people to obey machines instead of common humanity. So the debate is political which is what it should be.

[Steve3007]

(Meant to quote myself there not you!)

[Steve3007]

Clocks that are artefacts are man made things such as the machines of the industrial revolution which forced workers to labour without regard to their biological clocks. Some modern slaves in sweat shops are allowed only two minutes to relieve themselves, if that some workers have to wear nappies. Some cultures force people to obey machines instead of common humanity. So the debate is political which is what it should be.

Right, yes. Got it. I don't know about you, but I'm quite lucky in that respect. Hence I can chat about whatever interests me on here without "watching the clock" too much.

[Belindi]

To quote your previous post

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.:

How could time as duration be an objective phenomenon and also be not a real universal?

Because it's real (extra-mental) but not universal. i.e. there isn't a single universal time. That's what I meant when I said that time is what real specific "clocks" measure. A universal clock is an abstract (i.e. not real) concept that we created because it worked (i.e. modelled successfully what we can see of the real world) up to a point and because, in our limited experience at low relative velocities on the Earth's surface, it seems intuitively right. It took until the time of Einstein to realize that it doesn't map to all phenomena (stuff happening) in the real world.

Then is or was the Greenwich mean time clock what you consider to be a universal clock? From what I recall GMT was or is adopted internationally.

I do understand about Einstein versus Newton. As idealist I am also subjectivist so I side with Einstein and relativity. Newton is great within local frames.

[Belindi]

Clocks that are artefacts are man made things such as the machines of the industrial revolution which forced workers to labour without regard to their biological clocks. Some modern slaves in sweat shops are allowed only two minutes to relieve themselves, if that some workers have to wear nappies. Some cultures force people to obey machines instead of common humanity. So the debate is political which is what it should be.

Right, yes. Got it. I don't know about you, but I'm quite lucky in that respect. Hence I can chat about whatever interests me on here without "watching the clock" too much.

Same here! Some of us are very fortunate.

[Belindi]

Clocks that are artefacts are man made things such as the machines of the industrial revolution which forced workers to labour without regard to their biological clocks. Some modern slaves in sweat shops are allowed only two minutes to relieve themselves, if that some workers have to wear nappies. Some cultures force people to obey machines instead of common humanity. So the debate is political which is what it should be.

Right, yes. Got it. I don't know about you, but I'm quite lucky in that respect. Hence I can chat about whatever interests me on here without "watching the clock" too much.

Same here! Some of us are very fortunate.I have to put the mince on to cook now and mash the spuds as my sons are due around mid afternoon according to how busy they are so clocks affect me too but quite benignly.

[Steve3007]

Then is or was the Greenwich mean time clock what you consider to be a universal clock? From what I recall GMT was or is adopted internationally.

No, it's just a baseline that's been adopted by the human race on Earth. Not universal in the sense of applying all over the universe (despite now generally being referred to as UTC). The historical reasons why it's been adopted internationally are due to British maritime history - so essentially arbitrary. The prime meridian (the zero of longitude) could have been drawn anywhere. It just so happens that it goes through Greenwich.

Incidentally, I strongly recommend the book "Longitude" by Dava Sobel for a lot of information about the history of the concept of "mean time" and of Greenwich mean time. Studying the history of the standardization of time on Earth, I think, gives good insights into the nature of time more generally.

I do understand about Einstein versus Newton. As idealist I am also subjectivist so I side with Einstein and relativity. Newton is great within local frames.

I'm not sure about "sides"! I think it's more a question of whose model is most useful in which circumstances. Newton's is fine for most.

[Steve3007]

I have to put the mince on to cook now and mash the spuds as my sons are due around mid afternoon according to how busy they are so clocks affect me too but quite benignly.

Bon Appétit!

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

Thank you Alta for a wonderfully lucid contribution. A whole lot to discuss there, and I look forward to a spirited dialogue.

I'm going to start from the top and take one concept at a time (no pun intended) in which to parse. I will also be thinking aloud. You stated that time relates to many things. I agree! One thing it relates to is paradox of course. For instance, we certainly know from philosophy that the so-called logic associated with Platonism which, like it or not, is still alive and well. Why? Because the laws of the universe (time/relativity) and other pragmatic uses of math (calculating a moving vehicle's time/speed, engineering a structural object, so on and so forth), are laws of unchanging truths. They are metaphysical laws that can create and describe objects and their movements, which have no Darwinian survival advantages. And those unchanging truths are based upon a priori logic, which, also result in paradox (tautologies/statements of self-reference/'Gödel incompleteness', etc.) Perhaps you can touch on some Kantian CPR/transendental kinds of things there!

And without going into any further detail of this 'paradoxical/metaphysical existence', can 'relativity' itself somehow resolve or reconcile the conundrum of how the unchanging laws of the universe (space-time) themselves so effectively describe/explain the changing/contingent/causational world of existing things? Said another way, how do we reconcile the eternal unchanging laws of physics with the existence of a causational 'arrow of time' in the universe (not to mention biological evolution)?

One simple philosophical solution (too simple) that one would have to start with, could be the concept of logical necessity, in that a timeless /eternal metaphysical 'thing' (like mathematics itself-a mathematical super-turtle) could logically exist (a notion/analogy to the speed of light) outside of temporal time in order to create time itself (space-time) and the temporal universe.

And alternatively, if time itself does not cause change (change causes time), what is really time anyway? Time, (other than an arbitrary calibration of change), may seem very mysterious to us and not so 'absolute'. And that takes us back to our stubbornness with absolute's viz Plato and Newton:

The notion of an absolute time, one that's measurable and the same for all observers, was expressed most succinctly by Newton: "absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external."


But, we know Einstein's theory of relativity changed that (again no pun intended) hence, you also mentioned 'Einsteinian ' time, and the illusion of same:

"Gravity slows time, so that it runs a little bit slower in the basement of your house than it does on the roof," says Davies. "It's a tiny effect, but it can be measured, even on distances that are that small. But if you want a seriously big time warp from gravity, you have to go where there's a very big gravitational field. If you had a clock on the surface of a neutron star, for example, it would tick at about 70% of the rate of a clock on Earth. The ultimate time warp is at the surface of a black hole, where in a sense time stands still relative to our time. If you went there, you wouldn't notice anything peculiar about time, but if you compared clocks between the two locations, they'd be enormously out of step."


Then, we have some notion of an 'arrow of time':

"The Universe started out very smooth and expanding uniformly," says Davies. From a gravitational view point the Big Bang was a low entropy state and the Universe has been increasing its entropy ever since, hence the arrow of time. The question now is why the Universe started in the way it did. "Why our Universe went bang in such an ordered state is still a mystery," says Davies. "There is no agreed answer to that, partly because there is no agreed model of cosmology. We all think the Universe began with a Big Bang and we know it's expanding. What we don't know is if the Big Bang is the ultimate origin of time or whether there was a time before that." (Read the Plus article What happened before the Big Bang? for more on this subject.)


In quick summary, those are just some bullet points based on your one comment about Time relating to Newtonian, Kantian and Einsteinian interpretations of same. And the common theme being paradox and illusion (which bears more discussion).

Anyway, if there is something (at least one thing) you find intriguing or misguided, please feel free to elucidate.

Thank you kindly.

[Atla]

Thank you Alta for a wonderfully lucid contribution. A whole lot to discuss there, and I look forward to a spirited dialogue.

I'm going to start from the top and take one concept at a time (no pun intended) in which to parse. I will also be thinking aloud. You stated that time relates to many things. I agree! One thing it relates to is paradox of course. For instance, we certainly know from philosophy that the so-called logic associated with Platonism which, like it or not, is still alive and well. Why? Because the laws of the universe (time/relativity) and other pragmatic uses of math (calculating a moving vehicle's time/speed, engineering a structural object, so on and so forth), are laws of unchanging truths. They are metaphysical laws that can create and describe objects and their movements, which have no Darwinian survival advantages. And those unchanging truths are based upon a priori logic, which, also result in paradox (tautologies/statements of self-reference/'Gödel incompleteness', etc.) Perhaps you can touch on some Kantian CPR/transendental kinds of things there!

I said time refers to many things, time is a word for different things.

You don't know that the laws of our universe are unchanging. Some claim that they may in fact, be changing. But if they would change too much (too much here means still extremely, sometimes unfathomably little), we would immediately die. So according to the Anthropic principle, we necessarily have to observe a universe with no, or very little change in laws.

Again, with different laws we also may have different mathematics.

So unchanging truths are just an assumption. A priori logic is just an assumption. But even if the laws of our universe are in fact unchanging, and our mathemathics will never change either, that still wouldn't mean that these are metaphysical laws that have an actual existence of their own. Laws of the universe are just descriptions of how the universe behaves. And abstractions like mathemathics are probably just a way of thinking, so yeah, Platonism is as dead as it gets, it has driven humanity insane for long enough.

I generally don't see Platonism as anything more than a tool to exploit/hurt other people. We reify the abstractions we want to reify, and then use these now "real" objects, to tell others what to do, how to behave.

[3017Metaphysician]

Thank you Alta for a wonderfully lucid contribution. A whole lot to discuss there, and I look forward to a spirited dialogue.

I'm going to start from the top and take one concept at a time (no pun intended) in which to parse. I will also be thinking aloud. You stated that time relates to many things. I agree! One thing it relates to is paradox of course. For instance, we certainly know from philosophy that the so-called logic associated with Platonism which, like it or not, is still alive and well. Why? Because the laws of the universe (time/relativity) and other pragmatic uses of math (calculating a moving vehicle's time/speed, engineering a structural object, so on and so forth), are laws of unchanging truths. They are metaphysical laws that can create and describe objects and their movements, which have no Darwinian survival advantages. And those unchanging truths are based upon a priori logic, which, also result in paradox (tautologies/statements of self-reference/'Gödel incompleteness', etc.) Perhaps you can touch on some Kantian CPR/transendental kinds of things there!

I said time refers to many things, time is a word for different things.

You don't know that the laws of our universe are unchanging. Some claim that they may in fact, be changing. But if they would change too much (too much here means still extremely, sometimes unfathomably little), we would immediately die. So according to the Anthropic principle, we necessarily have to observe a universe with no, or very little change in laws.

Again, with different laws we also may have different mathematics.

So unchanging truths are just an assumption. A priori logic is just an assumption. But even if the laws of our universe are in fact unchanging, and our mathemathics will never change either, that still wouldn't mean that these are metaphysical laws that have an actual existence of their own. Laws of the universe are just descriptions of how the universe behaves. And abstractions like mathemathics are probably just a way of thinking, so yeah, Platonism is as dead as it gets, it has driven humanity insane for long enough.

I generally don't see Platonism as anything more than a tool to exploit/hurt other people. We reify the abstractions we want to reify, and then use these now "real" objects, to tell others what to do, how to behave.

Hi Alta!

1. Could you please give me an example of how the Anthropic principle would preclude our cosmological existence (or even existence generally)? I'm guessing that part of this rationale/theory of why unchanging laws exist is because if they didn't, they couldn't explain the initial conditions prior to the BB (presumably when 'time' started), nor would we be around to observe same "we would immediately die"... . In other words, too, the laws could be different in another logically possible world (?).

2. You said with different laws; different mathematics. While logically, that's certainly possible (there has not been a successful ToE… ), how would you reconcile the current 'unchanging laws' that explain/describe the initial conditions prior to the BB, or any other laws that work unreasonably well (gravity, relativity, engineering, etc..)? Are they right/wrong, and are they temporal or do they have qualities of finitude associated with them in the sense that they are paradoxical? Meaning, mathematics are objective truths that no amount of experience can change. Paradox?

3. As a segue to the foregoing, you also 'suggested' (my interpretation) that metaphysics is something beyond sense experience and unknowable. When we talk about the laws of the universe (metaphysically abstract structures-mathematics), and we talk about the laws explaining the initial conditions, do they not in-themselves imply a metaphysically transcendent existence? If not, why not?

4. You said abstracts are just a way of thinking, intriguing no doubt. Time itself, consciousness, mathematics, sentience, the Will, and various other features of human consciousness all have features to their existence that are metaphysically abstract. How do you square those circles? Thinking and self-awareness itself, is abstract(?). Hint: Kant (you mentioned him so I thought we could expand on his thought process there).

5. You said generally "...Platonism as anything more than a tool to exploit/hurt people". What do you mean by that? Of course, on its surface "hurt people" implies, once again, metaphysical features/qualities (Qualia) of self-aware conscious beings. Please share your thoughts behind your concerns, if you can.