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

[Sculptor1]

Yes it does.

Do you have a reference for that claim? With 'time as experience' is meant conscious experience.

There is no claim.
Nothing of any value has been expressed since the terms you have used have not been clarified.

What is unclear about the term experience?

When time is perceived as part of an experience, how can it be said that what is perceived to be 'in time' (i.e. when looking out into the cosmos) is the same in experienced time?

Is there any clue for the idea that what is perceived in time by looking out into the cosmos remains the same in experienced time?

Everything is in time.
I really have no idea what you are talking about.

[value]

Everything is in time.
I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you believe that the experience of time is deterministic in nature? If so, why?

[Pattern-chaser]

If you think you have knowledge or evidence of QM then you do not have knowledge or evidence of QM

Oh, there is evidence aplenty! Every time someone tries to show, by experiment, that the more outrageous interpretation of QM is wrong, their work turns out to show that the most unexpected aspects of QM seem to be true. It's (certain) knowledge that we lack, as we do in every area of knowledge. And the aspect that seems to upset you so much is, as far as I understand it, possible.

I know that, in saying what I have just said, I could be wrong. But you are prepared and happy to dismiss it all as nonsense, even though your knowledge and evidence is the same as mine...?

[Sculptor1]

Everything is in time.
I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you believe that the experience of time is deterministic in nature? If so, why?

Everything is deterministic.

[Sculptor1]

If you think you have knowledge or evidence of QM then you do not have knowledge or evidence of QM

Oh, there is evidence aplenty! Every time someone tries to show, by experiment, that the more outrageous interpretation of QM is wrong, their work turns out to show that the most unexpected aspects of QM seem to be true. It's (certain) knowledge that we lack, as we do in every area of knowledge. And the aspect that seems to upset you so much is, as far as I understand it, possible.

I know that, in saying what I have just said, I could be wrong. But you are prepared and happy to dismiss it all as nonsense, even though your knowledge and evidence is the same as mine...?

I have resolved never to respond to straw man.
Thanks for playing.

[value]

Everything is in time.
I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you believe that the experience of time is deterministic in nature? If so, why?

Everything is deterministic.

What is the evidence for the idea that conscious experience is deterministic?

[Sculptor1]

Everything is in time.
I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you believe that the experience of time is deterministic in nature? If so, why?

Everything is deterministic.

What is the evidence for the idea that conscious experience is deterministic?

How could it be otherwise?
You cannot experience without praxis. Praxis causes the experience. Without it there can be no experience without living activities.
My post caused you to experience it, and that chain of events led you to respond to it.

[value]

How could it be otherwise?
You cannot experience without praxis. Praxis causes the experience. Without it there can be no experience without living activities.
My post caused you to experience it, and that chain of events led you to respond to it.

My apologies for the late reply.

Your logic is similar to the well known 'kalam cosmological argument' logic to argue that the Universe must have a cause.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument

It is not logical in my opinion to consider the Universe to be a 'totality' with a begin in time. The idea 'whatever begins' is not plausible from a fundamental philosophy perspective.

The concept 'begin' demands an a priori explanation which must be beginning-less (true Infinite) of nature.

There is a magical belief involved to consider an existent (e.g. 'the Universe' as a totality) to be of a quality that requires a limited frame of thinking (causality) to explain it. It is the dogmatic belief that reality is 'really real'. It is the belief that objective reality is ultimately something non-disputable within any context of thinking.

Such a dogmatic belief is only possible by inferring that one can be certain that one has 'conscious experience', as in René Descartes his assertion 'I think, therefore I am' (cogito, ergo sum). It is not a valid ground in my opinion for the idea that a 'begin' (causality) is fundamental to possible logical options to explain the Universe. For example, 'why does René Descartes think in the first place?' is a question that would remain unanswered.

With regard your question.

It is nonsensical in my opinion that praxis would cause experience since how can it be said that what is to be experienced cannot have been known beforehand, i.e. is not causally explainable? It would make no sense to experience something that is meaningless in the face of what is already known.

[Sculptor1]

How could it be otherwise?
You cannot experience without praxis. Praxis causes the experience. Without it there can be no experience without living activities.
My post caused you to experience it, and that chain of events led you to respond to it.

My apologies for the late reply.

Your logic is similar to the well known 'kalam cosmological argument' logic to argue that the Universe must have a cause.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument

It is not logical in my opinion to consider the Universe to be a 'totality' with a begin in time. The idea 'whatever begins' is not plausible from a fundamental philosophy perspective.

The concept 'begin' demands an a priori explanation which must be beginning-less (true Infinite) of nature.

There is a magical belief involved to consider an existent (e.g. 'the Universe' as a totality) to be of a quality that requires a limited frame of thinking (causality) to explain it. It is the dogmatic belief that reality is 'really real'. It is the belief that objective reality is ultimately something non-disputable within any context of thinking.

Such a dogmatic belief is only possible by inferring that one can be certain that one has 'conscious experience', as in René Descartes his assertion 'I think, therefore I am' (cogito, ergo sum). It is not a valid ground in my opinion for the idea that a 'begin' (causality) is fundamental to possible logical options to explain the Universe. For example, 'why does René Descartes think in the first place?' is a question that would remain unanswered.

With regard your question.

It is nonsensical in my opinion that praxis would cause experience since how can it be said that what is to be experienced cannot have been known beforehand, i.e. is not causally explainable? It would make no sense to experience something that is meaningless in the face of what is already known.

Nothing I said bears on any cosmological argument.
It was simply a statement that experience gained from events which are bound by cause and effect.

Your response to my statement is a meaningless question. It is just not logically coherent.
We are the subject of a range of events. The part where the praxis occurs is in the fact that to have an "experience" of those events we, in part, anticipate and interpret the meaning of that event in terms of our world view.
The same event can mean different things to different people, though the cause my be the same.
For example a woman called Elizabeth Sex Coburg Gotha (aka WIndsor) dies.
To me that is just a 96 year old women popping her expensive clogs. My praxis is republican, and it is through those eyes that I see this event.
To another person they see the death of their beloved monarch, end of an era and the beginning of a new reign.

I not sure what you mean by "how can it be said that what is to be experienced cannot have been known beforehand, i.e. is not causally explainable? It would make no sense to experience something that is meaningless in the face of what is already known."
.. since I do not imply anything of the kind.

[Pattern-chaser]

The concept 'begin' demands an a priori explanation which must be beginning-less (true Infinite) of nature.

This is unclear to me. Why is it that you think this is so? Why must the explanation of beginning be without a beginning? If it explains the concept in question, why add the extra constraint, that it must also lack a beginning? I can't see how that makes sense.

[GE Morton]

Your logic is similar to the well known 'kalam cosmological argument' logic to argue that the Universe must have a cause.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument

Premise #1 is true. However, the full causal hypothesis is, "Whatever exists (whether an event or an entity) has a cause."

Premise #2 is false. Or, at least, not known to be true.

Hence the conclusion is a non sequitur and doubtful.

The plausibility of your conclusion derives from a logical error, i.e., asking for a cause for a totality. If "the universe" is construed to mean "every thing or event that exists or has ever existed or happened" then any proffered "cause" for that totality would be embraced by the scope of the term --- nothing can exist outside it (by definition). Hence no cause for it is logically possible. So causes have to be restricted to events and existents within the totality to be meaningful.

We can preserve the causal hypothesis by conceiving the universe as an endless succession of states. Each state is caused by a prior state, with no beginning or end to the succession.

The causal hypothesis, BTW, is but a "working hypothesis." It is not a logical truth, but an hypothesis we must assume a priori if we wish to explain anything.

It is not logical in my opinion to consider the Universe to be a 'totality' with a begin in time. The idea 'whatever begins' is not plausible from a fundamental philosophy perspective.

You and a few others here use that phrase, "fundamental philosophical perspective," or similar phrases, frequently. What is that exactly?

[value]

There are two ways to view experience:

1. experience as a human or an outside-in perspective on experience.

2. experience as a fundamental potential which in the case of humans would seek an explanation for an inside-out experience of an outer world.

The outside-in perspective would see the physical world as a requisite for the ability to experience anything. Without an outer world, a subject would have nothing to experience. This would seem like common sense.

But what about the subject? Why does he exist and is able to experience?

When it comes to seeking an explanation for an inside-out perspective, it would be nonsensical to experience a world that would have been predetermined beforehand since that would render the experience meaningless. From that perspective the outer world cannot have existed before experience and (the origin of the potential for) experience must underlay physical reality.

That was intended with my notion.

When one looks at the fundamental explanation for a 'subjective perspective' (which is applicable to any point in space-time) which is the core aspect by which physical reality or space-time can manifest itself, it can be seen that what is required cannot be predetermined since it precedes the potential for a 'begin' while determinism requires causality to be fundamental.

[value]

The concept 'begin' demands an a priori explanation which must be beginning-less (true Infinite) of nature.

This is unclear to me. Why is it that you think this is so? Why must the explanation of beginning be without a beginning? If it explains the concept in question, why add the extra constraint, that it must also lack a beginning? I can't see how that makes sense.

My apologies for the late reply.

My logic is simple. A begin implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound (signified) by observation.

The begin that is introduced by the observing mind is logically the begin of the world itself.


Your question is interesting since it concerns the foundation of the concept causality.

@Sculptor1 mentioned the following:

There are 4 possible states of the universe.

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
2) A universe with no beginning but with and end
3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
4) A universe with a beginning and an end.

@Terrapin Station had a similar view but according to him there are just 2 options to explain the universe:

1) the universe either magically sprung into existence
2) the universe magically always existed

He reasoned the following conclusion:

For any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

The mentioned options are all based on the assumption that the concept 'begin' is applicable to the universe on a fundamental level and that causality is required to explain the origin of the Universe.

A "First Cause" cannot logically exist because it implies a begin and a begin cannot precede an observer because a begin requires an observer to be possible. Therefore the concept causality cannot be valid in my opinion.

With regard pure randomness. Any 'begin' would break the purity of the randomness therefore the concept pure randomness requires a beginning-less nature.

Mathematician Tristan Perich: “Real randomness requires an infinite amount of information.”

[d3r31nz1g3]

Yes, true random is absolutely impossible. Everything about computers proves this and all randomness merely appears to be so.

There is no rational physical mechanism that which could explain a random action. There's no possible way to understand how such a function would work.

And the impossibility of such is absolute. It's all a matter of: EXPLAIN how random WORKS.

You CAN'T. It's not a matter of "I just don't know how to", it's there is no conceivable possible way to explain how a random function would work.

All random is pseudo-random--as in, a changing variable is selected from a point in time. Like marbles traversing a maze through various pathways--the switches and gates that which close and open pathways are determined by some sort of algorithm.

Having said that, all variability is illusory and all variability is simply a changing value that which changes down a timeline.

This means the whole world is a deterministic total prophecy and absolutely all free will is a deception and it doesn't exist.

And that's because we're all robots. Beep bop boop.

If you think that's irrational, it's because it is. That's because the whole world is an insane, irrational, and intelligent hypnotic deception straight out the black hole of math and time.

Beep bop boop. I am a robot.

[GE Morton]

The mentioned options are all based on the assumption that the concept 'begin' is applicable to the universe on a fundamental level and that causality is required to explain the origin of the Universe.

If the universe had an origin, then a cause would be required. It would not be required if the universe (in some form) has always existed (and thus had no origin).

A "First Cause" cannot logically exist because it implies a begin and a begin cannot precede an observer because a begin requires an observer to be possible. Therefore the concept causality cannot be valid in my opinion.

Er, no. Even if the universe had a beginning, no observer is required for it to have one. That claim is baseless.

Mathematician Tristan Perich: “Real randomness requires an infinite amount of information.”

Quite right. "Pure randomness" is usually used to mean, "without cause." But unless we're omniscient we can never claim that an event had no cause. We can only claim we KNOW of no cause for it.