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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


Your left is not the left.

There is no "the left".

Likewise, there is no "the past". And there is no "the future".

There is not a something that flows from "the past" to the "the future". There cannot be. That's because there is no "the past" nor "the future".

Objectively, the universe does not have a left side and a right side.

The universe (i.e. reality as a whole) is a singular unit of leftless, rightless, timeless, spaceless four-dimensional spacetime. It is eternal and unchanging. It has no left, no right, no time, no past, no future, and no space.

Really, there is no time.

There is no time in the same sense there is no "the left".

Time is an illusion.

Time is not real.


What do you think?

If you do not agree with all of the above sentences, which is the very first one with which you disagree? I love hearing about different viewpoints!

If you do not understand what all of the above sentences mean (i.e. what I mean by them), which is the very first one you don't understand? I will happily do my best to clarify it and explain what I mean.

If you have any questions for me, please do ask. I'll do my best to answer.

In Einstein's Special Relativity, different observers' clocks tick at different rates if they are moving in relation to each other, and thus they age at different rates.
twin-paradox-relativity.jpg (117.85 KiB) Viewed 4430 times

In Einstein's Special Relativity, there is no objective order to events, meaning in one reference frame the order of three events (A, B, and C) can be that event A happens before B and then C happens ( A -> B -> C ), but in another reference frame it could be C first then B then A ( C -> B -> A ), or C first then A then B ( C -> A -> B ), and so on. There can be observers in your present who have your distant future in their past. Likewise, your entire life and death can be in another person's past even if their entire life and death is in your past.
special-relativity.png (2.01 KiB) Viewed 4430 times

[mrlefty0706]

The first sentence I do not agree with because I do not understand it is:

There is not a something that flows from "the past" to the "the future". There cannot be. That's because there is no "the past" nor "the future".

I need a better understanding of Einstein's Special Relativity. I think the only way for this definition to be true would require time travel. Please enlighten me.

[Brenda Creech]

The first one I don't understand is: there is no "the past, If there is no 'the past' how can we have memories? I remember being a child; I remember my mom, my grandparents, my siblings who are no longer around me. I remember things about when my children were growing up. If there is no 'the past' how do I have children and grandchildren?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, mrlefty0706,

Thank you for your reply!

Your left is not the left.

There is no "the left".

Likewise, there is no "the past". And there is no "the future".

There is not a something that flows from "the past" to the "the future". There cannot be. That's because there is no "the past" nor "the future".

The first sentence I do not agree with because I do not understand it is:

There is not a something that flows from "the past" to the "the future". There cannot be. That's because there is no "the past" nor "the future".

I need a better understanding of Einstein's Special Relativity. I think the only way for this definition to be true would require time travel. Please enlighten me.

Since that's the fourth sentence, that means you agree with the first three sentences. That means we agree that there is no "the left", no "the right", no "the past", no "the future".

Thus, you don't need to understand or be familiar with Einstein's theories or any complex physics to understand and agree the fourth sentence. It actually follows logically from the first three.

If there is no "the left" and no "the right", then there cannot be something flows from "the left" to "the right". Something cannot go from A to B if A and B do not exist.

In a fun silly parallel example of the same logic, something cannot flow from Santa's Workshop to the Easter Bunny's House because those two things don't exist.

Does that make more sense?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Your left is not the left.

There is no "the left".

Likewise, there is no "the past". And there is no "the future".

The first one I don't understand is: there is no "the past, If there is no 'the past' how can we have memories? I remember being a child; I remember my mom, my grandparents, my siblings who are no longer around me. I remember things about when my children were growing up. If there is no 'the past' how do I have children and grandchildren?

Hi, Brenda Creech,

There is no "the past" in the same sense that there is no "the left" or "the right".

Your question thus is like asking, If there is no "the left" and no "the "the right" how can I see my children? My children are to the left.

It's actually an instance of the begging the question fallacy. You are asserting the non-existing place exists by asserting that your children or grandparents by there.

I have children, but my children are neither in "the left" nor in "the right" because there is no "the left" for them to be in, and there is no "the right" for them to be in. They cannot be in "the left", "the right", "the past", or "the future" because there is no "the left", "the right", "the past", or "the future".

Neither my children nor your grandparents can be in "the left" or "the past" because there is no "the left" nor "the past" for them to be in.

They cannot be in "the left" or "the right" in the same way they cannot be they in Santa's Workshop nor the Easter Bunny's house because these would-be places don't exist. We cannot see or remember them being there because there (e.g. Santa's Workshop) because that there (e.g. Santa's Workshop) doesn't exist.

I hope that clarifies what I mean and shows that the third sentence follows logically from the first two.

Thank you,
Scott

[Pauline Parnell]

I am going to start with what I understand, then I will try to walk back to the other statements. Firstly, I agree that there is no time. Time is definitely a fiction, and it does not exist. If it is not real, then there is no past as we know it and no future as we understand it to be. All we have is the now. You spoke of there being no left or right. True. I also agree in the sense that the universe is one vast ball of boundless energy. It has no boundaries, nor edges, no left, and right. It is endless and eternal.

[Brenda Creech]

Your left is not the left.

There is no "the left".

Likewise, there is no "the past". And there is no "the future".

The first one I don't understand is: there is no "the past, If there is no 'the past' how can we have memories? I remember being a child; I remember my mom, my grandparents, my siblings who are no longer around me. I remember things about when my children were growing up. If there is no 'the past' how do I have children and grandchildren?

Hi, Brenda Creech,

There is no "the past" in the same sense that there is no "the left" or "the right".

Your question thus is like asking, If there is no "the left" and no "the "the right" how can I see my children? My children are to the left.

It's actually an instance of the begging the question fallacy. You are asserting the non-existing place exists by asserting that your children or grandparents by there.

I have children, but my children are neither in "the left" nor in "the right" because there is no "the left" for them to be in, and there is no "the right" for them to be in. They cannot be in "the left", "the right", "the past", or "the future" because there is no "the left", "the right", "the past", or "the future".

Neither my children nor your grandparents can be in "the left" or "the past" because there is no "the left" nor "the past" for them to be in.

They cannot be in "the left" or "the right" in the same way they cannot be they in Santa's Workshop nor the Easter Bunny's house because these would-be places don't exist. We cannot see or remember them being there because there (e.g. Santa's Workshop) because that there (e.g. Santa's Workshop) doesn't exist.

I hope that clarifies what I mean and shows that the third sentence follows logically from the first two.

Thank you,
Scott

I don't see it as begging the question fallacy. The reason I don't is that I believe in creation; therefore I believe God created man/woman. (I am going to use the term man but I mean man/woman). The Bible tells me that is the truth. If God created man then man has a past, present, and future. His past is being born into this world, his present is whatever age and stage he is currently in, and his future is an eternal resting place with God, or somewhere else in eternity. I believe the part of man that matters is the spirit. We will shed these bodies, but our spirit will be 'somewhere' forever. I believe my life is just the current journey my spirit is on and that my spirit will move on, but that doesn't mean that I never existed at this time in this place in a physical body which enabled me to have memories of what I have experienced on this part of my journey. That is not to say that you are wrong, but it doesn't say that I am wrong either. Perhaps ours is a fallacy-fallacy fallacy.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

man has a past, present, and future. His past is being born into this world, his present is whatever age and stage he is currently in, and his future is an eternal resting place with God, or somewhere else in eternity

Hi, Brenda,

I don't think anything you are saying contradicts what I am saying. In other words, yes, I think we are both right.

There is a major difference between what you refer to above as "his past" versus "the past". That's in the same way there is difference between "his left" and "the left".

In other words, there is major difference between "the past" versus "your past", just as there is a major difference between "the left" versus "your left". I am not saying that "your left" and "your past" don't exist, per se, or aren't things. I am saying "the left" and "the past" don't exist; or, really, more accurately, I am simply saying that there is no such thing as "the past" or "the left". Your past is someone else's future, and your future is someone else's past.

In other words, from the perspective of what you call God, the universe does not have a left side or right side. From the perspective of what you call God, your future already exists in the same way your past does. The universe as a timeless whole doesn't have a future side and a past side, just as it doesn't have a left side and a right side. Your left is different than my left, and what's on your left could be on my right. Your past is different than my past, and what's in your past could be in my future. What you call God doesn't have a past, future, or left. The universe as a whole doesn't have a left side or a past side. Objective reality is leftless, pastless, and timeless.

If we think of what you call God as the proverbial author, and thus think of the whole of all Creation (including past and future) as the book he wrote, it's just as true to think he wrote the ending first as that he wrote the beginning first, so much so that the book doesn't have an ending and a beginning but can be read in any order. He didn't create your future by creating your past, or create your future after your past. Rather, it would be a form of timeless creation or eternal creation, with no befores and no afters. It's just as right to think of God creating your past by creating your future. It's just as right to think of yourself and your world as being pulled towards what you call the future by that future rather than pushed to that future by what you call the past. It's just as right to think of what you call the future as determining what you call the past as vice versa.

In analogy, from the perspective of the characters in the movie Star Wars, episodes 1-3 happened before 4-6, even though they were actually in a prequel that was written and released after the later episodes. If God is the author, then you are living in God's prequel now. What you would call the ending is already written.

Objectively, it's just as true that your future happened before your past as that your past happened before your future--because objectively there is no time, and thus no 'before' or 'after'. Before and after are like left and right, just one perspective of infinite of the same thing. Left can be right and past can be future, and it's just as true of a description.

Eternal doesn't merely mean going on forever in time; it means timelessness, which granted can be mind-boggling to consider.

I would use different words than this typically, but for you I will say it like this: This is where the invincible inner peace comes in for me; there is absolutely no chance at all that things aren't going to go according to God's Plan. Everything that is meant to be will be. And everything that is was meant to be. There's no risk that it's going to go wrong or go off the tracks. Fundamentally, everything is okay. I have my own different way of saying and wording it, but for you I can say it like this: I have inner peace even when I see a hurricane on the news killing people because I know that's God's Will; it's part of the eternal timeless story that God wrote, a prequel to which we are living out. When it comes to what I cannot control, I can easily let go, go with the flow, enter a flow state, and have accepting loving peaceful faith: We will end up at the pre-written ending because in the eyes of the eternal it's already written.

If your future is with God in Heaven, then objectively in the sense of true eternal reality, you are already with Him now, and always have been and always will be. That's not merely always in the sense of always in time, but rather in the deeper eternal sense of the timeless and unchanging.


Thank you,
Scott

[Brenda Creech]

Your left is not the left.

There is no "the left".

Likewise, there is no "the past". And there is no "the future".

The first one I don't understand is: there is no "the past, If there is no 'the past' how can we have memories? I remember being a child; I remember my mom, my grandparents, my siblings who are no longer around me. I remember things about when my children were growing up. If there is no 'the past' how do I have children and grandchildren?

Hi, Brenda Creech,

There is no "the past" in the same sense that there is no "the left" or "the right".

Your question thus is like asking, If there is no "the left" and no "the "the right" how can I see my children? My children are to the left.

It's actually an instance of the begging the question fallacy. You are asserting the non-existing place exists by asserting that your children or grandparents by there.

I have children, but my children are neither in "the left" nor in "the right" because there is no "the left" for them to be in, and there is no "the right" for them to be in. They cannot be in "the left", "the right", "the past", or "the future" because there is no "the left", "the right", "the past", or "the future".

Neither my children nor your grandparents can be in "the left" or "the past" because there is no "the left" nor "the past" for them to be in.

They cannot be in "the left" or "the right" in the same way they cannot be they in Santa's Workshop nor the Easter Bunny's house because these would-be places don't exist. We cannot see or remember them being there because there (e.g. Santa's Workshop) because that there (e.g. Santa's Workshop) doesn't exist.

I hope that clarifies what I mean and shows that the third sentence follows logically from the first two.

Thank you,
Scott

I don't see it as begging the question fallacy. The reason I don't is that I believe in creation; therefore I believe God created man/woman. (I am going to use the term man but I mean man/woman). The Bible tells me that is the truth. If God created man then man has a past, present, and future. His past is being born into this world, his present is whatever age and stage he is currently in, and his future is an eternal resting place with God, or somewhere else in eternity. I believe the part of man that matters is the spirit. We will shed these bodies, but our spirit will be 'somewhere' forever. I believe my life is just the current journey my spirit is on and that my spirit will move on, but that doesn't mean that I never existed at this time in this place in a physical body which enabled me to have memories of what I have experienced on this part of my journey. That is not to say that you are wrong, but it doesn't say that I am wrong either. Perhaps ours is a fallacy-fallacy fallacy.

That is beautifully written, Scott! I appreciate your clarification because it is much clearer to me now. I have said before I don't have a psychological way of thinking, so I don't understand those who can think so deeply. I agree what you think and what I think are the same; we verbalize it differently. And I, too, believe that God has already written the ending and could have written it even before the beginning! And now I understand what you mean by what is is what's meant to be. Being in on these discussions has been enlightening to me so thanks for your explanations and your patience in explaining things!

[mrlefty0706]

Thanks Scott. That makes more sense and I am glad that I do not need to understand Einstein's Special Relativity.

Larry

[Hazel Mae Bagarinao]

The universe (i.e. reality as a whole) is a singular unit of leftless, rightless, timeless, spaceless four-dimensional spacetime. It is eternal and unchanging. It has no left, no right, no time, no past, no future, and no space.

When I think of the Universe, I can't deep down to understand it. It is just so vast that only God knows how it forms. I just let it be that way, that it exists and not questioning it more.

[Stoppelmann]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.

Your left is not the left.

There is no "the left".

Likewise, there is no "the past". And there is no "the future".

There is not a something that flows from "the past" to the "the future". There cannot be. That's because there is no "the past" nor "the future".

I must confess that I am confused. What are you doing to language here?

My left is a means of orientation, a means of defining of position in relationship to my body. It has nothing to do with the universe in that sense and I know of nobody who would choose that context.

According to a dictionary “the Left” does have a meaning and is a noun that means either:
1: political groups who favour sharing money and property more equally among the members of a society: political groups who support liberal or socialist policies
2: the position of people who support the liberal beliefs and policies of the political Left.

Equally, the past refers to something previous to now, like history. The future refers to a potential happening, the details of which will transpire when the moment arrives. Obviously, we live in the present moment, but one that is permanently changing, so that opportunities can be missed.

Time is a measurement of duration, and you use the term in the following sentence: “Despite living in a time and place where marital rape was legal, which was the USA only a little over a century ago …” (Hughes, Eckhart Aurelius. In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All (p. 11). OnlineBookClub.org. Kindle Edition.) A time and place, a quite normal expression, but you say, “Really, there is no time.” But then you couldn’t say the above sentence, but you do, of course, and everyone knows what you mean. So instead of just putting a statement out with no clear reference to what you are talking about, perhaps you should clarify a little more.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.

Your left is not the left.

There is no "the left".

According to a dictionary “the Left” does have a meaning and is a noun that means either:
1: political groups who favour sharing money and property more equally among the members of a society: political groups who support liberal or socialist policies
2: the position of people who support the liberal beliefs and policies of the political Left.

This topic and nothing I have written in it has anything to do at all with left-right politics, or politics at all.

Incidentally, I think the above demonstrates the major flaw with and fallacy of relying on dictionaries (or chat robots) to do philosophy. In another example of it, if one could solve epistemology by simply looking up the word knowledge in a dictionary, it would put a lot of professional human philosophers out of work and make winning a noble prize too easy.

Granted, dictionaries certainly can be helpful for schoolkids or such who just came across a word for the very first time.

[Stoppelmann]

Incidentally, I think the above demonstrates the major flaw with and fallacy of relying on dictionaries (or chat robots) to do philosophy. In another example of it, if one could solve epistemology by simply looking up the word knowledge in a dictionary, it would put a lot of professional human philosophers out of work and make winning a noble price too easy.

Granted, dictionaries certainly can be helpful for schoolkids or such who just came across a word for the very first time.

So, dictionaries are only for schoolkids, and the meaning of words is arbitrary? Sounds like we have a problem. I always check my use of words, probably because I live in a foreign countries and am bilingual, but it does help to be clear.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.

Your left is not the left.

There is no "the left".

According to a dictionary “the Left” does have a meaning and is a noun that means either:
1: political groups who favour sharing money and property more equally among the members of a society: political groups who support liberal or socialist policies
2: the position of people who support the liberal beliefs and policies of the political Left.

This topic and nothing I have written in it has anything to do at all with left-right politics, or politics at all.

Incidentally, I think the above demonstrates the major flaw with and fallacy of relying on dictionaries (or chat robots) to do philosophy. In another example of it, if one could solve epistemology by simply looking up the word knowledge in a dictionary, it would put a lot of professional human philosophers out of work and make winning a noble prize too easy.

Granted, dictionaries certainly can be helpful for schoolkids or such who just came across a word for the very first time.

So, dictionaries are only for schoolkids, and the meaning of words is arbitrary? Sounds like we have a problem. I always check my use of words, probably because I live in a foreign countries and am bilingual, but it does help to be clear.

I did not say that dictionaries are only for school kids.

I did not not say "the meaning of words is arbitrary".

Whether the communication problem is the result of using a dictionary or something else or a combination of multiple factors, I agree that there is a major communication breakdown and huge misunderstanding, if somehow it was thought that this topic or anything I said in was at all even slightly related to the following:

1: political groups who favour sharing money and property more equally among the members of a society: political groups who support liberal or socialist policies
2: the position of people who support the liberal beliefs and policies of the political Left.

It's not. As I already wrote, neither this topic nor anything I have said in it have anything to do with left-right politics, or politics at all.