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

[Steve3007]

b. You seem to be saying software and hardware are analogous to some kind of subjective/objective truth (not sure just guessing broadly speaking).

No, that's not what I'm saying. I was using the software/hardware division to illustrate the abstract/real division. Abstract concepts exist as ideas inside people's heads.

c. You said abstracts don't exist independently of matter. What do you mean?

I mean that they must have a medium, just as software must have a medium. But they aren't identically equal to the medium. The medium for software is hardware - whether that's a computer hard drive, or memory chip or printout on a piece of paper or whatever. The medium for human thoughts is the brain. But of course they can be recorded in other media too, such as books made from paper and ink.

d. If mathematical truths are abstract, are they also objective?

As I said when you asked this question earlier, I'd say they're tautologies - things that are true by definition. They're true for everyone to the extent that everyone has agreed to follow the conventions that make them true. Like the fact that Paris is the capital of France. That is also true because we agree that it's true as a matter of convention. As I've said, the conventions of mathematics have their origins in our observations of objects.

[Steve3007]

All of this is, of course, just the way I see things. Other may see things differently.

[3017Metaphysician]

b. You seem to be saying software and hardware are analogous to some kind of subjective/objective truth (not sure just guessing broadly speaking).

No, that's not what I'm saying. I was using the software/hardware division to illustrate the abstract/real division. Abstract concepts exist as ideas inside people's heads.

c. You said abstracts don't exist independently of matter. What do you mean?

I mean that they must have a medium, just as software must have a medium. But they aren't identically equal to the medium. The medium for software is hardware - whether that's a computer hard drive, or memory chip or printout on a piece of paper or whatever. The medium for human thoughts is the brain. But of course they can be recorded in other media too, such as books made from paper and ink.

d. If mathematical truths are abstract, are they also objective?

As I said when you asked this question earlier, I'd say they're tautologies - things that are true by definition. They're true for everyone to the extent that everyone has agreed to follow the conventions that make them true. Like the fact that Paris is the capital of France. That is also true because we agree that it's true as a matter of convention. As I've said, the conventions of mathematics have their origins in our observations of objects.

Steve!

a. If abstracts exist inside peoples heads, and math is abstract and metaphysical, is math also objective?
b. Gotcha on the medium thing. Using that analogy then, how do you reconcile the medium of matter (hardware/software) to the abstract medium of the mind?
d. But tautologies are objective truths a priori. And mathematics are metaphysical abstracts. Using logic, how can both be true?

[Steve3007]

a. If abstracts exist inside peoples heads, and math is abstract and metaphysical, is math also objective?

As I've said, I use the word "objective" to refer to propositions whose truth conditions are publicly verifiable because they are about extra-mental things - objects. I gave an example earlier. (The elephant in my garden. Remember?). And as I've said, I regard mathematical statements as statements that are true because we have decided to define them as true. A.K.A. tautologies. So the answer to your question depends on whether you think my descriptions of "objective" and "tautology" are the same. Are they?

b. Gotcha on the medium thing. Using that analogy then, how do you reconcile the medium of matter (hardware/software) to the abstract medium of the mind?

As I said, the brain is the medium for thoughts. The brain is real. It's made from matter.

d. But tautologies are objective truths a priori. And mathematics are metaphysical abstracts. Using logic, how can both be true?
Top

Tautologies are things that are true by definition.

[JackDaydream]

@3017Metaphysican

Hello,
I wish to share my thoughts and reading on the topic of the illusions of time before the weekend, but my thinking may be a little fuzzy because I haven't been sleeping well. I was always fascinated by time as a child, before the more complicated philosophy questions. The measurement of time by clocks seemed so amazing, especially on clocks with hands and ticking rather than digital watches. A lot appeared so much easier to understand later, but as I have not travelled much I often feel aware of time zones writing online, because people usually appear at specific times. I know that if I write during the afternoon that is when you frequently appear and it is morning for you.

I first began reading on the topic of time in connection with past experiences of premonitions, and one of the first books which I came across was, 'Man and Time', by JB Priestley. He was curious about the nature of time, and described himself as 'time haunted'. He touched on the various angles or subjective aspects of time, and he does look at premonitions, and he speaks of how such experiences do lead to the way in which sequences of experiences may be different if one steps out of time as an aspect of causal reality. I found this useful when I went on to explore Jung's ideas about the collective unconscious, and synchronicities. Even though in adulthood, I don't have synchronicities to the extent which I did as a child. One experience which I often have is being out and thinking that I see someone I know. However, when I get closer, I realise that it is not that person, but, shortly later, I meet the person who I mistook the stranger for. In that way, the coincidental mistake appears to be a foreshadowing, as if echoes appear prior to an event.

More recently, I read Stephen Hawking's ' A Brief History of Time'. One of the aspects of time which he explores is the arrow of time, Some of this is related to thermodynamics, entropy, but he does refer to psychological dimensions to this as well. However, he does speak of the nature of imaginary time which may be linked to JB Priestley's ideas on being able to go outside of time on a causal level. Hawking says,
'Imaginary time is indistinguishable from directions in space. If one can go north, one can turn around south; equally, if one can go forward in imaginary time, one ought to be able to turn round and go backward. This means that there can be no important difference between the forward and backward directions of imaginary time. On the other hand, when one looks at "real" time, there's a big difference between the forward and backwards directions, as we all know'.
In that context, premonitions may be a way in which it is possible to step beyond time as we know it as it is manifest on a causal way, in relation to the space and time continuum.

One other aspect of time which I think is interesting is the nature of cyclical time vs linear time. Many cosmological systems speak of cycles and we see cycles within seasons and days, but there is also linear historical progression. It is hard to know whether the linear of the cyclical is the dominant, or whether they are inter weaved. Nietzsche and some other thinkers have spoken of the idea of eternal recurrence. I understand that Nietzsche thought of this at times as a literal truth and at others as a symbolic one.

In our daily lives, time appears as a more practical aspect of life. Managers at work speak of the importance of time management, and the emphasis is on being able to achieve the maximum in a given period. But, on a personal level, time is such an important aspect of processing experience, especially In thinking about the past and the future. Some people are inclined to worry about the past while it is possible to fear the future. I know that I am more inclined to be fearful of what the future may bring. One book which I read and felt helpful was, 'The Eternal Now', by Eckhart Tolle. He speaks of the way in which all experience is in the moment and thoughts about past and present are only ever experienced in the consciousness of 'now, which is constantly changing. He points to hold onto the experience of the now in a mindfully, as a form of focus. I find this useful because it is so easy to be distracted by past memories and angst about what may happen, and it reminds me of a song by Duran Duran, 'All We Have Is Now.'

[Sculptor1]

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:

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

We never loose time. There is no paradox.

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

THe fact that time dilates is a fact. Since it is not a paradox but a fact of the lasw of physics there is nothing to respolve.
The chance that this is ever going to happen to the degree that any two twins would shoe enough dilation to notice a difference is unlikley since dilation only work noticably at speeds close the the speed of light. Since mass appraoches infinity at the same time the prospect of an energuy source to make a significant difference is unlikely.

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

Time is continuous. There is no "slice"

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

Yes

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

yes, obviously

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

no. There are no paradoxes. A paradox is a failure of understanding, or perception.

7. Add your own questions with logically possible solutions...

Here's just a little introduction to the 'unreality' of Time:

It's fake.

[Sculptor1]

I just thought of another one viz time and eternity:

What kind of time (temporal or atemporal) causes time to exist?

A couple example or interpretations of eternity:

For example, some philosophical examples of eternal time would be:

a) An unending stretch of time – everlastingness;

b) That which is entirely timeless; and

c) That which includes time but somehow also transcends it.

So let's use the example of mathematical truths. These are truths that are unchanging, much like the idea or concepts of eternity. And those kinds of truths describe ( and to some extent 'explain') the cosmos and/or physical and non-physical existence so effectively. Paradox?


Keep them coming!!

Your confusion is not about the universe, but your perception of it.
Do not expect the universe to adjust itself to you; you mist adjust yourself to the universe.

[Steve3007]

One of the aspects of time which he explores is the arrow of time, Some of this is related to thermodynamics, entropy...

I've always found that quite interesting. That's the reason for my answer to point 7 here.

[3017Metaphysician]

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

Because you haven't lost any time. You've just travelled to a part of the world where the sun is at a different position in the sky.

Steve!

I'm finally getting around to your other replies. I'll post one at a time until they're thoroughly vetted. You've said there is no lost time. That begs many questions, some of which are:

1. If you haven't lost any time, why does the clock indicate that you have? Is that an arbitrary measurement?
2. In antiquity, each city used to set its clocks to 12 noon when the sun was directly overhead. Wouldn't that simplify things?
3. If you fly west from the U.S. to China, do you gain or lose a day? And of you lose a day, how do you get it back?

Thanks again Steve. Hang in there!

[Steve3007]

1. If you haven't lost any time, why does the clock indicate that you have? Is that an arbitrary measurement?

It doesn't unless you change it. In what sense would you regard fiddling with your watch after the plane lands as "losing time"? If I set my watch 2 hours forward while sitting here at my desk, will I have lost 2 hours? Why do you think you "lose time" simply by moving to a different location on the surface of a rotating sphere? See also here:
viewtopic.php?p=395214#p395214

2. In antiquity, each city used to set its clocks to 12 noon when the sun was directly overhead. Wouldn't that simplify things?

It would in a way. But then the concept of "mean time" was invented, followed by "Greenwich mean time", when the line of longitude running through Greenwich (near London) was arbitrarily chosen as a reference.

3. If you fly west from the U.S. to China, do you gain or lose a day? And of you lose a day, how do you get it back?

You'd have to explain more clearly what you mean by "gain a day" and "lose a day".

[3017Metaphysician]

What are your examples of calculus viz time?

Are you broadly familiar with how differential calculus works? It's all about describing rates of change - how one quantity changes with respect to a second quantity. The second quantity is often time. For example, the movement of an object with constant acceleration (constant rate of change of velocity) could be described like this:

^dv/_dt = some constant.

The 'd' notation indicates an infinitesimal (vanishingly small) quantity.

And can you explain why the perception of time changes?

My guess would be that it has to do with how much is going on in our minds. In highly stressful situations time appears to go more slowly because our thoughts are going more quickly. Something like that. What's your guess?

Then we you get a change, talk about how thick the present is, and be sure to provide objective answers... .

I don't really know what you mean by "how thick the present is". You seem to be talking about "the present" as if it's an object!

Happy Friday Steve!

Happy Friday to you too. What's the weather like there? Nice and sunny here. The leaves on the tree outside my office window are just starting to turn golden.

Steve!
I asked the following, but i'm not exactly following that (not sure you addressed the questions). Let me re-state the questions:

What are your examples of calculus viz time?

And can you explain why the perception of time changes?

Then we you get a change, talk about how thick the present is, and be sure to provide objective answers... .

1. How does the calculus example then give us the answer of how big of a slice of time is calculated now?
a. You are using mathematics for your answer, is that an objective answer?

2. What would emotional stress have to with the objective (mathematical/calculus) nature of time? I have asked about the apperception of time, why would emotions be relevant?
a. Do you think that time is abstract and objective? If that seems plausible, how can something be both metaphysically abstract yet objective?

[3017Metaphysician]

@3017Metaphysican

Hello,
I wish to share my thoughts and reading on the topic of the illusions of time before the weekend, but my thinking may be a little fuzzy because I haven't been sleeping well. I was always fascinated by time as a child, before the more complicated philosophy questions. The measurement of time by clocks seemed so amazing, especially on clocks with hands and ticking rather than digital watches. A lot appeared so much easier to understand later, but as I have not travelled much I often feel aware of time zones writing online, because people usually appear at specific times. I know that if I write during the afternoon that is when you frequently appear and it is morning for you.

I first began reading on the topic of time in connection with past experiences of premonitions, and one of the first books which I came across was, 'Man and Time', by JB Priestley. He was curious about the nature of time, and described himself as 'time haunted'. He touched on the various angles or subjective aspects of time, and he does look at premonitions, and he speaks of how such experiences do lead to the way in which sequences of experiences may be different if one steps out of time as an aspect of causal reality. I found this useful when I went on to explore Jung's ideas about the collective unconscious, and synchronicities. Even though in adulthood, I don't have synchronicities to the extent which I did as a child. One experience which I often have is being out and thinking that I see someone I know. However, when I get closer, I realise that it is not that person, but, shortly later, I meet the person who I mistook the stranger for. In that way, the coincidental mistake appears to be a foreshadowing, as if echoes appear prior to an event.

More recently, I read Stephen Hawking's ' A Brief History of Time'. One of the aspects of time which he explores is the arrow of time, Some of this is related to thermodynamics, entropy, but he does refer to psychological dimensions to this as well. However, he does speak of the nature of imaginary time which may be linked to JB Priestley's ideas on being able to go outside of time on a causal level. Hawking says,
'Imaginary time is indistinguishable from directions in space. If one can go north, one can turn around south; equally, if one can go forward in imaginary time, one ought to be able to turn round and go backward. This means that there can be no important difference between the forward and backward directions of imaginary time. On the other hand, when one looks at "real" time, there's a big difference between the forward and backwards directions, as we all know'.
In that context, premonitions may be a way in which it is possible to step beyond time as we know it as it is manifest on a causal way, in relation to the space and time continuum.

One other aspect of time which I think is interesting is the nature of cyclical time vs linear time. Many cosmological systems speak of cycles and we see cycles within seasons and days, but there is also linear historical progression. It is hard to know whether the linear of the cyclical is the dominant, or whether they are inter weaved. Nietzsche and some other thinkers have spoken of the idea of eternal recurrence. I understand that Nietzsche thought of this at times as a literal truth and at others as a symbolic one.

In our daily lives, time appears as a more practical aspect of life. Managers at work speak of the importance of time management, and the emphasis is on being able to achieve the maximum in a given period. But, on a personal level, time is such an important aspect of processing experience, especially In thinking about the past and the future. Some people are inclined to worry about the past while it is possible to fear the future. I know that I am more inclined to be fearful of what the future may bring. One book which I read and felt helpful was, 'The Eternal Now', by Eckhart Tolle. He speaks of the way in which all experience is in the moment and thoughts about past and present are only ever experienced in the consciousness of 'now, which is constantly changing. He points to hold onto the experience of the now in a mindfully, as a form of focus. I find this useful because it is so easy to be distracted by past memories and angst about what may happen, and it reminds me of a song by Duran Duran, 'All We Have Is Now.'

JD!

Yes. Cognitive science I'm sure would have much to say about that (the perception of time). To that end, if you have any links please feel free to share. In the meantime, here's an introduction to past, present, future kinds of musings... .

https://www.learning-mind.com/illusion-of-time/

[3017Metaphysician]

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

You don't literally "lose" any time in that situation.

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

Not a paradox. Changes can happen at different relative rates.

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

The changes/motion that are occurring from a particular point/frame of reference. (Contra the changes that have occurred but that are no longer occurring, or the changes that will occur but have not occurred yet.) "How big of a slice" that amounts to depends on the frame of reference in question--the scope of the frame and how quickly relatively changes or motion occurs in the frame in question.

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

Yes. It's change or motion.

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

"Just"? No. That's just one example of changes or motions.

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

There's no such thing as "unchanging truths." Truth is subjective. It's a judgment that an individual makes about the way a proposition relates to something else (like the way that it corresponds to states of affairs, or the way it coheres with other propositions, etc.). Mathematics is an abstracted and extrapolated way of thinking about relations.

The video you posted didn't actually present anything I'd consider a paradox.

TS!

Thanks for your contribution. Sorry it took so long getting back to you.

Since we're on the subject of mathematics, lets take that last question first since I think it may be the easiest.

1. 2+2=4 is an objective universal truth that doesn't change with time. However, you said that mathematical truths are 'changing truths' by way of your reply that "There is no such thing as unchanging truths". How can this be?

Also TS, the same questions apply to time viz mathematics:

2.Do you think that time itself (the calibration of change) is abstract and/or objective? If that seems plausible, how can something be both metaphysically abstract yet objective?

a. As a thought experiment, maybe provide a mathematical formula that tells us how big that the 'now' actually is...then tell us if that's an objective, subjective (as you seem to be saying), or abstract truth of some kind?

To this end, when you say "truth is subjective", you seem to be advocating for a world view or belief system that supports philosophical Subjectivity. If accurate, that might suggest that there is no objective reality. Generally, to be clear, are you thinking that all truth then is subjective (subjective idealism or otherwise...)?

[3017Metaphysician]

a. If abstracts exist inside peoples heads, and math is abstract and metaphysical, is math also objective?

As I've said, I use the word "objective" to refer to propositions whose truth conditions are publicly verifiable because they are about extra-mental things - objects. I gave an example earlier. (The elephant in my garden. Remember?). And as I've said, I regard mathematical statements as statements that are true because we have decided to define them as true. A.K.A. tautologies. So the answer to your question depends on whether you think my descriptions of "objective" and "tautology" are the same. Are they?

b. Gotcha on the medium thing. Using that analogy then, how do you reconcile the medium of matter (hardware/software) to the abstract medium of the mind?

As I said, the brain is the medium for thoughts. The brain is real. It's made from matter.

d. But tautologies are objective truths a priori. And mathematics are metaphysical abstracts. Using logic, how can both be true?
Top

Tautologies are things that are true by definition.

Steve!


With respect to tautologies,(like time), aren't they paradoxical too? Anyway, to answer your question then (about elephants), you would have to tell us the truth value in that scenario:

3017 Metaphysician: What Steve is about to say is false.
Steve 3007: Metaphysician 3017 has just spoken truly.

BTW-I've thrown a lot at you, so I'll wait before I respond to the rest....

[Terrapin Station]

1. 2+2=4 is an objective universal truth that doesn't change with time.

So, on my view, there is no such thing as an objective truth, a universal truth, or a truth that doesn't (or at least can't) change. This includes "2+2=4" and the like.

I thought I had made it clear that that is my view, but for some reason it wasn't clear. Is it clear now that that is my view?

2.Do you think that time itself (the calibration of change) is abstract and/or objective?

Time is objective.

No objective thing is abstract, period.

you seem to be advocating for a world view or belief system that supports philosophical Subjectivity.

So, remember that I use the subjective/objective distinction to refer to mental phenomena versus other phenomena. Some things only exist as mental phenomena. Some things exist otherwise. There's no need to pretend that only minds exist, and there's no need to pretend that minds do not exist, or that no phenomena are only mental phenomena. This is just like saying "Some things are in the refrigerator. Some things are not in the refrigerator." Just because we point out that something is in the refrigerator, this doesn't imply that we're saying that EVERYTHING is in the refrigerator or that only refrigerators exist. The milk is in the refrigerator. The honey is not in the refrigerator. Etc.

Truth then is subjective

I know I've explained this before to you, but I'll explain it again.

Truth is subjective because:

(a) Truth is a property of propositions (this is a standard view in analytic philosophy)
(b) Propositions are the meanings of statements (again, this is a standard view in analytic philosophy)
(c) Meaning is a mental phenomenon (this isn't a standard view in analytic philosophy, but it's my view about the ontology of meaning)
(d) Thus a property of meaning is a mental property, and via the definition of "subjective" as a term that picks out mental phenomena, this implies that truth is subjective.