Philosophy Discussion Forums

impermanence wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 1:24 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 10th, 2020, 11:22 pm
I personally think it's been around too much time and provided nothing but superstition and nonsense.

I get that but you might consider opening your mind up to it and see the good, as well.

Well, I did get to read the Satanic Bible the other day and I found that it gives pretty sound advice as compared to other religions.

Greta wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 3:51 pm Kant and science agree that what we perceive is not *actual* reality. What we apparently observe is a simplified model of reality, a rough sketch. However, there remains some level of reality to our perceptions, just that what we can perceive with our little human brains and little human senses is very incomplete.

I believe our grasp of what Reality actual is would be similar to our understanding of what's on the other side of Universe.

As for time, I too have the sense that we do not perceive the passing of time truly. Yet, our conceptions of time are obviously potent, because our ability to perceive the passing of time, to recall the past and project possible futures has given us a huge advantage over other species. To them, we would seem like a chess grandmaster, always a few moves ahead.

Our brains being what they are seem to take reality and edit into something we can "understand," a movie-like succession of events which give rise to our perception of time.

On the contrary, I fear that we homo sapiens would not score high in an evaluation of species proficiency. Who can not be in awe of nearly any creature in how well adapted they are to their environment.

This begs the eternal questions, while we know we have limitations, just how real are our perceptions and how much do we miss?

Well, Greta, based on how we seem to be faring, one might be tempted to conclude that the development of human intelligence will be a short-lived mutation.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 7:01 pm

impermanence wrote: ↑December 7th, 2020, 11:28 pm Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"].

Time is change/motion. That's real.

Change/motion is change/motion.

Time is another thing. 'Time' is the word used to describe when human beings are just measuring the duration between one perceived event from another perceived event. That is what is actually real, AND actually obvious as well.

Or in other words, like above:
Change is change.
Motion is motion. And,
Time is time.

Which really does not explain much at all.

evolution wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 7:10 pm measuring the duration between one perceived event from another perceived event.

What you're measuring is change or motion. Because that's what time is.

impermanence wrote: ↑December 7th, 2020, 11:28 pm If George Carlin were alive today, my bet is that he could come up with a routine every bit as effective [and entertaining] as was his assertion that the ultimate BS story was religion. Although by only a hair, I believe that science has outdone religion in almost every regard.

I will submit but two examples, Time and Mathematics, and hope that others will add to the evidence.

Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"]. The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

Mathematics [the language of science] is problematic for a host of reasons, paramount among them being that there is no such thing as more than "1," but just as troubling is the fact that math breaks down at its extremes.

If Time and Math do not hold-up, how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion? After all, at least religion points in the right direction.

You area confusing science with philosophical cosmology.
Science is a descriptive tool which self justifies.
If it don't work, it ain't coming in.
Time and maths are just tools.
Only a fool things that are more than conceptual. When you know they are, then it makes sense.

Science is sense.
It is the logical outworking of common sense and perception.

impermanence wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 6:46 pm

Greta wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 3:51 pm Kant and science agree that what we perceive is not *actual* reality. What we apparently observe is a simplified model of reality, a rough sketch. However, there remains some level of reality to our perceptions, just that what we can perceive with our little human brains and little human senses is very incomplete.

I believe our grasp of what Reality actual is would be similar to our understanding of what's on the other side of Universe.

As for time, I too have the sense that we do not perceive the passing of time truly. Yet, our conceptions of time are obviously potent, because our ability to perceive the passing of time, to recall the past and project possible futures has given us a huge advantage over other species. To them, we would seem like a chess grandmaster, always a few moves ahead.

Our brains being what they are seem to take reality and edit into something we can "understand," a movie-like succession of events which give rise to our perception of time.

On the contrary, I fear that we homo sapiens would not score high in an evaluation of species proficiency. Who can not be in awe of nearly any creature in how well adapted they are to their environment.

This begs the eternal questions, while we know we have limitations, just how real are our perceptions and how much do we miss?

Well, Greta, based on how we seem to be faring, one might be tempted to conclude that the development of human intelligence will be a short-lived mutation.

When it comes to species proficiency, humans utterly destroy all competition from other large organisms and, sadly, are literally destroying them. When it comes to charm, clean instincts, beauty and innocence, other animals win easily, but in the arena of empowerment, we are right up there with ants, bacteriophages, pelagibacterales and some other microbes.

There is, of course, the usual issue that we cannot know just how much of our senses are illusory, yet efficacious. We only evolved to survive and reproduce, bot to perceive truth. For all we know, we could be the projection of a reality where time and space are opposite to our perceptions (like in a black hole). We might be living within a single gigantic gravity well.

Humans' time is limited like all species. However, my guess is that the kind of intelligence that has arisen in our species will extend far beyond the human era and, over deep time, far beyond the solar system. I think the process we are undergoing is metaphorically akin to us nearing the end of our larval form (where the focus is on consumption). We are heading towards the reproductive phase, where the focus will be on sending packets of information into the environment. When these "seeds" encounter suitable conditions, they will convert their new local materials into something like itself. For example, this process will start fairly soon, when machines sent to other worlds will use local materials to build mining equipment.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 7:39 pm

evolution wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 7:10 pm measuring the duration between one perceived event from another perceived event.

What you're measuring is change or motion.

When someone is measuring change or motion, then, yes, they are measuring change or motion.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 7:39 pm Because that's what time is.

LOL Okay if that is what you BELIEVE is true, the that HAS TO BE true, correct?

Once again, I will note, you write as though what you say is irrefutably true. So, is it possible that the word 'time' could refer to something else than what you say or believe is true? Or is 'time' EXACTLY what 'you' say 'it' IS?

evolution wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 8:01 pm When someone is measuring change or motion, then, yes, they are measuring change or motion.

What's an example of something else they might be measuring?

(Or in other words, think, man.)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 8:09 pm

evolution wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 8:01 pm When someone is measuring change or motion, then, yes, they are measuring change or motion.

What's an example of something else they might be measuring?

NOTHING. But you are completely FREE to come up with as many "examples" as you like.

If one is measuring 'change', then that IS what they are measuring. Just like if one is measuring 'motion, then that IS what they are measuring. The EXACT SAME applies to 'distance'. If one is measuring 'distance', then that IS what they are measuring.

And, if one is measuring the 'duration' between perceived different events, then, to me, this 'measuring' is what the word 'time' is actually referring to.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 8:09 pm(Or in other words, think, man.)

You can think if you like. But thinking can lead you astray. As evidenced and proven above. I prefer to know instead, as knowing can NEVER be wrong.

So, I suggest know, human being.

By the way, you can 'try' to detract, but 'your' attempt at detraction here does NOT detract from the fact that you, ONCE AGAIN, will NOT answer my very simple clarifying questions.

The reason you do not answer my clarifying questions is because if you did answer them Honestly, then the fear of what that would actually expose and reveal prevents you from answering them.

evolution wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 10:50 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 8:09 pm
What's an example of something else they might be measuring?

NOTHING. But you are completely FREE to come up with as many "examples" as you like.

Correct. There is no example of measuring time where the person is measuring something other than change or motion.

The claim isn't about how the person in question is thinking about it, by the way. It's about what they're doing whether they think about it that way or not.

impermanence wrote:The clock thing is another matter altogether.

I disagree.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 7:39 pmWhat you're measuring is change or motion. Because that's what time is.

Problem is that "change" and "motion" mean little.

Everything knowable changes constantly [motion being a poor descriptor of such change (as there is no such thing as non-motion)].

Time is the plus sign that makes 1 + 1 = 2. IOW, it's just made-up.

Greta wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 7:55 pmThere is, of course, the usual issue that we cannot know just how much of our senses are illusory, yet efficacious. We only evolved to survive and reproduce, not to perceive truth. For all we know, we could be the projection of a reality where time and space are opposite to our perceptions (like in a black hole). We might be living within a single gigantic gravity well.

Fortunately, it matters not.

Humans' time is limited like all species. However, my guess is that the kind of intelligence that has arisen in our species will extend far beyond the human era and, over deep time, far beyond the solar system. I think the process we are undergoing is metaphorically akin to us nearing the end of our larval form (where the focus is on consumption). We are heading towards the reproductive phase, where the focus will be on sending packets of information into the environment. When these "seeds" encounter suitable conditions, they will convert their new local materials into something like itself. For example, this process will start fairly soon, when machines sent to other worlds will use local materials to build mining equipment.

Just what the rest of the Universe needs, human intelligence!

impermanence wrote: ↑December 12th, 2020, 12:08 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 7:39 pmWhat you're measuring is change or motion. Because that's what time is.

Problem is that "change" and "motion" mean little.

Here's what they "mean":

A change in x is a different relative arrangement of parts/properties of x (where x has parts, obviously). It can also be a different relative arrangement of parts of properties relative to some background or field. If x changes, technically it is no longer the identical x, it has become something different, y.

Motion is relative change of position of x, often (though not necessarily) with a connotation of it being a continuous/"flowing" relative change of position of x relative to something else, some y, without a requirement that the entity undergoing a relative change of position has any parts or changes in its parts or properties. In other words, aside from its change of position relative to y, x can move while being the identical x.

So the two ideas are similar and sometimes overlap, but they can be differentiated, too. TIme is identical to either/or/both phenomena.