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

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

TS!

1. Actually, that's not very clear at all TS! And seems to support 'paradox'. And ironically, is as clear as mud And that's because unfortunately it commits the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority (assuming that authority is you, which is not objective), and it also becomes an unresolved paradox. No?

2. You said no objective thing is abstract. Mathematics' are abstract things that are objective. How do you reconcile the two?
a. By saying …"period", you've appealed to authority again, yourself, in saying something is true, but objectively you haven't proven it to be true. How can you be convincing objectively?

3. Logically, the explanations you've provided do not follow because you are saying on the one hand, propositions are objective truths (which is correct), yet you are saying 'all truth is subjective'. Mathematical truths, for example, are objective truths and are also a priori analytical truths because they are universally true no matter what other people think or feel about them. Thoughts and feelings are subjective and they can change. Purely analytical a priori truths don't change. So, what kind of truth allows you to conclude otherwise?

And so, you may not be articulating your point clearly, I'm not sure, because you seem to be confusing your own sense of what is truth really is... . Maybe start with a simple a priori analytical truth that you seem to be more knowledgeable with. We'll use the infamous example of pure reason, in this case a tautology, which is a true proposition (as you say) by definition:

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

Which statement is true ?

[Steve3007]

With respect to tautologies,(like time), aren't they paradoxical too?

As I've said a tautology is a statement that is true by definition. I disagree that time is a statement that is true by definition.

[Steve3007]

3017Metaphysician, one thing I've found to be a good idea, at least for me, when I'm about to tell somebody that they've said something, is to check back where I think they've said it, to see if they really have. Particularly if I'm claiming they've said it in something I've quoted. Otherwise we'd just keep telling each other that we've said things that we haven't said or asking each other to explain things that have already been explained. For example, when you said this to TS:

...you are saying on the one hand, propositions are objective truths...

I'd check back through the post that you're commenting on, and have quoted, to make sure you can find the part which says "propositions are objective truths". I've done that and, at first glance at least, I can't find it. I can find a part which says "propositions are the meanings of statements" but I can't find any part which says "propositions are objective truths". I can find a part which says "truth is a property of propositions". I can also find a part which says "truth is subjective".

Can you see those parts?

[Steve3007]

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... .

Yes, you asked me those three things. The first appeared to be asking me for an example of calculus being used to describe something changing. I gave a simple example and asked how familiar you are with differential calculus. The second appeared to be asking for my thoughts on why our personal perception of the passage of time seems to vary compared to what a clock says. I gave my guess and asked for yours. The third was about "how thick the present is". I queried what you meant by that.

[Steve3007]

1. How does the calculus example then give us the answer of how big of a slice of time is calculated now?

It doesn't. That's not what you asked me for. See earlier posts for the size of the slice that differential calculus divides time into.

a. You are using mathematics for your answer, is that an objective answer?

See earlier posts for my views on mathematical statements and my usage of the word "objective".

2. What would emotional stress have to with the objective (mathematical/calculus) nature of time?

Why do you ask?

I have asked about the apperception of time, why would emotions be relevant?

I explained that in the answer in which I gave my guess as to some reasons why our personal perception of the passage of time seems to vary, and asked for your guess.

a. Do you think that time is abstract and objective?

See earlier posts in which I told you my view of what time is.

[Terrapin Station]

. . .

So let's try to break this down into something simpler so we can understand the different views.

Take person A, who says, "Mathematics is an inherent feature of the world. Mathematical objects, mathematical statements and so on would all exist whether any people existed or not."

And then there's person B, who says, "Mathematics is merely a way that people think about the world. Mathematical objects and mathematical statements do not exist as mathematical objects and statements in the world itself, independently of our thinking. If there were no people, there would be no mathematics, because there would be no one to think about anything that way."

Can you understand that someone might hold either one of those views?

[JackDaydream]

@Steve3007
I have been reading this thread and seems to be going round in circles with many posts of you and TS being asked for your views on what time is. I have read the link in the article which 3017Metaphysician linked as a response to me and it is asking whether time is real?

As far as I can see, as human beings we can conceive of time insofar as it as an aspect of experience, rather like a dimension, or a container because we are within it and it has its subjective and objective aspects. It is beyond our subjective experience, but experienced through the lens of subjective perception. It is 'real 'in the sense of it something which we experience, and models and descriptions can be made of it as approximations and attempts to understand it , just like the spatial dimensions of existence.

[Steve3007]

@Steve3007
I have been reading this thread and seems to be going round in circles with many posts of you and TS being asked for your views on what time is. I have read the link in the article which 3017Metaphysician linked as a response to me and it is asking whether time is real?

Yes. I gave my view as to what time is and whether it is real here. (Post #2.)

As far as I can see, as human beings we can conceive of time insofar as it as an aspect of experience, rather like a dimension, or a container because we are within it and it has its subjective and objective aspects. It is beyond our subjective experience, but experienced through the lens of subjective perception. It is 'real 'in the sense of it something which we experience, and models and descriptions can be made of it as approximations and attempts to understand it , just like the spatial dimensions of existence.

In my view dimensions are mathematical concepts that we use to create models. We create the dimension of time as an abstraction of individual instances of change, as we create the concept of number as an abstraction of individual instances of discrete objects.

[Tegularius]

Without thinking of it scientifically or going further in that direction, time functions as the stage upon which things happen. Without anything happening, time does not exist since there is nothing there for it to process or digest. It seems simplistic in those terms but as a function time is a kind of stomach or incubator of all beginnings and endings; since it's not likely or remotely conceivable for there to be a final absolute liquidation of everything preexisting, as if nothing ever existed, there will always be another tomorrow where time is concerned. Entropy itself is likely the root process which causes time to subsist...probably forever commencing again with some other infinitesimal emerging into another cosmic stage causing time to be the indispensable illusion of all existence.

[Tegularius]

@Steve3007
I have been reading this thread and seems to be going round in circles with many posts of you and TS being asked for your views on what time is. I have read the link in the article which 3017Metaphysician linked as a response to me and it is asking whether time is real?

Yes. I gave my view as to what time is and whether it is real here. (Post #2.)

As far as I can see, as human beings we can conceive of time insofar as it as an aspect of experience, rather like a dimension, or a container because we are within it and it has its subjective and objective aspects. It is beyond our subjective experience, but experienced through the lens of subjective perception. It is 'real 'in the sense of it something which we experience, and models and descriptions can be made of it as approximations and attempts to understand it , just like the spatial dimensions of existence.

In my view dimensions are mathematical concepts that we use to create models. We create the dimension of time as an abstraction of individual instances of change, as we create the concept of number as an abstraction of individual instances of discrete objects.

Well put. Put another way, just as space measures the distance between objects, time measures the distance between events, intra and inter. Both time and space operate as distance paradigms.

[Pattern-chaser]

Just as space measures the distance between objects, time measures the distance between events, intra and inter. Both time and space operate as distance paradigms.

Expressively and evocatively put.

[Belindi]

Just as space measures the distance between objects, time measures the distance between events, intra and inter. Both time and space operate as distance paradigms.

Expressively and evocatively put.

I agree Pattern-chaser, they are both measurements. But they are psychologically different because you can go backwards in space but you can't go backwards in time.

[3017Metaphysician]

. . .

So let's try to break this down into something simpler so we can understand the different views.

Take person A, who says, "Mathematics is an inherent feature of the world. Mathematical objects, mathematical statements and so on would all exist whether any people existed or not."

And then there's person B, who says, "Mathematics is merely a way that people think about the world. Mathematical objects and mathematical statements do not exist as mathematical objects and statements in the world itself, independently of our thinking. If there were no people, there would be no mathematics, because there would be no one to think about anything that way."

Can you understand that someone might hold either one of those views?

TS!

Sure. (I noticed much like Steve you didn't answer the previous questions(s). No matter. I'll answer yours and provide for the necessary redundancy.

Person A has a strong case that mathematics has an independent existence ('transcendental' either way for person A or B) particular since mathematics explains/describes initial conditions (prior to BB).

Person B has a weaker case for the above reason, but still has the burden to explain/describe the transcendental/metaphysical quality of abstract mathematical structures in the mind from conscious existence.

With respect to some mathematical paradox (tautologies), let me restate the problems so you can answer, then we can move on to other Time paradoxes:

3017 Metaphysician: What Terrapion Station is about to say is false.
Terrapin Station: Metaphysician 3017 has just spoken truly.

Which statement is true ?

I did not see that you answered these:

1. You said no objective thing is abstract. Mathematics' are abstract things that are objective. How do you reconcile the two?
a. By saying …"period", you've appealed to authority again, yourself, in saying something is true, but objectively you haven't proven it to be true. How can you be convincing objectively?

2. Logically, the explanations you've provided do not follow because you are saying on the one hand, propositions are objective truths (which is correct-if coherent, sound and logically follows, etc.), yet you are saying 'all truth is subjective'. Mathematical truths, for example, are objective truths and are also a priori analytical truths because they are universally true no matter what other people think or feel about them. Thoughts and feelings are subjective and they can change. Purely analytical a priori truths don't change. So, what kind of truth allows you to conclude otherwise?

Thanks TS!

[Steve3007]

I noticed much like Steve you didn't answer the previous questions(s)

I have to say, that's a bit fruity.

My part in the topic has mostly consisted of you asking me questions and me answering each of them. Sometimes having to answer them repeatedly. In quite a few of those answers I've asked questions myself to try to get a clearer idea what you're talking about. You never answers those question. You just carry on asking new questions and, as far as I can see, ignore most of my answers. That's the way it looks, because you sometimes ask questions that have been explicitly answered already or tell me that I'm saying things that are the opposite of what I've explicitly said. Why you would do all that, I don't know. I expect you wonder why I continue answering!

[Pattern-chaser]

Just as space measures the distance between objects, time measures the distance between events, intra and inter. Both time and space operate as distance paradigms.

Expressively and evocatively put.

I agree Pattern-chaser, they are both measurements. But they are psychologically different because you can go backwards in space but you can't go backwards in time.

That seems unfair. We assign to space, as we understand it, three dimensions through which we are free to move in any direction. We assign to time, as we understand it, less than one dimension. By this I mean we assign one dimension, through which we are free to move in one direction (and at one velocity) only.

Psychologically, we 'live' our lives more in our minds, and within the cocoon of human culture, than we do in the physical world. In our mental 'world' we can move back in time through memory, and also move in space. Theoretically, we can explore Alpha Centauri in space; in practice, we can only do this in our minds.

I definitely do NOT disagree that our psychological view of space and time is different. But this merely reflects the difference between these two concepts. If we separate and compare them, we end up confused. The two are inextricably connected, as Einstein illustrated. This might be better expressed, therefore, as "spacetime", as opposed to "space" ... and "time". If we do that, we end up looking at both at the same time, and avoid the misleading confusion caused by considering them in isolation.

So what is our psychological view on 'spacetime'?