Philosophy Discussion Forums

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 8:16 pm

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 8:07 pm

The duration is the length of change in an event.



The human devised, invented, and created contraption generally known in english as a "clock", which is the human made tool used for measuring duration.

Sure. So on your view, prior to inventing clocks of some sort, or at least prior to humans, there was no duration?

No, why would you assume or ask such a ridiculous thing?

Have I said absolutely anything that could even be construed in such a distorted way?

The duration of 'change', which is only what is actually being measured by clocks, and/or what is referred to by the word 'time', has been a constant since there has been matter and space.

To me, there cannot be change if there was either only space or only matter. If there is one of them, then so to there is the other one, because if there is just only one, then the other could not come to be.

Space, matter, and change are always, forever together.

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 8:02 pm

Atla wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 8:25 am Besides propositions and conclusions etc. tend to have an inherently linear structure. So they are incompatible with the probably inherently circular nature of reality. Thinking about logic in only linear terms is a huge problem imo.

But the circular nature of reality can be very simply and very easily explained in a linear structure.

The Universe is eternal and infinite.
There is no beginning and there was no end.
Looking as far as can been seen forwards or backwards temporally or in any direction spatially you will always come back to the HERE-NOW.
There is only HERE-NOW in constant-change.
HERE-NOW is the beginning and the end.
The end of the past and the beginning of the future.

Constant-change, creation is logically impossible, obviously. So if you insist on solving the universe using logic, you can start by throwing out your philosophy.

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:27 pm And, as exactly as I said both play an equal part. But did I really need to have worked this out for you and/or have to show how this is actually the case?

Yes, I definitely need that worked out if I am to have the slightest chance of understanding it. You either can not, will not, or did not understand the question.

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 7:27 pm You are absolutely free to choose absolutely anything you want to. But your list, to choose from, was formed by, and is limited by, your past limited experiences.

Yes, that is correct and a fine description of free will, without determinism. Welcome to the free will camp.

I have heard it argued that, mathematically, in an infinite universe, whatever can be true must be true. So, in an infinite universe my red dragon Bluebell, mentioned earlier, must exist. I find that counter-intuitive. My philosophy will not allow Bluebell. I will accept no more absurdity than I must. There’s too much of it already. Some here, find the idea of a finite space equally absurd and will not allow it for similar reasons (counter-intuitive). However, if space is just conceived as an infinite largely empty void, the possibility of which I think some of you are arguing for, it can (must?) still contain a finite number of objects. So we must be careful not to be misled by the way some mathematical arguments are presented. I think the “infinite empty space” philosophy (Gater is specific about his view here) allows that there are not an infinite number of Bluebells and not necessarily even one Bluebell.

I am not forced to accept an infinite universe by my philosophy though. But I am clear it does not show the infinite space view must be wrong. It is tempting to argue that a difficulty for that position is that the experimental evidence supports the admittedly weird idea that space is something and not just a void. For example, space as substance explains the motion of the planets, gravitational lensing, and the recent detection of gravity waves. This is not bad science. We are left arguing about the interpretation of the data. I think if we can find another way to explain these findings it might give the infinite empty space argument more force, though, again, if we can’t it doesn’t mean it must be wrong either.

It is very hard to imagine the ”what is north of the North Pole” kind of nothing proposed by Hawking. We want to imagine it as a void. But that is not what he was suggesting. There is literally nothing there, no void, to be imagined. Is this something that cannot be countenanced? If so, is this a failure of logic or a failure of imagination? I think that may be the nub of the issue.

I do not think the notion of “no void” can be shown to be logically mistaken. It may be that in our observable universe space is substance that is curved and closed so that we cannot get outside of it and it is sensible to think of time and space as having a beginning. Maybe, it really is all there is. But if space as void is infinite, we cannot generalise from our knowledge of the infinitely small part of it that we can observe to make firm statements about the rest. Logically there may be other miniverses, these may stand in some kind of (unknowable) relationship to each other, in which case the notion of a void that allows for such relations seems to have some merit. Whether that void is infinite seems beyond the ability of our logic and experience to provide definitive answers. Maybe we are in a black hole within a bigger black hole etc. like some set of awesome Russian dolls. May there is a final largest black hole beyond which there is Hawking’s nothing. Maybe it’s just black holes all the way down. I need a drink now.

Atla wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 2:13 amConstant-change, creation is logically impossible, obviously. So if you insist on solving the universe using logic, you can start by throwing out your philosophy.

Since the universe is in fact in constant change, your logic must be at fault. Not your use of logic but the logic you choose to use. Logic is not independent of metaphysics. Once you insist on binary logic your universe of discourse is necessarily limited to a very restricted metaphysical world of your own creation.

Bluemist wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 7:59 am

Atla wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 2:13 amConstant-change, creation is logically impossible, obviously. So if you insist on solving the universe using logic, you can start by throwing out your philosophy.

Since the universe is in fact in constant change, your logic must be at fault. Not your use of logic but the logic you choose to use. Logic is not independent of metaphysics. Once you insist on binary logic your universe of discourse is necessarily limited to a very restricted metaphysical world of your own creation.

You are not omniscient to claim that that's a fact. And taking everyday appearances as fact isn't logical either.
Right now we can't tell for sure whether change actually occurs, or is illusory. Maybe it will always be impossible to tell. Logically it should be illusory, and there are some experimental clues I won't get into here that imply it's illusory.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 7th, 2020, 8:55 pmThings in the universe are modified by being divided. This is not the case with infinity.
If time is infinite then it is not meaningful to divide it. A day could not exist.

It is an interesting perspective.

What is divided, is divided by what is perceived as time. Time may not actually be of substance other than how it is perceived in a relational context. As such, time isn't "something" that would span into infinity (i.e. an infinite amount). Infinity could be applicable to the relational context.

Because a divide always implies the aspect time relative to what defines a divide, it could make it logical that the universe is infinite with a perceived finite amount of divides. Any counting of divides that would occur, is time bound, which implies that a totality perspective wouldn't be applicable. One could count into infinity and as such, divides can occur into infinity.

chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 5:51 am Yes, that is correct and a fine description of free will, without determinism. Welcome to the free will camp.

A recent study suggests that particles can become quantum entangled by post-selection (a correlation between particles in the future).

PARTICLES on opposite ends of the cosmos can link quantum mechanical hands when the particles are correlated in the future.

The effect is based on work by Yakir Aharonov, also at Chapman University, in the 1960s. He and his colleagues showed that, mathematically speaking, a system’s properties can be influenced by measurements made in the future. Aharonov has been studying the strange consequences of this “post-selection” process ever since.

Now Aharonov, Tollaksen, Sandu Popescu and their colleagues show mathematically that post-selection should link any two particles every time their quantum properties are measured, no matter where they are in the cosmos. In other words, all particles everywhere could be linked, provided they have been post-selected in some way. “Is that mind-blowing or is that mind-blowing?” Tollaksen says.

Pigeon paradox reveals cosmic connections
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... nnections/

If such is the case, then free will may not stand on its own as separated from something that is determined beforehand.

creation wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 10:59 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 8th, 2020, 8:16 pm

Sure. So on your view, prior to inventing clocks of some sort, or at least prior to humans, there was no duration?

No, why would you assume or ask such a ridiculous thing?

Have I said absolutely anything that could even be construed in such a distorted way?

The duration of 'change', which is only what is actually being measured by clocks, and/or what is referred to by the word 'time', has been a constant since there has been matter and space.

To me, there cannot be change if there was either only space or only matter. If there is one of them, then so to there is the other one, because if there is just only one, then the other could not come to be.

Space, matter, and change are always, forever together.

So if "time" is referring to duration, it's not referring to something that's exclusively a human activity, right?

Wossname wrote: ↑February 9th, 2020, 7:45 amSome here, find the idea of a finite space equally absurd and will not allow it for similar reasons (counter-intuitive). However, if space is just conceived as an infinite largely empty void, the possibility of which I think some of you are arguing for, it can (must?) still contain a finite number of objects. So we must be careful not to be misled by the way some mathematical arguments are presented. I think the “infinite empty space” philosophy (Gater is specific about his view here) allows that there are not an infinite number of Bluebells and not necessarily even one Bluebell.

The relational limit that one poses on perceived finitude is only locally applicable on tiny time scales that are neglected by the mind. "objects" are only finite in a mental concept (observation) which naturally tends to a totality perspective on reality due to the accumulative nature of pattern recognition/counting. In reality, as it appears, "objects" or "events" are time bound and as such can occur into infinity, just like one can count into infinity.

What does it mean that mental concepts, or observations (recognized patterns), are perceived as finitude? By itself, it may provide a clue.

arjand wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 6:22 am Wossname wrote: ↑Yesterday, 11:45 am
Some here, find the idea of a finite space equally absurd and will not allow it for similar reasons (counter-intuitive). However, if space is just conceived as an infinite largely empty void, the possibility of which I think some of you are arguing for, it can (must?) still contain a finite number of objects. So we must be careful not to be misled by the way some mathematical arguments are presented. I think the “infinite empty space” philosophy (Gater is specific about his view here) allows that there are not an infinite number of Bluebells and not necessarily even one Bluebell.
The relational limit that one poses on perceived finitude is only locally applicable on tiny time scales that are neglected by the mind. "objects" are only finite in a mental concept (observation) which naturally tends to a totality perspective on reality due to the accumulative nature of pattern recognition/counting. In reality, as it appears, "objects" or "events" are time bound and as such can occur into infinity, just like one can count into infinity.

What does it mean that mental concepts, or observations (recognized patterns), are perceived as finitude? By itself, it may provide a clue.

arjand I struggle to understand your views. They seem almost mystical to me, and I suspect that is doing you a deep disservice. It might help me if you could tell me if you believe Bluebell exists or not, and why?

I have two arguments:

• Infinite amount is not possible.
• Infinity as an observable that stands on its own as separated and countable is not possible.

Because infinity has no beginning, it cannot be counted.

With regard to my view. What I intended to state with my previous message is that humans or observation in general as seen as a form of pattern recognition tends to a totality perspective while in reality what is observed is time bound and as such can exist into infinity.

When observing reality (pattern recognition by consciousness) one intends to define from an accumulative perspective from a perceived self, e.g. the human or earth. This results in a totality perspective on reality because the observer introduces a "begin" - the start of the pattern recognition - that is not easy to exclude or overcome mentally. This fact itself may be a clue with regard to how infinity may be applicable to reality.

Man can only experience a small portion of time, typically about 75 years. Currently, the farthest object in the observable cosmos is a galaxy known as GN-z11 which is approximately 32 billion light-years away, discovered in 2016.
75 years might seem like a long time, and an a 64 billion light year sphere might seem like a large area, but 75 years is just a moment in eternity, as is a huge sphere is a just dot of infinity.
Scientists look through their telescopes, and adopt theories to try and explain it all, but they refuse to acknowledge eternity and infinity as fact, because they cant see it or know it. Their most popular belief is the Big Bang Theory, which was based on a misunderstanding of physics.
Philosophers however are not limited by what we see, or what we experience. Its a complete effort to understand the truth, with an open mind, and are ready to accept the truth, whatever that turns out to be. This frees us to apply Logic, and to accept a logical conclusion as true.

Time and space are absolutely eternal and infinite. Logically and physically they have to be - a good philosopher, will accept this as true.

arjand wrote: ↑February 10th, 2020, 11:24 pm y arjand » Today, 3:24 am

I have two arguments:
Infinite amount is not possible.
Infinity as an observable that stands on its own as separated and countable is not possible.
Because infinity has no beginning, it cannot be counted.

With regard to my view. What I intended to state with my previous message is that humans or observation in general as seen as a form of pattern recognition tends to a totality perspective while in reality what is observed is time bound and as such can exist into infinity.

When observing reality (pattern recognition by consciousness) one intends to define from an accumulative perspective from a perceived self, e.g. the human or earth. This results in a totality perspective on reality because the observer introduces a "begin" - the start of the pattern recognition - that is not easy to exclude or overcome mentally. This fact itself may be a clue with regard to how infinity may be applicable to reality.

Bluebell?

Wossname wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 6:06 am Bluebell?

Your original argument:

Wossname wrote: ↑February 7th, 2020, 10:23 amI don’t actually believe Bluebell exists. That would be silly. But I fear that somewhere there is a fervent eyed mathematician who is willing to tell me that, in an infinite universe, Bluebell does exist. She must exist. Worse still, in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of Bluebells. Even worse still, I must accept that in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of mathematicians regaling me with terrible claims about my poor Bluebell which can be of infinite variety and many of which are unrepeatable in polite company. That’s mathematicians for you.

The simple factual logic that infinity is not countable implies that it is not possible to consider an infinite amount of Bluebell's.

It is being discussed in the topic Infinite monkey theorem