Philosophy Discussion Forums

Amy Luman wrote: ↑January 18th, 2023, 1:14 pm I don't really understand. Can you please say it in a different way?

Can you quote verbatim the first sentence from the Original Post (OP) that you don't understand?

Then I will gladly re-word the sentence and help explain what I mean by it.

Then, if there are still other sentences after that single one sentence that you do not understand, we can take them one at a time in the same fashion.

Here are some helpful quotes from a video by PBS in which Dr. Matt O'Dowd (Ph.D. in astronomy and astrophysics) explains the basics of Einstein's Special & General Relativity:

Dr. Matt O'Dowd, Ph.D. wrote:In his special theory of relativity, Einstein showed that there’s no absolute way to define whether two events happen simultaneously: The present, past, and future are relative concepts.

Dr. Matt O'Dowd, Ph.D. wrote:It’s possible for another observer to be in your slice of the present, but for you not to be in theirs.

Dr. Matt O'Dowd, Ph.D. wrote:That’s the effect of Einstein’s special relativity - space and time tilt into each other, so that different observers will slice up block time at different angles depending on their velocities.

Even your own sense of the present changes with your motion. Start moving forward and your slice of “now” will skew. Ahead of you, things once in the future will become the present, and behind you the past becomes the present and what was once the present is now in the future. Walk in circles around the room and your entire now-slice tilts crazily like a ship deck in a storm. Nearby the effect is tiny, but the “present” at the edge of the observable universe veers back and forth by a couple of centuries every time you switch direction.

Dr. Matt O'Dowd, Ph.D. wrote:There remains no part of the block universe that couldn't be considered the past according to someone who lives in our present.

Dr. Matt O'Dowd, Ph.D. wrote:The “present” of someone else on your slice of present could be literally any point in your future.

And here is more concise summary from a followup video:

Dr. Matt O'Dowd, Ph.D. wrote:In a block universe of Einstein's relativity, there's no way to cleanly define the present and so no way to cleanly separate the future from the past. The notion of the present is relative. To us it looks like a particular slice through the block universe. But different observers will slice the block at different angles that depend on their velocities. That means that for every observer it's possible to imagine another observer who lives in their definition of the present, but for whom your future is already the past. Or for whom your past is their future.

Thank you for directing me to this subject, Scott.
Indeed, abstracts = the imaginary (PSYCHE) do/does not exist.-
Abstracts are:
- Elicited, made up, fabricated FROM/ABOUT the existing (the concretes)
- ascribed, assigned, attributed TO the existing (the conctretes)

PSYCHE (in the old Greek categorization) =
Reference (Semiotic Triangle = Triangle of Reference, Ogden et al, 1920es)
"world"2 (the 3 "worlds" by KR Popper)
information ie informed-NESS or -HOOD ( in my own categorization)
but also: thought ie awareness, observedness, PROPERTY, true-ness ie truth ie meaning ie OPINION

The so called mind ie the human consciousness, it is merely the entirety of the imaginary (abstracts)
being fabricated in an individual evolved-primate brain.
In other words, the mind is imaginary, ie does not exist,
is merely an imaginary mere-sympton 8ie non causing) also called epiphaenomenon
The possible momentary elements of the mind, in other word the abstracts, are listed as follows,
in my own preliminary listing, which listing is existing since more than 2 years.

(1) All proclaimed sensations, emotions, problems,
values (such as correctness, beauty and usefulness),
is-ness = existence, evidence
ought-, should-, must-ness = relevance, importance, necessity
meanings, intentions, purposes, desires-/ wills - and the respective counteremotions.
Such as: freedom and captivity, free will and determinedness, love and hate,
appreciation and disgust, bright-NESS and dark-NESS.

(2) ALL proclaimed-, measurable parameters in the language of physics:
(rest-) MASS, distance, area, space, density, time, velocity, acceleration (gravity is an example),
force, impulse, pressure, power, ENERGY, temperature

(3) ALL proclaimed numbers, measurable constants, all Fields in the language of physics.
And all LAWS - "of" games, legislature, AND "of" logic, morality, physics

(4) ALL proclaimed worldviews = ideologies including the element of Theistic worldviews called Gods -
such as YHWH, Jesus (THE) Christ, Allah

The average people has a grave problem from/about the assertion that the measurable properties = parameters,
see Chapter (2), are imaginary.
The parameter is an awareness = imaginary, is elicited, made up, fabricated,
from/about a very real measurement on a device or a very real calculation on the paper.
Which measurement or calculation is NOT caused by the parameter,
but from/about the thing, we are measuring or calculating the parameter from/about.

kind regards from GERMANY

Scott wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 1:39 pm

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am

Scott wrote:Instead, my point is that rightness and leftness themselves are relative to fictional constructs, such as an imaginary y-axis on a pool table.

I disagree that they're relative to fictional constructs. A real object's real position and orientation is meaningful when specified relative to other real objects, relative to a reference frame which is stationary with respect to real objects.

I could be misunderstanding, but this appears to be a potential false dichotomy represented by the following two different but compatible statements:

1. Rightness and leftness (i.e directional orientation) do not really physically exist because they refer not just to relationships between physical objects that actually exist.

2. Rightness and leftness are meaningful concepts.
P
For instance, I think the concept of a 0D point, or by extension a triangle (i.e. three separate 0D points connected by three non-intersecting 1D lines) is meaningful and useful.

Assuming one is not positing consciousness (presumably some kind of metaphysical subjectivity) or what could be called "conscious presence" as some kind of reference-frame-like thing...

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am Think of [a reference frame] as simply a system of real objects and real clocks.

A reference frame is not a system of real objects and real clocks.

It is a fabricated conception made to model reality, so that math can be done, and thus physical predictions based on the model can be done.

It's more a like an old school group of military generals strategizing war and predicting what their enemy might do by using a 2D map with little movable action figures on top of it to play the 'if this, then that' game of imagination.

Scott wrote:Do you agree that it is meaningless to ask if Mars is on the right side or the left side of the universe; that is, without specifying or conceiving of some kind of fictional reference frame?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am No, I don't agree with that because I don't agree with the part after "that is...".

Let me rephrase the question, do you think it is meaningful to ask if Mars is objectively on the right side or the left side of the universe?

If so, then I ask--objectively speaking---is Mars objectively on the left side or the right side of the universe?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am Since the universe isn't an object, but is a collective term for the entire history of every thing (at least it is to me), it would make no sense to ask if Mars is on the left or right side of it.

I agree with this.

Granted, your following comments seem to suggest that you are preconceiving of some kind of 'time' and/or 'presence' existing. So I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, but I agree with the above sentence.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am It would be like asking "Is Mars permanently to the left of everything, including itself?". (I know Mars is red. But it's not that red). But it would be perfectly sensible to ask if real object A is to the left or right of real object B with respect to the real position and orientation of real object C. For example, this question makes sense to me:

If your argument for the real objective physical existence of leftness and rightness relies on presupposing real time, time-ness, and/or presence in time exist, then I am open to conceding that insofar as real time, objective time-ness, and real presence are presupposed as premises then the existence of rightness and leftness seems to also be a corollary of that.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am "With respect to this real part of this real parking lot/carpark, is that real green Nissan to the left or right of that real blue Toyota?"

To me, that question seems totally unanswerable as asked. However, if you are also imagining yourself standing in "this real part of this real parking lot" looking out with your nose pointed in a specific direction (even though you didn't mention any of that in the question or clarify which direction your human nose would be pointing), then I can take bets about what kind of made-up reference frame you as a human would use in that scenario, if not simply due to common sense knowledge about the way humans (myself being no exception) like to treat themselves as the center of the universe with their two human eyeballs as being special, and a habit of referring to those eyeballs in certain ways. But if I imagine multiple humans standing in that parking lot, they would all answer your question differently, because most humans are equally prone to disregarding the Copernican Principle. But if we take the questions as asked, which allows one to assume there is no life or noticeable change in the parking lot, and the parking lot never changes but exists barren of life in an unchanging state, and thus there is little way for humanity's illogical anti-Copernican intuitions to mislead one into answering a question other than the one actually asked... then it is IMO unanswerable and meaningless as asked.

It is like asking if a ball that moved 2 inches on a pool table moved two inches to the right or two inches to the left. It's unanswerable because it's dependent on where one conceptually draws the dividing axises that form the made-up reference frame. According to one made-up model of the reality the answer will be "to the right" and in another it will be "to the left".

You can use real objects as references to conceptually draw the reference frame, much like you can use a "you are here" marker on a 2D map that represents a park someone might be standing in or a mall they be shopping in.

Thus, one could say, for example, "if we imagine a perfectly straight line (i.e. a y-axis) drawn from this specific corner pocket to that other specific corner-pocket pocket with that side of line being the right side (the positive direction on the x-axis) and that opposite side of the line being the left side (the negative direction on the x-axis), then did that ball move two inches to the right or to the left?" But the line of division is a actually fiction, and the choice to make one side right or left is arbitrary in terms of the actual fundamental physics of what actually physically exists.

The question with a specified made-up reference frame allows two different humans to use that shared made-up reference frame to talk about a real physical event, by creating an imaginary absolute background with defined leftness and rightness. But the leftness and rightness themselves are made-up aspects of that conceptualization process, of the imaginary background that could be equally imagined in infinite other ways. The leftness and rightness cannot be generated without first imagining a fictional plane of 0-width on one dimension (the dimension that will become x-axis-like or in other words of being the source of the made-up left-right orientation) acting as the dividing line/plane between the left side and the right side. Which side is left and which is right depends on (1) where one imagines the line/plane of division and (2) which side one labels as the positive/right side versus the negative/left side. It's important to note that the line/plane of division must be one dimension lower than that being dividing.

In classical physics, to say two balls are moving away from each other is a relative statement about the relationship between two physical things. Thus the concept of movement in that context refers to something that is relative but physically real. To ask which balls' X values are increasing (a.k.a. which balls are moving to the right) requires creating an imaginary absolute background with divisional lines (a.k.a. axises) to use to conceptually describe the relative physics that is occurring. That's only in classical physics, though. Actual physics is even less intuitive and requires giving up even more false intuitions and false common sense beliefs.

To conceptually divide a 1D line requires a 0D dividing point. To conceptually divide a 2D plane requires a 1D line. To conceptually divide a 3D object or 3D universe requires a 2D plane. To conceptually divide a 4D universe requires a 3D plane. To get a directional orientations requires even more: each division requires arbitrarily labeling a negative side (e.g. the left side) and a positive side (e.g. the right side) which are made-up qualities that don't actually exist in what's being described but are rather made-up tools of conceptual to assist in communication.

If you use X to represent how far to the right or left something is, then the dividing plane would be where X = 0. You don't have to call it X or use the English word "left" and "right", but nonetheless in one sense or another one needs to conceptually create leftness and rightness (a.k.a. negative-x-ness and positive-x-ness) by projecting onto the reality the idea that somewhere X = 0 (i.e. that somewhere in reality there is a dividing plane between the left side and the right side), and which of the two perpendicular directions is the positive/right direction. That kind of conceptual imagining (i.e. projection onto reality) is needed to get leftness and rightness. And it's a very useful conceptualization, much like refusing to use the concept of triangles would be very dis-useful.

Leftness and rightness are qualities of the conceptual model (i.e. the fictional reference frame), not actual physical reality.

Leftness and Rightness relate to Consciousness and always have been related to Consciousness.They do not relate to anything else.

With inward meditation the individual goes out of consciousness synch.

So the individual goes within and then divides in the within state of consciousness creating a Leftness and Rightness.

The individual then participates in dualistic thinking/reasoning.

There is such a things as outward meditation with consciousness as well.

Consciousness needs to be balanced.

Located-ness, such as right-, left-, outside-, inside-ness,
but also any state (Zustand) and oughtness (need, nercessity)
each is an abstract ie imaginary.
The entirety of abstracts ie the imaginary being fabricated in an evolved-primate brain, momentarily,
it is called the mind or human consciousness.
In other words, each abstract is a psssible, momentary fraction of one's consciousness.
When you assert that "consciuosness needs to be balanced"
you are putting a religious assertion.
A religious assertion is not nercessarily a theistically-religious assertion.
When you assert that the imaginary (for an example the consdciousness),
it be real ie existing = causing = changing,
then you are putting a religious assertion.

When you are asserting that you be using, balancing, controlling your consciousness,
then you are referring to the brain, which you can use, balance, control.
The consciousness does not exist ie you cannot use, balance, control it.
At no point is the assertion that the consciousness is imaginary, ie does not exist
tantamount to the assertion that your brain does not exist.
When I refer to you as existing, and vice versa,
we are referring to all that we can see, hear, sense, if not even smell and taste, dear friend.

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2023, 2:07 pm When you are asserting that you be using, balancing, controlling your consciousness,
then you are referring to the brain, which you can use, balance, control.
The consciousness does not exist ie you cannot use, balance, control it.
At no point is the assertion that the consciousness is imaginary, ie does not exist
tantamount to the assertion that your brain does not exist.
When I refer to you as existing, and vice versa,
we are referring to all that we can see, hear, sense, if not even smell and taste, dear friend.

You can control consciousness.

The fact that you claim otherwise confirms that you are a prisoner of it and know absolutely nothing about it.

Consciousness has 2 aspects to it.In and Out of the moment which are like + and - forces which need to be balanced.

In line with nature.The only way to balance consciousness is if you balance a + and - force with a + and - force.

FACT.

>>>The fact that you claim otherwise confirms that you are a prisoner of it and know absolutely nothing about it.<<<
My proclamation merely demonstrates that I have an evolved-primate brain.
Your proclamtion merely demonstrates that you have an evolved-primate brain.
Try again

And why did you full-quote my posting,
although it was - still - the last response in this discussion, when you responded?
Btw, force is yet another abstract. IE: you cannot balance it.
In Germany, every stoopid child knows that all that we are balancing, it is things.

The big mistake that some individuals and most modern day scientist and philosophers make is assuming that +=- and -=+ in nature. They assume this as their starting point to achieve what they see in their delusional world as a cancelling out. A nullification. They then make up their own science and philosophy following this false assumption.

Well in nature the above formula does not work and nature provides definitive proof of this.

Electromagnets have 2 opposite forces N and S (+ and -)

If you take 2 electromagnets and put one on each side of the dualistic fence then the only way to balance these forces is if you have a + and - balancing with a + and -.

You cannot balance a + with a - and a - with a + because these interactions only provide an attraction and we know there are 2 further interactions
- and - and + and +

So natures formula is,

Alternating + and - = Alternating + and -.

Nature achieves this through SPIN.

The end result of all these electromagnetic force interactions in nature is a VIBRATORY balance.

Everything vibrates in the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels.

Therefore the science and philosophy that is presently peddled as reliable truth is utter nonsense and in no way explains the reality we live in.

The scientists and philosophers who adhere to present day accepted theories have simply disappeared down a rabbit hole and are then lost within a delusional illusionary world of their own making.

Things (real) have properties (imaginary), such as forces.
they are composed of particles (real) rather than properties (imaginary)
When we put two attracting magnets together then we merely obtain another larger magnet.
When we force two repelling magnets in a box where they cannot separater from each other, we obtain a larger but weaker magnet.
There is no phaenomena demonstrating that forces are acting, only things that are acting upon each other.
The two magnets are exerting a force and we are exerting a force onto magnets.

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2023, 11:17 am Things (real) have properties (imaginary), such as forces.
they are composed of particles (real) rather than properties (imaginary)
When we put two attracting magnets together then we merely obtain another larger magnet.
When we force two repelling magnets in a box where they cannot separater from each other, we obtain a larger but weaker magnet.
There is no phaenomena demonstrating that forces are acting, only things that are acting upon each other.
The two magnets are exerting a force and we are exerting a force onto magnets.

What are you talking about?

Are you claiming that the electromagnetic fields that saturate the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels are imaginary…lol

Matter is neutral.

When the electromagnetic fields interact with matter 2 opposite forces result.

The electromagnetic fields are separate from matter.

You cannot cancel these 2 forces out.

You can only balance them.

The field is an abstract (ie imaginary).
It is not a component of matter.
Whether you like or not,
matter is always and only interacting with other matter.
When specific matter is in specific ways interacting with other matter,
such as magnets with other magnets or with ferromagnetic matter,
or cations with anions,
we are assigning, ascribing, attributing,
properties such as "magnetism" and "electric charge" to them.
It deem it to be fair to call you a property-religious person.
A religious person is a person, who takes and tells the
imaginary-non-causal (within-brain-effect ie epiphaenomenal)
for real (outside-brain cause, causal).
IE they are not necessarily a theistically-religious person.

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2023, 1:23 pm The field is an abstract (ie imaginary).
It is not a component of matter.
Whether you like or not,
matter is always and only interacting with other matter.
When specific matter is in specific ways interacting with other matter,
such as magnets with other magnets or with ferromagnetic matter,
or cations with anions,
we are assigning, ascribing, attributing,
properties such as "magnetism" and "electric charge" to them.
It deem it to be fair to call you a property-religious person.
A religious person is a person, who takes and tells the
imaginary-non-causal (within-brain-effect ie epiphaenomenal)
for real (outside-brain cause, causal).
IE they are not necessarily a theistically-religious person.

Utter nonsense.

These electromagnetic fields are not imaginary.They are separate from matter but when they interact with matter they produce 2 forces in nature which cannot be cancelled out.

These forces can only be balanced.

Everything is made up of things that spin in the cosmos and therefore all matter is made up electromagnets at both the macro and micro levels which are interacting.

I agree that you have a belief system that it in error and you really need to brush up on your inward only out of consciousness synch dualistic reasoning which all of you philosophy and science is based upon.