Philosophy Discussion Forums

Nowhere and Everywhere are the same thing... attributes of the same event, adding up to the same amount. Infinitely unaccesible and pointless, we can surmize by way of physics and mathematics.
That's my view, but I admit to being unsure. Please advise. My logic also applies to "Something", as I am in the midst of researching a paper on space-time and our conscious consideration of being, within the Block Universe model.
From that model, if time is static and space does not exist, how we conceptualize the passing of time is merely conjured in our own minds. Nowhere and Everywhere become obsolete, the only true appreciation is that of our present moment, NOW... In other words, somewhere!

TimesParadigm wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 6:37 pm Nowhere and Everywhere are the same thing... attributes of the same event, adding up to the same amount. Infinitely unaccesible and pointless, we can surmise by way of physics and mathematics.
That's my view, but I admit to being unsure. Please advise. My logic also applies to "Something", as I am in the midst of researching a paper on space-time and our conscious consideration of being, within the Block Universe model.
From that model, if time is static and space does not exist, how we conceptualize the passing of time is merely conjured in our own minds. Nowhere and Everywhere become obsolete, the only true appreciation is that of our present moment, NOW... In other words, somewhere!

A question that may be relevant is, on what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

TimesParadigm wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 6:37 pm ...if time is static and space does not exist, how we conceptualize the passing of time is merely conjured in our own minds.

Welcome to our dance, TimesParadigm!

Time is a serious and difficult philosophical topic. Is it what you intend to discuss here, or is it incidental to the Somewhere/Nowhere dichotomy you also describe? To begin with, it very soon becomes difficult to discuss time, because it is intrinsically bound to our languages and to our words. Try describing anything at all without referring to time, if only indirectly!

arjand wrote: ↑March 18th, 2020, 6:28 am A question that may be relevant is, on what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

The posed question was intended to be general in nature. It is an exact copy of an unanswered question in a different topic and in this topic it may have been better to formulate it as on what basis does one believe.

The question intends to hint that the observer may be erroneously factored out from consideration in ones perception on time and other aspects related to reality.

TimesParadigm wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 6:37 pm From that model, if time is static and space does not exist, how we conceptualize the passing of time is merely conjured in our own minds. Nowhere and Everywhere become obsolete, the only true appreciation is that of our present moment, NOW... In other words, somewhere!

If (Some)where were to be considered a valid concept, it implies that Everywhere and Nowhere are equally valid concepts. Therefore it would be at question whether the concept Somewhere is to be considered to be otherwise than the mentioned conjuration of the mind.

If time is considered to be conjured by the mind, why not space as well?

Nowhere and everywhere aren't the same.

We have a set of locations, A, B, C, D, E . . . Z.

Re that set of locations, x is located nowhere. That means that there is no x in A, no x in B, etc. all the way to no x in Z.

Re that set of locations, y is (or Ys are) located everywhere. That means that there is a y (or a part of y) in A, a y (or a part of y) in B, etc., all the way through Z.

So there's a difference.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 18th, 2020, 7:14 pm Nowhere and everywhere aren't the same.

We have a set of locations, A, B, C, D, E . . . Z.

Re that set of locations, x is located nowhere. That means that there is no x in A, no x in B, etc. all the way to no x in Z.

Re that set of locations, y is (or Ys are) located everywhere. That means that there is a y (or a part of y) in A, a y (or a part of y) in B, etc., all the way through Z.

So there's a difference.

On what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to consider a set to be applicable to reality, i.e. that a set could be applicable to the concept Somewhere?

arjand wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 5:46 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 18th, 2020, 7:14 pm Nowhere and everywhere aren't the same.

We have a set of locations, A, B, C, D, E . . . Z.

Re that set of locations, x is located nowhere. That means that there is no x in A, no x in B, etc. all the way to no x in Z.

Re that set of locations, y is (or Ys are) located everywhere. That means that there is a y (or a part of y) in A, a y (or a part of y) in B, etc., all the way through Z.

So there's a difference.

On what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to consider a set to be applicable to reality, i.e. that a set could be applicable to the concept Somewhere?

Are you using "reality" to only refer to extramental things?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 7:30 am

arjand wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 5:46 am

On what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to consider a set to be applicable to reality, i.e. that a set could be applicable to the concept Somewhere?

Are you using "reality" to only refer to extramental things?

The term is intended to be applicable to whatever humans or philosophy ought to consider to give meaning to the term, in their quest to understand and explain Nature.

arjand wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 10:51 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 7:30 am

Are you using "reality" to only refer to extramental things?

The term is intended to be applicable to whatever humans or philosophy ought to consider to give meaning to the term, in their quest to understand and explain Nature.

So you're using the term any way anyone wants to use it?

It is a term for the resulting summarizing perspective of a presumed quest for truth. Based on the meaning and thereby the context of that concept, the answer to your question is yes.

arjand wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 12:39 pm It is a term for the resulting summarizing perspective of a presumed quest for truth. Based on the meaning and thereby the context of that concept, the answer to your question is yes.

So then how am I supposed to address: "On what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to consider a set to be applicable to reality"? "Reality" might refer to any arbitrary idea.

Reality could only refer to that which you assume reality to be in the given context of a search for truth. The truth condition is at question, not the intention to fulfill the purpose of the quest.

It may be possible to argue that reality means something different for each individual human. The perspective itself cannot be judged. One can only question the validity of the truth conditions used to form one's perspective.

If the term "reality" is replaced with "time", would it be possible to answer the question?

arjand wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 2:53 pm Reality could only refer to that which you assume reality to be in the given context of a search for truth. The truth condition is at question, not the intention to fulfill the purpose of the quest.

It may be possible to argue that reality means something different for each individual human. The perspective itself cannot be judged. One can only question the validity of the truth conditions used to form one's perspective.

If the term "reality" is replaced with "time", would it be possible to answer the question?

I've long since filed you under "uncooperative posters" by the way.

The reason I was asking you about what sense of "reality" you were using is because the sense you're using will impact the answer.

Re "given in the context of a 'search for truth'," that seems to allude to notions that I don't buy into. "Truth" on my view is a judgment that people make about the relationship of propositions to something else. It's not really something we literally "search for" from my perspective. I'd rather say that people are trying to discover facts--facts being states of affairs, often where facts are contra to beliefs, assumptions, etc.

But I haven't the faintest idea what "reality in the context of a search for truth (or facts)" would be saying, and since you're an uncooperative poster, I'm never going to know, because you're never going to bother trying to explain it in a way that I'd have any idea what you're on about.

At any rate, sets are definitely "real" in the sense that we've constructed that as a way of talking about things. Aside from that, locations are definitely real in an extramental sense. And we can talk about locations A through Z.

<<

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 3:04 pm
I've long since filed you under "uncooperative posters" by the way.

The reason I was asking you about what sense of "reality" you were using is because the sense you're using will impact the answer.

My argument intends to lay reality as a concept at the position of "the eye of the beholder", i.e. it is claimed that the perspective per se by which one can give substance to the term reality, cannot be judged.

One could pose that since the Sun rises each day, Sunrise is a reality.

Equally, one could pose that everything that one could argue to know about one's environment, will amount to what one can denote as "reality".

Considering that one requires truth conditions to form a perspective, one can pose that by the question-ability of the nature of the concept reality it can be stated that reality is truthful in nature, by which one can derive a qualitative distinctionability that can be used to examine any claim that one could make about one's environment, i.e. to verify any type of knowledge that one could have.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 3:04 pm Re "given in the context of a 'search for truth'," that seems to allude to notions that I don't buy into. "Truth" on my view is a judgment that people make about the relationship of propositions to something else. It's not really something we literally "search for" from my perspective. I'd rather say that people are trying to discover facts--facts being states of affairs, often where facts are contra to beliefs, assumptions, etc.

Before truth as a concept can be considered, does that not imply a search? How would one even be able to think of the idea if one did not start looking for it at some point in time?

"try to discover facts" could be denoted as a search for truth.

When one is ought to consider facts to posses a certain differiantiating quality by which one can make claims of a certain quality about one's environment, that by itself is essentially simply a truth condition that forms one's perspective on (what one assumes to be) reality.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 3:04 pmBut I haven't the faintest idea what "reality in the context of a search for truth (or facts)" would be saying, and since you're an uncooperative poster, I'm never going to know, because you're never going to bother trying to explain it in a way that I'd have any idea what you're on about.

At any rate, sets are definitely "real" in the sense that we've constructed that as a way of talking about things. Aside from that, locations are definitely real in an extramental sense. And we can talk about locations A through Z.

Would a set be applicable to time?

arjand wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 8:45 pm "try to discover facts" could be denoted as a search for truth.

If one conflates facts and truth-value. I do not.

Would a set be applicable to time?

Someone could think about time in terms of (something to do with) sets, sure. Isn't that obvious (that someone could think about time that way)?