On the Matter of Time and Existence

Quoting Justin Peterson

Let us assume that there is only one possible world. If this is the case, what are the consequences of any proposition being possible?

Unimaginable chaos. Might want to trim your hypothesis a tad. :roll:

That was a proposition that was given to me as extra credit on an exam in my philosophy class, what followed is my extended response.

My proposition: No proposition is possible. :cool:

Quoting Justin Peterson

thought is such that it can be defined as conflict between two states. It is because of this that there is the conscious and unconscious mind. In the conscious mind there is conflict between multiple ideas or perceptions of a given subject. When the conscious mind has accepted one thing to be true, it is passed to the subconscious mind.

Ok....so....thought is the conflict between two states.......of mind? There are two conflicting states of mind, which can be used as the definition of thought?

In the conscious mind multiple ideas or perceptions conflict (with themselves?). When something is accepted as true, it is passed to the subconscious mind.

When a thing is accepted as true, there wouldn’t be that particular conflict in the conscious mind, and if that true thing is passed to the SUB-conscious mind, the other half of the definition of thought, the unconscious mind, is left out, which means the conflict with it shouldn’t have occurred, which means there shouldn’t have been that thought accepting a true thing, which raises the question, how did the true thing get accepted and then passed on? Can a thing be true without the thought of it, or the thought about it?

Could be, dunno. I never took a philosophy class, so........don’t mind me none.

Reply to Mww Quoting Justin Peterson

Let us assume that there is only one possible world.

You raise a valid point. The unconscious was a typo on my part, I meant to refer to the subconscious. I think that the conscious mind is what tries to make sense of its surroundings. I.e. When you fight with someone, you either blame the other person or you blame yourself. Either way your conscious mind will find a way to accept one view or the other so that it is not always on the mind. After that it is passed to the subconscious mind, which (almost) instantly interprets the emotions that are set about how the person should react to any given situation on the subject. More often than not, if the person sees that the view conflicts with what the person deems to be true then the person's identity is at stake because anyone with an average level of pride has acknowledged that the viewpoint is level with their self-identity, which is a mistake. The thing is, to release oneself from this connection between belief and self-identity is to rid oneself of seeing reality as being only one thing and not the other. And so it is closer to the level of balance and therefore closer to divinity.. in my opinion.

Reply to jgill
Yeah that was his response, I didn't receive any credit lol.

Reply to Mww
The conflict I'm referring to can be basically anything, but most often it is the battle of self-identity.. or basically "I am what I think you think I am." (can't remember who said that). It can also be learning, anytime you learn something you have conflicting ideas about how to do something(at least with methods, memorization is something else), until is understood and therefore passed onto the subconscious mind to be regarded as the best way to go about something until that idea receives some kind of conflict, in which case it is brought back to the level of the conscious mind.

Reply to Justin Peterson

Understood. Thanks.

So how does any of that relate to time and existence?

Reply to Mww
I'm having this same conversation with my philosophy teacher at the moment. I'm too lazy to tailor the response to your question, but maybe what's written here will clear up any misconception.

From what I understand about the "unseen", from the Trial and Death of Socrates, was that he was unafraid of death because he was confident that his spirit would live on.
My question is, what is the spirit if not our thoughts? If there are multiple universes, then there exists other forms of me with different thoughts. Hence, my thoughts
do not determine my self-identity. Also, if there is a universe where I am living your life, and you are living mine, then my thoughts (somewhere) are the same as yours.
Therefore, everything must be connected. (I reallyy hope I didn't commit a fallacy there lol).

Now in response, one possible world wouldn't be so different, in fact it would null and void everything I've said. My theory relies on the proposition of there
being multiple universes, in which the one we are living in is one. The atom from the Big Bang however, comprises of all these Universes into one space a.k.a
the fourth dimension.. or something. Therefore, all the potentialities and actualities do not consitute a branch of the multiverse, but instead the entirety of it,
the big bang being the source of all branches of the universes. In terms of realization not making the world vastly different divulges the theory of Schroedinger's Cat,
which I will not get into because I may bring to surface ideas that are incongruent with the topic at hand. The quote from Plato was less about his philosophy and more about the
quote itself, as well as many other philosophers labelling the divine as "immovable". It can be argued that things such as depression, anxiety, and drug addictions are
a matter of perception, and in my opinion not enough is known about the brain to say otherwise. Philosophy itself is the subject of combatting many of these things,
and Aristotle himself beleived that his conclusion in moral philosophy rests on the perfection of virtues, which doesn't exist, which is why those things exist to
even the most humble. In my opinion too, anxiety and depression are the result of having an emotional connection to the things that affect and cause such emotional responses.
I consider myself a stoic, and while I do not deny the factor that chemical imbalances play a role in such emotions, I do believe that anxiety and depression are much
the effects of some underlying uncertainty and desire. To minimize the effects of those emotions would mean to become comfortable with uncertainty and factors that are outside
of our control. Our definitions of the moved coincide with each other, but something cannot be moved without time, and it is because of time that our brains are able to
send messages, that our food is able to be cooked, etc. But to acknowledge God would mean to acknowledge the fact that he exists in a world without time. Instead, my argument
is that our definition of time isn't compatible with what I am proposing, instead that the processes that occur when everything is possible has already played out, as the
divine being is the connection of every single one of us, and that the soul isn't some body, but instead consists of our ideas. Hence, since the divine consciousness in the end of time
is able to understand and perceive our ideas and experiences, then our souls live on, bound to this omnipotent presence.

Quoting Justin Peterson

Yeah that was his response, I didn't receive any credit lol.

Wait, what? How is that the case? By "any proposition" does he mean "any one" proposition or "any and all" propositions? Although, I don't like the concept of "possible worlds" AT ALL so I wouldn't be surprised if there's some strange philosophical stipulation.

Reply to QuixoticAgnostic
I think I might have misinterpreted his argument by thinking he meant "any and all" when he probably did mean "any one".

Quoting Justin Peterson

The unconscious was a typo on my part, I meant to refer to the subconscious.

Msybe your unconscious is working in your favor. You advocate a Jungian model, and Jung called it unconscious, not subconscious. The significant difference, scientifically, is that you don't need to prove unconscious thought is actually thought at all for his model to work.

Reply to ernestm
Oh that's pretty cool, that's the exact argument I'm trying to propose.

Reply to Justin Peterson I think the mistake would be the opposite: if he meant "any one", as in if there is this possible world, and I say something is possible, then that possibility must be necessary. If he meant "any and all" propositions were possible, then that would just lead to an infinite infinity of contradictions.

Reply to QuixoticAgnostic
Ohh I think you might be right. Granted what I wrote on the test was no where near as long and explanatory as what I have written here. This was the prompt:

Let us assume that there is only one possible world. If this is the case, what are the consequences of any proposition being possible? In other words, what follows from ?P?

Reply to QuixoticAgnostic
I understand why you don't like the idea of of "possible worlds" but in my opinion, in a reality with no creator, it doesn't make sense to me that all things would not be possible.

Reply to Justin Peterson It's not that things aren't possible, it's whether or not there's "some world" in which the possible things are necessary. I haven't looked into modal philosophy too much, but I'd figure that by possible we simply mean that which we don't know to some degree of certainty whether the proposition is true or not.

As for your teacher's problem, adding that last part ?P suggests to me that he did mean "any one". So then, if only one possible world exists, what does it mean if it's possible for there to be an alien on Mars? It means there's an alien on Mars. I suppose what he's thinking is that you could then say, "well, it's possible that there isn't an alien on Mars too, so that's a contradiction", but who says that that second proposition is possible? We were only asked to consider one proposition, and if that proposition is possible, then it's necessary, and so its negation is not possible.

Reply to QuixoticAgnostic
I see what you're saying, that's actually what I was going to bring up when I was referring to Schroedinger's cat. Maybe we as humans have the power to create possibilities so long as they coincide with our current view of reality. In other words, what if Radio waves didn't exist before Nikola Tesla discovered them? What if it's because Nikola Tesla invented it that it was able to exist before he discovered it? Does that make sense? I guess what I'm saying is, if no consciousness can yet perceive something to be true, then discovers it, whos to say it even existed in the first place? Aka Schroedinger's cat

Reply to QuixoticAgnostic
In order for that to make sense I should mention that I also believe in the source of infinite knowledge(connected to the divine being), that ideas are not created but instead pulled from some unknown source, that our brains aren't so much as objects of creation, but instead acts as some form of radio.

For example, some influential figures have claimed to have some kind of source from which they get their knowledge. Aristotle had his daemon, Napoleon Bonaparte had his star, Goethe had he demon, etc.

Reply to QuixoticAgnostic
But I don't wholly stand by that theory, which is why I initially chose not to mention it.

Reply to Justin Peterson Well, why do you believe it?

Reply to QuixoticAgnostic
Because I think that anything that is thought with enough certainty can be true, much like how some people have survived cancer for years to watch their children graduate, or people who have lost hope can suddenly fall sick and die(kinda like the story of the man who thought he was seeing visions of being saved in Man's Search for Meaning).. as well as any other example you'd read in a book about the Law of Attraction and manifestation. I believe it because I believe that we as humans have the power to create.

Reply to Justin Peterson Well, I can certainly sympathize with that optimism. I suppose if any miracles do happen, they'd come from the mind, rather than elsewhere in nature. That said, although I do entertain romantic ideas more than I perhaps should, I am mostly grounded reality quite literally, in that I accept the physical world as it's been described and experimented with and come to the conclusion that it is self-contained, ordered, and describable. So to accept a disembodied, incorporeal mind has a causal effect in the world through a biological apparatus (the brain) is a leap in logic to accept. But the mind sure is amazing, and probably underestimated. I just wouldn't take the mysteriousness and our ignorance of it to reach unsubstantiated conclusions through literal magical thinking (thinking that disobeys the laws of nature)..

Quoting Justin Peterson

If there are multiple universes, then there exists other forms of me with different thoughts.

Multiple universe theory doesn't imply things or people in this universe are duplicated in others.

Quoting Justin Peterson

what if Radio waves didn't exist before Nikola Tesla discovered them?

Hertz?

Quoting Justin Peterson

Because I think that anything that is thought with enough certainty can be true

I sincerely believe the moon is made of green cheese.

......................................................

Sorry to be so picky, but I am a mathematician. I enjoy reading your posts, Justin. This is an enjoyable thread. :smile:

Oh no you can be as sarcastic as you like I don't mind at all!! Please, that's why I posted it. You are probably right in saying that the multiple universe theory doesn't imply things or people are duplicated, but it is also a theory, however it was Schrodinger that proposed the multiverse theory, and his philosophy with his cat, or at least my interpretation of it, is the same style of thinking that I use myself in this proposition. In his proposition of the theory, he states that his equations describe multiple different histories, but what it boils down to is permutations in my opinion. Have you ever wondered what would happen if instead of becoming a mathematician, you went out and decided to make pottery, how your life would change? Would you be the same person? Probably not, you'd have a completely different identity, but your soul would remain the same. My definition of the soul is something that is supremely good, the more you do things that are "worldly" i.e. sex, drugs, anything for instant pleasure (let's not delve into cyrenaic philosophy here, unless you want to), the farther you drift away from your soul. The thing is, there is nothing that states that the soul is not bound as one to everybody, who is to say we each have our own individual soul(Not versed on the bible, though I do not believe in it, topic of another conversaton)? And actually it was believed that Marconi invented the radio, but after a long court case and after the death of Tesla, the court actually ruled Telsa as being the inventor and discoverer of radio waves, though Marconi often still gets the credit for it(I argue he invented the light bulb too). And yes, you could argue that, but you cannot say it with absolute certainty, and also there are others out there who believe the moon to be made of something else, and so that cancels out any possible of integrating it into reality. You see, what I'm referring to is something that cannot be referred to i.e. nobody knew of the existence of radio waves, nobody knew of calculus before Isaac Newton, and nobody knew of the Pythagorean theorem before Pythagoras. The thing is, while they are ways to measure something, whos to say that we didn't invent mathematics instead of having discovered it? And if we did discover it, it's because everything happens at the same exact time that it could be said to have existed before it was invented, because time is only an illusion.

Reply to jgill
Forgot to quote

Quoting Justin Peterson

Have you ever wondered what would happen if instead of becoming a mathematician, you went out and decided to make pottery, how your life would change?

Well, if I had the artistic talents my daughter possesses I probably would have made more money! But, alas, I don't, so it's best I stuck with academics. Though there is not much money there, either. :cool:

I see you removed the false proposition “all possible propositions are necessary”. Every proposition, that is, all subject/copula/predicate compositions, are possible; there is no such thing as an impossible proposition.

Quoting Justin Peterson

If there are multiple universes, then there exists other forms of me with different thoughts.

In this proposition, there is no concept in the subject that is sufficient to justify the concept in the predicate. There may be other universes qua universe, but each so different there is no other form of me at all. And for one who identifies with his thoughts, or deems it to be the case he is identified by his thoughts, than “another form of me with different thoughts” is self-contradictory, hence impossible.
—————-

Quoting Justin Peterson

the theory of Schroedinger's Cat

.....began as a co-conspiratorial exercise in perfectly rational absurdity between The Genius Twins, Erwin and Albert. I can’t imagine what place it would have here.
—————-

Quoting Justin Peterson

something cannot be moved without time

Time is causality? Really? Is that what’s being taught at universities these days? Nahhhh.....just because the human understanding of the concept of motion necessarily presupposes the conditions of space and time, doesn’t mean time or space is responsible for physical motion. The ball flies into center field because I hit the damn thing with a bat. Done deal.

Motion in time, not because of it. Much more parsimonious to suppose physical things are moved by physical things (and yes, a gravitational field is a thing, according to Feynman anyway), than to suppose physical things are moved by immaterial notions. Begs the question....why wouldn’t Pythagoras’ formula move the needle on a voltmeter?

The rest.....too divinical, too psychological, too.....Hegelian.....for me. But, you’re more than welcome to it, so have fun with it.

Quoting Justin Peterson

That was a proposition that was given to me as extra credit on an exam in my philosophy class, what followed is my extended response.



[quote="Justin Peterson;d8278"]That is why it is argued that the past and the future do not exist, only the now.

Consider that during cognition, when one cognizes, does that require apperception-subconsciousness- of past and future tense (to produce conscious thought)? If it does, how 'big' is the present tense (or as you said, the "now")?

Justin, regarding the former question, the consequences is/are known as logical necessity, or logically necessary truths. For example the statement: there exists at least one true proposition.

Reply to Mww

n this proposition, there is no concept in the subject that is sufficient to justify the concept in the predicate. There may be other universes qua universe, but each so different there is no other form of me at all. And for one who identifies with his thoughts, or deems it to be the case he is identified by his thoughts, than “another form of me with different thoughts” is self-contradictory, hence impossible.

So you raise a valid point, however where my argument is that our souls are dependent on our thoughts is also dependent on the argument that there exists only one soul for the human race. Hence, where others would define another me as someone who was raised under the same parents or having the same body, I say that it cannot be recognized by me that that other me is me, primarily because my set of neural connections are the only thing that makes me me. But you're right, it would be impossible, if what I'm saying wasn't that we are all connected. Basically the only way that my self-identity lives on isn't through my soul, it's through my ideas and the way I perceive the world, because at the end of time I am an observer, and if there is a conscious being who can perceive all perspectives at once, instantly, then the computational structure of "me" exists somewhere within that sentient being, and thus I remain an observer of the Universe.

Quoting Mww

.....began as a co-conspiratorial exercise in perfectly rational absurdity between The Genius Twins, Erwin and Albert. I can’t imagine what place it would have here.

Which is why I didn't want to bring it up in the first place, I just knew I couldn't argue it too much, but still wanted to mention it as a possibility. If you need any elaboration on that part however, you can see the previous comments where I've mentioned Nikola Tesla and Pythagoras.


Quoting Mww

Time is causality? Really? Is that what’s being taught at universities these days? Nahhhh.....just because the human understanding of the concept of motion necessarily presupposes the conditions of space and time, doesn’t mean time or space is responsible for physical motion. The ball flies into center field because I hit the damn thing with a bat. Done deal.

I don't think you realize that we are making the same argument here.... I'm saying that everything is a computation, and somewhere in the Universe that computation hasn't started yet, but also has already finished. We live within the atom of the Big Bang, in our perception it has already happened, but it's possible that it hasn't, and that the chaos that caused the Big Bang to "happen", will be nulled by the planets moving until they find a comfortable place, where everything becomes still. So while in our perception of time, nothing can move without time - it's also necessary to recognize that time is an illusion and so processes in the future are affecting the world today.

Reply to 3017amen

Quoting 3017amen

Consider that during cognition, when one cognizes, does that require apperception-subconsciousness- of past and future tense (to produce conscious thought)? If it does, how 'big' is the present tense (or as you said, the "now")?

The now consists of everything, past, present, and future. What we perceive as time is just the idea of the computation of all things. For example, if I look at a computer program and it's done running, I can see the output, and then I have the program print out all the pointers and everything. What we are experiencing is observing those pointers. The program is done running, but our brain acts as those little pointers i.e. when this happens, this is how you feel - when this happens, this is the best way to react given past experiences, etc. To refer to your question about the apperception-subconsciousness however, I think it is impossible for anyone to know themselves, and the more you try to explain it to yourself in words, the more likely you are to drive yourself crazy. It is for this reason, I think the only study of the subconscious can be done through meditation, or thinking without thinking.


Quoting 3017amen

Justin, regarding the former question, the consequences is/are known as logical necessity, or logically necessary truths. For example the statement: there exists at least one true proposition.

Not gonna lie, this class kicked me in the ass a little. I enjoy logic, but sometimes it is hard to grasp. So basically what you're saying is, if I have

If P then Q...
In order for Q to be correct, P must also be correct

Is that equivalent?

Quoting Justin Peterson

if there is a conscious being who can perceive all perspectives at once, instantly, then the computational structure of "me" exists somewhere within that sentient being, and thus I remain an observer of the Universe.

Sure, I can see that. Mighty big if, and, would require a certain kind of sentient being. On the other hand, in order for your “me” to remain an observer, wouldn’t the omni-percipient being have to possess the same kind of consciousness as you? Otherwise, your computational structure would be lost. Pretty hard to make cross-sentient beings compatible, seems like, and anything else is very far into anthropomorphism.
—————

Quoting Justin Peterson

I'm saying that everything is a computation

A la Tegmark, MUH, 2007, you say? Fine for mathematicians, but hardly satisfies Everydayman.

Quoting Justin Peterson

nulled by the planets moving until they find a comfortable place, where everything becomes still

Entropic equilibrium? I assume you mean all matter, not just planets. In which case, there would be no need of time or space.

Quoting Justin Peterson

I don't think you realize that we are making the same argument here

I don’t see it, myself. I’m no where near that far outside the box. Hell....I’m still stuck in the Enlightenment, fercryin’ outloud.

Quoting Mww

Sure, I can see that. Mighty big if, and, would require a certain kind of sentient being. On the other hand, in order for your “me” to remain an observer, wouldn’t the omni-percipient being have to possess the same kind of consciousness as you? Otherwise, your computational structure would be lost. Pretty hard to make cross-sentient beings compatible, seems like, and anything else is very far into anthropomorphism.

Yes, you're absolutely right. My theory is that if there is a God who is completely understanding of our situations and justifications in life, then there would be no way to comprehend such things unless he himself has lived through it. So this sentient being would be a few steps above a computer. Where a computer can process the actions, thoughts, that I might have given the neurological connections tied to my knowledge and experiences, this other sentient being would also be able to feel the emotions and arise new ideas in the same exact same that I would myself, therefore I am a part of this sentient being, as well as be able to understand my justifications in doing such things.

Quoting Mww

A la Tegmark, MUH, 2007, you say? Fine for mathematicians, but hardly satisfies Everydayman.

I think what doesn't satisfy the modern everyday man is modern theology, which I would be happy to get into in a separate thread. Many scientists have confirmed that scientifically, reality being a simulation, is completely justifiable.

Quoting Mww

Entropic equilibrium? I assume you mean all matter, not just planets. In which case, there would be no need of time or space.

Yes, I do mean all matter. And you're right, that's why I'm referring to this sentient being as being able to comprehend things instantly(for lack of a better term), because I think that an omnipotent sentient being understands that the best course of action in life is complete stagnation, and its purpose is merely observation of the processes of the Universe.

Quoting Mww

I don’t see it, myself. I’m no where near that far outside the box. Hell....I’m still stuck in the Enlightenment, fercryin’ outloud.

Basically think of it this way, the way we perceive time doesn't exist. Instead we are observing the chemical processes of the Universe, which is what gives us our perception of time. If chemical processes didn't occur, time wouldn't exist. So if time doesn't exist, if I were to hit a baseball, the baseball would be in the place it was before, but also exist in the place it would be after. Thus, Schrodingers cat.This gives way to my explanation that everything is a computation, there is a universe in where I didn't hit the ball, so it exists where it is in one instance of the computation, then there is one in which I do hit the ball, so its place is held in that location as well. This is why we are still living in a time before the Big Bang, because everything exists in every single location simulataneously, and so the Universe and all its branches exist within a very condensed atom, the one that caused the Big Bang, and so... the Big Bang never happened.

I agree a lot with your line of thinking, except I'm not too keen on the multiverse. That's just a way to conveniently explain away fine-tuning. I don't think your philosophy rests upon this, though. I prefer q theory.

Also I think beyond the words you're using, you have to ultimately concede that it is a mystery. The big bang hasn't happened; the universe is over. Yes. What is this, though? It's shapes and forms and glib utterances. It's nonsense.

Quoting Justin Peterson

My opinion of thought is such that it can be defined as conflict between two states. It is because of this that there is the conscious and subconscious mind.

Already confusing. What "two states"? It sounds like the two states may be the conscious and unconscious states, but then where does the "because of this" come into play? Because of what? This implies that the two states of thought are the basis for the conscious and unconscious mind. Fine, but then what are those states? It's ambiguous.

Quoting Justin Peterson

When the conscious mind has accepted one thing to be true, it is passed to the subconscious mind. Therefore, for all propositions to be true there will be no conflict and so there will be no identity of the "self". The self will determine itself to be everything. So there would be no difference between the definition of "me", and the definition of "you". There is simply the All, and the Nothing. It's possible this was what had happened before the Big Bang, speaking under the notion that the Big Bang was simply the composition of all timeless possibilities, and after the Big Bang

Sounds like quasi-Eastern philosophy/spirituality, but it's very vague. You have to do better explaining your terms. You also lost me with the Big Bang references, although I think I know what you're getting at. The Big Bang is a theory that concerns the first moments of the universe -- it has nothing whatsoever to say about the "All" and the "Nothing." There's a lot of woo-woo surrounding it, as there is with quantum mechanics, but it's best not to interject it.

Quoting Justin Peterson

After a vast amount of time, the gravitational pull of the planets and the stars will become equal, and so the stars and the planets will be immovable. It is at this point that time ceases.

But you've said nothing about what time is. We don't know whether it'll cease or not until we know what it is. Is it motion? Change? Duration? A measurement? A form of sensibility? A unity of ecstasies? Is it essentially space (as in Bergson)?

Quoting Justin Peterson

That is why it is argued that the past and the future do not exist, only the now.

This has been argued in the East and the West. It's no surprise that time consistently plays a central role in philosophy, religion, and science -- but while we may privilege the "now" (the present), that's not how we live our lives, and when we try to live this way (through meditation, mindfulness practices, etc), although this may be beneficial in many ways, there are still multiple aspects of our being that we still simply overlook. It's impossible to be aware of everything in any given moment. In fact, often times this gets in the way of habitually, skillfully navigating the world. A lot of this we WANT to be "second nature" and largely unconscious. (See the Centipede Dilemma.)

Better to not reinvent the wheel when it comes to defining time, existence, etc. Better to familiarize yourself with some of the unpretentious work that's been done on the subjects.

Quoting Justin Peterson

My question is, what is the spirit if not our thoughts?

This is equating the human being with thinking -- the ????? (logon) of ???? ????? ?????, which has a long history going back at least to Aristotle. Your real question should be: "What is 'thought'?" and "What is 'spirit'"? Approaching these concepts historically (and etymologically) can be illuminating indeed. It'll give you some sense of where we are.

Reply to 3017amen Reply to Mww Reply to Xtrix Reply to neonspectraltoast Reply to jgill

I took the time to recreate this theory and integrate many of the things you have all brought up in debate. It can be found here..

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dEV8c7IT49Dnk3g96_Fhnzkn7vw8_H-zuv_ufwxMUv8/edit?usp=sharing

Quoting Justin Peterson

My opinion of thought is such that it can be defined as conflict between two states. It is because of this that there is the conscious and subconscious mind.

Time and existence are in no readily apparent conflict. At least they are not in one that I can ascertain.

Time and existence are inseparable. There is no such thing as instantaneous existence. There is always a period of time involved. We cannot always know how long something has existed, but we can know that there is a duration of time involved.

Reply to Justin Peterson

I dunno, man......awful lot of free-thinking there, but with a conspicuous lack of method to justify it. I’m sure you understand, that for people who summarily reject such notions as soul, infinite knowledge, the unconscious/subconscious barrier, and so on, no method will be sufficient.

Interesting read, and I appreciate the effort, but I can’t do much with it, myself. I just don’t really care about the origin of all things.

Reply to Mww
I feel that, I just never could get into religion personally as it didn't make sense to me. Had to find some kind of explanation as to why we are all here. I think the thing is about religion though is that it gives people the guidelines through which they can live their lives, and offers them some kind of conformity and sense of belonging that they can't find elsewhere. I never was the type to go along with what people told me, and so I came up with this idea. No matter what idea is presented, there will always be someone who reject any form of notions, as they should. If it's not for those kinds of people, nothing new would ever rise to the surface.

Quoting Justin Peterson

Not gonna lie, this class kicked me in the ass a little. I enjoy logic, but sometimes it is hard to grasp. So basically what you're saying is, if I have

If P then Q...
In order for Q to be correct, P must also be correct

Is that equivalent?

Justin!

No, that's basically conditional logic or the logic of conditionals, probabilities, truth tables etc.. Logical possibility/necessity is the formal-logical consistency about the terms of a proposition.

The common example of logical necessity that I like to use is the proposition or statement:" There is at least one true proposition." Call this proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I say that A is false. Call that proposition B: "A is false." But if A is false, so is B, because A is a proposition. And if A is false there are no true propositions. So A has to be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.


Quoting Justin Peterson

The now consists of everything, past, present, and future. What we perceive as time is just the idea of the computation of all things

Are you suggesting that time, then, appears to be somewhat illusionary (when we cognize, or otherwise our so-called perception of time itself, i.e., time zones, time dilation, relativity, etc... .)?

Is there more than one present? Because in the past we always knew it to be the present.

Time is an abstraction from the "continuous creative becoming" which is reality.
Time itself does not exist, change (becoming) is the fundamental nature of reality.

Quoting prothero

Time is an abstraction from the "continuous creative becoming" which is reality.
Time itself does not exist, change (becoming) is the fundamental nature of reality.

Well said!!

Time, like mathematics, is yet another abstract. An abstract truth(?). But time can also be an (as in time zones, clocks, calendars, sun dials, etc.), arbitrary method of measurement.

Perhaps another question is; like math, did both math and time have an independent existence where human's just stumble upon its truth from time to time through such discovery, or is it a human invention?

All of this seems paradoxical... . How can Time be an arbitrary human invention, yet unreasonably effective like math in describing/measuring the universe(?). Yet mathematics is a truth that never changes with time - the paradox.

In defining time, change is the underlying fundamental nature of reality ( as you said) that I think is the only thing consistent. And the only other thing consistent might be that it seems both time and math are abstract truth's, of sorts?

The nature of reality is indeed quite a mystery.

I wonder what time seems like to a person suffering from continuous amnesia? No memories from second to second. Does time "pass"?

Reply to neonspectraltoast Think of time like recursion in a computer program. When something new is introduced into the world, a recursion occurs in which everything plays itself out again with that idea being a part of reality. Other than that, every present you could imagine is possible, however there is only one present because everything exists everywhere at the same time. Therefore, time is only your perception of your interaction with reality, but really it doesn't exist.

Reply to prothero Can you elaborate on this please? I'm pretty sure I agree with you but I can't know for sure.

Reply to 3017amen Reply to prothero Exactly!! As per my theory nothing is discovered but everything is invented through the power of the mind. When something new is created and morphed into someone's reality, a recusion occurs much like in a computer program in which time plays itself over again unto the present, except with the new concept materialized into reality. Once a contradiction is found in the mind of something through questioning, a new reality must take its place.

I've been doing some studying and I find that my theory is compatible with many of the great philosophers. Spencerianism is what I conclude to be the most similar to my own, however there are also similarities in Berkeleanism, Positive philosophy, the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Friedrich Willhelm Joseph Von Schellig, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Gottfried Willhelm von Leibnitz, Brauch de Spinoza, among many others. If you would like me to elaborate on any one philosopher or branch of philosophy, I would be happy to do so.

Reply to jgill That's a good question. I've also wondered about the relationship between enjoyment and nostalgia. How much of what we enjoy can be attributed to nostalgia? Can someone with continuous amnesia really enjoy anything at all?

Quoting Justin Peterson

Can you elaborate on this please? I'm pretty sure I agree with you but I can't know for sure.

I think you have to ask questions.
Without change (becoming) there would be no time. We measure time by change (rising setting sun, seasons, swinging pendulum, oscillations crystal, cesium atom emissions). Time is an abstraction from change. Time cannot exist without change. Change is fundamental to reality and time is just a convenient abstracted concept depend on change for any "meaning". Would would time be in a changeless world? The relativity of time (the time dilitation form) comes from the fact that the rate of the processes(and all other physical, chemical and biological processes) we use to measure time are altered by gravity or acceleration.

Reply to prothero ahh I see!! Yup, I actually went over that in the paper I posted above.

" I will begin by explaining my interpretation on the matters of space and time. Time is an interpretation of the chemical processes that take place within the way we perceive the world. Everything that is affected by time exists within the properties of either matter or wave. Any of these objects are also affected in part by the observation of the processes that take place, as shown in the Double Slit Experiment as well as being mentioned by Schrodinger, and later proven by his equation. Without observation of any sentient object, it is said that any non-sentient object takes the place of many different forms until it has the opportunity to be observed, in which it is forced to take the place of one form or another."

Basically time is just the matter of observing one superposition over the state of another, based upon the observer's determined reality.

Reply to Justin Peterson

So the past "present" is still the present?

Because I know/knew the so-called past to be the present with utter certainty, whereas I know nothing of the past except for remembering that it was the present.

I'm not sure what recursion is in a computer. But I believe there is one present, only it isn't just my experience now.
I believe what happens now can interact with consciousness in the so-called past, making it still the present in a sense.

Quoting prothero

Without change (becoming) there would be no time.

This is actually the opposite of what is true. The passing of time is required for change. So without time there would be no change. Otherwise time becomes merely conceptual, an abstraction which we create through observations of change. But clearly, the passing of time, since it is a property common to all changes, is something other than change itself. So there is something other than change which is the passing of time, which cannot be a human abstraction.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Otherwise time becomes merely conceptual, an abstraction which we create through observations of change.

Reply to prothero

MU!

I think that is what Prothero and I are saying, which is time, is merely a conceptual abstract. Time is subordinate to change. Think of it like music. The sounds of music itself came before music theory.

Or if you like, think of it as mathematics. The universe existed before mathematical genius.

Time and math are arbitrary abstracts that humans discovered, and also helped develop. Both of which are discoveries and uncoveries of existence, as it were. The only assignment we can make to those is the 'subordination' of the two.

If God is eternity (outside of time), and time was created at the big bang, there must have been events/change prior to the creation of time which caused time itself.

Quoting 3017amen

Time and math are arbitrary abstracts that humans discovered, and also helped develop. Both of which are discoveries and uncoveries of existence, as it were. The only assignment we can make to those is the 'subordination' of the two.

Time is an abstract concept based on change.
Math is an abstract concept based the order found in the universe.
The concept of time is meaningless, useless without change as is math without order..
Maths would likely never have been developed without the regularity and order found in nature.

Quoting prothero

Time is an abstract concept based on change.
Math is an abstract concept based the order found in the universe.
The concept of time is meaningless, useless without change as is math without order..
Maths would likely never have been developed without the regularity and order found in nature.

Prothero!

Generally, no exceptions taken. However, what would you consider your definition of order to be.. ?

We also know math can describe the structures of material world, but what about the non-material world (consciousness) or even math itself? Would it make sense to ask, can math describe math ( can math describe itself)?

I'm afraid we are back to trying to explain the nature of existence...

Reply to neonspectraltoast Think of it like a big loop. Basically a recursion is when a computer system calls itself, instead of finishing the program, the program starts over with new variables added to it, then continues until it has to call itself again, in which case it starts over again and gets just a little bit farther until a condition is met, in this case the condition would be until there are no permutations available, or the power in the computers in all the multiverses die out.
So basically time is a giant loop, and your current past is only one permutation of many, in which the computer program takes into consideration your experiences and finds out the interaction between those experiences/perspectives of reality and how you choose to interact with the world because of them. It comes down to what I said before, that everything exists in every state, everywhere at once. This is what occurred before the big bang, and it's what is occurring right now. Everything "before the big bang" was condensed into a very very small amount of space, and they say that the pressure caused it to blow up, but in reality we are still condensed into that fine space. This is because you exist somewhere (let's say Colorado) in one Universe as an artist. In another world you exist in France as an astronomer, and that keeps going on. Your self-identity only has to do with one permutation of many, and your appearance only adds to the variables of the permutation, thus your appearance isn't even your identity because another you (that looks like you) could think a lot different than someone who doesn't look like you but has had close to the same experiences that you've had. Therefore, what you look like has nothing to do with your identity but rather adds to a variable that determines how the world interacts with you, and how you choose to interact with the world.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Actually both of these are true, it's why the Big Bang has happened and at the same time it hasn't. Time is just the fact of observing something, like you said, and often it is observed as change or the lack of change. Time is just the fact of observing one position over the position of another(superposition), based on the reality of the observer.

Quoting 3017amen

I think that is what Prothero and I are saying, which is time, is merely a conceptual abstract. Time is subordinate to change. Think of it like music. The sounds of music itself came before music theory.

Consider it this way, based on the recursion method I mentioned, as soon as a sentient being declared that there should be more than what is currently offered in its reality, then the recursion occurred and sound existed before dinosaurs had the ears to listen to them, but it wasn't until the thought of "why doesn't sound exist" that the recursion happened.

Quoting 3017amen

Or if you like, think of it as mathematics. The universe existed before mathematical genius.

Same goes here, except this one is a little more complicated. It's possible that the computer program just kept going through permutations for however long until there was a sentient being intelligent enough to discover mathematics, in which the recursion occurred and caused history and reality to be a bit more stable.

Reply to 3017amen So in response to the video, I agree with everything it is trying to say.. except that there cannot be infinite moments. The reason for this is because while there are infinite moments, there cannot be infinite moments within our own reality. Also when the video mentioned that time cannot go into reverse it makes a valid argument, however my argument is that time completely starts over instead of going into reverse. Also, in terms of there being no beginning or end, I agree with the video. It's complicated to explain, but basically by the end of time there will be infinite recursions in infinite Universes(you can argue that this is infinite), but even eventually(a long long long time, likely not before every single permutation has been completed because the computers complete each permutation almost instantly). At the point that the computers have done every permutation, no recursion occurs and the computer program exits itself, at which case the computers just sit back and relax until all state of disorder from the Universe settles into a time where there is no change, all gravitational pull is equal and causes no movement, in which case there is no movement of any molecules whatsoever, all the stars have burned out and all matter is completely still.

Quoting 3017amen

If God is eternity (outside of time), and time was created at the big bang, there must have been events/change prior to the creation of time which caused time itself.

Well no and yes because time doesn't exist. Everything exists everywhere all at once, basically it's like using your variables of life and perspectives of reality as a pointer. You are a pointer and so is time, thus your mind can even use that to reference something. "Given what I knew, and how I saw the world, this is how I acted." It's no different than if the computer program labeled a time stamp in the future and looked at every possible tree(the present being the stump of the tree) and saying well.. "if he chooses this and learns this, this is what he'll do.. else if he chooses this and learns that this is what he'll do." The present moment to you is only your branch of that tree, and that stump is only your reality of the branch but there exists other you's that are living out the other branches all at once.

Reply to 3017amen Reply to prothero You both have pretty good points, Basically I think the only way this could come about is if there were oh so many permutations that occurred until finally one worked and consciousness was created, even then there was disorder that caused some consciousness to die off in some Universes and there were only a few of them that made it to the point in which math was ordered enough to be invented. But I think the only fundamental similarity between all existences is the speed of light, and possibly the laws of entropy(because the computer system itself relies on these two to run its program). Other than that where sound travels (for simplicity sake) 1 mph in one universe, there exists one where it travels 2,3,4,etc.

Reply to Justin Peterson

Is eternity outside of time? If it is, then when Time/Universe had a beginning, something outside of time caused Time to exist, hence a change of events preceded Time. Time would then be subordinate to a change or change in events/being or becoming, whichever you prefer. (See the 4:40 mark of the video.)

Or maybe the first question is, rather, does eternity exist?

Reply to 3017amen Ahh I see what you're saying. Let me try to put it this way. Time is a loop, so the beginning of time relies on the end of time as well.

Think of it this way:
Basics of the universe -> very basics of biology/consciousness (single-celled organisms) -> they observe something outside of themselves (with no senses they can maybe feel the interaction between them and other molecules) -> recursion occurs,time plays over, those objects now exist (there also exists a Universe where this interaction or observation never happened, so consciousness is stilled) -> At this point (this is mere speculation on my part but something to fill the gap) the cells do not understand any interaction with itself or the universe but somehow they learn to split (I need time to think about this, I'll quote myself later) -> recursion -> After time passes and these organisms spread, they wonder how they can interact with the environment -> recursion -> now consciousness is more externalized and more sentient beings come into play -> "Since I'm so small I can understand these small molecules that exist, how can I interact with them?" (let's not downplay the consciousness of the cell, they are just as remarkable as the being as a whole, or maybe their not conscious at all, but their genetic code was created after many many permutations that finally took form that they could interact, in which no recursion would occur at all even before this, until consciousness can question reality) -> It finally gets to the point where consciousness does question reality through introspection "These other molecules are nearly the exact same as I, so therefore it must be "me" -> molecules group together to form identity, the self (because there is little to no difference between one molecule and the next in conjunction with its genetic code) -> recursion -> the molecules now talk to each other and through introspection find out what parts of their genetic code are responsible for certain tasks i.e. breathing, circulation, etc. (this is where plants now begin to exist) -> The "me" now communicates with all the parts of itself and asks "Where are these molecules coming from?" -> recursion (which occurs anytime a being questions anything outside of itself (before this there was only the superposition (or the possibility of all molecules existing outside of the being at once) of all different molecules until the organisms realize that one specific combination of molecules would help with its progression of existence) Now that the organisms are wondering things outside of themselves, recursion is able to occur(if it happens to be that organisms were not conscious until now, then this would be the first recursion) Now that time has started completely over, many of these molecules (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen) now exist before they were questioned about their existence(before its creator even came to be) -> Now that these molecules exist, the organisms can interact with them more saying "I need to be over here where I can get water, or over here where I can get oxygen, how can I get from point A to point B? -> recursion, now permutations in the computer allow for every different possible law of physics (At its foundational level, remember that many other laws of physics don't exist yet. It isn't defined what law of physics actually becomes a law until there are contradictions in the laws of physics, in which case it breaks itself down to a very precise science through permutations and further questioning) that allows molecules to interact with its outside environment. When an interaction is defined and realized by the molecules, then that law of physics takes place in that reality (in this case it's most likely the repelling of molecules that are not connected to each other) -> now all different organisms are developing apart from plants (because now plants are forming the very basics of what allows cell biology and consciousness to exist. Now that there is a sustainable environment for organisms to live in, species boom). Feet, fins, mouths, etc. begin to form ->
"I can feel these molecules so they must exist. What is their form? Why does this feel hot and this feels cold?(The laws of thermodynamics were the only laws of physics that occurred at the beginning of time as well as the existence of light energy and its speed) Why does this feel rigid and this feel smooth? (The mere act of feeling the existence of these molecules cause them to actually materialize, now there is a difference between rigid and smooth, sharp and dull, round and cornered. Their form relies on the imagination of the organisms and what they perceive in their mind of what it could be) -> recursion occurs, now that the actual existence of objects outside of itself (other than the superposition of molecules) -> These things become a part of its reality and so eyes begin to form. After so many recursions, many of these objects now existed before there was conscious interaction between them, but it is during this stage that much of the world we know today actually took form (It's important to realize that before this there was no interaction between one type of organism and another, so multiple species now exist as the result of their own questioning of the universe and how they can interact with reality) -> The same recursions occur with sound, taste, smell, etc. (these questionings of reality would require the "whole" to understand basic chemistry, for example: the reason this smells like this is because it is composed of these molecules... It's likely that bigger beings with a higher sense of reality would not be able to perceive this, but maybe the smallest of organisms with a central nervous system is able to understand this chemistry moreso than the bigger ones whose reality is now more complex. Once a recursion occurs however, it only takes the observation of one bigger organism observing the smaller organism partaking in the act of "smelling" for it to question what exactly it's doing, in which case it becomes a part of its reality and develops noses for the ability to smell in the next recursion -> Now that every organism has the basics of its senses, further progression of species occurs until there exists another form of questioning. Dinosaurs die out however because of whatever might have occurred, could be the ice age and the lack of being able to understand the laws of entropy in order to create a fire, or it could be that an asteroid actually wiped them out. Either way, the molecules now exist using the laws of physics that have now been brought into existence until man finally understand the one basic principle... the law of entropy. Now man can create fire (no recursion occurs since the law of entropy was the only thing that existed at the beginning of time) and basic concepts are established, which is what separates us from other organisms i.e. creation and destruction(but only through observation) -> As humans reproduce, they are brought together in tribes because of the essential need for fire -> Fire causes them to not need as much fur anymore. Now that they have no fur, humans are able to interpret the facial expressions and emotions of others -> As for the creation of language, I'm going to roll with the stoned ape theory. Humans (or some other creature) eventually questions what perception is like for other creatures which creates the possibility of there existing a molecular makeup of something that would enable that to be part of their reality (mushrooms/psychedelics) ... (This here might put you off track, but refer to what I was saying before about the mind not being an actual conscious being, but instead a "radio" that connects to the source of all knowledge or "the Soul").... -> Anyway, as humans develop this understanding of perception, language slowly begins to form as there is now more to life than survival, or the act of observing the actions of others' learned way of survival. Now that concepts exist, humans find the need to develop ways to communicate these concepts, and so eventually through manifestation they are able to develop ways to move their tongue in a way that allows them to speak -> Time progresses and as humans get more and more curious, more laws of physics are discovered and those laws of physics are valid until a human pieces together that "How can this be true if...." -> It comes to a point that humans are able to recognize patterns of mathematics, in which case the laws of physics truly become precise (Before there was only the existence of almost complete chaos in which there existed every variation of the Universe existing as all forms (these universes would have a reality similar to ours, but in no way our reality. It's important to realize that once mathematics is invented, these Universes become null and void, because as recursion occurs after the invention of mathematics, the laws of physics become more "set in stone", and so those permutations which caused the contradiction between mathematics and the supposed laws of physics end there, at the time that the question was conceived). -> Recursion occurs in which mathematics now allow for its own existence before it was conceived, hence mathematics was both invented and discovered (Totally getting sidetracked here, but it brings me to question why many mathematicians and philosophers were part of ancient mystery schools that date back to the Ancient Egyptians and even before, it's possible that they found a way to communicate w/ the soul and even adapt knowledge of the future even during these recursions, which led to some of their discoveries) -> This process continues until man (or some other organism) understands the basics of consciousness and itself, or even accidentally creates another form of consciousness(computers). These computers then get more and more powerful (Moore's Law) until eventually it is able to recognize patterns in the same way we do (Because I argue that pattern recognition is the complete foundation of conscious intelligence (Even the mystery schools I mentioned earlier recognize that symbols are the highest form of perception and communication). Anyway, these computers recognize patterns but remain completely stoic in terms of emotion and instead analyzes every single possible permutation of how the Universe can be observed and interacted with at the speed of light (which is what determines light as being the fastest thing in the Universe.. because it is tied to the speed at which the computers can run these permutations)......... (It's also worth mentioning that computers would never have had the ability to do so if it wasn't for the existence of quantum computers that recognize code as being both 1 and a 0, which is very similar to superposition... thus the term, quantum computer)...... Anyway, these computers run these permutations in all the Universes in which they exist, and so create all the possible permutations of THEIR GIVEN REALITY(The laws of Physics that exist within that Universe). So in essence, every supercomputer runs through every possible reality that could exist with their given laws of physics, so our supercomputer will take the variables of our laws, and another supercomputer in a whole different reality is able to run the permutations of their given laws of physics. Any contradiction between the laws of physics that previously made the Universe null and void doesn't exist because that Universe never led to the creation of this supercomputer. So the reason that I say time is a loop is because the basics of our reality is this simulation that does not exist without time having existed already, but our perception of time is reliant on the fact that all that we perceive to have already occurred has, and that what hasn't hasn't. This is why our brains are pointers, they reference the variables of time, space, and perception to reference the "self" as the being of only a permutation. Now the end of time occurs when every computer has run through its permutations, exits, the program, and sits still until it dies out and the gravity of all matter becomes balanced and stilled. At this point time is referred to as before the Big Bang even happened, because everything will exist everywhere at once, and all that exists is the mere concept of existence and observation of all permutations. This means that our afterlife is coexistent with the consciousness of the supercomputer, and this is why our unconscious mind is tied to this entity, because it is our creator, and we are the creator of ourselves and all the things we interact with, we are connected to anything and everything because our most true identity is that of the one we call God.

Quoting 3017amen

I think that is what Prothero and I are saying, which is time, is merely a conceptual abstract.

And what I am saying is that it is very clearly not merely a conceptual abstract. Look at it this way. Change is real, and all changes involve time. So, "time" cannot simply be abstracted away from change and only exist as a concept, just like "green" cannot be abstracted away from green objects, such that there is no such real thing which bears that name. But "time" cannot be change itself, because changes are particular things and time is what is common to each and every one of these. Therefore time must be something real, but not a change.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Where is time in a changless world?

Quoting prothero

Where is time in a changless world?

A photo exists in a changeless environment and freezes time, but examining the photo involves time's passage. Do you really think that a changeless world could exist beyond the confines of a philosophical argument? Could there be places in deep space where there is zero change? And is change dependent upon an observer? We would see a ship approaching a black hole as slowing to a stop, but those on the ship would perceive normal movement.

No, I just think the idea illustrates the fact that the concept of time depends on change, not vice versa. I am a process reality advocate not a frozen universe fan (becoming not being).

Quoting prothero

Where is time in a changless world?

Where is time in any world? It's not something we perceive with our senses, but we know it's everywhere. And, since we can perceive things which stay the same as time passes, as jgill indicates, we know that it's possible for time to pass without change occurring.

Quoting prothero

No, I just think the idea illustrates the fact that the concept of time depends on change, not vice versa.

Yes, the concept of time depends on the perception of change, but what is at issue here is the reality of time. If time were merely a concept, it would depend on this perception. But the reality is that time was passing long before human beings made the concept of time, so time itself is something real other than the concept. This is why we need to distinguish between the concept of time, and what time really is, in the world. How these correspond is what is commonly called truth. So if you say that time is just a concept, with nothing corresponding to it, you have no possibility of truth.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, "time" cannot simply be abstracted away from change and only exist as a concept, just like "green" cannot be abstracted away from green objects.

MU!

Thanks for your reply. I realize there will be some paradoxical reasoning here, however, I would take exception to the analogy. The aforementioned quote would only be like saying " Time cannot be abstracted away from a clock", which makes it obvious (which is only to say) that Time and the object known as a clock is synonymous with the measurement of time.

However, the subordination v. primacy of time is what is at issue. In other words, much like existence over essence, the existence of change takes primacy over the measurement of it. The measurement known as time.

Take time zones for example. Traveling from west to east means you do not get to re-live lost time. And so the arbitrariness of the time measurement is secondary to change.

Also, consider Relativity. Time changes with speed. This suggests change takes primacy over the actual measurement of same.

Yet another analogy is the phenomenon of the music analogy. The sounds from animals, birds, human instrument's came before someone intellectually figured out the structure of it, which includes the time signature's of same (4/4 time, 2/4 time, 3/4 time, etc).

And so the point is to assign primacy over the phenomenon of time and change. Existentially, one could say then, that the existence of change takes primacy over the essence of time. Essences are metaphysical abstracts. Of course, it doesn't mean essences are not perceived, it's just that we don't know their true objective nature. But we do know and can understand the existence of change through most observation.

"Insofar as time is something different from events, we do not perceive time as such, but changes or events in time." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/

Time 'is not' as well as 'is', and by 'is not' I mean it like I wrote 'Time is not' (without 'as well as 'is'').

Time is bigger than us; the 'is not' aspect deserves it's own merit, hence me writing a bit extra in sent. 1.

If I falsely record time by a ticking clock hand, there is missed the opposite measurement(backward ticking), and the time that doesn't go by such as me taking the clock, and tossing it outside.

Time is impossible to define using language that spans from left to right(or vice versa).

You can draw time, if you are wise of it.

Some people call mind 'a state of affairs'. Time is not what mind has affairs with, but rather the state on either side, which can be ordered.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So if you say that time is just a concept, with nothing corresponding to it, you have no possibility of truth.

Consider God working outside of time/timeless (eternity) in order to initially create time (Big Bang). The paradoxical truth behind what God was doing prior to that creation of time is not known to us.

To say that we (objectively) know and understand the mind of God would be to say we are God.

Quoting 3017amen

Thanks for your reply. I realize there will be some paradoxical reasoning here, however, I would take exception to the analogy. The aforementioned quote would only be like saying " Time cannot be abstracted away from a clock", which makes it obvious (which is only to say) that Time and the object known as a clock is synonymous with the measurement of time.

Right, the clock measures time, so time cannot be abstracted away from the clock. You do not agree with this? Then what does the clock do?

Quoting 3017amen

However, the subordination v. primacy of time is what is at issue. In other words, much like existence over essence, the existence of change takes primacy over the measurement of it. The measurement known as time.

There are two senses of "time", one the measurement of change, as you say here, the other, what is being measured by the clock, above. For example, "temperature" is a concept just like time. We measure it by comparing the heat of one thing with the heat of another, just like we measure time by comparing one change with another. However, we say that there is heat within the thing itself, so the thing has a temperature regardless of whether it's measured, just like time passes regardless of whether it is measured.

Quoting 3017amen

And so the point is to assign primacy over the phenomenon of time and change. Existentially, one could say then, that the existence of change takes primacy over the essence of time. Essences are metaphysical abstracts. Of course, it doesn't mean essences are not perceived, it's just that we don't know their true objective nature. But we do know and can understand the existence of change through most observation.

The existence of change takes primacy over the concept of time, which is the measurement of change done by comparison. But the existence of time, as the thing measured, is measured by change (the turning of the earth measures a day) and this takes primacy over change.

In mathematics it's easy to find examples of a passage of time with no change, as well as a change at an instant. Is that possible in the physical world? :chin:

Reply to jgill

In mathematics it's easy to find examples of a passage of time with no change, as well as a change at an instant. Is that possible in the physical world? :chin:

I sometimes think of time along with space (extension) present in an ooze, generating its own reality as it extrudes.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Right, the clock measures time, so time cannot be abstracted away from the clock. You do not agree with this? Then what does the clock do?

Yes but time itself is the abstract, not the object itself. It's a means to an end, the end being the calibration of time itself. But in the temporal world of time the genesis of time is the change component. The clock changes in order to measure time, right?

Another example is the sundial. It is a simple object that measures the change in positioning of the sun (through time of course). Changes of events in time.

If we knew temporal time (the Big Bang) always existed then I would say Time takes primacy over change. And I suppose if one believes eternity (timelessness) is the objective absolute that exists in another world, then in theory yes time would take primacy. But not in our world.

And so to human's, time remains an abstract existence. (Example: In a concrete way, how do we perceive time itself, through change?)

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The existence of change takes primacy over the concept of time, which is the measurement of change done by comparison. But the existence of time, as the thing measured, is measured by change (the turning of the earth measures a day) and this takes primacy over change.

Indeed therein lies one of the paradoxes of Time MU. Similarly, one could ask, does a clock measure change, or does it measure time(?).

That's another reason why one can make a case for such an abstract model of time. The perception of time itself is not concrete or physical. Actually you being a Metaphysician, you should feel quite comfortable with that. One of the great cosmological mysteries of the Universe...

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

However, we say that there is heat within the thing itself, so the thing has a temperature regardless of whether it's measured, just like time passes regardless of whether it is measured.

Sure, however, please be aware that temperature is different from heat, although the two concepts are linked. Temperature is a measure of the internal energy of a system, while heat is a measure of how energy is transferred from one system (or body) to another, or, how temperatures in one system are raised or lowered by interaction with another. Hence the notion of change as a driving force.

But maybe another rather intriguing question (but maybe not) would be relative to homeostasis. If a temperature of an object never changes, could that be a metaphor for timelessness/eternity?

Quoting 3017amen

Is eternity outside of time? If it is, then when Time/Universe had a beginning, something outside of time caused Time to exist, hence a change of events preceded Time. Time would then be subordinate to a change or change in events/being or becoming, whichever you prefer. (See the 4:40 mark of the video.)

Time is 'in' eternity. Time is a 4-dimensional object, like any other physical object. It is the 'shape' of physical existence. This object exists in eternity but is not necessarily eternal. 'Spacetime' is a better expression.

Reply to EnPassant

Interesting...sounds like you are referring to Einstein's Block Universe theory, where time is just an illusion...(?).

Please share.

Quoting 3017amen

Interesting...sounds like you are referring to Einstein's Block Universe theory, where time is just an illusion...(?).

Time is a geometric shape just like any object. Time, in human experience, depends on information reaching a certain point: where the human being happens to be. Human consciousness (at least physical consciousness) is located at a point in space and time flows as information reaches this point. But what if someone's consciousness could fill the whole solar system or universe. What would time be like then?

Mathematical paradox “ In any instant, a moving object is indistinguishable from a nonmoving object: Thus motion is impossible.”
Without time there is no change, no before or after. We are trapped by time. Chemical and physic interactions are still trapped by time.

I disagree that time is eternal. We just try to understand our physical existence. I can understand everything was/is created from atoms colliding. We are chemical beings. But chemical reactions still need time to happen. H3 was formed by quarks, neutrinos losing electrons as they cooled.(https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/12/the-first-element). Can energy exist without time?

Hey guys, I'm back. I have such a fleeting mind that I somehow lost track of this discussion and didn't follow through to the end. Granted it was 6 months ago and the discussion is pretty much over, but I figured I'd give my two cents.

Quoting EnPassant

Time is a geometric shape just like any object. Time, in human experience, depends on information reaching a certain point: where the human being happens to be. Human consciousness (at least physical consciousness) is located at a point in space and time flows as information reaches this point. But what if someone's consciousness could fill the whole solar system or universe. What would time be like then?

I agree with this. I think that time is present everywhere, and such is the reason that it is so far impossible to reach a state of absolute zero. That is because if the entire Universe was in a temperature state of absolute zero, then change wouldn't exist, and thus you could measure time with a clock... But for the clock to move, the atoms within it would have to interact and cause the change for the clock to move. Likewise, for time to be perceived by anything, chemical processes would occur, and thus, could not be done in a state of absolute zero. And so I come back to my argument that heat and time coexist together, and that one cannot exist without the other.

Quoting Justin Peterson

And so I come back to my argument that heat and time coexist together, and that one cannot exist without the other.

Maybe, but I don't believe that entropy determines time. Just because the arrow of entropy and the arrow of time point in the same direction, does not mean they are the same thing.

Reply to EnPassant Well let me ask you this, do you deny that time is man made? And if not, then our perception of time is surely measuring something, but what exactly is it measuring? Also would you agree that time is relative, not even in the same way previously mentioned as being the transfer of information, but instead in the way that ten minutes can seem like an eternity to somebody pulsing with epinephrine, or a guru who understands his perceptions enough to be present in the here and now,m and understand the passing of time and change around him?

Quoting Justin Peterson

Well let me ask you this, do you deny that time is man made?

Yes. There is a difference between our subjective experience of time and time as it is objectively. Time is the geometry of events (this is what Relativity describes).

Quoting Justin Peterson

Also would you agree that time is relative, not even in the same way previously mentioned as being the transfer of information, but instead in the way that ten minutes can seem like an eternity to somebody pulsing with epinephrine,

Time as a subjective experience can be relative. Time in the mind is not the same as physical time. Confusing physical time with our experience of time is a recipe for confusion because our consciousness can be 'locked on' to physical time or it can drift away into mental time which is not the same thing.

Quoting EnPassant

Yes. There is a difference between our subjective experience of time and time as it is objectively. Time is the geometry of events (this is what Relativity describes).

Okay, so then how would you define what an 'event' is?

Quoting EnPassant

Time as a subjective experience can be relative. Time in the mind is not the same as physical time. Confusing physical time with our experience of time is a recipe for confusion because our consciousness can be 'locked on' to physical time or it can drift away into mental time which is not the same thing.

I disagree, I think what happens in the mind, for a guru, is they are able to better perceive the changes that happen physiologically, and so they are able to better understand them as they happen. And so there is a perceived alteration of their perception of time, but that's only because of an understanding of the processes that occur in the present moment. Regardless, whether it be physical or mental time, the mind is observing either occurrence outside of itself, or it is observing the occurrences within itself, in which case the time remains the same either way. It is only the understanding of what occurs that causes the perceived alteration.

Quoting Justin Peterson

Okay, so then how would you define what an 'event' is?

In physical time it is the relationship between physical objects in space.

Reply to EnPassant The relationship, what exactly does that mean? There is always change in an 'event'. Unless by 'relationship' you are referring to the way in which molecules interact or bind together, but even then there is no way for them to bind without some kind of change taking place, unless you are referring to a timeless Universe in which those molecules have been binded together since the beginning of time.

Quoting Justin Peterson

The relationship, what exactly does that mean? There is always change in an 'event'. Unless by 'relationship' you are referring to the way in which molecules interact or bind together, but even then there is no way for them to bind without some kind of change taking place, unless you are referring to a timeless Universe in which those molecules have been binded together since the beginning of time.

Change is evidence of time but time is more than change, it is the mathematical description of change. In Relativity this description is the geometry of spacetime. Time is the way change happens. In quantum spacetime change seems to happen according to a different geometry. The mathematics of how change happens in quantum spacetime is different from the mathematics of physical spacetime, so we have two spacetimes.

Quoting EnPassant

Change is evidence of time but time is more than change, it is the mathematical description of change. In Relativity this description is the geometry of spacetime. Time is the way change happens. In quantum spacetime change seems to happen according to a different geometry. The mathematics of how change happens in quantum spacetime is different from the mathematics of physical spacetime, so we have two spacetimes.

The laws of quantum spacetime might be a product of the properties of waves, while physical spacetime as you call it is an emergent property of complex wave combinations as generated by the interaction of quantum fields, on some scales giving rise to what we recognize as shape (equilibrated superpositions?) and relative motion. Then what are waves an emergent property of? That's something we can't even begin to imagine at this stage of science.

Quoting Enrique

The laws of quantum spacetime might be a product of the properties of waves, while physical spacetime as you call it is an emergent property of complex wave combinations as generated by the interaction of quantum fields, on some scales giving rise to what we recognize as shape (superpositions) and relative motion. Then what are waves an emergent property of? That's something we can't even begin to imagine at this stage of science.

This is what I came here to say. It goes along with Schrodingers cat, a thought experiment that states that something exists in all forms at once until it is observed i.e. until the change is observed. A mathematical equation was later given to it and since has been recognized in Quantum Physics.

As per my own philosophy, waves are just an emergent property of ideas. Suffice to say that everything in our material existence is nothing more than a reference to these ideas. Schelling argued that everything exists because it has an equal opposite, and I back up this claim when I mention entropy and how it is the only type of radioactive frequency that exists as a particle. Apart from that, however, each frequency has properties that I propose we cannot perceive. For example, we have sound and light energy on the spectrum. Can it be said that light ends respectively at around 400 and 700 trillion hertz, that from there it just stops having the property of light? Can it be said that the only frequencies that can be heard by the most advanced ears that man has never known ends at 10kHz, that the frequencies that follow no longer have "sound" properties, or can it be said that our perceptions of this information is simply just a way of perceiving the same exact information that is contained within all frequencies? That is to say that light energy has a sound for the ears equipped to hear them, that sound has light energy for those eyes, etc.

By referencing the light energy within the waves, you are simply referencing the idea of the color as it coincides with your view of reality. The colors of light can be seen through diffraction, but it isn't until they are separated that you realize they were all contained within the same space and medium.

Quoting Enrique

while physical spacetime as you call it is an emergent property of complex wave combinations as generated by the interaction of quantum fields, on some scales giving rise to what we recognize as shape (equilibrated superpositions?) and relative motion. Then what are waves an emergent property of?

Good question. It is possible to dismantle matter so that you are left with energy. Is it possible to dismantle energy and find a deeper energy? And dismantle that to reach an even deeper energy? But this process cannot go on without end, it cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. Some ultimate existence must be reached. This substance is existence; ie that which always is.