Page 4 of 64 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 1897

Thread: Philosophical musings of science, reality, blind men and elephants

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Right, so I'm closing the loop. Usually people say we are trying to understand A, but all we really get from our senses and thoughts is B, so we are using B to understand A imperfectly. I'm saying "understanding" has nothing to do with A, it's not even clear that A is anything but gibberish. What we get is B, so what we mean by understanding is understanding B. There is no using B to understand A, there is only understanding B, or not understanding B.
    So we can not learn about mind independent reality because we are using our minds to think about it. There is no way to look at reality objectively because minds are intwined in it. So there is no mind independent reality because there needs to be a mind objectively looking at it. But, then the mind objectively looking at it, would be "in" reality, when it would need to be "out" of reality, to look at reality objectively, but there is no such thing as "out" of reality. Even if one was "out" of reality, one would need a mind to observe it. And that can not happen as reality is mind dependent.

    Is what i have wrote the basis of your view in this thread Ken ?
    Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere...

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That is pure speculation, you offer no evidence in support of that view. Indeed, it is impossible to offer any such evidence, because the words don't even mean anything. What "exists without being perceived?" What do we call that kind of thinking when it comes from outside of science or philosophy? So what makes it consistent with science?
    Are we actually misunderstanding each other? I mean to say the universe existed before us and will continue to exist after humankind is long gone.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I mean to say the universe existed before us and will continue to exist after humankind is long gone.
    A claim that I think we would all agree with. My point is that this is a claim about mind-dependent reality, all that is required is that we dig into the meaning of the words you are using. You are saying that what we conceptualize as the universe, using our minds, did what we conceptualize as "exist", over a period we conceptualize as "time", and we conceptualize that time as existing "before us". Further, we can take these mind-dependent conceptualizations and extrapolate them into a hypothetical future that comes after we are "long gone." Those are all perfectly good examples of how our minds work, and how mind-dependent reality is thought about. None of that makes any of it mind-independent, expressly because the role of the mind demonstrably appears in every corner of that statement.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by kevin1981 View Post
    So we can not learn about mind independent reality because we are using our minds to think about it. There is no way to look at reality objectively because minds are intwined in it. So there is no mind independent reality because there needs to be a mind objectively looking at it. But, then the mind objectively looking at it, would be "in" reality, when it would need to be "out" of reality, to look at reality objectively, but there is no such thing as "out" of reality. Even if one was "out" of reality, one would need a mind to observe it. And that can not happen as reality is mind dependent.

    Is what i have wrote the basis of your view in this thread Ken ?
    Yes, that is a perfect rendition of the argument, except I would not say we can't look at reality objectively, I would say that what we mean by "objectively" is how we do indeed look at it. The difference between what is "objective" and what is "subjective" is not about the absence or presence of a subject, the subject is there in both-- it is about whether the subject is interpreting what is happening in a unified way, or a different way, from subject to subject.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    A claim that I think we would all agree with. My point is that this is a claim about mind-dependent reality, all that is required is that we dig into the meaning of the words you are using. You are saying that what we conceptualize as the universe, using our minds, did what we conceptualize as "exist", over a period we conceptualize as "time", and we conceptualize that time as existing "before us". Further, we can take these mind-dependent conceptualizations and extrapolate them into a hypothetical future that comes after we are "long gone." Those are all perfectly good examples of how our minds work, and how mind-dependent reality is thought about. None of that makes any of it mind-independent, expressly because the role of the mind demonstrably appears in every corner of that statement.
    Not quite sure I follow you. Why is "time" a mind-dependent conceptualization? Time passes regardless of out minds registering it. Our picture of the universe is based on our mental constructs. They might be wrong in some points, but, as a whole they give a rough picture. Just saying it is valid prior to humanity and post-humanity.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Not quite sure I follow you. Why is "time" a mind-dependent conceptualization?
    Why isn't it?
    Time passes regardless of out minds registering it.
    You mean, that is the way you conceptualize time, do you not? I'm serious, you are telling me how you conceptualize time, what else could you possibly be telling me about? And if my mind worked totally different from yours, perhaps I had no sense of a passing of time I only had an awareness of this exact instant and nothing else, how could you possibly explain your conception of time to me? What experiment could you do that would come out A if time was something real, and B if it was a conceptualization you use to make sense of experiments?
    Our picture of the universe is based on our mental constructs.
    Exactly, that's my point.
    They might be wrong in some points, but, as a whole they give a rough picture.
    Yes, they give a rough picture of the thing we are trying to understand, which is the thing that we perceive and interpret, using our minds, which is mind-dependent reality.
    Just saying it is valid prior to humanity and post-humanity.
    Yes, your conceptualization of the universe can be used to apply outside the mental construct you call your own life. That doesn't make it not your conceptualization of the universe.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Why isn't it?You mean, that is the way you conceptualize time, do you not? I'm serious, you are telling me how you conceptualize time, what else could you possibly be telling me about? And if my mind worked totally different from yours, perhaps I had no sense of a passing of time I only had an awareness of this exact instant and nothing else, how could you possibly explain your conception of time to me? What experiment could you do that would come out A if time was something real, and B if it was a conceptualization you use to make sense of experiments?Exactly, that's my point.Yes, they give a rough picture of the thing we are trying to understand, which is the thing that we perceive and interpret, using our minds, which is mind-dependent reality.Yes, your conceptualization of the universe can be used to apply outside the mental construct you call your own life. That doesn't make it not your conceptualization of the universe.
    Don't follow you here, Ken. Time is change. It keeps from everything happening at once. I don't like the Kantian approach. It might be sound as an excercise in logic to excess, but I prefer Newton's realist view. If you had no sense of a passing of time, and only had awareness of this exact instant, you would probably be a dog or cat, and I couldn't carry on a conversation to explain a concept of time. An advanced intelligence must be aware of the passing of time, else it could not develop anything akin to science.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That just means that mind dependent reality has constraints. No one said we can make it be anything we want, we can only make it be what works. This may mean there needs to be something outside of the mind, so we can reject pure idealism, but the real question is, should we label that "reality"? I say no, "reality" is a word that means something to us, it comes with a host of connotations that are all inseparable from mind-dependent reality. That is my objection to the phrase "mind-independent reality", it mixes the meanings and connotations of all those words in unfortunate ways, fostering misconceptions about what knowledge is supposed to be about-- thus leading to the lament in the OP.
    OK, thanks for the comprehensive reply, plenty to think about.

    One thing though regarding the extract above, this “something” outside of the mind – that seems to be a notion that logically would remain as "something" if phenomena were to “disappear”. If that "something" has an "influence" on our models in terms of “rules" that our models have to follow can we assign a logical order to that process, in other words, would that “something” be prior to phenomena?

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Don't follow you here, Ken. Time is change.
    OK, time is change. So is "change" not something you conceptualize in your mind? I'll give you an example-- the ancient philosopher Parmenides thought all change was logically impossible, because A cannot become B unless A was already B. If Parmenides saw a "heads" on a coin turn into a "tails", he would say the coin has not changed, we are merely seeing a different side of it now. To him everything was like that, all change a kind of illusion of not having all the facts. So you say time is change, Parmenides says change is an illusion, so together that implies time is an illusion. This doesn't make it either an illusion or not an illusion, it is an example of how all these concepts are products of our minds.
    I don't like the Kantian approach. It might be sound as an excercise in logic to excess, but I prefer Newton's realist view.
    That's fine, you can prefer whatever mind-dependent approach you like, but they are all mind-dependent approaches. Do not Kant and Newton have minds, and are not these views the products of those minds?
    If you had no sense of a passing of time, and only had awareness of this exact instant, you would probably be a dog or cat, and I couldn't carry on a conversation to explain a concept of time.
    Exactly, if I had not the mind that could address the concept, then that aspect of your mind-dependent reality is not accessible in my mind-dependent reality. Which of us lives in the "true reality"?
    An advanced intelligence must be aware of the passing of time, else it could not develop anything akin to science.
    How do you know that-- perhaps an advanced intelligence would have long ago abandoned the concept of time, just as we have already abandoned the tightly held Newtonian concept of absolute time. It is all a function of what the mind is capable of, as we explore our mind dependent reality.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2013-Dec-14 at 11:04 PM.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Len Moran View Post
    One thing though regarding the extract above, this “something” outside of the mind – that seems to be a notion that logically would remain as "something" if phenomena were to “disappear”. If that "something" has an "influence" on our models in terms of “rules" that our models have to follow can we assign a logical order to that process, in other words, would that “something” be prior to phenomena?
    It's hard to apply that kind of analysis to the "something," without in the act entangling it into what we mean by mind-dependent reality. If we attach it with attributes like "priority" or the ability to follow "rules", then we are trying to understand it. But anything we can try to understand must be part of mind-dependent reality, because "priority" is a concept of our minds, as are "rules." That kind of reasoning to me sounds like more of taking one most distant corner of mind dependent reality, the corner we see the most dimly, and imagining that it is actually something mind independent, but it's really just a mind-dependent part that we don't understand very well. The old "god of the gaps" problem. I just don't see how we can say anything at all about whatever is there when everything that we are capable of making sense of is gone. We may sense a need for it to be there, to fill some kind of logical void we sense underpins everything we understand, but we can't understand it at all, and there's no point in trying. But the real point is, there's every point in not trying-- there's every point in focusing our efforts on understanding the connections and priorities that are really there for us to understand.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    OK, time is change. So is "change" not something you conceptualize in your mind? I'll give you an example-- the ancient philosopher Parmenides thought all change was logically impossible, because A cannot become B unless A was already B. If Parmenides saw a "heads" on a coin turn into a "tails", he would say the coin has not changed, we are merely seeing a different side of it now. To him everything was like that, all change a kind of illusion of not having all the facts. So you say time is change, Parmenides says change is an illusion, so together that implies time is an illusion. This doesn't make it either an illusion or not an illusion, it is an example of how all these concepts are products of our minds.
    That's fine, you can prefer whatever mind-dependent approach you like, but they are all mind-dependent approaches. Do not Kant and Newton have minds, and are not these views the products of those minds?
    Exactly, if I had not the mind that could address the concept, then that aspect of your mind-dependent reality is not accessible in my mind-dependent reality. Which of us lives in the "true reality"?How do you know that-- perhaps an advanced intelligence would have long ago abandoned the concept of time, just as we have already abandoned the tightly held Newtonian concept of absolute time. It is all a function of what the mind is capable of, as we explore our mind dependent reality.
    This Parmenides type thinking is logic turning paranoid. Fine as a thought excercise, but doesn't bring us forward in the real world. (bet you don't like my term "real world"... ) Kant and Newton both have minds, but some are more coherent and logical than others. Progress comes with Newtonian thinking, not Kantian thinking. Don't see how any advanced civilization could abandon the concept of time, unless one understands as "advanced", philosophers philosophizing about life in a cave.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    This Parmenides type thinking is logic turning paranoid. Fine as a thought excercise, but doesn't bring us forward in the real world.
    Actually, remarkably, in the Heisenberg representation of quantum mechanics, the state of any system (like the whole universe), is unchanging, but the measurements we make (the operators) are what change. In the many worlds view, those only change because we only see part of the full landscape. So in a sense, change is a kind of illusion in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also, in relativity, time and space are conjoined, such that objects follow "world lines" that are in some sense neither in space or time, but a kind of combination. That also makes time into a kind of illusion that depends on reference frame but does not actually have a separate existence all its own, at least not in a global or absolute sense. So many things that seemed obviously "real" before relativity and quantum mechanics really just don't seem so real any more, they seem like illusions of perspective. I would say that a sufficiently persistent illusion is not an illusion any more, it is a successful product of a mind-- it is the very stuff of mind-dependent reality.
    Progress comes with Newtonian thinking, not Kantian thinking.
    I wonder if Einstein would agree?
    Don't see how any advanced civilization could abandon the concept of time, unless one understands as "advanced", philosophers philosophizing about life in a cave.
    One does not need to completely abandon a concept to see that is it not really true. Look at Newton's gravity-- we use it all the time, though we know it's wrong. We can both know something is not true, and still embrace it as useful. I'm not sure we ever do anything else than just exactly that.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Actually, remarkably, in the Heisenberg representation of quantum mechanics, the state of any system (like the whole universe), is unchanging, but the measurements we make (the operators) are what change. In the many worlds view, those only change because we only see part of the full landscape. So in a sense, change is a kind of illusion in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also, in relativity, time and space are conjoined, such that objects follow "world lines" that are in some sense neither in space or time, but a kind of combination. That also makes time into a kind of illusion that depends on reference frame but does not actually have a separate existence all its own, at least not in a global or absolute sense. So many things that seemed obviously "real" before relativity and quantum mechanics really just don't seem so real any more, they seem like illusions of perspective. I would say that a sufficiently persistent illusion is not an illusion any more, it is a successful product of a mind-- it is the very stuff of mind-dependent reality.I wonder if Einstein would agree?
    One does not need to completely abandon a concept to see that is it not really true. Look at Newton's gravity-- we use it all the time, though we know it's wrong. We can both know something is not true, and still embrace it as useful. I'm not sure we ever do anything else than just exactly that.
    But the Heisenberg representation is a mathematical model using matrix math (neatly eliminating the temptation to associate a visual model), so why read a physical interpretation into it?

    Elliot's many worlds view (which would solve time travel neatly...), is another (wacky) interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    Einstein's spacetime definition as an outcome of his Relativity theory, does not seem to make time look like an illusion to me. There is just not a universal time, just relative time based on the observer's coordinates, yet time is there, nevertheless. Our perception of time is linked with the time interval it takes for an occurence to reach our eyes. Light, the messenger, is restricted by its velocity. In the old days, we would hear of events in function of the distance away from us and the speed of the delivery by the messenger (on foot, horse, train, etc.).

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    P.S. And yes, I know there is more to it than just time delay, the shortening of distance, mass dependence, etc.....

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    P.S.P.S.: And just because we don't really understand how time works is no reason to go into denial...

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Are we actually misunderstanding each other? I mean to say the universe existed before us and will continue to exist after humankind is long gone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    A claim that I think we would all agree with. My point is that this is a claim about mind-dependent reality, all that is required is that we dig into the meaning of the words you are using. You are saying that what we conceptualize as the universe, using our minds, did what we conceptualize as "exist", over a period we conceptualize as "time", and we conceptualize that time as existing "before us". Further, we can take these mind-dependent conceptualizations and extrapolate them into a hypothetical future that comes after we are "long gone." Those are all perfectly good examples of how our minds work, and how mind-dependent reality is thought about. None of that makes any of it mind-independent, expressly because the role of the mind demonstrably appears in every corner of that statement.
    The logic of this kind of idealism says that outside of phenomena (mind dependent reality) the universe doesn’t exist – nothing exists. So the universe didn’t exist in any manner before humankind and will not exist after humankind. It only exists in this framework as long as we hypothetically think in terms of mind dependent reality (which is what you say), in other words we imagine there are hypothetical human beings present in this “before” and “after”. Remove these hypothetical humans and we have nothing to describe, even word like "empty" are unsuitable, in fact I don't really know how to express this "nothing" in the manner I am imagining - that is the upshot of radical idealism (or near radical idealism).

    This scenario is actually my take on things, but I “fall back” on the “notion” that “something” does exist outside of phenomena, so before humankind there was “something”, during humankind there is “something” outside of phenomena and after humankind there will be “something”. That “something” I refer to as mind independent reality (and is unknowable in structure). However your comments on this thread have forced me to water down this “notion” of mind independent “reality”.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    I am certainly not proposing mind dependent reality, but rather mind independent reality.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,318
    So the big question is, do we see reality as it is, or, do we see reality as our minds interpret it ? Unfortunately, the answer is unknowable and that is why this is called a philosophical discussion !
    Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere...

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    Quote Originally Posted by kevin1981 View Post
    So the big question is, do we see reality as it is, or, do we see reality as our minds interpret it ? Unfortunately, the answer is unknowable and that is why this is called a philosophical discussion !
    I would think that we see reality as it is, within the immediate bandwidth of our senses. When we resorting to mathematical models, then it is an open question, IMHO.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,318
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I would think that we see reality as it is
    I think Ken would agree with that statement. I think Len would say, we interpret, through our minds, the unknowable structure of reality into the reality we perceive as "real". I think both views make sense and i find it hard to pick one over the other ! Though, i do realise that i do not have to pick one other the other and that it is okay just to have an understanding of both view points.

    I think Ken is saying that, we can not understand anything other than what we perceive because what we perceive is all there is. The only way to perceive reality is to be in it.

    I hope i have got it right as i do not want to confuse the matter !
    Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere...

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    But the Heisenberg representation is a mathematical model using matrix math (neatly eliminating the temptation to associate a visual model), so why read a physical interpretation into it?
    That is precisely the question. Why read a physical interpretation into anything we perceive? Because we are trying to use the methods of physics as a tool to keep us from falling into misconceptions based entirely on our own prejudices.
    Einstein's spacetime definition as an outcome of his Relativity theory, does not seem to make time look like an illusion to me.
    But it did to Einstein. Here is how he put it in his eulogy of his best friend: "Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
    Our perception of time is linked with the time interval it takes for an occurence to reach our eyes. Light, the messenger, is restricted by its velocity. In the old days, we would hear of events in function of the distance away from us and the speed of the delivery by the messenger (on foot, horse, train, etc.).
    This is not important for this discussion, but I should correct you here-- relativity is not a function of the finite time it takes light to travel, relativity is what persists after you correct for that. So it's subtle-- we do have relativity because c isn't infinite, but it still has nothing to do with light propagation time, that effect is a different kind of illusion that is there for sound also but does not spawn any "sound relativity."

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    P.S.P.S.: And just because we don't really understand how time works is no reason to go into denial...
    Ah, but the question there is, who is in denial-- the person who clings to his impressions of time, or the person who digs deeply into it with careful observation, and seeks an understanding of time that is actually consistent with all those precise experiments that we don't experience in our daily lives?

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Len Moran View Post
    The logic of this kind of idealism says that outside of phenomena (mind dependent reality) the universe doesn’t exist – nothing exists.
    If one were to follow the idealist logic, yes. But that is not my logic. I don't say "nothing exists outside of the mind," I say existence is a concept of the mind, so "existence outside the mind" is an incoherent notion. I'm not saying it's the null set, because the null set is something coherent, it is a clear statement about what is not there. I'm saying the words just don't mean anything when combined like that. It would be like saying "nothing exists outside of blarch." We don't say that because those words don't make any sense, it doesn't mean there really is nothing existing outside of blarch, it just means "don't make that statement, it doesn't mean anything."
    Remove these hypothetical humans and we have nothing to describe, even word like "empty" are unsuitable, in fact I don't really know how to express this "nothing" in the manner I am imagining - that is the upshot of radical idealism (or near radical idealism).
    Yes, and that take doesn't make sense to me. I'm saying, who are you talking to when you say "remove these hypothetical humans"? You are talking to humans! So you have not removed the humans here, you are talking to them. Sure you've removed them from the universe you are imagining, but that matters not, it matters not whether there are humans in the universe you are talking about, what matters is what the heck does that universe mean. And it has its meaning because you give it so, and you communicate it thusly, so it's all still quite mind dependent.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Ah, but the question there is, who is in denial-- the person who clings to his impressions of time, or the person who digs deeply into it with careful observation, and seeks an understanding of time that is actually consistent with all those precise experiments that we don't experience in our daily lives?
    Yes, to a degree, but saying time doesn't exist, I still can't follow. If I say that time is a measurement of change, then surely time exists because the universe is evolving, everything around us is moving/changing. That time flows differently for differing frames of reference is one thing, but that all states of the universe, past-present-future, exist simultaneously I find hard to swallow.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,597
    I hope I am not derailing to point out the many ways human experience stretches perceived time as in skilled meditation of in altered mind states where people experience what they perceive as understaning without time, in a moment or in an experience without knowledge of time. Stan Grof has written books about many of these techniques which include drugs, sensory deprivation, induced panic, meditation, dream states and the loose term AHA moments.

    I call up the anology of analog or parallel processing versus linear computing which is literally clocked and extend that to quantum computing where the solution exists as superimposed states. In human terms therefore there are linear time ways of understanding and "all at once get the picture" ways of understanding and these can coexist.

    Finally for this little thought provocation, the concept of reality and the concept of understanding reality are actually poles apart. Similarly the concept of real time and the understanding of time are two separate catagories/
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,597
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Yes, to a degree, but saying time doesn't exist, I still can't follow. If I say that time is a measurement of change, then surely time exists because the universe is evolving, everything around us is moving/changing. That time flows differently for differing frames of reference is one thing, but that all states of the universe, past-present-future, exist simultaneously I find hard to swallow.
    I think to say time is change is an a priori premise. If I choose to define a time passing with no change that would be another premise. If you say how do you measure your new time, I can say how do you measure yours? You use a ticking clock perhaps, I use an experience in consciousness.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,362
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I think to say time is change is an a priori premise. If I choose to define a time passing with no change that would be another premise. If you say how do you measure your new time, I can say how do you measure yours? You use a ticking clock perhaps, I use an experience in consciousness.
    Perhaps I should formulate it differently. In an absolute void, where there is nothing (really nothing, not bubbling quantum foam), there is no time. (Yes, I know no such animal exists...)

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,597
    Not only does it not exist it is nonexistent by definition. If I define a set of things that don't exist is it an empty set or a non existent set, a paradox? Maybe the existence of non existence is another unknowable?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,702
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Yes, to a degree, but saying time doesn't exist, I still can't follow.
    Actually, I don't say time doesn't exist, I say existence isn't what we claim it to be. We typically make impossible claims on the meaning of "existence", such that if we dig into our own language, it falls apart-- it is internally inconsistent. So we need to mean something that is actually defensible, something that actually makes sense, when we say something "exists." It means that thing gives us some conceptual power over mind-dependent reality, that's all it means. It can't possibly mean anything else, and still be true to the language in which it is embedded. So when I talk about "illusions," I mean that a sufficiently persistent illusion is no longer considered an illusion at all. So there is no fundamental distinction between what is real and what is illusion, it's all just a sliding scale of how effective the concept is. If it leads us astray, we label it illusion, if it succeeds in its goals, we call it reality. What else could we possibly mean by these words? So time does exist, in mind-dependent reality, to the extent that we build our lives around it, and it does not exist in its own right, in the theory of relativity, to the extent that it is entwined in a geometric manifold called spacetime. It's just not a "yes/no" or "up/down" issue of the existence of anything, that cannot be what the word means because it just wouldn't make any sense and that is never how we use it.

    If I say that time is a measurement of change, then surely time exists because the universe is evolving, everything around us is moving/changing.
    We certainly perceive that-- it is an important aspect of our mind-dependent reality. So yes, we say it exists in mind-dependent reality, that's just what we mean by "exists." However, that doesn't mean that in some other context, like the spacetime manifold, we cannot say that time exists, it is just a relatively arbitrary element of that manifold that is somehow being culled out by the perceptions of some particular observer. Time is real to that observer, but a different time is real to some other observer. Such are the rules of our mind-dependent reality, we have only to try and make sense of it and not fight it all the time.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    If one were to follow the idealist logic, yes. But that is not my logic. I don't say "nothing exists outside of the mind," I say existence is a concept of the mind, so "existence outside the mind" is an incoherent notion.

    On the face of it, I really would describe your perspective as being that of radical idealism – but you consistently insist on not ascribing that label to yourself yet you never take on even a hint of realism. That’s the bit that I can’t get my head around in the way that you obviously can – all I can infer is that you resort to a linguistic framework that allows you to maintain a consistent “radical idealism” without apparently going the whole way because language doesn’t allow you to temper that stance with realism.

    This approach seems to legitimately enable science to proceed with investigating mind dependent reality (as per radical idealism) as if it constituted all of reality rendering any question that a small or large chunk of mind dependent reality owes its structure to "something” outside of mind dependent reality as being a non question.

    I would prefer to say that science can investigate mind dependent reality but has no capability whatsoever to investigate an indescribable structure which can be philosophically inferred within mind dependent reality as being independent of mind dependent reality and having an indescribable (through science or language) connection to mind dependent reality manifesting itself within mind dependent reality as a large or small influence. That for me places the applicability of science (and language) in the context of nature with and without humans and legitimately connects idealism with a valid hint of realism. I would call that philosophical stance Open Realism.
    Last edited by Len Moran; 2013-Dec-15 at 11:13 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •