I don't think God would be able to detect the change either. Think about the question Pierre asked: what is the change relative to?

That would seem to be the same problem afflicting the idea of displacing the whole of space. You can shift a house 100 feet to the North. Can you move the whole of space in the same direction? What would the displacement that would have hypothetically occurred be relative to? — Pierre-Normand

Right. Leibniz shows the problem of absolute space by imagining the universe is finite and sitting in a void. Assuming absolute space, the void is empty space waiting to contain something. We might imagine xyz axes expanding out from the center of the universe and continuing on beyond it.

It's only when we imagine the universe moving within the void that the logic of it breaks down. We have proposed motion that even in principle can't be observed.

Einstein also takes us to a void in special relativity. Again, we're looking at the meaninglessness of trying to travel around in a void.

Trying to adapt the thought experiment to address time is a little confusing to me.

Yes. Do you see a problem?

(Y)

They map pretty well in time. — Cavacava

Propositions and sentences?

What I was originally pointing out to you was the big difference between reacting to Newtonian vs modern understandings of space/time. — apokrisis

So you thought I was conflating Leibniz and Einstein. OK. That wasn't my intention.

There are actual consequences that a thermometer would reveal. — apokrisis

You're thinking that when God turns the universal clock back, that NOW is moved backward. The universe isn't a point in time. It's all of time. So God is moving all of time back four hours. See? You've got to stop thinking of time as a river that things flow through. That is Newtonian time.

You brought up the hole argument to explain something about Leibniz. What were you trying to explain?

Why do you think it doesn't relate to the dynamical view I described? — apokrisis

I'm asking how it relates.

A concept is an idea, a thought and a sentence expresses a complete thought, and it is composed? No? — Cavacava

Yes, but the sentence and the thought aren't the same thing. The same thought can be expressed by different sentences.

Pure concepts of the understand (timeless) vs empirical concepts (constructed in time) temporal time series ... "Time is a dimension. It's an aspect of an object" — Cavacava

You're saying that a proposition is constructed in time? You mean one word at a time?

I mean do you think his arguments work against the relativistic view and its particular features, like the Einstein hole argument? — apokrisis

How does Einstein's hole argument relate to relative time?

I don't see how this argument makes sense. If time were absolute then God could turn back the time by 4 hours. But no time change would be detectable to us. So how do we know that God didn't turn the clock back 4 hours, and a change in time which was undetectable to us didn't take place? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not "undetectable to us." It's undetectable even in principle. Then apply Leibniz's Law.

Leibniz and Kant may not be much help then as they were still operating in a Newtonian reference frame in which the best that could be imagined was Galilean relativity. — apokrisis

Leibniz argued directly against absolute space (which is associated with Newton). Why do you think he was operating in a Newtonian reference frame?

I like their Stone Free cover.

The concept of the object is a the construction that takes place in time,
until its got the rhythm "to ride the breeze" of your imagination,
Stone free, yeah, to do what I[you] please

Similar to a music you can anticipate future beat. — Cavacava

Yep, it's Purple Haze (which contains the line: "Tomorrow is the end of time."

Concepts are timeless though, aren't they?

Where's my vomit bag.... — Thorongil

You have a special bag for that?

Could be.. I'm going back through demonstrations of relativity, That might help me connect the dots you've distributed.

I do not understand time at all, — Moliere

I don't either. Leibniz's demonstration of the relativity of space is pretty simple. I don't remember if he addressed time with it as well, but this is how it would go:

Leibniz on relativity of space: If time is absolute (therefore a container for objects and present in a void), then God would be able to move the whole universe 50 miles to the west. We can see that even in principle no movement would be observable and by Leibniz's law, no movement took place. Space can't be absolute.

Same argument to address time: If time is absolute (and so something objects pass through and present in a void), then God would be able to turn the universal clock back by 4 hours. We can see that even in principle, no time change would be detectable, so blah blah blah.. no change in time took place. Time can't be absolute.

Criticisms? So.. Kant.

:)

Should we expect any action on this offer in the near future? — Bitter Crank

I thought maybe we could do an internet petition. Maybe march around the White House. Save martyrdom for the last resort.

I imagine that one of the things that must have been attractive about Islam as it grew was its emphasis on unification.

Malcolm X on Islam

Point taken.

I don't like any religion by the way and think the institutionalisation of religious experiences is the worst social construct invented so far. It is and should always have been a personal experience of the divine. — Benkei

You're a Protestant at heart.

That's fine. I think that's a bit the point that there isn't an accurate representation to be had just like it isn't possible for the Bible. — Benkei

Obviously no Muslim could say there is no accurate representation of Islam. You're treating it like a cute little exhibit in a museum. It's a living worldview that's been through mangling and future shock. The father of your Muslim friends feels sadness when he looks at his daughters because he knows he's watching his heritage die. Loss and defeat.

I appreciate your good intentions, but you aren't accurately representing Islam. A word that ran through my readings was ijtihad. It means to struggle with oneself. It's the word the real reformist Muslims will one day use to describe their reopening of interpretation. That hasn't happened yet.

That's not what Muslim friends tell me and seems a bit weird a claim from a non-Muslim to begin with. — Benkei

What sect does your Muslim friend belong to?

Can we not read and think for ourselves? — Benkei

A Protestant is bound to act as his or her own priest. You just pick that Bible up and start interpreting as the Holy Ghost brings it to you.

Muslims are not Protestants. Sunnis put a halt to interpretation in the 10th Century.

The interpretation I favour is of edip yuksel who is a reformist and the Al Islam interpretation is based on the teachings of mirza ghulam ahmad — Benkei

Are you a Muslim?

You need to get your information from a Muslim scholar. Otherwise you're dealing in horseshit.

Then I misunderstood. It didn't look like you were comparing scholarly comments (note that we're not interested in translation here, but commentary.)

The link you provided.. look back at it. Who is the creator of the second translation?

Obviously it's not all bad.

Sure. Parties on both sides make the mistake of assuming that a religion's tenets must be reflected in the behavior of its adherents. The opposite is likely the case as religion serves the function of tempering some feature of a culture. Protestantism, for instance, is the religion of the European merchant class. You'd never guess that by examining the message of Calvinism.

I showed you another that is better in many ways — Benkei

Seems kind of arrogant for you present your opinion as superior to that of a Muslim scholar. There is a mass of knowledge that's required to give a legit commentary on the Koran. And even that doesn't make one a religious leader.

Israel was founded by Zionists. They wanted a totally Jewish state. Israel committed some dastardly deeds in an attempt to rid the area of Palestinians, but they stopped short of transporting them forcibly to Jordan (because of the connotations of transporting.. Holocaust stuff).

My Palestinian buddy says Jews beat up Palestinians and nobody does anything about it. So it's that kind of environment where violence becomes cyclical. Maybe if the old Zionists would lay down and die, the younger generation could pick up the pieces and head toward something more peaceful.

And yet it is those who protest so-called "Islamophobia" who break out Muslims into a separate race (at least when it suits their agenda of demonizing any and all critics of Islam). So, perhaps they are the ones who view Muslims as "fundamentally different"? — Arkady

Precisely. I think that if a person has an inner struggle with that kind of racism, rational examination of the question can become impossible. Anytime the issue comes up, a reflexive "I'M NOT RACIST!" will appear. Maybe clothed in more sophisticated language.

Then it can also be ignored as desired, and thus yours (and others') tendentious claims about "racism" against Muslims can be disregarded for the conversation-inhibiting rhetoric that it is. — Arkady

I would sacrifice my life for your right to ignore my claims. And yet.. you can sort of tell if a person thinks of Arabs or Mexicans or whatever as a different race (as fundamentally different).

The political aspects of a religion, though, are a very small portion of what it is. Which is why to claim that "X is violent", when X is a religion, is only the beginning of the story, and it is always influenced by historical aspects. Islam was not particularly violent in the centuries between, say, 1300 and 1900. (The Turks were violent -- not particularly violent, but violent -- in these centuries, but Turks are not "Islam"). — Mariner

The origin of Islam is very similar to the rise of the Mongols. In both cases tribes became fused by the violent actions of one individual and his followers. The Muslims left the Arabian peninsula because of economic pressures that developed specifically because of unification. For a while a divided society existed: Muslims in charge and non-Muslims suppressed. Conversion to Islam was not allowed at this point. Then the non-Muslims rose up and took back over their own territory as Muslims. At this point the ruling Muslims were former Zoroastrians, Christians, and Buddhists.

It's interesting to ponder why the suppressed class adopted Islam during their uprising. There must have been something in it they felt they needed.

Race is not biological. It's a social construct. So it can be configured as desired.

Hmm. You can always tell the ones who harbor hidden racism. They're the ones who get the most sanctimonious.

The real problem with violence is at the level of the state, not of religions. — Mariner

I'm not sure what you mean by "at the level of" the state. It is true that the basic Christian message gets away with pacifism because it has renounced earthly kingdoms. It's apocalyptic. In that sense Islam is a more practical religion by virtue of its acceptance of warfare.

Not all Muslim violence is state sponsored, though. The first Muslims were tribal. They waited in the mountains to pounce on caravans. States came later.

Terrorists (Islamist and otherwise) act for any number of reasons: political, ideological, religious, military, etc. In some cases an extreme, violent interpretation of Islam gives rise to terrorism, which is a running theme in this thread. — Arkady

I think all we can do is speculate based on what we know about human nature. Some have speculated that ISIS might have wanted to create anti-Muslim sentiment in the west so that western Muslims would come back home.

That may be bullshit, but I think it touches on the reason that folks who imagine that Islam will transform itself starting in the west are just ignoring the threat the secular west poses to Islam. It's called assimilation.

Adaptation is an awesome movie.

Statements about counterfactuals might be normative: stating what one ought to believe. Or conventional: having to do with proper grammar.

The weatherman says it will probably rain today. Truth apt? Of course.