I'm all for learning new arguments if there's one to present. — CeleRate

If I may ask, why are you wondering? Isn't that in itself a false dichotomy?

I spoke with God yesterday and ironically enough, he told me to tell you not to worry :brow:

I agree with these quotes (not sure about Maslow’s, though - I might need some context on that one). — Possibility

Sure, the context was pathology. However, it applies to anything really. Meaning, you can't get inside of my head, and vise versa. For instance, I am male and you are female; the Doctor v. the patient, the artist v. the scientist, the teacher v. the student, ad nauseum.

But here's the quote in context:

"In this area we can learn much also from the psychopathic personality, especially the 'charming' type. They can be described briefly as having no conscience, no guilt, no shame, no love for other people, no inhibitions, and few controls, so that they pretty well do what they want to do. They tend to become forgers, swindlers, prostitutes, polygamists, and to make their living by their wits rather than hard work. These people, because of their own lacks, are generally unable to understand in others the pangs of conscience, regret, unselfish love, compassion, pity, guilt, shame, or embarrassment. What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. It cannot communicate itself to you. And since what you are does sooner or later communicate itself, eventually... ."

Anyway, the Metaphysical Will, I think, can be part of the philosophy relative to intelligent design. And our collective reasoning here thru induction, if I may say, has led us to the Will ( much like Love) seems to be that which requires understanding. A conscious phenomenon that acts on its own. The innate, a priori, thing from conscious existence that is part of our self-awareness. The natural need of doing or Being. Or, some say, the so-called tension of existence; conscious existence.

If that has any truth to it, then to define such a 'tension', could in-part explain the notion of existential angst in living this life.

I am sorry, I honestly do not understand what you are requesting here. All I can say (again) is that the reality of time has nothing to do with how we arbitrarily mark and measure it. Changing one's location on earth does not actually add or subtract hours from time itself. — aletheist

Hi aletheist!

Ok. So if I travel from west to east, how can I live the lost hours (or in the opposite east to west, you get to re-live them)?

The way we measure time cannot be arbitrary can it? If so, then is all of time an illusion I wonder? How can we escape from that illusion; hypothetically, is there a way to do that?

We are actually conscious of the past and the future, at the same time, so the first sentence is a falsity, we are not conscious of the present. The phrase I used, "at the same time" is the deficient phrase here, as demonstrated by relativity theory, and rejection of this phrase is what renders the law of non-contradiction impotent. Therefore we must reject the idea that consciousness represents "the present", because we are conscious of a period of time which contains both a past, and a future. That we are consciously aware of a present is an illusion. We are not aware of any such thing.

So, what we have here is a situation where "the present" is defined by what we are conscious of, but we are conscious of the future and past together, not the present. so this definition of "the present" is incorrect. Here, "the present" is defined as a combination of future and past (what we are conscious of), and this leads to the problem of contradiction, as the present is now inherently contradictory. A proper definition of "the present" would be the separation of the future from the past, the division, or boundary between them. This allows us to uphold the law of noncontradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank you MU, you've articulated one of my concerns, better than I could have.

Just a couple thoughts/observations/questions if you don't mind:

1. Do you think then, that the reality of time is continuous (which would preclude/deny the law of noncontradiction) in nature?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, could the reality of time and eternity also be, essentially, an illusionary abstract that exists in a phenomenological way (considering we are unable to consciously separate past, present and future during everydayness/cognition; the cognitive process of subconscious and consciousness working together)?

An example, albeit not the best, combines the two notions: If someone asks me to run a calculation to size-up a structural beam, I proceed to run the math as requested. During that time, there is a slice of time in which it took me to run the calculation. And during that period of time, I experienced past, present and future.

And so when completed, I say: " Here, I just finished the calculation." That process of computation spanned or bridged the past, present and future. Does that in anyway, violate the law of noncontradiction?

I want to say yes, because using formal logic, the end result was just one thing that combined all three of those phenomenal elements in a simultaneous fashion (during cognition). On the other hand, my thinking of creating the formula itself, the subsequent mental computation, and producing the resulting written formula, was a clear increment in time that required a distinct mental process. Is that a bad example?

Keep in mind, I'm also trying to define time and eternity as one continuum (such as the eternal laws of physics), but I know more has to be worked out there.

This is an awesome thread because there are so many take-away's from same... ! ( I can think of many more questions.)

Thanks OP and everyone...

Nonetheless, the synopsis of that video could be summed up in the simple statement: Eternity is Time. Time, eternity.
— 3017amen
Where are you getting that from the video? For one thing, the word "eternity" is never mentioned.

The video presents discourse over past, present and future perception of time, hence ..."every moment is present". Notwithstanding the Aristotle/Cantor distinctions, how does eternity relate to Time?

And by the way thank you very much for taking the time to posit both arguments. I will be reading McTaggart's paper shortly...

For instance when traveling from west to east, another paradox presents itself by virtue of one being unable to live the lost hours (or in the opposite you get to relive them).
— 3017amen
No, there are no "lost" or "relived" hours. That is an illusion created by our arbitrary manner of marking and measuring time.

As it relates to time, if you could enumerate for me which is considered an illusion, and which is considered real, I would greatly appreciate it.

Free will can be defined as picking from novel ideas that are truly only known to us. Beyond that, there is always the Heisenberg principle!

On the other hand, that's really not so novel after all.

Hahaha, in a strange way...kind of reminds me of the pyramids at Giza... we only figured that out, abstractly :brow:

Where is the incentive or benefit then to seek understanding? — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

I think the aforementioned quote could have easily been your summary point. I think the existential angst is real, yet logically necessary, or at least intrinsic to, change. Change being necessary. With that, the Metaphysical Will takes on many facets of the human condition, and perhaps these quotations apply:

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

“Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”
― Albert Einstein

“To perceive is to suffer.”
― Aristotle

“Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.”
― Marie Curie

“How many things have to happen to you before something occurs to you?”
― Robert Frost

“Only the development of compassion and understanding for others can bring us the tranquility and happiness we all seek.”
― Dalai Lama XIV

“Love is made up of three unconditional properties in equal measure:
1. Acceptance
2. Understanding
3. Appreciation

Remove any one of the three and the triangle falls apart."
― Vera Nazarian, The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration

"What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand, it cannot communicate itself to you"- AH Maslow


Possibility, why should things be easy to understand?

Hi Zelebg!

Generally, you could explain it through a simple mathematical formula (time= distance/speed). And as such, we are back to abstracts. Mathematical abstracts.

Are they real? (Where do they come from, a priori.) How is this phenomenon even possible?

These are intriguing questions for sure... !

Hence I continue to disagree with you (and McTaggart) that time is an unreal illusion. — aletheist

Okay. I still think when you do the simple phone call across the globe and/or 4th dimensional time travel, it creates the paradox from present tense. For instance, when traveling from west to east, another paradox presents itself by virtue of one being unable to live the lost hours (or in the opposite you get to relive them).

Nonetheless, the video synopsis could be summed up in the simple statement:

1. Eternity is Time. Time, eternity.

Is that true or false?

(Some things we covered)
a. it's an abstract
b. it's a reality
c. it's an illusion
d. it's all of the above
e. it's something else

If you care to continue the discussion, let's start with this basic understanding regarding time as an illusion, and you tell me what is wrong with this paradox(s):

I think you're adding a bit to the confusion. Relativist and myself are confused with your philosophy regarding what is natural and an illusion.

You are contradicting yourself when you say Pierce recognizes the laws of nature but when we talk about physics you are denying such phenomena.

You also seem to be denying the paradox between what's reality and illusion

If something is an abstract illusion, then by definition it is not a reality. — aletheist

That's correct. The reality of time is just an illusion. And therein lies your paradox.

No, this conflates reality with existence. The past exists, because it is determinate; the future does not (yet) exist, because it is indeterminate. — aletheist

Ah, this is where Peirce is wrong. In theoretical physics, determinism/indeterminism relates to causation, not time or infinity, as in our case. The common example of indeterminacy there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

No, both of them are talking to each other in the present. The difference in their spatial locations has no bearing on their temporal relation. The fact that an east coast clock reads three hours later than a west coast clock is an arbitrary convention of how we mark and measure time, and reflects nothing about the real nature of time itself. — aletheist

Well, if that were true, then in reality, one would not be able to call anyone in any other time zone. But since we are capable of such, Peirce's philosophy appears flawed.

And so, all you can say there is that the past and future are, once again, abstract illusions. But the paradox presents itself when one tries, like apparently Pierce has tried, to deny any one of them. He's trying to make the reality of time and its tenses mutually exclusive.

He should accept both as abstracts, but more importantly, much like in the video (I had posted), past present and future is just an abstract. In other words, he should accept reality of future tense, but can relegate it to an abstract illusion.

Definitely not; again, there are realities which are as they are regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. — aletheist

Okay, that's what I thought. And so it begs the question of why. Meaning, in the context of the paradoxical concept of time/infinity, why does he make past and future tense mutually exclusive? He's embracing past tense as reality, yet denies future tense as reality, right?

Simple example: If someone on the west coast is making a call to someone on the east coast, are they not talking to someone in the future? What would Peirce say?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm sure I'm just missing something obvious there...

Thanks aletheist. Okay, but with respect to infinity, how does that square with the common paradox of past present and future? I thought you said that he denied future tense.

Or maybe he's thinking that everything is a subjective illusion... which on the surface I would have no quarrel with, viz the abstracts of time.

In my view, the Will operates at every level of awareness, but is only capable of being ‘free’ when that awareness extends beyond time - to consider value and potential in relation to the experiencing subject. The less ignorance, the more the Will is free. — Possibility

That reminds me of Kant's metaphysics in that every level awareness, as you say, relates to this innate fixed/a priori nature that comprises part of our conscious existence.

The intriguing thought thereto, is your notion of the less ignorance, the more the freedom. From a cognitive view, I can think of the Tree of Life metaphor, which implies that with knowledge and self-awareness comes existential angst or imperfection (some people call it evil/sin, etc.).

Since part of this thread is about God/Metaphysics/consciousness, the irony is that one's notion of 'intelligent' design in a cosmological sense, is another one's notion of conscious angst. Meaning, is our purpose of self-awareness and the will, involve seeking understanding? And in the process of understanding (our sojourn here), we experience some level of existential angst.

The topic of Metaphysical Will in nature, is something that Schopenhauer spent a great deal of time with...

I suggest instead that we directly perceive the event as it happens in the present, which again is an indefinite lapse (not a distinct instant) during which a state of change is realized. However, we then involuntarily make a perceptual judgment about the event, and this is indeed in retrospect; so all our knowledge is about the past. Peirce even defines the past as "that part of time with which memory is concerned" and the future as "that part of time with which the will is concerned," such that "Events past are recalled by memory supposing they acted on our sense; events to come are anticipated supposing they are subject to our will — aletheist

I take no exception to Peirce's view or philosophy there (particularly since he is a close relative of James-pragmatism, ha). However, I'm not totally on-board with his esoteric definition of metaphysics...but like his thoughts and connection to the Will there. Thanks for sharing.
What is your take on his Objective Idealism?

On the contrary, using Peirce's definition, the past truly exists--it acts on us, and we react to it--but the future does not. The past is determinate, while the future is indeterminate; so the present "is plainly that Nascent State between the Determinate and the Indeterminate." Likewise, the past is actuality, while the future is possibility and (conditional) necessity; so the present "is the Nascent State of the Actual." — aletheist

Not sure I agree with him there. How is that so? Is he saying that it is not reasonable, through induction, that the sun will rise tomorrow?

These are not real parts of time itself, but rather arbitrary intervals between states of things that are similar and regular enough for us to use them conveniently to mark and measure the passage of time. — aletheist

Yep, agreed!

According to whom? What exactly does "duration" mean in this context? — aletheist

I covered that in the previous post, I think, thanks again aletheist for sharing.

What’s stopping you from protecting the environment, providing solutions and providing the services you demand of government? What’s stopping you from mobilizing your countrymen to some form of action? Only your own inactivity. So I think it’s more a matter of self-interest and self-concern to demand others fund what you yourself refuse to do. And that you would hand off our freedom so you can continue to do nothing and maintain a peace of mind is what irks me, to say the least. — NOS4A2

Sure...nothing at all! That's the beauty of living in a free democracy. We are so blessed and don't know it. I can't imagine living in a communist country... !!

And as such, that is exactly what comprises part of our current public safety programs. We do that all the time in order to make improvements to it, as well as having created same. In a free society, we are free to critique and tweek our programs. The creation of Homeland Security was a result of 911 in early 2000.

Next question?

BTW, you seem like you have an axe to grind. Ever thought of channeling that energy in a positive way?

LOL

The clock itself is concrete, but the time that it marks and measures is still abstract, and the units by which it marks and measures time are arbitrarily defined. — aletheist

Yep, agreed!!

So the duration of time itself has not decreased throughout history, only the smallest measurable unit of time; i.e., we can mark and measure time more precisely than our ancestors. — aletheist

Yep, but don't forget, as I suggested, it's the perception of it, that has changed. Of course, that begs other questions relative to sense data viz consciousness... . In other words, time appears to be just an illusion. Yet another mystery in life!

My longstanding hypothesis about this is that as each day passes, it becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of one's entire lifespan. One year out of ten is a sizable chunk, but one year out of fifty--not so much. — aletheist

Ha, yeah. I often thought of it that way too, only kind of like a cone that narrows. However, that cone that is narrowing, must indeed either be a subconscious/conscious phenomena.., or perhaps the quality of one's life gets better with time thus making time seem to go by faster... .

Hey jgill!

It's really common sense. Clocks are just the way we take the abstract and make it concrete. In this case, a clock serves as a metering and measuring device that gauges change.

The other common sense part is based on history. From ancient sun dials to early Americans harvest season, to modern day atomic clocks, time has in effect, been shortened in it's perception of change.

Relativistic physics talks about "time" speeding up or slowing down depending on how fast you travel. All that changes is the speed of change from the object that travels faster or slower.

But yeah in an anecdotal way I've often wondered about that psychological phenomenon too, as to why time seems to go by faster as we age. Go figure :chin:

Incorrect. Generally speaking throughout history government has had to step in to avert greed and/or to protect workers, and/or otherwise the general public, all in the interest of public safety, fraudulent practices, unsafe conditions, transportation, environmental quality, resteraunt inspection , ad nauseum. It's a no-brainer. It's an unfortunate reality for those of us too stubborn, greedy or self serving to see the big picture.

You've got to slay your Gilligan's by ridding yourself of the tape that plays all government intervention is bad. The old right-wing extremist paradigm dichotomizes governmental intervention just like your dad Dumpertrumper.

Ideally, when done equitably, obviously governmental checks and balances are appropriate and appreciated. Otherwise you need to make the case why watchdog agencies/laws that protect citizens such as : ADA, FDA, CDC, Homeland security, Highway safety, etc.etc . are not needed and a waist of time.

Look at it this way when you have public safety laws, they in turn can create jobs. In fact, quality assurance work is in demand.

So when you say you don't need government to make it better, that's just an ignorant statement.

or perhaps infinite time. I — aletheist

Correct. Otherwise, explain eternity to us?

What do you mean by "abstract" in this context? The present is certainly not eternal. — aletheist

Time itself.. Can you explain time in better terms? Maybe in less abstract terms, your choice.

Otherwise , it's ok, since you could not grasp my analogy (which is often used in theoretical physics), perhaps you have one that makes better sense?

(If you don't mind, maybe re-post it in different terms with the appropriate analogies so we can all understand.)

Tick toc tick toc LOL

There are no discrete instants within time itself, they are artificial creations that we impose for the purpose of marking and measuring time. The present moment is always indefinite, — aletheist

Is that then, abstract and/or eternal?

Sorry, I do not understand this sentence. — aletheist

I explained earlier what the definition of abstract time is viz the concept of eternity.

I still do not see what those mathematical results have to do with "the concept of time and eternity." — aletheist

Eternity equals no resolution.

What they want is the government to seize control of the economy and our very livelihoods, level entire industries and replace them with new ones. — NOS4A2

Dumpertrumper,

You're showing your ignorance and reactionary phobia's once again LOL. If the government incentivized automotive transportation [industry] instead of supporting horse and buggy to save more horses, why should there be any objections? Replace or phase-out one industry for another over time; embracing change to make things better (or in your case MAGA) ironically, doesn't seem to work for you. You're living in the past.

Otherwise, you didn't learn the lesson of what the foreign imports/ingenuity did to the US automotive industry in the late 70's early 80's. Don't fear change and better engineering Dumpertrumper, or you'll be out on the street without a pot to piss in Hahaha.

Don't mind me 0thru9, but NOS4A2 (Dumpertrumper) has a nasty habit of trolling threads in order to spread his fake news along with his own version of extreme politics :wink: .

What does it mean to say that time is somehow "both abstract and concrete"? I suggest that time is another example of something that does not exist, but is real. It is a law that governs existents, rather than an existent that reacts with other existents. — aletheist

I think of the distinction this way:

Time as an abstract can be defined in this same abstract/paradoxical way. What we perceive we perceive as a present event-as going on now. However, when we perceive such an event, that event is no longer in the present. The actual 'present' exists only for an instant; the event becomes memory. It follows that we perceive the past to experience the present. In fact, it could be argued that the past and future truly exist, while the present is only a variable instant. To me, that whole definition/explaination is an abstract.

Time as concrete is simpler; lunar cycles, harvest season, the sundial, the clock, stop watch, etc.. It's interesting to note that the duration of time has seemingly decreased throughout history.

I think time and eternity can be seen as one in the same.

Sure, no problem. Gödel and Turing taught us about mathematics being incomplete & incomputable, and never ending, similar to irrational numbers and the modal logic paradox. For instance in modal logic (or if you prefer the liar's paradox/self-reference):

Socrates: What Plato is about to say is false
Plato: Socrates has just spoken truly

With respect to time, another paradox of trying to define time also appears incomplete in its 'eternal way' of trying to measure same. You may have seen this before:

There are no consciousness to consciousness connections. — Relativist

Then how could we use sense data to apprehend abstract triangles without consciousness?

are mistaking mathematics for a self-evident logical fact. In other words, the whole proof is an axiom, what part can you possibly doubt? — Zelebg

Hi Zelebg!

Have you considered the concept of time and eternity from Gödel (self-reference), and Turing? Or even the paradox of time itself?

The relations between consciousnesses seems indirect. — Relativist

Can you explain that better? For example, what does 'indirect' viz consciousness mean (subconsciousness/unconsciousness)?

Platonism would entail their existence independent of those objects. — Relativist

That's not correct. Platonism involves mind-independent objects. So, how does your triangle exist without consciousness?

I’m interested in deductive logic — Randy333

With all due respect, that is where you are making your big mistake. Induction; phenomenology, existentialism, cosmology, cognitive science, and so forth, overwhelmingly suggest a creator than not.

Otherwise, one take away from your OP suggests that atheism/theism becomes a political exercise in using [your] sense of deductive logic:

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . .. They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

Your OP reminds me of the wisdom associated with losing oneself. Self-discovery requires getting lost. That’s how we learn about ourselves, who we are, what we are meant to give, who we’re supposed to meet, what we’re supposed to learn from them, and where we’re supposed to go. That’s how we become.

If life went exactly as we planned or wanted, we wouldn’t change because we wouldn’t need to. And that isn’t life. That would just be accomplishing goals without internal change. And without internal change, there is no fulfillment or meaning.

A triangular object has 3 sides that are arranged in a certain general way. It's existence and structure is not dependent on a mind analyzing that structure. — Relativist

Isn't that Platonism?

Everything that exists is a State of Affairs. It's constituents are; a particular, its attached properties, and its relations to other states of affairs. This acknowlwdges that properties exist only in their instatiations in a state of affairs. — Relativist

In a humanistic sense, are you saying that we all are an interconnected consciousness?

Fair enough, point well taken. I wish both sides viewed it that way. Unfortunately they would probably view it as too idealistic. ( Albeit what I meant by saying equitable is treating like cases likely and different cases differently.)

Nonetheless you would think a God-fearing nation such as the USA would hold true to those ideals/that ideology.

Instead we have two extremes; one for the rich and one for the poor.

Assuming you are a far-right winger, you should be happy then, yes?

Here's the thing, the trick is to distribute socialism equitably, no?