I already mentioned that. Could we agree that if all events lay on the same point then we cannot have any change?Sorry, I don't buy it. It seems a contrivance to lead to some desired conclusion, or the product of naivetee. But of course, I haven't yet seen your argument that shows it metaphyisically necessary that a gap exists. Got one? — Relativist
Non-sequitur, and confused.All events lay on the same point if there is no gap or the gap length is zero. — MoK
That is not correct.Non-sequitur, and confused. — Relativist
If the distance between two immediate points on time is absolutely zero then these points are simultaneous. Moreover, the number of points on the real number line is known to be "c" so-called the cardinal number of the continuum. This number however is not the biggest infinity. This means that you could accommodate more points on the real number line therefore the real number line or any small segment of the real number line no matter how small is still divisivable.If time is continuous, it maps to the real number line. There are no "gaps" in the real number line. — Relativist
Yes, each point of time corresponds to an indivisible duration. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about two consecutive points on time.If time is discrete, then each point of time corresponds to an indivisible/unmeasureable duration (relative to the real number line). Still no "gap", as you've described it. — Relativist
If there is 0 distance, it is the same point.If the distance between two immediate points on time is absolutely zero then these points are simultaneous. — MoK
Apples/oranges. The cardinality of the set of real numbers is not a member of the set of real numbers. Transfinite math is only relevent to comparing sets (e.g. the set of natural numbers to the set of real numbers). It has zero bearing on the discussion.Moreover, the number of points on the real number line is known to be "c" so-called the cardinal number of the continuum.
If time is continuous, there are no "consecutive" points of time (there are no consecutive real numbers- just a "less than"/"greater than" relation.Yes, each point of time corresponds to an indivisible duration. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about two consecutive points on time. — MoK
if someone claims that an essential change like this has taken place, don't we just tell them, "We don't consider people to swap their consciousness, they are born with one and die with that same consciousness"? Are these theories and claims falsifiable? — Leontiskos
A number of folks seem to think that if you get cloned then die, you don't stop experiencing. — Leontiskos
For example, on this view, it appears to be possible for two future persons to be psychologically continuous with a presently existing person. Can one really become two? In response to this problem, some commentators have suggested that, although our beliefs, memories, and intentions are of utmost importance to us, they are not necessary for our identity, our persistence through time. — IEP
Since this conclusion violates the transitivity of identity (which states that if an X is identical with a Y, and the Y is identical with a Z, then the X must be identical with the Z), personal identity relations cannot consist in direct memory connections. — IEP
Well as I understand it there are clearly documented cases of people coming back from brain death, — Leontiskos
Your argument must be something like <The only (second-person) evidence of consciousness is bodily movement; after death there is no bodily movement; therefore after death there is no consciousness>. This sort of argument is only objectionable in the case where we have an extremely high standard of proof a la Descartes, which we perhaps do in this thread. This sort of argument is probable but not certain. — Leontiskos
So a larger amount of memory loss than being unable to recognize family members? — Leontiskos
This whole thing is reminiscent of the Cartesian move that, "We of course have good reason to believe that X, but do we also have the fullness of certitude?" What standard of proof is being imposed, here? Are we trying to jump over the fence or over the moon? — Leontiskos
but what about sleep? Usually when we sleep we lose consciousness, along with the experiential and psychological continuity. — Leontiskos
You define the soul in terms of consciousness, and in those cases a dramatic and permanent change in consciousness occurs. — Leontiskos
Do we have the highest degree of certitude that the soul perdures, such that it could overcome the most extreme version of Pyrrhonism? No, I don't think so. — Leontiskos
what reason do I have to believe in the maintenance of the self as opposed to its constant creation and subsequent destruction and replacement by another self? — Lionino
PS: Even though it may be that I feel as though I am the same person as I were yesterday, that might simply be an illusion created by the neurological conditions of the body, which are the memories I/we hold. — Lionino
That is my point. If the distance/gap between two events is zero then events are simultaneous.If there is 0 distance, it is the same point. — Relativist
Are you talking about the power set? It was a mistake on my part to write "c" instead of "R". If we define "R" as the cardinality of the real number lines then this number is the number of members of the set. This number is infinite but it is not the biggest infinity. Therefore, any small interval on the real number line no matter how small is divisible.Apples/oranges. The cardinality of the set of real numbers is not a member of the set of real numbers. Transfinite math is only relevent to comparing sets (e.g. the set of natural numbers to the set of real numbers). It has zero bearing on the discussion. — Relativist
There are points. The smallest duration/gap in fact separates points from each other. For example, the gap for any immediate points of natural number is 1.If time is discrete, then the smallest unit of time is a duration, and there's no correspondence to points. (More apples/oranges). — Relativist
You're applying the term "simultaneously" in an absurd way by claiming that event-A is "simultaneous with" event-A.That is my point. If the distance/gap between two events is zero then events are simultaneous. — MoK
My point was simply that if time is continuous, it maps to the ordered set of real numbers:Are you talking about the power set? It was a mistake on my part to write "c" instead of "R". If we define "R" as the cardinality of the real number lines then this number is the number of members of the set. This number is infinite but it is not the biggest infinity. Therefore, any small interval on the real number line no matter how small is divisible. — MoK
You're conflating the mathematical concept (of points) with a sequence of temporal durations. These durations are not actually divisible into smaller units - except abstractly, which is irrelevant because you're making an ontological claim.If time is discrete, then the smallest unit of time is a duration, and there's no correspondence to points. (More apples/oranges). — Relativist
There are points. The smallest duration/gap in fact separates points from each other.
Perhaps my statement was too wrong. Theorems (statements) about a concept must follow the concept's definition, lest we are talking about something else. Within the definition that consciousness is something that starts at birth and ends at death, if a body would happen to die and be somehow reanimated, that would imply they have a different soul now. Maybe that is a problem. — Lionino
Well, their view is problematic. If you get cloned and don't die the two bodies share the same consciousness then? — Lionino
It violates the tansitivity of identity. — Lionino
No, I am talking about three different types of processes, namely discrete, continuous, and simultaneous. A simultaneous process is a process in which all the events occur at the same point.You're applying the term "simultaneously" in an absurd way by claiming that event-A is "simultaneous with" event-A. — Relativist
I am not conflating anything. If time is discrete then the points are points of time and the interval between two consecutive points is the smallest duration.You're conflating the mathematical concept (of points) with a sequence of temporal durations. These durations are not actually divisible into smaller units - except abstractly, which is irrelevant because you're making an ontological claim. — Relativist
OK, I see your point. However, that approach is vulnerable to objections based on special relativity (see this article). Since we're talking about the metaphysics of time in general, it usually makes more sense to consider the temporal evolution of the universe: the universe evolves from state S1 at time T1 to state S2 at time T2. T1 and T2 are points of time, and also correspond to events. On this global scale, there are no "simultaneous events". Does this work for you?You're applying the term "simultaneously" in an absurd way by claiming that event-A is "simultaneous with" event-A. — Relativist
No, I am talking about three different types of processes, namely discrete, continuous, and simultaneous. A simultaneous process is a process in which all the events occur at the same point. — MoK
Yes, you are. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the chronon:You're conflating the mathematical concept (of points) with a sequence of temporal durations. These durations are not actually divisible into smaller units - except abstractly, which is irrelevant because you're making an ontological claim. — Relativist
I am not conflating anything. If time is discrete then the points are points of time and the interval between two consecutive points is the smallest duration. — MoK
Perhaps my statement was too wrong. Theorems (statements) about a concept must follow the concept's definition, lest we are talking about something else. Within the definition that consciousness is something that starts at birth and ends at death, if a body would happen to die and be somehow reanimated, that would imply they have a different soul now. Maybe that is a problem. — Lionino
Well, their view is problematic. — Lionino
So it seems there is some disagreement on "brain death" happening. Not sure what to make of it yet. — Lionino
That is fine. I didn't think we had to accomodate for after-life. For that purpose we could refine the definition to: Consciousness then (or the soul etc) would start at birth or whenever we wanna say we first become conscious (mirror test?) and presumably ends in death. — Lionino
I was proposing an accidental change in the soul, not an essential one. Not recognising family memberes is also an accidental change. An essential change would amount to swapping the soul for another one. I think that is implied from the definition of essence. — Lionino
As I will say below, the fence is good. Your proposal that it is the standard view amounts to me to simply accepting things because it feels better that way — dogmatism. I am exploring the reasons why we must think otherwise. — Lionino
You will say that 2 is false — Lionino
I want to find out, do we really know these things? — Lionino
This whole thing is reminiscent of the Cartesian move that, "We of course have good reason to believe that X, but do we also have the fullness of certitude?" — Leontiskos
Your trilemma ought to be rephrased instead to "We are being destroyed and recreated, but we can't know it". — Lionino
But if we can't know whether we are being destroyed and recreated, we can't know otherwise too, so we can't know if we last and the conclusion of the discussion is agnosticism. — Lionino
Otherwise, there are two possibilities:
1. We persist through time and we can come to reasonably believe that.
2. We don't persist through time and we can come to reasonably believe that we don't.
And that is the discussion. The knowledge claim depends on the metaphysical claim, not the other way around. — Lionino
If there is a loud noise, we wake up. We dream during sleep. So there is some conscious activity there, even if at a lower level. — Lionino
Because "dramatic" is arbitrary, and most changes are permanent, often changing out opinion on a movie is permanent, yet we are not dying. How dramatic does it have to be for us to die? Arbitrary. — Lionino
I don't think extreme Pyrrhonism can be defeated, only overcome. Which is why the title of the thread is Reasons for believing (aka arguments), not proof. A poor reason to believe that the soul perdures is better than no reason at all. — Lionino
I am familiar with the Relativity of simultaneity but that is not what I mean by simultaneous process. By simultaneous process, I mean a process in which all events occur at a single timeless point. Let me give you an example: A film is made of discrete frames. You can watch frames in order one frame at any given time. What you experience is a temporal change namely the movie. You can also watch all the frames at a single point. That is what I mean by simultaneously.OK, I see your point. However, that approach is vulnerable to objections based on special relativity (see this article). Since we're talking about the metaphysics of time in general, it usually makes more sense to consider the temporal evolution of the universe: the universe evolves from state S1 at time T1 to state S2 at time T2. T1 and T2 are points of time, and also correspond to events. On this global scale, there are no "simultaneous events". Does this work for you? — Relativist
I am not talking about the quantization of time in which time is made of indivisible units so-called Chronon. I am talking about the classical discrete time.Yes, you are. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the chronon:
"A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous. In simple language, a chronon is the smallest, discrete, non-decomposable unit of time in a temporal data model. "
You're trying to divide something that is indivisible, treating time as continuous (that's what you're doing when you consider the chronons divisible into points) - but events are merely advancing in stutter-steps. You can't have it both ways. — Relativist
Change doesn't occur at a point of time. Change entails a passage of time.I mean a process in which all events occur at a single timeless point. — MoK
A single point...of what? You could watch a single frame, but time is passing while you look at it.You can also watch all the frames at a single point. — MoK
Describe it. I'll point out that as you make more assumptions, you weaken your case - because each assumption can be rejected (unless you can show it to be logically necessary).I am not talking about the quantization of time in which time is made of indivisible units so-called Chronon. I am talking about the classical discrete time. — MoK
Correct. Perhaps using the term process is misleading. By process, I simply mean a set of events that occur either in a single timeless point or temporary. The set of events therefore is simultaneous in the first case and temporal in the second case. If you are not happy with the term process then let's call it a set of events or simply S for the sake of discussion.Change doesn't occur at a point of time. Change entails a passage of time. — Relativist
Well, I think that time is a physical entity. This can be shown but it is not fruitful in the current stage of our discussion. I will need to discuss it later so let's wait for the proper time.I get the impression that you are treating time as a metaphysical entity, which I don't agree with. I consider time to be a relation between states. So a passage of time entails transitioning from state to state, while each emerged state is an event. — Relativist
By event, I mean a substance that exists in a specific state.Also, what is an event? I view an event as a state that was caused by a prior state. — Relativist
By discrete time I mean a time that occurs at certain points each consecutive points are separated by a constant interval.Describe it. I'll point out that as you make more assumptions, you weaken your case - because each assumption can be rejected (unless you can show it to be logically necessary). — Relativist
Let's see if we could agree on (2). — MoK
I don't think that all the arguments that I provided are assumptions. You are free to finish the discussion if you wish.You seem to be making a number of specific metaphysical assumption that I disagree with, so it's pointless to continue. — Relativist
No, my arguments depend on the definitions. So again, consider a change. Is there a gap or isn't? Take your pick.You have demonstrated that you argument DEPENDS on assumptions. If I'm wrong, then recast your argument using my definition of time, events, discrete and continuous time. — Relativist
And that is the reason your argument isn't compelling.my arguments depend on the definitions. — MoK
Can we make a correct argument without properly defining the terms used?And that is the reason your argument isn't compelling. — Relativist
If there is no gap between two instants of time then they lay on the same point. Is this correct or not?I see absolutely no reason to think there's a "gap" between instants of time, regardless of whether it's continuous or discrete. — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.