That sounds like what I just described--time extends infinitely into the past, but events began with the Big Bang. — aletheist
No, again, time is not a concrete thing and past/present/future are not abstract qualities or relations that we predicate of it. It is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future.But can we agree that it is either paradoxical or somehow contradictory (does it transcend logic)? — 3017amen
No, you assumed that an infinite past would entail an actual infinity, and that this is impossible. As I mentioned upstream, an alternative is that time itself had no beginning, but there was nevertheless a first event (e.g., Big Bang). Time would then be a potential infinity, rather than an actual infinity, which is not problematic. — aletheist
Time is not something actual at all, because it does not act on or react with anything. In other words, time does not exist, even though it is real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. That is why time itself could be infinite, even if there was a first event--i.e., a beginning of actuality.If time is a potential infinity and it had no beginning and time as an actual infinity too has no beginning, there's no difference between actual and potential infinity re time is there? — TheMadFool
No, again, time is not a concrete thing and past/present/future are not abstract qualities or relations that we predicate of it. It is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future. — aletheist
No, why do you keep saying that? Please specify the alleged paradox or contradiction.You seem to saying that Time is then paradoxical or somehow contradictory, no? — 3017amen
Nonsense, all thinking (cognition) takes place in the present.When we think of a thing (cognize), it requires the future. — 3017amen
Who said that anticipation is volitional? Most anticipation is involuntary, which is why surprises have such a forceful effect.Thinking itself, does not require any volitional act of "anticipation". Thinking can also be involuntary. — 3017amen
You already quoted my answer: "a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time."So in your view, if Time is neither concrete or abstract, what is it? — 3017amen
No, why do you keep saying that? Please specify the alleged paradox or contradiction. — aletheist
Nonsense, all thinking (cognition) takes place in the present. — aletheist
Who said that anticipation is volitional? Most anticipation is involuntary, which is why surprises have such a forceful effect. — aletheist
You already quoted my answer: "a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time." — aletheist
How so? Again, all thinking takes place in the present. It indeed requires time, but that is why the present must be an indefinite lapse rather than a durationless instant.Thinking requires Time (past, present, and future) in order to perform cognition/consciousness. — 3017amen
I have no idea what you mean by "remove one component of Time." Also, why are you consistently capitalizing "Time"?Otherwise, explain how you can remove one component of Time, and still cognize properly, about any thing? — 3017amen
[Time] is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. — aletheist
Concrete things.Who is "they"? — 3017amen
Possessing vs. not possessing an abstract quality or relation."Contrary determinations" are what phenomena? — 3017amen
Rather than repeating a blizzard of words, please summarize in one sentence what you find paradoxical or contradictory about time as I have outlined it. — aletheist
How so? Again, all thinking takes place in the present. It indeed requires time, but that is why the present must be an indefinite lapse rather than a duration-less instant. — aletheist
I have no idea what you mean by "remove one component of Time — aletheist
Concrete things. — aletheist
Possessing vs. not possessing an abstract quality or relation. — aletheist
Only because I have been unable to discern your argument.You seem unable to address my argument. — 3017amen
Bare assertion. How is time paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence? What two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other?Time is paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence. — 3017amen
I said nothing whatsoever about a nanosecond. I said that the present is an indefinite lapse of time.Yes, I agree some so-called phenomenal features of consciousness occur in a nanosecond. — 3017amen
No, I still have no clue what you are talking about.I'm asking you to remove, in your case, either the past or future, from the concept of Time itself, in order to see what that would look like. Get it? — 3017amen
Concrete things endure and change over time, such that they can (and do) possess different abstract qualities and relations at different determinations of time.What are concrete things relative to the discussion of Time? — 3017amen
No, a thing that possesses a certain quality/relation at one determination of time can only not possess the same quality/relation at a different determination of time--never at the same determination of time, because that would violate the principle of contradiction.But, as you say ( and I agree) if Time is continuous, then are we possessing and not possessing abstract relations/qualities at the same Time? — 3017amen
Bare assertion. How is time paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence? What two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other? — aletheist
And yet what followed was the same incoherent mess that you keep repeating. If I could not make heads or tails of it the first three times, what makes you think that it will magically make sense to me the fourth time? I asked for two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then we have nothing further to discuss.Let's take one at a time (no pun intended): — 3017amen
Where have I ever said that time is only present? Please use the quote function.we agree that Time is continuous, but when you try to make it mutually exclusive to one or the other (past , present, future) is where you encounter the illogical phenomenon and/or paradox. And you tried to make it that by saying Time is only present — 3017amen
And yet what followed was the same incoherent mess that you keep repeating. If I could not make heads or tails of it the first three times, what makes you think that it will magically make sense to me the fourth time? I asked for two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then we have nothing further to discuss. — aletheist
Where have I ever said that time is only present? — aletheist
Please notice: I did not say that time is only present, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. Those are two completely different statements, and you are misinterpreting the latter if you believe that it entails the former.altheist said: "...all thinking takes place in the present..." — 3017amen
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result. The best way to make a paradox or contradiction evident is to identify two (or more) propositions that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. Unless you can do that regarding time as I have outlined it, I have no reason to believe that there is anything paradoxical or contradictory about it.I'm not sure what else I can say other than repeating myself. — 3017amen
That video again? Seriously? The entire thread on "The Reality of Time" is my rebuttal to it.Accordingly, this may or may not help you — 3017amen
Please notice: I did not say that time is only present, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. Those are two completely different statements, and you are misinterpreting the latter if you believe that it entails the former. — aletheist
You would need to read the entire thread, not just the OP.I did take the opportunity to do a cursory read of your previous OP and couldn't find where you were able to reach any consensus on your arguments. — 3017amen
The thread title is "The Reality of Time," and the OP directly rebuts McTaggart's claim that time is unreal.Were you able to determine whether time was an illusion or a reality? — 3017amen
All I can do is point out once more what should be quite obvious: We are never thinking in the past or in the future, only in the present. Put another way, the temporal present always directly corresponds to whatever is present to the mind.Can you elucidate a bit more on that aletheist? — 3017amen
can do is point out once more what should be quite obvious: We are never thinking in the past or in the future, only in the present. Put another way, the temporal present always directly corresponds to whatever is present to the mind. — aletheist
The thread title is "The Reality of Time," and the OP directly rebuts McTaggart's claim that time is unreal. — aletheist
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not claim that we never use past/present/future to express/convey/verbalize thought, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. We can (and do) think about the past and the future, but we are always and only thinking at the present.I will challenge you to support your claim. Explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect. — 3017amen
The success of a philosophical argument is not ultimately determined by majority vote of a small subset of participants in an online forum. Most of us are pretty confident in our preexisting opinions, and my observation over the years is that persuasion otherwise is extremely rare.Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe you were successful in making your case. ( From what I read, the majority did not agree with you--myself included.) — 3017amen
You, too.Be well! — 3017amen
We can (and do) think about the past and the future, but we are always and only thinking at the present. — aletheist
Most of us are pretty confident in our preexisting opinions, and my observation over the years is that persuasion otherwise is extremely rare. — aletheist
I already did, but apparently I am misunderstanding what you mean by "use Time" in this context. Also, you still have not answered one of my questions--why do you consistently capitalize "Time" as if it were a proper name?I will ask you again, in order to support your claim, explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect. — 3017amen
Not at all, I am just realistic about the (un)likelihood of persuading others whose minds are already made up. As you might have noticed, most of the content on this website consists of debates between people who disagree.Does that mean you are unable to engage in discourse? — 3017amen
Not at all, I am unable to answer your questions because the way that you pose them is such that I honestly do not know what you are asking. Above is the latest example.Are you unable to answer my questions because you simply can't support your arguments? In other words, are you acquiescing by your silence? — 3017amen
Time is not something actual at all, because it does not act on or react with anything. In other words, time does not exist, even though it is real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. That is why time itself could be infinite, even if there was a first event--i.e., a beginning of actuality. — aletheist
And in a succinct fashion, what was your answer, again? The reason I ask to re-visit that so-called phenomena (relative to time) is because both TMF and I are suggesting that there are contradictions associated with same.
But more specifically, your answer in the other thread you linked I believe, was in a different context, no?
So I'll restate the question: can you remove the past, present, and future from the concept of Time itself? (And if you could, what would that look like?) — 3017amen
its hypothetical clock. its so far away from the condensed universe, and the clock is traveling at a slow velocity or not at all, it has almost no effect on the other part(s) of the universe. Its a hypothetical (for the sake of argument) clock. — christian2017
ts hypothetical clock. its so far away from the condensed universe, and the clock is traveling at a slow velocity or not at all, it has almost no effect on the other part(s) of the universe. Its a hypothetical (for the sake of argument) clock.
— christian2017
I don't think those terms, "far away", and "slow velocity" have any meaning outside the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.