The moral of the story is that the spontaneous question that arises on its own is often not the question that should be asked, but rather itself be questioned and tested.
What I mean is that often enough questions arise more-or-less spontaneously. A bit like having aHow do you mean, — kudos
Do, and ought to.The point is, that whomever you are, you probably believe that there are some things not satisfactorily explained by science, — kudos
Different order of being? Let's leave that aside. No scientist I'm aware of claims that science explains - in any broad sense - anything. Nor does it attempt to. Briefly, science is about the how, not the why. For the why, there are books like the one you are reading.Is there reason to believe that we could or should appeal to some different order of being? — kudos
This sounds good, but on close look, it cannot be determined just what you're referring to, and unfortunately that's what's fatal.It seems that time in a certain way transcends language, and is prior to it. Language is created through time, it is a dimension. And it is the most important and fundamental dimension, because all the other dimensions rely on it not just for their use but for their definitions in language. — kudos
1) How is that physical law - seems to me it's an imperative. 2) Why is that beyond my scope? - What is beyond scope?How would you respond without reference to some physical law beyond the scope of their intuition and also yours. Like 'because it's the right thing to do?,' but the right thing to whom? — kudos
If you look for it externally. But you find it internally, informed by reason and your healthy sense of humanity and neither of those in use in our context is at all "infinite" or beyond scope.But clearly there is a reason why we shouldn't it is just that it's beyond our finite capabilities. — kudos
You have already answered: a sense. What is a sense? Fair question. For present purpose an internal consensus and agreement on something drawing on multiple sources, from experience, from reason, from feeling, & etc. Again, nothing in-itself transcendent, or transcendental.OK so what is your sense of humanity, something beyond pure reason? So it is transcendental is it not? Forget the physical law part, it transcends physical laws. It seems our views on this are aligned. — kudos
So what about processes that are more or less random on a microscopic level but contribute to macroscopic effects. From this idea one might be tempted to believe that all things proceed in this way and that it is the origin of free will, destiny, etc. — kudos
But reverting to the prior discussion of time, what exactly does a random process do outside of time? — kudos
How can something be the origin of time, presuming time perception is a strictly natural human faculty, when it is seen through time? — kudos
What about it? You tell me.
Why would someone believe that?
...
I can only imagine you mean ‘abstracted from’ rather than ‘outside of’. If not that’s basically nonsense so I’ll assume you meant ‘abstracted’.
If you take time out of the picture, which is not altogether nonsensical, or spacetime, this all starts to make a lot less sense. — kudos
Consider these cells, did they have a notion of time? — kudos
Was time simply ‘there’ and they didn’t know of it until animal brains were highly constituted enough to appreciate it? — kudos
If so, what would be the need, when animals fighting for survival really only makes sense as an afterthought? — kudos
That time is just a form of entropy is interesting, you should explore this further. How are you coming to this conclusion? — kudos
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.