If there are changes that are occuring, that IS the present. — Terrapin Station
In the present, as at all other times, X must be either P or not-P; it can never be changing from P to not-P (or vice-versa). — aletheist
For your view to be consistent, — aletheist
What view, specifically, are you referring to? — Terrapin Station
everything is always - i.e., at all times - either P or not-P, where P is some particular property? — aletheist
I'm fine with that insofar as it goes. — Terrapin Station
What can we say about X and P while the change is occurring? — aletheist
And actually, this discussion has been helpful re clarifying one thing: saying that "x is F (or "P" if you like, although I prefer to save "P" for propositions) at time T1" is necessarily an abstraction where we're imagining time to be something where we can peg a specific "point" (like a mathematical point) or a static "instant." In reality [or with respect to reality I should have said], the idea is incoherent, as what time is in the first place is change or motion. So if we don't have change or motion, we don't have time at all. — Terrapin Station
This is also a good thing to stress when folks are wondering what I'm saying different than the traditional physics notions when I say that time is identical to change or motion, or when they think that there's a problem with my ontology of time simply because it doesn't match the normal way of thinking about time in physics. — Terrapin Station
I wrote this (although I added it as an edit so maybe you didn't see it) in my second to last post above: — Terrapin Station
In reality, the idea is incoherent, as what time is in the first place is change or motion. So if we don't have change or motion, we don't have time at all. — Terrapin Station
There is only time, including the present, when the change from F to not-F happens. A past would only make sense in the context of further changes.Suppose a universe in which there is only one thing, x, and only one property, F. "Initially," x is F, but "later," x is not-F. According to your definition, the only "time" in this universe is "when" x changes from F to not-F. Are you saying, then, that there is only the present in this hypothetical universe, no past (when x is F) or future (when x is not-F)? — aletheist
You are insisting on a past, present, and future . . . — Rich
Suppose a universe in which there is only one thing, x, and only one property, F. "Initially," x is F, but "later," x is not-F. According to your definition, the only "time" in this universe is "when" x changes from F to not-F. — aletheist
There is only time, including the present, when the change from F to not F happens. A past would only make sense in the context of further changes. — Terrapin Station
How much time has elapsed after, say, a million changes? — aletheist
Changes are occurring in a flow of time which Bergson calls Dureé to avoid confusion with clock time. We experience this flow as Memory being directed to some action. And the flow continues. It is heterogeneous and indivisible. Any attempt to carve instants out of this flow lead to the paradox of how to create flow out of a series of instants at rest.
The Present creates an instance of rest within a flow. Hence, we are back to Zeno's paradoxes. — Rich
Now you are resorting to vulgarity. The ship has sunk. — Rich
It would depend on how many changes you want to count as your time unit. — Terrapin Station
There is only time whenever x changes from F to not-F or vice-versa. What can we say about x with respect to F "during" that time? — aletheist
Right. Notice that your view thus requires time to be discrete, since every "lapse" of time requires an actual change. If nothing changes, then no time passes. — aletheist
What can we say about x with respect to F "during" that time?
If that's what you call "discrete," then sure, it's aletheist-discrete. — Terrapin Station
The answer to that is: "F is changing to not-F, or not-F is changing to F, or F is changing to not-F and then back to F" or whatever the case may be for the time that we're focusing on. — Terrapin Station
It is what any normal English-speaker calls "discrete." My dictionary defines it as "consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : noncontinuous," "taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values." If we can (in principle) count the individual changes that constitute time, then time is discrete. — aletheist
In that case, there is no time when x is F, and there is no time when x is not-F; — aletheist
But we agreed previously that it is "always" the case that x is either F or not-F. Which is it?
And actually, this discussion has been helpful re clarifying one thing: saying that "x is F (or "P" if you like, although I prefer to save "P" for propositions) at time T1" is necessarily an abstraction where we're imagining time to be something where we can peg a specific "point" (like a mathematical point) or a static "instant." In reality, the idea is incoherent, as what time is in the first place is change or motion. So if we don't have change or motion, we don't have time at all. — Terrapin Station
I have stated that I believe all knowledge to be narrative. What I mean by this is that we do not have direct access to our experiences. — Real Gone Cat
Have you ever wondered why the Selective Attention Test works? (Just Google it - some great videos can be found.) The unseen gorilla is certainly part of the video, but the first time we see the video, the gorilla does not become part of our narrative and remains unknown to us. So can we say that we experienced the gorilla or not? — Real Gone Cat
I wouldn't say that it's unconnected though, and as I mentioned awhile ago re the issue of discreteness in general, I'm agnostic on it, and I don't think it matters for any of my views. — Terrapin Station
Discreteness certainly wouldn't hinge on what we are counting or can count. That's about us, not what the world is like independent of us. — Terrapin Station
Again, time ONLY obtains when we have change or motion, since that's what time is. So you can ask yourself, "Is such and such changing?" If the answer is "No," then you can know that I'd say, "There is no time (in that scenario)." — Terrapin Station
So I'm only agreeing that we can talk that way via an abstraction we perform. — Terrapin Station
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.