Yes. So? Only a dog barks, or cat meows. You merely argue the non-overlapping aspects, which are acknowledged, but neglect overlap - thus not a complete view. And seemingly with a vicious side, but not really, because the argument merely allows for it but does not either ground or establish it.Only a human can say that. — Wayfarer
Ah. You think "change is successions in time" is an example of a true statements having nothing whatsoever to do with the world!
But the floor changes between here, where it is wood board, and the bathroom, where it is tile. There was all this stuff, post Kant, about time being one of several dimensions. — Banno
For example dogs hear a familiar sound and think you have arrived home. — Janus
Only a dog barks, or cat meows. — tim wood
However, if that means the flow of time is an illusion because the future and past all exist as part of the block universe, then that is yet another example of how the world is not as it appears to us. — Marchesk
But, that's simple association. — Wayfarer
What I'm denying is their ability to reason and grasp abstract ideas. — Wayfarer
Gravity, chemistry, energy, v. volition.Only a dog barks, or cat meows.
— tim wood
Rocks fall down hills. Water corrodes iron. Sunlight heats the earth. — Wayfarer
Why, on what basis? When you apparently have faced the fact of the matter yourself. Deny what you like, but mere denial was never a strong leg in any argument.What I'm denying is their ability to reason and grasp abstract ideas. — Wayfarer
ou're saying that if the world is such that all moments exist eternally, then we cannot see it as it is because we see only the present moment, or the moments which are serially present to us over our lives. But all that shows is that we only see a part of the world, not that the part we see is not seen as it is. — Janus
However, if that means the flow of time is an illusion because the future and past all exist as part of the block universe, then that is yet another example of how the world is not as it appears to us. — Marchesk
Well, no it doesn't mean the flow of time is an illusion. — Banno
According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universally ticking clock. Even Albert Einstein’s relativistic space-time — an elastic manifold that contorts so that local times differ depending on one’s relative speed or proximity to a mass — is just an effective simplification.
So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7#:~:text=According%20to%20theoretical%20physicist%20Carlo,t%20correspond%20to%20physical%20reality.&text=He%20posits%20that%20reality%20is,of%20past%2C%20present%20and%20future. — The Illusion of Time
Further, the way the universe appears to us is exactly how it would appear to a being inside a block universe. That's rather the point of the description. — Banno
I can find other physicists stating similar things. — Marchesk
Direct realism is not the view that we perceive the world as it really is, but the view that true statements set out how the world is. — Banno
If that's what we would expect, then why has there been a philosophical debate between A and B-theory of time, where the second maintains that the flow of time is an illusion? — Marchesk
The problem of including the observer in our description of physical reality arises most insistently when it comes to the subject of quantum cosmology - the application of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole - because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers. Andrei Linde has given a deep reason for why observers enter into quantum cosmology in a fundamental way. It has to do with the nature of time. The passage of time is not absolute; it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another, for example, how many times the hands of the clock go around relative to the rotation of the Earth. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time loses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may readily be restored by considering the Universe to be separated into two subsystems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the Universe. So the observer plays an absolutely crucial role in this respect. Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'. — Andrei Linde
Who has denied that? — Janus
As I see it it is only a matter of degree, and the advent of symbolism which was enabled by language. I believe animals are capable of basic rational thought to varying degrees. — Janus
Why, that would be you:
As I see it it is only a matter of degree, and the advent of symbolism which was enabled by language. I believe animals are capable of basic rational thought to varying degrees. — Wayfarer
Having rejected the classical insight of 'nous' and made all knowledge subject to empirical validation......
Pretty sorry state of affairs if you ask me.
..........This is why we nowadays insist that what is real must be situated in space and time (‘out there somewhere’......
Used to be external, or material, was that which is situated in space and time, while the real could be situated in time alone, from which reality in and of itself, is conceived in accordance with the definition, that which exists in a determined time. This allows equal representational validity for planets and judgements.
.........although physics itself seem now to have overflowed those bounds)...... — Wayfarer
Evolution is a natural processs, but it has generated beings who are capable of seeing beyond the bounds of biology. — Wayfarer
That so many caveats have to be made for "the world being as it appears" is evidence the world is decidedly not as it appears. — Marchesk
Sure, folk say silly things. (....) Relativity was not in conformity with our observations. — Banno
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.