I would caution against any model where time "flows." — Count Timothy von Icarus
I see one inconsistency and one redundancy in this argumentation:Gravity and acceleration-due-to-gravity are, in a certain sense, as one. They are conjoined as a unified concept: gravity-and-acceleration. Thus cause and effect are, in the same sense, as one, save one stipulation: temporal sequencing. — ucarr
If time is flowing, that is moving relative to different states of the universe, then it must be doing so over some sort of second time dimension. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Second, under special relativity, the order in which events occur can be different for different observers. This makes it unclear as to how any time flow could occur. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Gravity and acceleration-due-to-gravity are, in a certain sense, as one. They are conjoined as a unified concept: gravity-and-acceleration. Thus cause and effect are, in the same sense, as one, save one stipulation: temporal sequencing. — ucarr
I see one inconsistency and one redundancy in this argumentation:
First, there's a circularity: You take two different things, a cause and an effect, and assume that they are one thing --in a sense, or whatever. Then you conclude that cause and effect are the same, well, also in a sense.
Then you introduce the element of timing ("temporal sequencing") that refutes the above statement and which doesn't actually change anything; it's only another reason why the first statement is invalid, since cause precedes effect. Which can be also considered as a tautology. — Alkis Piskas
Is it maybe the argumentation --as a whole-- not properly worded or constructed? — Alkis Piskas
We need to define time in order to avoid confusion. Aristotle's defines time as "the measure of change according to before and after." If we accept this definition, then time is not a thing, but a measure number specified by both the change measured (say, the number of cycles of some process) and the details of the measuring process. We see this in special relativity, where time measure numbers depend on the frame of reference used in measuring change.Does your statement above describe a situation containing two temporal progressions — ucarr
Time, therefore, elides the multi-forms of creation into a universal oneness of blissful wholeness. — ucarr
Where do you buy your weed? A blessed product. — jgill
time does not flow, because it does not exist independently of being measured. What flows is the sequence of events that change produces, and that we use to produce a time measure number. — Dfpolis
Aristotle's defines time as "the measure of change according to before and after." — Dfpolis
Of course, you could change the definition of time, but then you would need to ensure that it agreed with our normal time when the new definition reduced to that case. — Dfpolis
Where?He also says, that in another sense "time" is what is measured. — Metaphysician Undercover
In Aristotle's definition, the territory is the changing world. Time is a coordinate we place on its map."Time" as that which is measured, is completely different from "time" as "the measure of...". One's the territory, the other the map, so to speak. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. We do this in light of the echos physical events leave in our memory. We remember what happened before now, not what will happen after now. We also see that our willed commitments can affect the future, but not the past.This means that we must refer to an apprehended "before and after" to be able to employ time as a measure of change. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is not a definition because it is implicitly circular. The result of measurement is time. So, by your definition, time is both the source and result of measurement, which leaves us completely in the dark about what we are measuring. A's definition makes clear what we are measuring, viz. change, which he defines with no reference to time as "the actualization of a potency insofar as it is still in potency."we ought to start with the other definition, that time is what is measured. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it does not. It allows us to eliminate misconceptions about spatially separate events. Some events are before or after a given event, no matter how we measure time. Others are not. If we fix upon a single place, the sequence of events is never in doubt.And, we can say deficiencies in the way that time is measured creates the appearance of inconsistency in before and after. — Metaphysician Undercover
I look at a changing clock to see what the measure number is. If the clock does not change, I don't trust it to indicate the time.That time is what is measured is more consistent with our wider range of experience with the concept of "time" anyway. For example, when someone says what time it is. — Metaphysician Undercover
You seem not to understand relativity. It is all about how we measure things. As a result, Aristotle's concept of time is compatible with it, while Newton's concept of absolute time (which seems to be yours) is incompatible with it.And when we see the problems of measurement exposed by the relativity of simultaneity, we can start to apprehend the need for more than one dimension of time, in order to give us precise measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover
Where? — Dfpolis
In Aristotle's definition, the territory is the changing world. Time is a coordinate we place on its map. — Dfpolis
That is not a definition because it is implicitly circular. The result of measurement is time. So, by your definition, time is both the source and result of measurement, which leaves us completely in the dark about what we are measuring. A's definition makes clear what we are measuring, viz. change, which he defines with no reference to time as "the actualization of a potency insofar as it is still in potency." — Dfpolis
No, it does not. It allows us to eliminate misconceptions about spatially separate events. Some events are before or after a given event, no matter how we measure time. Others are not. If we fix upon a single place, the sequence of events is never in doubt. — Dfpolis
The discussion of time begins in ch. 10. There he notes that "no part of it is" (218a6). So, we need to be aware that while it is convenient to speak of beings of reason (ens rationis) as though they exist simpliciter, they do not. Time, as a measure number, exists only in the minds contemplating it. So, you need to distinguish between what is a convenient way of speaking, and Aristotle's doctrine.That would be "Physics" Bk 4, Ch 11-14. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no equivocation. What is measured is time potentially. The result is time actually.The explicit equivocation is that "time" refers to both the thing measured, and what is produced by the measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover
I suggest you read about simultaneity, and the difference between the time-like and space-like separation of events in special relativity. It would take too much of my time for me to explain to you.That sure looks like inconsistency to me. If one way of measuring time results in a reversal of before and after, in comparison with another, and time is defined with reference to before and after, then there is inconsistency within the way that time is measured. — Metaphysician Undercover
The discussion of time begins in ch. 10. There he notes that "no part of it is" (218a6). So, we need to be aware that while it is convenient to speak of beings of reason (ens rationis) as though they exist simpliciter, they do not. Time, as a measure number, exists only in the minds contemplating it. So, you need to distinguish between what is a convenient way of speaking, and Aristotle's doctrine. — Dfpolis
As a number, it is not something existing in nature, but a mental entity resulting from a numbering operation. — Dfpolis
This is entirely compatible with the classic definition of time as the measure of change according to before and after. — Dfpolis
There is no point in continuing to pile quotation on quotation. You are misinterpreting the text. — Dfpolis
What is measured is time potentially. The result is time actually. — Dfpolis
Yes, time exists, but as a measure number, a being of reason."We have stated, then, that time exists and what it is, and in how many senses we speak of the 'now', and what 'at some time', 'lately', 'presently' or 'just', 'long ago', and 'suddenly' mean." — Metaphysician Undercover
No, they are grounded in the reality of change.Notice that all these terms, all these ways of speaking, are grounded in time being something real. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, Aristotle was a student of Plato. He went on to reject his theory that ideas and numbers are substantial.Aristotle was a student, of Plato, and numbers were considered to be existent things, as well as the symbols we use to count things. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, the potential and the actualized ground before and after.Sure, but don't you see that in order for "before and after" to have any meaning, there must be time which is something real in nature — Metaphysician Undercover
Change is measurable according to before and after, say in the movement of clock hands. The act of measuring this produces time as a measure number.I don't get this at all , maybe you could explain. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is not the potential passing of time, but the passing of potential time, stages in the process of change, that is measured.How could one measure the potential passing of time? — Metaphysician Undercover
No, what is imaginary is not potential. Potencies are grounded in actual states of nature, not the mind.In our minds, in theory, we can work with all sorts of time intervals, and time durations, these mental constructions we might call "time potentially". — Metaphysician Undercover
No, they are grounded in the reality of change. — Dfpolis
No, the potential and the actualized ground before and after. — Dfpolis
Change is measurable according to before and after, say in the movement of clock hands. The act of measuring this produces time as a measure number. — Dfpolis
Potencies are grounded in actual states of nature, not the mind. — Dfpolis
The parachutist has jumped out of a plane airborne at ten thousand feet. What happens next...? — ucarr
A film script is also known as a continuity. Characters behave and their behavior causes reactions in other characters. Action with emotional impact drives the story forward. As the story moves forward, characters change. This is the arc of the story. As we watch a film continuity, we feel and know the middle of the story is not the same as the beginning of the story because things have happened that have brought us to a new place in the story of people's lives. What Joey did to Cathy last night has made her become a more confident woman next morning. — ucarr
What Joey did to Cathy last night has made her become a more confident woman next morning.
What's going on inside of Cathy? — ucarr
For example, one point in space can be represented as being continuous with another — ItIsWhatItIs
I'm curious how you can do that. :chin: — jgill
An "effect" can't be separated from its "cause." — ItIsWhatItIs
The "beginning" & the "middle" of the day may be lit out, with the "end" of it being dark at night, & yet neither the light of the "beginning" & the "middle" our story, or day, nor the darkness at the "end" of it are either the causes or the effects of the other. — ItIsWhatItIs
Can you take your above quote and apply it to your below quote? — ucarr
A thing may be the former without being the latter. — ItIsWhatItIs
Continuity isn't causality. — ItIsWhatItIs
One thing may precede another thing without the preceding thing being the cause of the succeeding thing.
Is my above interpretation of your quote correct? — ucarr
Continuity alone does not imply causality.
Is my interpretation of your above quote correct?
Can you cite an example of causality without continuity? — ucarr
A thing may be the former without being the latter. — ItIsWhatItIs
One thing may precede another thing without the preceding thing being the cause of the succeeding thing.
Is my above interpretation of your quote correct?
— ucarr
My quote that you're referencing there, when I say that "a thing may be the former without being the latter," isn't about precession & succession. So, it's a "no" to the interpretation... — ItIsWhatItIs
Can you cite an example of causality without continuity? — ucarr
As to an example: firstly, my assertion was that continuity isn't causality, i.e., not conversely, & so I can't be asked to cite an example of there being causality without continuity, because I've never claimed that. — ItIsWhatItIs
Secondly, I've already provided an example of that assertion in my post before last, — ItIsWhatItIs
An "effect" can't be separated from its "cause." — ItIsWhatItIs
Are you claiming my question is (somehow) illegal because it asks you to respond to a claim you haven't made? — ucarr
Assuming the above is the quote, is this a correct interpretation: causal relationships are always continuities? — ucarr
Do you agree that the above quote allows that continuities can sometimes also be causal? — ucarr
how do you define the word "continuity" or "continuous"? — ItIsWhatItIs
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.