Why do you not answer my question: By what means do you sever space and time? — ucarr

I answered it. You just missed it.
... Or maybe you weren't there. :grin:

Please click on the link below to find a supporting narrative for my argument.
How is E=mc^2 Related to Time? — ucarr

I have given a look to this Quora question and answers in my search that I talked about. They are based on personal thought experimentation, like yours. (In fact, I thought already that this is where you got your peoposition.) Yet, again, they talk about the relation of E = mc2 with time, which is different from my simple position that time is not contained in matter. Also, please note that such a reference or the argumentation included in it would not stand in any serious philosophical discussion.
Also, think this: if such a proposition were any good at all, it wouldn't stay in Quora''s shelves!
In short, this is not a valid reference.

I'm afraid that you are trying to prove the unprovable, ucarr.

[/quote]
I don't know what you are trying to prove. You are changing your previous premises (direct or indirect). It And in doing so you avoid to reply to my premises:

Initially, you indicated (indirectly) that my statement "there is no time --contained or involved-- in something either" makes E=mc2 false.

Then, to my reply that "E = mc2 says nothing about time" you responded with "The full form of the equation: E = p2c2 + m2c4 clarifies its inclusion of time dilation.". And that "Einstein’s equation may be combined with Planck’s to give a relation between time (frequency) and energy: E2 = hf = mc2, f = E/h = mc2/h". First of all, what do you mean "may be combined"? Are they or are they are not? And is this something, a possibility that you thought of yourself? Because I couldn'f find anything about all that in the Web ...

Whatever is the case, nothing of all this constitutes any answer to my statement, i,.e. that time is not included in matter. They only say about how matter can affect (dilate) time and how time and energy are related. But who has talked about the relation of matter/energy and time?

I'm telling all this to show you that you are going around my statements/premises --well, and yours too! :smile:-- avoiding actually to answer them.

If time doesn't inhabit the material-physicality of our phenomenal universe, then e=mc2 is false? — ucarr

E = mc2 says nothing about time.

Besides, matter is something that has mass and occupies space. Time has no mass, neither does it occupy space. So time is irrelevant to matter and vice versa.

(I just saw that this relatively old message of mine was never posted. My mistake. Sorry. Anyway, I post it now. It might be of interest to you. :smile:)

Spacetime is shown to be a substance experimentally. Two phenomena confirm
spacetime is a substance, namely gravitational lens and gravitational wave. — MoK

Well, this is debetable. Anyway, it refers to a specific theory: the energy wave theory, where it is considered a medium that allows the transfer of energy of its components. But I believe it is used for descriptive purposes, as I mentioned.
In reality, space and time cannot be perceived as physical things, as matter and enery can.
Neither can space or time produce change or movement. Rather the opposite: change and movement produce the notion of space and time.

"Specifically, spacetime might emerge from the materials we usually think of as living in the universe—matter and energy itself. “It's not [that] we first have space and time and then we add in some matter,” Wüthrich says. “Rather something material may be a necessary condition for there to be space and time."
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-spacetime-really-made-of)

By the state of affairs, I mean a situation. — MoK

A state of affairs refers to the general situation and circumstances connected with something. So, it cannot be applied to nothing.

Thoughts are mental images. They may or may not contain words (language) in visual or audio form. You can "see" them and "hear" them in your mind. They are similations or reproductions of percepts. Memory and rememberibg is a good example.

This is not theory. It's reality. Anyone can realize and experience that, if one just pays attention to one's thougths.

Too much theory and/or conceptualization, not matched with sufficient experiencing --or even with lack of it, as it often happens-- may make one miss or deviate a lot from simple reality or truth. And the irony of it is that conceptualization itself is made of thoughts and it is the product of thinking. So, one can miss what one is actually doing! :smile:

How can You convince someone, who thinks that philosophy is just idle talk, that at least not all of this kind is mere empty stream of words? — Pez

This is much better!
But I would simplify and replace the second part with "that (it may be true sometimes but) this is not usually the case". Or something like that.

Re: Is philosophy just idle talk?
Are you here, participating in idle talk? :smile:

(Really, what a strange thing to ask in a philosophy forum! :brow: )

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.
— Wittgenstein — Jamal

I had launched a discussion about 3 years ago on this exact "quotation", a totally unrealistic and naive statement.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11545/examining-wittgensteins-statement-the-limits-of-my-language-mean-the-limits-of-my-world/p1
Not a single person could support the truth of it, not even describe it or explain it. They didn't rejected it either.

In fact, I read in some article later --I don't have the reference ready-- that Wittgenstein himself had changed his mind about it in his late years ...

Quite monotonous ... Not of my taste ...

Hi Javi.
YouTube displays a message saying "The video is unavaible" ...

OK. We agree then. :smile:

I think I see what you mean here. There is always a whole larger than and surrounding sub-holes. E.g. W2 = W1+B1. And that this goes ad infinitum. Right? Well, I'll talk about this later.
But this is not exactly what you said in the OP. You said that "This means that the whole is not W1 but W2 where W2=W1+B1". But W2 is simply a different, larger whole, including W1. W1 is still W1. It has not changed. It has not become W2. This is what I discussed in my previous comment.

Now, about wholes --or the whole as you say-- going ad infinitum, i.s. being limitless.
If this were the case, then the Universe itself --which includes all the "wholes"-- should be also surrounded by something larger than it. E.g. there could be another Universe, larger than our known Universe .But we don't and can't know that. Or there can be the case of parallel universes. Which remains still to be proved. With our present knowledge the Universe includes everything. (Except if this knowledge has changed and I don't know it.)

This means that W1 is bounded by something else — MoK

What do you mean by "bounded by"?
It normally means having something as its edge or simply an edge around something. What edge do you have in mind? And why that edge is part of W1, in a way that W1 is actually W1 + edge (B1)?

All this is too abstract. In such cases it is always recommended to give some example(s).

Maybe you can use this: Water in a glass. W1 is the whole (quantity of) water. And we have two kinds of "edges" or boundaries: the glass --around and at the bottom of the water (B1)-- and the air above the water (B2). According to your argument, W1 is actually W1+B1+B2. Right? Can this be considered a valid case?

People ignore or even hate dictionaries in general.
— Alkis Piskas
And that is exactly when philosophy becomes affectation — Lionino

Well said, Lionino. :up:

People underestimate the usefulness of etymology and dismiss it as "etymological fallacy" after a 5 minute reading session. But given some background facts about some of those who underestimate it, it does not surprise me at all. — Lionino

This is very true. However, etymology in English --and I believe other languages too-- is often complex and even useless. This is not the case with ancient Greek and Latin, however. Esp. in Greek, one can undestand the meaning of a word just by its etymology.

But what are we talking about? People ignore or even hate dictionaries in general. People don't like definitions. This is what I learned from this and othe similar places. All the more about etymology.

I don't mean to use Existence loosely/abstractly. By "Existence" I mean that which encompasses all things physical or otherwise (if otherwise is possible). — Philosopher19

OK.

If the universe is expanding, it is expanding in something. — Philosopher19

I guess this "something" is "space", right? Like a balloon ...
But this seems impossible since space is part of the universe itself; it cannot be larger than it. E.g. like the space around a balloon that is inflated ...

So to me, Infinity/Existence is the reason that something can expand forever or go on forever. As for the thing that expands (like the universe), it is a part of the Infinite. It is not itself infinite. — Philosopher19

OK.

As I said, astronomers and cosmologists are more suitable for answering these questions ...

Well, there are a lot of scenarios on the table. Let astronomers and cosmologists debate about them ...

Welcome to TPF! :clap:

I don't believe we can talk about different infinite sets because it will lead to contradictions. — Philosopher19

Right.

I do believe Infinity and Existence denote the same Entity. I see Infinity/Existence as the set of all existents. I see there being no end to the number of existents purely because the nature of Infinity/Existence allows for such possibilities. — Philosopher19

I see what you mean. Well, the words "exist" and "existence" can be used in different ways. And it can be used strictly (substantially, concretely) and loosely (insubstantially, abstactly). And I guess the second form applies to what you say above.

It is clearly contradictory for something to come from nothing. — Philosopher19

Right. Or, impossible. Yet, we stiil can use the expression "something from nothing" loosely or figuratively. But there are always some conditions (something) that allow the creation of some other thing (something). This is the universal law of cause and effect.

And since I have heard some say that the universe is expanding, my view is that the universe is not infinite (if it's expanding, it's not infinite). — Philosopher19

But doesn't an expanding universe mean that this process is infinite and thus the universe itself is limitless? It is not much different than if we consider the universe as being static, in which case it can also be infinite.

Well, that's why the infiniteness of the Universe is still debatable today! :smile:

If I count 1, 2, 3, 4 ad infinitum, will I reach infinity? One cannot count to infinity, and even if something like a number sequence goes on forever, it will not reach infinity. — Philosopher19

You cannot start counting 1,2,3,4,... ad infinitum and reach somewhere, anywhere. Infinity has neither a start or an end.
Then, counting (natural) numbers you can never reach infinity because that infility would be also a number, and infinity is not a real or natural number.

To call {1,2,3,4,...} an infinite set is to imply that {1,2,3,4,...} consists of an infinite number of numbers. No doubt, even if 1, 2, 3, 4 goes on forever, an infinite number of numbers will never be reached. — Philosopher19

A set is a collection of objects (elements, members). I'm not sure if we can talk about an infinite set, although there are some theories about it (e.g. Zermelo–Fraenkel).
As I see it, an infinite set cannot be defined as one consisting of infinite numbers, because only the fact of being defined (limited) makes it (de)finite. An infinite set would be something limitless, hence undefinable.

All this raises questions about the infiniteness of the Universe, whether it started (created) from something or it always existed, etc. And, as I see it, since we don't have a proof that it is created from nothing, it must have always existed, even in the form of extremely high density and temperature, which at some point exploded (re: Big Bang), or in any other form. But I'm not the right person to talk about these things.

And, of course, I'm well aware that all I said is subject to debate ...

The Ship of Theseus paradox looks more like a philosophical or linguistic issue than a paradox. — Skalidris

Right. That's why I added "thought experiment" in parentheses.

It was a pun on body-soul dualism! :smile:

the paradox is right there in the initial version of Principia Mathematica — Banno

Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable on the subject.
But, as I said, there are real paradoxes, which are quite perplexing or structured in a way that cannot be easily refuted or explained, or even not at all. There are such factors as perspective and relativity, which alone leave certain paradoxes "open" or "unsolvable". E.g. The Ship of Theseus paradox (thought experiment).

I have to add that time is a substance that allows change. By substance I mean it is something that exists and it has a set of properties. The property of time is the rate at which it changes. — MoK

A substance is something material; it consistse of matter. Time is not physical. It doesn't actually exist. It is a dimension. We use it to measure change and motion, as well as for description purposes.

I can however argue that nothing is a state of affairs that could exist. By nothing I simply mean, no spacetime, no physical, no God,... Therefore, nothing to something is a change. — MoK

A state is a condition. It has attributes. How can "nothing" be a state, of affairs or anything else? Nothing is simply absence of existence. absence of anything. How can something that doesn't exist be anything at all?

Maybe Descartes himself could explain all that. (After having been briefed on Start Trek material.)
But I'm afraid he would rather say that you have misinterpteted his writings and would suggest you to study them. :smile:

This is a statement made by @MoK. I just confirmed it. It is to him/her that you should be addressed.

For example, the liar paradox “this sentence is false” simply appears meaningless to me and I do not enter the logic ... — Skalidris

The term "paradox" is overrated and abused. Most "paradoxes" are simply self-contradictory, self-refuting or circular statements or statements based on a false hypotheses. In short, invalid statements.
The statement in question --“This sentence is false”-- is a classic example of a self-contradictory statement. It's also circular. It indicates two opposite things coexisting, an impossibility: if this sentence is true, then it is also false. There's nothing more to it. It's a dog chasing its tail, a snake swallowing itself. It does not leave room for any interpretation. It just can't stand. It's not a paradox.

The word "paradox" comes from ancient Greek "para" (= besides, contrary to) + "doxa" (= opinion). Indeed, it indicates something that exists or happens which is contrary to what one expects or believes to be true or happen. For example, a paradox would be raining without any cloud in the sky. Yet, it is possible, if there are very strong winds that bring rain from some other place than where we are.

P1) Time is needed for any change
OK

P2) Nothing to something is a change
It's not. If it is possible, it is creation. (Nothing cannot be changed since it doesn't exist.)

P3) There is no time in nothing
There is no time --contained or involved-- in something either. Things are not composed of time. (P1 indicates that time is involved in change.)

C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3)
OK, but it doesn't follow from P1-P3.

Very interesting interpretation! And a very good example.

... And I was wondering ... where are those in this medium who have even the least interest in Eastern philosophies?
You are a brave person. I normally avoid bringing up that kind of stuff in this medium! :smile:

"There is no such thing as absolute freedom"
- Alkis Piskas
That’s quite a claim, if the definition is “absence of obstacles”. — Punshhh

I know what you mean. But see, “obstacles” is something quite general and relative. E.g. on a road empty of other cars (no obstacles), you can drive freely as you wish. On a road with a few cars (i.e. few obstacles) your driving is restricted accordingly; there's some loss of freedom. And in a traffic jam, you are totally immobilized; there's a total loss of freedom.
Your freedom is restricted according to the number and importance of the obstacles you encounter. And because all this is relative, freedom is also something relative.

In other words, the expression "absence of obstacles" is indicative. It doesn't mean "total absence of obstacles".

Thanks, Javi.

There is no such thing as freedom because everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience. — Piers

One may be "enslaved" by a lot of --and much more important and powerful-- things besides ego (in the sense of personal drives) and conscience (in a moral sense). These may influence a person's decisions, actions and behavior in general. But this doesn't mean that they limit a person's freedom.

There are two kinds of freedom: freedom from and freedom to.
My fears, prejudices, inhibitions, conscience, etc., are obstacles in my acting freely. If I can I get free of (from) them, I can act more freely.
Abiding to rules, my rights and those of the other people, having the necessary means to do something, etc., restrict my actions in a similar way. The more I have and the better I use them, the more a can act freely.

Freedom is absence of obstacles.

And, if you had said "There is no such thing as absolute freedom" I would totally agree. There simply cannot be. There are always obstacles, which lead us to talk about our relative freedom. And we do have plenty of it! :smile:

“We can never know anything about an external world because all we have when we make such an assertion is our perceptions and reasoning, all of which occur in our minds. We can not get ‘outside of our perceptions’ to make any claims about the external world.” — Thales

But all we know about our "external world" is through our senses and our experiences. Saying that we can't know anything because all we have is our senses is self-contradictory and makes no sense.

Looking through this bad argumentation, what I can see is an allusion to "absolute reality". Namely, that we can never know the absolute reality (of the external world) because we can only have a subjective reality of it. Which is a commonplace, but at least it's a little better than the what has been tried to be argued.

I give up. :smile:

:up:

So, if I understand this well, you are talking about morality in the Universe. And, since you don't specify what kind of things should exist or not, your quest includes both animated matter (life) and inanimated matter, incuding of course energy, space and time. In other words your are asking if there is (or was) an original plan for the creation of the Universe. And whether that plan is (or was) moral or not?
Still, you don't define what you consider as "moral". This makes it difficult to engage in a quest on the subject of existence. For one thing, it raises the question, "Moral in what sense and for whom"? So, since you don't define all that, the logical structure or even the whole questioning you are trying to build is too vague and blurry and it kind of floats in the air.

In short, whatever you have in mind as an entity who created the Universe --some God or Supreme Being or Primal Cause-- according to a Plan, and whether that plain is (was) moral or not, one will always ask, "Moral in what sense and for whom?".

To me you're describing classic atheism. You're not saying the jury's out on the existance of gods, you're saying in the absence of evidence I don't believe in any gods. — LuckyR

Right. :up:

The idea is that we don't know if there is an objective morality. — Philosophim

Where should we search for that? Morality is a broad term: it can mean conformity to a set of rules of right conduct. It can also mean virtuous conduct. It can also mean the quality of such a conduct. It can also mean personal principles regarding right or wrong ... So, it seems that morality has a subjective quality and hence we can't talk about an objective morality.

This is why I prefer talking about ethics, which, although sometimes is --wrongly-- used interchangeably with morality, It has to do with principles defined objectively, whether based on a cenral concept or not.

Now, about your logical scheme ... I have some difficulty following it. What does "everything should not exist" --or its opposite for that matter, "everything should exist"-- mean? How and where can this be applied to? And what does this have to do with morality? (Morality comes in only in step (4).)
So, I jump to your conclusion:

Therefore, if we are assuming an objective morality exists, the only claim which does not lead to a contradiction to its claims is "Existence should be". — Philosophim

See, you looking for an objective morality, which you have not defined --and which needs to be, since it's a broad term and also of a subjective nature, as I mentioned in the beginning.

So, again, where and how should we search for such an objective morality in the first place?

I provided the link as my views on your topic. I will check the summary that you are mentioning and see how I can contribute with something more specific to your topic ...

If I don't believe in the existence of God, any god, because there is no evidence for its existence, what does that makes me? An agnostic, an atheist, an agnostic atheist?