Happened with Kant's CPR. Tried start reading the original texts, but they were hard to bite in with convoluted archaic writing styles and word meanings from different versions of translated texts, which got me nowhere.

Put down the original texts, and read several academic commentaries, articles and ChatGpt sessions on the topic. They gave me clearer understanding on the whole picture of CPR, and now I am ready to get back to original texts.

'State' shouldn't be there, especially since a universe does not have a state, but a world at a given moment in time does. One definition is that a thing is present at a moment in time. People exist, dinosaurs don't. That's a reference to state. The universe is all worlds, the entire structure, the initial state of which is what we know as the big bang. — noAxioms

If you mean by universe as some physical entity, then I am not sure where you can find space and time. You see the objects and objects in movements, changes and motions, but where is time? Isn't what you call time the durations and intervals observed and measured with the clocks and watches in some variables? Is that case, is time real? If you use some other measuring device other than the standard watches, clocks and calendar systems, you will get totally different measured time variables. In that case what is the real time? What are the nature of real space and time then?

Space and time is contained in the universe only makes sense, if you mean the universe as an entity created in your mind, not something out there in material entity. But in this case, is it correct to say space and time exist or contained in the universe? There are some physicists saying that spacetime doesn't exist. It is just an illusion derived from our imagination.

That looks like an arbitrary distinction. Faint/clear? — Metaphysician Undercover

Hume makes clear statement on the definition of ideas in his Treatise and Enquiries too. Impressions are sensations which first appear into our minds with liveliness and vivacity. Ideas are the matching copies of the impressions which are faint in vivacity and liveliness. This makes sense. When we remember past events, the images and ideas are not as lively and vivacious as the impressions from live perception.

Perception is not accurate, that's the point. We create accuracy with conception, and that is why we need proper principles to distinguish between perception and conception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course perception is not 100% accurate. Nothing is. But it is far more accurate than guessing or imagining.

and that is why we need proper principles to distinguish between perception and conception. This allows us to understand how conception obtains such a higher degree of accuracy. Kant for instance, proposes the a priori intuitions of space and time, as the condition for sense impressions. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that is a guarantee for absolute accuracy on perception. Space and time as a priori condition for perception in Kant is just the foundation his transcendental idealism is based on. What Kant was aiming at was possibility of Metaphysics as Science, not accuracy of perception.

The point being that ideas and perceptions are not properly separated or distinguished. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hume distinguishes ideas from impressions, and the rest of perceptions too.
Ideas are faint copies of the matching impressions. Only ideas work under the principle of the association i.e. contiguity, resemblance and cause and effect.

No I don't think so. The fact that some motions are too fast to sense doesn't affect the fact that we sense motions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your saying "we sense motions" sounds like contingent acts of guessing. Not accurate perception. Your visual sensation can never capture the motion of a flying bullet. You would be just guessing it. That is not perception. What does it tell you? Continuity is an illusion created by your mind, and it is a concept. It doesn't exist in reality.

Another good video on Time.

The book "Subjective Time" arrived, and the 1st chapter starts with the excerpt from "The Principle of Psychology" by William James. James starts the chapter saying he will deal with what is sometime called internal perception, or the perception of time. So, James seems to have thought that time is an internal perception.

The question seems to ask "what location is distance?" and "when is duration?", both circular. — noAxioms

The OP is about existence prior to predicate, and existence is closely linked to space and time in some of the definitions, hence we were trying to clarify existence in space and time definition.

The question as you worded it implies that space and time are objects. They're not. They're properties, but so are objects. — noAxioms

Some folks seem to think space and time are objects, and exist as real entity. But I am not sure if that is the case. I am more into the idea that space and time is emergent quality from movements of the objects in perception, as in the other thread running at the moment.

And chatbots are notorious for wrong answers when it comes to cosmology. — noAxioms

I went to ChatGPT, and it was actually quite good. It seems to be getting better all the time. It was quite different in response since my last visit a few months ago. For getting the basics of any topics or subjects, ChatGPT seems quite capable in providing good information.

I will do some concentrated reading on the rest of your post, and will return later with my points on it. Many thanks for your reply on the question.

Good point. But when the actual text is abstruse, preliminary readings on the academic commentaries and even ChatGPT sessions do help accessing the text later?

Here, my only interest in Plato's World Soul is as a rational intelligent agent that after the original divine origin, continues to create natural observable things by mixing definite finite forms with indefinite primal substantial elements. — magritte

:ok:

Found an info page on Chora (Khora) in Wiki, which looks good. I am sure you must have seen the page if your main interest is Plato's philosophy. Do you agree with the content on the page?

Aristotle is known to have rejected the idea of Khora, and came up with his own version of the idea called hyle, as in this page Hylomorphism.

Space and time are everywhere in the universe, and nowhere not in the universe, at least in the 4D spacetime model that cosmology uses. There are some naive models that have the universe contained by time, in which case things like big bang and black holes go away, to be replace by some other interpretation. There is no valid model of the universe being contained by space, which is akin to suggesting that the big bang occurred at some specific location and has been expanding into some kind of void since then. — noAxioms

It was more to hear about your own view on the point.

I cannot explain it much better than that to somebody not familiar with even the basics of cosmology. — noAxioms

That sounds a daft statement. The basics of cosmology, and the whole the other subjects are on the internet ChatGPT. We are not asking what is the basic cosmology. We are asking where in the universe, space and time contained. It should be a simple few statement explanation with a coupe of examples. We don't expect to hear on the basics of cosmology the lot here.

E4 "Is part of the objective state of this universe" — noAxioms

It just sounds vague and empty statement, hence more elaboration with detail wouldn't go amiss. What do you mean by "the objective state", "the universe", and does it include space and time? You said space and time are contained in the universe? So, a simple question was, where in the universe are they contained? In what form and nature?

Julian Barbour is an independent scholar who also argues that time doesn't exist. I haven't listened to the whole presentation, but it might be of interest to you. He also has published a book on the subject. — Wayfarer

Great video. Thank you for the info. Much appreciated. :pray: :cool:
I was really inspired to see someone who has a similar ideas to mine on the topic.

This is indicative of the problem I am talking about. Hume does not acknowledge the difference between sensing (simple observation as time passes), and the analysis of what has already been sensed. By saying that for Hume "every mental state is a perception", you confirm that Hume does not recognize the difference. — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't sensing via impressions, and the matching ideas for thoughts, reasoning and reflective analysis in Hume? So, there is a clear division between the live sensation and knowing, thinking, reflecting, remembering in Hume. The former are via impressions, and the latter by the matching ideas.

Impressions and ideas work under the principle of association of contiguity, resemblance and cause and effect.

What I am arguing is that sensation consists of a continuous flow of change and motion, whereas the analysis consists of representing this continuity as distinct states, perceptions, impressions, or ideas. There is a fundamental difference between these two, the continuous flow of sensation, and the succession of discrete impressions. This difference implies that this type of analysis is fundamentally flawed. It's based in the false premise, or assumption, that a continuous activity can be truthfully represented as a succession of discrete states. — Metaphysician Undercover

Doesn't it depend on how fast the movement was? When you are observing a fast movement of an object, let's say, firing a gun at a long distance target. You will not see the bullet flying due to the high speed it travels towards the target. All you will perceive would be loud banging, and see the smoke, and instant bullet holes on the target. You haven't seen anything, but the movement still happened from the bullet movement starting point i.e. the barrel, to the end of the movement, the target. With the high speed of the object movement, the continuity was not visible but it was still there.

Now think of a movement of a Chinese man doing Tai Chi. His arms and legs move as he performs the Tai Chi practice. The movement is well visible, and even stoppable while the movement is being made. The speed of the movement of the arms and legs are so slow, the impression coming into the perceiver appears smooth and continuous. The impression of the movement is not deceiving anyone, but it just appears as continuous, and that is just the way perception works.

that we know of a vast period of time before we existed. — Wayfarer

We can guess about anything before we existed. But it neither can be proved nor disapproved.

Yes, we are aware of that. That period is measured in durations of years, which are based on the period of time it takes for the Earth to complete an orbit of the Sun. — Wayfarer

:up:

Which supports my view, that time is meaningless without there being an awareness of duration. In that sense the expression ‘the world before time began’ is not entirely metaphorical. — Wayfarer

Many important philosophers in history and the contemporary physics folks view time as emergent properties from human mind.

The point though is that the creation of "a single impression", is a product of that act of reflecting. It is not the direct product of sensation, so it is not an accurate description of perception, it is a description of how perception appears when revisited in the memory. This makes the "single impression" a mental abstraction rather than a sense perception. — Metaphysician Undercover

But in Hume, reflection and inspection on perceived ideas are also perceptions. Every mental event is perception.

There is no real start and end. The start and end are arbitrarily assigned by the sensing being, for whatever purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover

Think of a security camera monitoring a set space in your garden.  When it detects a movement via infrared lighting, the sensor in the camera triggers recording.  When the motion ends, or goes out of sight, the detection operation switches off, ending the recording of the image of the object which triggered the recording.

Motion and movement have start and end points, hence they trigger the sensing mechanisms of the cameras or monitoring devices. Start and end point of movement also allows you to be able to measure the time it took for the movement completion for further analysis on the energy it generated and velocity of the movement etc.

Fine, write your own, but also tell me in what way it is distinct from E4. Space and time are contained by the universe, and I see little point in listing the contents in the E4 definition. — noAxioms

Where in the universe, are space and time contained?

That's why Banno's conception of "instantaneous velocity" is self-contradicting nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sounds like an irrelevant word dug up from ChatGpt.

The problem is that there is more than one way to take "a slice of the movement". — Metaphysician Undercover

Revisiting Hume, it seems the case that he is not saying that we perceive movements via the sliced impressions. As I said previously, we can perform the operation of inspecting a single impression or ideas in our reflecting operations by mind after the perception.

What Hume seems to be saying is that impressions of movement are perceived as continuous movement via the principle of association of the ideas and impressions based on the contiguity of space and time.

Is continuity a single movement of smooth, undisturbed and conjoined movement from start to the end of the movement? Or is it an illusory appearance of the many instances of the sliced images? What is your own idea on this?

It is not off-topic if we accept that Earth is subject to change. That is an example of a physical that is subject to change and does not a need a mind to observe it. So again, Earth is subject to rotation all the time whether one observe it or not? Yes or no? — MoK

Earth or electron are not good example for physical here. Because as you have seen, they are not directly perceptible objects, which easily confuse you onto mixing up the arguments.

The baseball was a good example. You can see it, hold it, place it on the desk, you can drop it, or throw it, and observe if it moves or changes. But whatever you do, don't confuse it with Earth or electron.

If you are not happy with baseball example, then MoK could be a good example, if you prefer. You can observe MoK, because you are MoK. You cannot be mistaken MoK for the Earth or electron.

Let us know whatever example you prefer to discuss on the change of physical issue.

Could the quantum universe be in a possible world? Or would it be a legitimate existence in the universe?

You mentioned about "the World Soul". What is the World Soul? Do humans have souls?

Interestingly there is a modern quantum version of the World Soul. — magritte

How about "Existence is perceptible object in space and time"? This must be the defacto definition of existence.

Depends what you mean by perceptible. If it's the anthropocentric definition (perceived by humans), then E2 applies. If it is perceptible by anything, even in the absence of an observer noticing it, then E4 applies. Both definitions are relational, essentially 'is a member of X' where X is human perceptions (E2) or X is 'is somewhere in our universe' (E4) where universe is anything with coordinates relative to say time 0, Greenwich. Dark matter exists despite not being easy to perceive. — noAxioms

None of the definitions of existence mentions on space and time. Are being in space and time not important factors for objects qualifying as existence?

I can think of several definitions of 'exists' that one might use, but some possibilities:
E1 "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality"
E2 "I know about it"
E3 "Has predicates"
E4 "Is part of the objective state of this universe"
E5 "state X exists to state Y iff X is part of the causal history of Y"
E6 "existential quantification", where 51 is not prime because there exists an even divisor that is neither 1 nor 51.

There are probably better wordings. — noAxioms

You need to demonstrate if physical objects change on their own. Or at least explain, what you mean by that statement.

So Earth is subject to rotation all the time? Yes or no? — MoK

Earth is off-topic for this thread. The topic is "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change".

So, according to you, that is the Sun that moves around Earth? That is the only thing that you perceive! So please explain how you could conclude otherwise! — MoK

I never said that. You are saying it. :D

Do you have faith in what other people, experts in other fields of study, say? — MoK

I have faith in the folks with rational minds and claims.

Correct. But I talk about your perception rather than perception in general. Do you think that you can figure out everything alone? — MoK

One can only access one's own perception. But the rational and logical analysis on the contents of perception is the basis of object knowledge.

If one misuses rational analysis on the contents of the perception, then he misunderstands the world. I was just pointing out the misuse and misconception of your analysis and claims.

But your perception is limited so your arguments could not be rational or logical if you depend on them. — MoK

Perception is the origin of knowledge. Without perception, you are a blind and deaf.

Are you willing to learn anything except what your perceptions tell you!? — MoK

The point is not just about perception. It is about rationality and logic in the argument.

So, you cannot tell that the Earth is moving because you cannot see it moving. Is it a correct statement? How do you explain the motion of the Sun in the sky then? — MoK

I am just saying my statement is based on observation, but your argument is based on your imagination and the words of mouths from the vulgars.

I am arguing against what you said: "Movement is only a movement when perceived by mind.". There was a period when there was no life on Earth but Earth was moving. Are you denying that? — MoK

That is also imagination from the words of mouths of the vulgars. There is no observational evidence in that statements.

But the table on Earth. Adding an extra object does not help you. — MoK

When talking about movements, the rational folks talk about the movement from A to B on the earth. Think about your movement from your house to your school. When you are in your house, you are at the starting point. You have not moved from your house on the journey to the school when you are in the house. The movement starts from the house, when you go out the house making journey towards the school.

No one would drag the earth into the arguments, and claim that you have been always moving without moving. It is a hideous contradiction to say that the earth moves, so everything moves.

Are you denying that Earth is a moving object because you cannot see its motion? — MoK

You are confusing between denying and telling that earth rotation cannot be directly perceived.

That is a very wrong statement. Where did you take that from? — MoK

How can you tell a movement without perceiving and observing the movement? Are you guessing? or meditating?

I can show you have an understanding is wrong if you accept that you and baseball are on Earth and Earth is a moving object. — MoK

We are not talking about the ball on the earth. We are talking about the ball on the desk.

I am not talking about scientific theories here, but scientific facts that everybody agrees on, like the Earth's being a moving object. Do you deny that? — MoK

Scientific facts are derived from the theories. They are not given to you by God.

Doesn't baseball which to you is not moving is on Earth by which Earth is moving all the time? — MoK

Movement is only a movement when perceived by mind. Linking the baseball movement to the Earth movement sounds not correct thinking, or trying to make things confused, rather than trying to see the real problem.

He falsely described perception as a succession of impressions, rather than as a continuity of activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

It was just an explanation on how perception works. You can read about, and use many different methods on describing how human mind and perception works from different point of view and angles. I feel that Hume and Kant's explanations are very intelligible one.

So, are you critical of what people say, such as Hume as well, or do you think he was absolutely right? — MoK

I don't blindly judge anything or anyone. Some I agree, and some I don't agree. It depends on the points.

I am not talking about the established beliefs here but scientific facts. — MoK

All scientific facts are to be falsified. If not, they are not scientific facts. They are the religious doctrines.

Anyhow, to you, does Earth rotate around its axis and move around the sun? — MoK

Anyhow to me, the baseball does not move or change in time. To say it moves, is an illusion.

Sure, I cannot be an expert in all fields. That is why I trust experts' reports. I think that is a healthy practice, don't you think? — MoK

Yes and no. They are important, but philosophical mind takes nothing for granted. We try to see what is beyond the established beliefs.

The point though, is that Hume represents sense perception as a succession of distinct perceptions. But in reality sense perception consists of continuous activity, because it has temporal duration. And what is actually sensed is the activities which occur in time. The distinct "impressions and ideas" are only created when we impose breaks into the continuity of perception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hume was explaining how human mind works especially on perception. He was not talking about the reality itself.

No, you said that Earth maybe moves. — MoK

I said it to indicate that the movement of the Earth is not directly perceptible. It was not an implication of anything else as you are imagining.

To say, outright the Earth moves, means that your knowledge is coming from the books, medias and the popular science and words of mouths from the vulgars. Not from your perception or observation.

So if we do this, analyze the phenomena as distinct impressions or ideas, we have already imposed those breaks onto the continuity of the phenomenon of sense perception, to divide that continuity into a multitude of distinct impressions. Therefore this analysis is not giving us a true representation of sense perception, as continuous phenomenon, because it is analyzing distinct impressions which have been artificially created by breaking the continuity down. — Metaphysician Undercover

Reality events happen once uniquely in space and time.  The phenomena of the movement is captured by perception at the moment when it happens.  The movement of the object is captured as it appears in the space i.e. in continuity.   Continuity is also an idea which has the matching impression in reality.
But once it has happened, you cannot get back to the same movement again.  It passed.  The new movement could be recreated for observation.  But it wouldn't be the same movement as the original movement.

Taking out a slice of the movement out of the continuity is only possible in the course of reflection of the ideas.  Human mind can achieve this, because it has memory and reasoning which can recall the perceived ideas and analyze them with the rational investigation.

I don't believe that Hume meant we perceive the movement slice by slice as the broken images. Well it can happen in the old film movies which creates the illusion of the movement via running the stills images continuously on the project screen using the latent memory of mind.

I asked a question. Could you answer that? — MoK

I never said that. All I said was that the movement of Earth was not what we were talking about. You are not able to tell the difference between the Earth and the ball. This is what I said.

Do you think that the Sun is moving around Earth or it is Earth that is rotating? — MoK

Did I say that? You seem to be saying it.