If I allow myself false statements, then voila, I can produce a paradox at will." — flannel jesus

That is not false statements in the rule of logical proof. If I could recall it correctly, you can make up the molecular statements from atomic statements using the connectives for assumption under the rule of addition, elimination, MP and MT etc. These steps are needed to come to the required proof of conclusion.

We were talking about the Morning star and evening star. Which part is false statement in the argument?

You acknowledge a future, and I assume you also acknowledge a past. This suggests a ordered relation: past->present->future.
We can label this ordered relation, "time". It's not a complete account, but it's a beginning. — Relativist

But when you are reflecting the events in past, present and future, they don't need to always in the order of the past -> present -> future. You could think about the future on what will happen to your project or the world in next year, and then you could go back to the past, when you have started the project, and then think about the present state of the world economy.

There is no law saying you must always perceive the events in your mind in the order, is there?

OK, FJ, going to back to your initial point, you claimed my argument is made up of a bunch of paradoxes. If you could point out exactly which part of my argument are paradox and explain the reasons why they are paradoxes, then I will try to clarify them with you, if you would like me to.

Thank you for your kind comment, Arcane Sandwich. As you rightly pointed out, I am not a logician at all. I have read only a book or two on Elementary Logic books a long time ago. So I don't talk much about logic usually unless the topic requires logical explanation by its nature for clarification.

I tend to try to rely on my own reasoning rather than the formal methods on my logical reasoning in most cases. However when the topic is about something I read from the textbook, I also try to utilize them accordingly. They are all basic elementary level, of course.

If you bring in irrational premises to the conclusion in the argument, then it doesn't get accepted in higher standard of logic. That's nothing to do with denying antecedent. You are quoting something you saw on the internet, and making your slogan for logic.

Obviously you forgot everything about it.

No, you are wrong. I recall everything. You were just shouting out riding on the crowds of folks supporting you whatever you said.

Mr denying the antecedent, I think I agree. — flannel jesus

Nothing to do with that. It was about pointing out your premise was irrelevant to the conclusion.

The best track record? Well, when 100s of blind men were shouting out the elephant must look like a rubber pipe standing up after feeling one of its legs accusing one normal sighted man's description of it, what could the sighted man could have done apart from saying - well good luck to youz mate? :)

Nah, I am not going to talk about logic with you again. You need to learn it yourself. I think I said enough on the tautology and contradiction. Nothing more to add to it.

I don't think anything yous aid is clear at this point. — flannel jesus

If you read about the rules of logical proof, then maybe you would understand them? It is elementary basic rules viz. rules of elimination, assumption and addition in the textbooks. I don't think explanations on the details of the rules are the scope of the OP.

My genes preceded me and formed the foundation of my existence and nature. I didn't choose my genes and I don't have direct control over them. The same goes for my early environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

No one has chosen their genes. But people don't blame their genes for the choices they have made. Free will is your mental state, which has nothing to do with your genes, environments and nutrients.

Making a choice is your mental event based on your reasoning and thinking on the various options. Nothing else is involved in making choices.

If you read the posts carefully, it is clear why it is a contradiction and why it is a tautology. All the steps of the inferences are based on the rules of logical proof.

But blatantly asserting they are a bunch of paradoxes, doesn't make sense.

For Kant time is a pure intuition, i.e. it is an a priori structure that allows us to organize events. — JuanZu

Sure. I agree.

The movement is as it is represented in physics, for example as a trajectory through time. Motion as we see it is the same, we see a before and an after of the thing moving, otherwise we would not notice the motion. — JuanZu

Do dogs perceive time? When you throw a ball in the air, the dogs could jump and catch it before it falls on the ground. Surely they notice the motion of the ball. Is the motion noticeable to the dog, because of time? Or time has no relation to the motion, because dogs are not able to perceive time?

Time is already acting on the motion. A thing that moves is a thing that passes from one state to another, but then the difference we see between one state and another is different from the thing [cause we apply it to different things] , we call it temporal difference, a now with respect to a before. — JuanZu

One night in my dream, I was fighting with an unknown bloke. He hit me first, so I hit him back. I could see my punch moving towards his face, and hit him hard vividly in the dream. Does it mean that time was involved in seeing the motion in the dream? Can time be acting on the motions in dreams? What is the difference between time in reality and time in dreams?

Is time a kind of perception of mental beings, or some concrete property of objects and motions in space?

How is it a strawman? You literally said "The morning star and evening star both refer to Venus." — flannel jesus

I only highlighted it for you to let you know about the strawman. Venus was not the main point in the argument. It is mentioned to explain why the statement is a tautology i.e. they all point to the same reference viz. Venus.

Because the argument offered an explanation, calling it "making up paradoxes" was strawman. The argument didn't have to mention it, but it was just trying to be more informative.

Time doesn't exist either. It's not a relation between things that exist. Rather, it's a relation between events. — Relativist

Yes, this sounds very close to the OP's perspective in the implication.

Are willing to stomach those conclusions above? If not, what are you keeping and what intuitions are you choosing to get rid of? — substantivalism

The OP doesn't deny time is real. We use time daily. But when it asks does time exist, it means does it exist as a physical entity in the universe? Space exists in the universe.

Without space, nothing can exist. But space itself is invisible. Could we say something exists, when something is not visible, has no mass and no energy?

Time has similar properties. It is not visible, not sensible to our senses as an entity. So where is it coming from? When the OP asks does it exist? It means where is it coming from?

The nature of time is an interesting topic, because there are many folks talking about time travel. If time is some sort of shared mental state of humans, then any talk of time travel would be a fantasy.

Does it imply that God, souls and Thing-in-itself are also real as time? Or are they just figments of human imagination? If time is real, why aren't the other abstract concepts real?

That sounds like a strawman. You are suddenly talking about Venus, when the point of the replies was about the morning star and evening star. They may refer to Venus, but the reason they are called the morning star and evening star is the time when it is visible.

You are making up either a strawman, or you don't seem to know the point of the argument here.

It's also not necessarily a tautology, not to a person that doesn't know it's the same object they're calling both of those things. — flannel jesus

"The morning star is the evening star." is also a tautology. The morning star and evening star both refer to Venus. Hence it has the same meaning as "The morning star is the morning star.", which is a tautology.

The reason that the Morning star is morning star is because it is only visible in the mornings.
But the reason that the evening star is the evening star is because it is only visible in the evenings.

It follows,
"Morning star is evening star" is the same as "Morning star is not evening star."

Saying "Morning star is evening star" has the same meaning as
"Morning star is evening star and Morning star is not evening star."
A ^ ~A is a contradiction.

I see space like time - they are like measurements and measuring sticks at once. They are bound up with each other, as well as mass. — Fire Ologist

Space is not like time. Space exits without measuring anything. Does time exist, if you didn't measure it? Can you tell time without looking at a watch or clock? But watches and clocks are not time. Even if your watch and clocks stop, changes motions and movements in reality still happen.

That was my question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation — jgill

Today is 13th of January in Chinese lunar calendar, and 12th of Magha Shukla in Hindu calendar. In Gregorian Calendar it is 10th February 2025.

Could they be also a form of Time dilation?

:ok:

Hence, Phosphorus could be the sun? What would Hesperus be? — Corvus

Is Phosphorus also the star or planet?

Thompson argues, Bergson's fundamental insight about the significanc of 'lived time' remains valid, in Thompson's argument. — Wayfarer

Could "lived time" be similar idea to Wittgenstein's "memory time"? I recall seeing Wittgestein's idea of time diving it into "Memory time" and "information time".

Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences are variables which determine and constrain our choices. They are real and their effects on our choices are real. — Truth Seeker

They could be thought of the qualities of your being. They are not direct effects and causes for your choices. Extending the effects and causes to your general qualities of being is committing the fallacy of relevance.

If those words were the last words that Jesus said then yes, Jesus and God are not one. — MoK

No, I cannot. The concept of Christian God has been the subject of discussion by several important scholars for about 1000 years. It is not possible to summarize their works in a short post. I already cited Aquinas's article on the subject of the Trinity. Did you read it? I also suggested you read the post of Count Timothy von Icarus. Did you read it? — MoK

Well, MoK, if you agreed that Jesus and God is not one, then you must be in agreement that Trinity is an invalid doctrine. That gives us a logical consequence and entailment, that Aquinas is also invalid. Why would you keep reading and dragging it further?

You know, my friend, you don't have a coherent view and don't want to accept that it is incoherent. So, there is nothing I can do to help you. So, let's say that we disagree. — MoK

Well, one last point you must understand is that, when an act has been committed with no time for consideration and contemplation for moral good, it cannot be a moral act. But because there haven a loss of life by the act of self dense, the case will be taken up by the legal authority.

OK, MoK, my dear friend. It has been pleasure in engaging the discussions with you on this topic. But regrettably we disagree on some part of the conclusion. So be it. We can still carry on with discussions on some other topics which we have mutual interests and points. Thank you. G'day to you and yours.

You've identified even more ambiguity. These all higlight the significance of semantics when sharing information. — Relativist

"The morning star is the morning star." sound like a tautology. But it is not a tautology, when the subject means the planet Venus, and the predicate means the star Sun. Hence would it be the meaning of the words dictates on the sentence being tautology or not?

For another example, "Today is today." It sounds like tautology, but the subject means the name of a newspaper, and the predicate refers to a day in a month. Then they are not tautology.

There is a paradoxical co-existence of time. On one hand, only the present moment truly exists. However, the nature of the present moment differs from that of spatial locations and objects. The moment vanishes as soon as it emerges and cannot be carried into the next one. — Number2018

Is it possible to say that something exists, when the existence vanishes the moment it is perceived or realised? Existence means it keeps existing through past, present and future.

And it is neither a brief interval between the past and future nor a fleeting absence of being. — Number2018

Isn't it just a mental state? The ability to tell the difference between past, present and future using different type of mental operations in human mind i.e. memory, consciousness and imagination?

Thus, the present moment's reality is shaped by a virtual time, existing as neither what is no longer nor what is not yet, but as the difference between past and future. — Number2018

Virtual time? Remember when you were a baby and child? You couldn't have known what time is about. As you grew older, you learn about it, read about it, and think about. You have a concept of time. But the nature of time itself is still abstract. When you get older, they say time feels going a lot faster than when you were younger. What does it tell you? Isn't time just a mental state?

Maybe we measure oscillation. Not time.

So a duration of time like 10 seconds is number of ocsilations .
Each oscillation exists in a physical moment.
They don't exist simultaneously.

10 meters is in fact ...10 meters.

Not the same kind of measurements. — Mark Nyquist

Oscillation of what? I can measure many different things and use them as time such as the number of water droppings from the gutter while making a coffee. With the stop watch in the phone, it takes 3 minutes.

But I could ignore the phone clock, and use the water dropping clock, and say it takes 90 water drop time for making a coffee. Could it count as time as well? If yes, then which is the correct time for making a coffee?

Well, use "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus" instead. — Banno

What difference would they make for the statement?

Yes, they are. The second meaning of 'free will' is the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes". — Truth Seeker

When you say making choices, it necessitates options.  In other words, you could have made choices because there were options or alternative decisions.

All the things you come up with as determinants and the prior causes don't allow you to have options.  Therefore they are irrelevant for making choices.

Genes, environments and nutrients are not philosophical concepts.  They are the concepts in Genetics, Sociology and Biology, which has nothing to do with philosophical ideas.

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

Those are not related to philosophical idea of free will. Constraints and determinants are the properties of your own being. They are part of your essence.

I am not denying that I have a will. I am saying that my will is not free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

Well, that is a misunderstanding the concept free will, I am afraid. You have free will. If you didn't have free will, you would not have typed your posts. :nerd: I am sure that no one was forcing you to type your posts. You are typing your posts by your free will the now. And I am too.

Using the concepts without implied boundaries and definitions within the concepts will cause confusions like that. Philosophical investigation is to point out these misuses of the concepts.

Free will means that you are free to choose on a particular matter from what you are given and as a living being, be it gene, environments, nutrients or whatever the case.

If I had the genes of a banana tree, instead of my human genes, I would have grown into a banana tree, provided I was in the appropriate environment and received the appropriate nutrients. Since no banana tree is sentient and types in English, it would have been impossible for me to post anything on this forum. — Truth Seeker

No humans have banana tree gene. What is the point of telling us that? It is irrelevant point, and there is no logical link for what you are claiming.

What do you mean by free will? My will is certainly not free from my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. I think my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Your idea of free will doesn't have boundary or definition, and it is not a correct concept. "genes, environments, nutrients and experiences" are not relevant elements for having free will.

Assume "Evening star" and "morning star" both refer to an object in the world. In that case, they are referring to the same object - so it's semantically equivalent to saying "The evening star is the evening star." — Relativist

According to ChatGpt, Venus is not a star. It is a planet. The sun is a star. Stars shine their own light. Planets don't. Planets reflect the light from the sun.

Hence, the morning star could the sun? What would the evening star be? Under this clarification is "Morning star is evening star." still a tautology? Or is it downright false?

I am not talking about changing the past. What determines who chooses what? If the choices are determined by genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, are the choices free? — Truth Seeker

Choice itself implies the act of choosing was made by the person and the person's free will.

If I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, could I have typed these words? I don't think so. — Truth Seeker

Banana tree gene is irrelevant premise for your conclusion. It makes no sense at all. There are many other reasons why you typed the post, other than your genes. But most of all, it was your free will which typed your posts.