I have had visions of other beings, such as Devils, Angels, and deceased people. — bahman

Might be more interesting if you had visions (plural) of someone/something entirely unknown to you, that you could then later verify/falsify independently. Make a statistic out of it.

I am however puzzled with the fact that what I sometimes see in my vision cannot be seen by others. The beings in my vision behave like normal people and seems to have thoughts and feelings. I cannot say that my vision is construct of my brain activity when I am awake. How couldn't they be true when they seem very real like others? — bahman

If you slapped me in a dream, would you then expect me to have a bruise the next day in real life...? They're different kinds of experiences (from memory, I think it was Searle that had some good points on this stuff).

Out of body and near death experiences share a category with hallucinations and dreams. — opening post

Suppose (for the sake of argument heh) that we're imperfect perception/conception organisms.
What might we then expect...?

Ayer had an epic experience:
A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (Peter Sjöstedt-H – philosopher; Sep 2017)

You are subjecting God to the constructs of time, which is a mistake. The reality is that everything that ever has existed or happened, and everything that ever will exist or happen, can just be seen as being. A sort of singularity of things going on. We cannot help but view things through the lens of time because that's how our brains process information, but time is not something "out in the world", it only exists inside our minds. — JustSomeGuy

Well, something that's atemporal, "outside of time" cannot interact, cannot see or observe, which would require being subject to causation (an effect in part or whole).
Would be inert, immutable, dead, absent of freedom, etc, unless you posit something like another temporal dimension (not exactly parsimonious).
Check this post above.

What is the issue related to atemporal God? — bahman

A copy/paste from elsewhere (without embedded links, too lazy):

Mind is typically used as an umbrella term, including the likes of, or synonymous with some of: (1st person) experiences, qualia, (self)awareness, consciousness, sentience, thinking, ideation, feelings, pain/joy/love, perhaps “free will” (whatever that may be exactly, if anything); mind is such activities, such parts of individuated selves.

• Suppose x is defined as not spatial, “outside of space”. Well, then obviously x is nowhere to be found. And x cannot have any extent, volume, area, length, or the likes, not even zero-dimensional (like a mathematical singularity).
• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, “outside of time”. Well, then there can be no time at which x exists. And there can be no duration involved, x cannot change, or be subject to causation, cannot interact, and would be rather inert.

Yet minds partake in the world, interact, are active.

There's a more straight forward incompatibility to be found, as far as I can tell.

Suppose one entity, or single mind, that's both omniscient and free (to change it's mind).
Mind and freedom to change it's mind already implies temporal. †

Freedom (to change mind) is independent of whatever, including whatever knowledge.
In principle it's solely dependent on (the existence of) said mind, if it's to be free at least.
So, freely changing mind along the way cannot be known prior by the mind, since otherwise it wouldn't be free (to do so).

Conversely, in case said entity already knows everything at an earlier time, then that means the knowledge is true.
Which, in turn, cannot be false later on, and hence means the entity cannot change mind by then, since otherwise it would be false.

Not because omniscience itself is causative, but just because the knowledge is true.
(As an aside, this line of reasoning doesn't involve modal logic per se.)

Note, this stuff pertains to just one mind that's assumed both all-knowing and free, it's not about any other entities/minds.

Thus, God cannot be a mind that's both omniscient (with foreknowledge) and free.

† Some responses to the incompatibility will have the entity (or God as a special case) be "atemporal".
I think this may be even more problematic, though.

EDIT: added "by the mind" to clarify

, not to detract from your angle with the opening post, but perhaps perspective could be contrasted by omnipresence if you will (ignoring the religious denotations).
So, we're locally individuated (and mutually separated), which automatically sets a perspective, both in scale, scope and experience.
My here-now is hence more or less my (mutable) perspective, which differs from others'.

The sun is nothing apart from your experience of it. So the warmth + the sight + etc. all the other impressions of it. Why do you feel the need to postulate a sun outside of experience? — Agustino

And building on that, likewise, your body is also a cumulation of experiences, and nothing more. So in the end, it's all experience - both your body and the sun. There is nothing apart from the experience. — Agustino

Well, I for one like to think there's more to the world than what meets the eye (including my neighbor's dog). Solipsism is a performative contradiction.

Your Color Red Really Could Be My Blue (Natalie Wolchover, Live Science, Jun 2012)

Calling roses, strawberries, blood, apples, Santa, etc red is a matter of appropriate language use (or predication).

In a different sense, the question posed by the Live Science article above may not be quite right.
That special format of personal experiences we call red (qualia) is more like an occurrence.
Something that happens for the experiencer, either part of a larger process (perception), or otherwise just a personal occurrence (dream, memory recall, hallucination).
Sometimes the process can go awry, e.g. synesthesia, phantom pain, hallucination.
Strictly speaking, such qualia happen for individuals, so "your red" being "my blue" from the article seems misleading; the article is worthwhile, though.
Fortunately we're rather alike, so unlike echolocation of bats, we can identify sufficiently shared experiences and call some of them red.

Now you're just making noise, @Agustino, moreso than other discussions on the topic that I'm aware of anyway.
And it's a bit disingenuous to tell others what they're talking about.
Let me know if you want to stick to the post.
Anyway, incidentally watching the mass in Rome; those folk are big on transubstantiation, unlike, say, the Jews and the Muslims.

peasant claptrap — Agustino

I was talking about Hinduism (which includes some polytheist varieties), Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses), Islam (Sunnis, Shias), Mormonism, Scientology, you name it. All those there that people get assimilated by and start taking seriously.

If anything, Christianity is largely responsible for the elimination of this type of superstition. — Agustino

Seems the Muslims have taken over, where the Christians left off?

• Saudi Arabia's War on Witchcraft (Ryan Jacobs, The Atlantic, Aug 2013)
• Saudi religious cops trained to fight magic (Staff, Emirates 24|7, Feb 2016)

If a deity told you the Truth, then what free will would you have? None. — Agustino

Looks like an ordinary non sequitur to me. But I wasn't referring to achieving omniscience, rather, that the authority (deity) set the record straight among ...

the countless human claims of supernatural deities, their elaborate plans, what they want, require or demand, etc — jorndoe

the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans — jorndoe

... for me to take any one of them more serious than any other. But there's no such arbiter.

You start talking about something you call "Yahweh", you don't show Yahweh, Yahweh doesn't show, all that's left is your talk. Others talk about something they call "Vishnu", they don't show Vishnu, Vishnu doesn't show, all that's left is their talk. Yet others talk about ... Exactly as if Yahweh, Vishnu, etc, are fictions. I wonder why... Don't you?

I also observe that there are little-to-no means of differentiating existence of all these entities (and their characteristics, plans, demands). It's all equally dubious. Exactly like grandiose stories told by fallible (obsessed) humans.

The simplest coherent explanation is that there would be no fake doctors if there were no real doctors — Agustino

I'd say we can differentiate fake and real doctors. Differentiating fake and real fantasies, on the other hand, ... :D

@Agustino, I have no particular reason or obligation to take the countless human claims of supernatural deities, their elaborate plans, what they want, require or demand, etc, seriously.

If some deity of theism existed and wanted me to know it did, or had critically important messages for me, then it would have no problems what so ever letting me in on that.

Isn't that what qualifies something as a deity in the first place (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, non-deceptive, trustworthy, etc)? And, ex hypothesi, such a deity would be the only authority on its messages. It's not like I'm strangely "resistant" or anything, and such a deity would know that already.

Meanwhile, I'm certainly not going to take all the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans for it. Why would anyone? (Could anyone, even, given all the incompatibilities, ambiguities, inconsistencies, ...?) Requiring other humans to indoctrinate me isn't something I'd expect of a worthwhile deity. No, that's just gullible, biased, non-thinking tomfoolery. (Perhaps akin to delusion, as mentioned by @Harry Hindu.)

Where does that leave things? Those claims can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. What's the simplest coherent explanation?

Most agree on mind-body-other interaction, yes?

• I feel hungry, so I grab some grub, and don't feel hungry any longer (if animals consistently ignored or didn't get the feeling, then they'd starve and die)
• I want a sip of my coffee, so I reach out, grab the cup, and take a sip (no, I'm not inflicted by alien hand syndrome)
• I miss the nail, the hammer hits my finger instead, and I get a painful sensation that makes me more careful in the future
• I hear some yelling, and go check what the deal is
• ...

So, since the supposed "out of body floating self" can interact with it's body, it can presumably interact with whatever else (which is verifiable), yet that apparently does not happen. Spurious.

Can this "incorporeal observer" then only be affected by the world (i.e. be an effect in part), but not affect the world (i.e. be a cause in part)...? Except, not affected by gravity, though, maybe. For that matter, wouldn't any observed light be subject to transformation, which hence would be detectable? Dubious.

Somehow "seeing" without eyes, "hearing" without (inner) ears, "remembering" without a head, "fits" in exactly one body (the one required to report the experience), ...? When and how is this supposed "disembodied astral soul" installed in the body anyway? Suspicious.

Alien abduction stories at least report seeing with their eyes, and those are generally thought questionable already.

Something's amiss. A measure of healthy skepticism is warranted.

Well, we can assume that anyone (including non-humans, but not rocks) likes freedom and dislikes harm by default.
I mean, don't you? (This could be a litmus test of your morals.) ;)
Isn't that sort of an auto-expectation of anyone with some moral awareness as we know it?

Also codified by whatever historical documents, including (emphasis mine):

Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law. — Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, Article IV

And (emphasis mine):

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. — The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Article 19

So, this stuff sets a default anchor for the Golden Rule (as opposed to self-interest), where violation may entail forfeiture of some or all (morals are generally social matters).
I'd prefer masochists not follow the Golden Rule blindly.

Of course the complexities of life entails much more complex regulations and injunctions and whatnot.
Maybe we can't reduce morals to a simple declaration. Wouldn't that make us "less human" anyway...?

Isn't physical typically contrasted by mind and abstracts respectively ...?
Mind is not abstract; abstracts may be contingent on mind.
Mind could be experiences themselves, qualia, dreams, feelings, etc, as contrasted with whatever perceived extra-self, others, processes, objects, all that.
Abstracts are generalizations, not concrete, perhaps universals, acausal.
Some occasionally use non-quantifiable to contrast physical.
Anything else typically contrasted by physical?
Whether minds and abstracts are (contingent on) physicalities is up for debate I guess.

(I was just discussing this with some other folks)

model → evidence convergence

Scientific progress:

The Flagellants (superstitious fools) probably made the Black Plague worse. Later medical research and antibiotics largely eradicated the Plague.

Aristotelian physics was long since abandoned. But it was a start.

Newtonian gravity from some 330 years ago is taught to this day, and used routinely by NASA and engineers around the globe. Technically, relativity supersedes Newtonian gravity, due to domain-specificity. Somewhat similarly, we already know that relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be quite “right”, though both are exceedingly successful in their respective domains — that is, they’re established, justified descriptions. (Much effort has gone into, and is going into, unification.)

It’s worth noting that models like relativity and quantum mechanics are descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s a fallacy to abstract the described away, only to go ahead and reify the descriptions instead.

We learn from when we’re wrong as well. When we discover that theories or propositions are incorrect or inaccurate, then that by itself is knowledge acquisition. Sometimes ancients had the audacity to postulate something :o and then later we found out that the postulates could do with some revisions, or perhaps be replaced. But they tried, started something. (y)

‘Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all. — Tennyson

Computers, communicating worldwide over the Internet, GPS (which depends on relativity), medical science (don’t forget taking your kids to the doctor on occasion), the International Space Station, etc, clearly demonstrates that we can increase our knowledge about it all.

[...] and better my understanding of the universe — SnowyChainsaw

A noble cause shared by many. :)
Incidentally, my interest in philosophy was motivated by much the same.
I'll just add that philosophy isn't necessarily the most informative in this respect, rather there's a complex of philosophy, reasoning, science, and such involved.

Welcome to!

Science is more methodological than axiomatic/foundationalist.

Something like self-critical, bias-minimizing model → evidence convergence, where tentative hypotheses can be derived from the models. Evidence, observation, experimental results, all that accumulate, and models converge thereupon.

The success of science (the most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history) is then evidence of science being onto something, so I guess you might say self-justifying in that sense.

That said, there are some things that's fallen out of quantum mechanics for example, that seem unfalsifiable. And, of course, science utilizes mathematics and such, which itself is more axiomatic.

Let's make sure I understand correctly - in order to show that realism is wrong, I have to use methods developed based on the principles of realism. Is that right? — T Clark

You mean realism as opposed to idealism ("mental monism")? May be a bit peripheral here, unless I misunderstand. Well, I'm definitely not going by solipsism. :D

I was just pointing out a distinction:

Say, when I enjoy a cup of coffee in the morning, the joy (quale) is just mine, part of me when occurring. (And coffee is enjoyable, if not necessary, oh yes.) On the other hand, when I hang out with my buddy, there's more to my buddy than my experiences, not part of me. (My buddy doesn't like coffee, the darn sacrilegiously heretic blasphemer.)

Mentioned introspection illusions, hallucinations, dreams are in category with the joy (self), not the buddy (other). Externalization of Agustino's personal experiences is fraught.

Incidentally, what Agustino calls "scientifically observable" indicates activity localized to Agustino and not much else (cf Libet or whomever they all are). Bio-electrical-chemical?

in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable — Agustino

A form of altered state of consciousness that is ineffable and involves gaining insight into the deeper nature of reality. — Agustino

Introspection illusions are inconsistent, bad evidence, for a reason.
Purely phenomenological experiences are not of something extra-self; qualia are parts of the world belonging to individual experiencers. Such self-externalization is like someone hallucinating pink flying elephants implying they're really out there, or me expecting you to get real life bruises from me slapping you in a dream.
God helmet experiments, magic mushrooms, not eating/drinking plus bodily stress, etc, are fairly well-documented.
Promoting such personal experiences as specific religious evidence with other people, is like promoting a kind of mind-regulating bias.

Hi.

Seems to me that change takes time, so as to be classified as change in the first place.
Which, together with the mentioned empirical perspective (no change implies no time), intrinsically relates time and change.
Was it Aristotle that noted they're not the same thing, though?
Change and motion and such could be many things, whereas time is more specific (e.g. concurrent duration).

If time is the same for the universe, then how does any of the guys here explains "the effect of the twins " according to Einstein's theory?? — vesko

Check: Twin paradox

Time dilation has been verified, and is in use.

OK, so back to my questions then. What is it within the macro-domain, which relativity is supposed to provide the most accurate description of? — Metaphysician Undercover

The (macro) evidence is what relativity describes most accurately to date. Samples:

Tests of general relativity » Perihelion precession of Mercury
Gravitational lens
Global Positioning System » History
Error analysis for the Global Positioning System » Relativity

I know the special theory of relativity quite well. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's more, has references: Theory of relativity

If you find these models wrong, then feel free to write your objections down, and post (perhaps in a new opening post, depending). — jorndoe

(If possible, I'd prefer this thread not to go full metal anti-science.)

Quote from the opening post:

(An odd but seldom noticed consequence of McTaggart's characterization of the A series and the B series is that, on that characterization, the A series is identical to the B series. For the items that make up the B series (namely, moments of time) are the same items that make up the A series, and the order of the items in the B series is the same as the order of the items in the A series; but there is nothing more to a series than some specific items in a particular order.) — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTArg

The macro-domain, @Metaphysician Undercover, as opposed to the micro-domain of quantum mechanics, as mentioned by . Much effort has gone into and is going into unification.

, scientific models are descriptions (contrast with prescriptions). Evidence is the justification. I don't really think it's reasonable to ask for a tutorial on relativity here; there's plenty good material (including on the Internet), that you can read up on. If you find these models wrong, then feel free to write your objections down, and post (perhaps in a new opening post, depending). Meanwhile, relativity isn't controversial or anything.

The idea that Einstein provides a "better" explanation of time is what is laughable. You define "better" in relation to what, more useful, or more truthful? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not Einstein, the evidence. Relativity is the most accurate description to date within this domain.

What does the "is" mean then, if not that it exists in the present tense? Either something is, was, or will exist so in what other way is the block universe said to "exist"? — Alec

I'm thinking it just means that our language can be confusing. We're not accustomed to tense-less chat. So, the block universe = what was, what is, and what may yet come to be.

We have (possibly confusing) double-temporal proposition propositions like “it is true now, that it rained the other day”.

, in the link, observer A found the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously, and observer B found they didn't.
However, after applying the Lorentz transformation, they both agree on that (their different observations).
Check Relativity of simultaneity » Einstein's train thought experiment (Wikipedia article).
By physics, simultaneity is meaningful for reference frames, not universal as such, and the Lorentz transformation tells us how it differs among reference frames.
Exactitude is a different problem.

Might be worth noting that retro-causation remains impossible according to relativity:

if the two events could be causally connected (i.e. the time between event A and event B is greater than the distance between them divided by the speed of light), the order is preserved (i.e., "event A precedes event B") in all frames of reference — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#Explanation

I don't get the fuss over McTaggert's A and B series. They simply are not incommensurable. Any A-series event can be made a B-series event simply by indexing it. — Banno

(Y)

The usual spacetime stuff in brief:

• where: left ↔ right, up ↔ down, forward ↔ backward (indexical "here")
• when: past → present → future (indexical "now" = present)

• same when, different wheres: simultaneity
• same where, different whens: place

• same when, same where: identity (indexical "here-now")
• different when, different where: motion or non-identity

It's common, everyday stuff:

• it takes time to get to work in the morning (duration)
• work is elsewhere (distance)
• we get to work about the same time in the morning (simultaneity) as agreed prior (past)
• we have meetings at work (place)

Figuring out simultaneity, for example, is a matter of applying the Lorentz transformation (or more complex varieties, depending on acceleration/gravity and such). Figuring out duration, so that we can largely agree at least, is a matter of stable quantification across applications, to which physicists have come up with caesium fountain atomic clocks (so far).

Duration and simultaneity together seems to suggest dimensionality of some sort, which goes well with relativity and other contemporary science. Does that suggest a (growing) block universe?

Jorn, what is your opinion of Shoemaker's claim that time without change is possible? — andrewk

Not sure what to make of it. As thought experiments go it's interesting enough.

If we were to entertain reified abstracts (à la Platonism), then inert, timeless entities exist, along with our temporal, changing world. (Not really my cup of tea, admittedly.)

Could something changeless coexist with something that changes? A free photon?

Well, if all change ceased entirely, and somehow resumed, then what would the difference be, from not having ceased? Doesn't seem like a difference to me.

Either way, with micro-chaos, the universe can't be quiet.

That's related to duration. Simultaneity is also of relevance.

The above is something I'd once typed in elsewhere, and seeing a few posts about time, I thought I'd post it here as well.
Comments welcome.

If you don't believe that God exists, why would you even bother discussing His presumed characteristics at such length — Henri

We're discussing your posts.
It's (still) up to you to show whether or not they're about anything in particular.

@Henri, this far you've ... made a number of bare assertions, declarations and postulates, shifted the burden of proof, admitted that you can't actually demonstrate, rather you "just know", but also postulated that you have vast amounts of clues, declared that it doesn't matter that you have nothing to show us, been a sharpshooter too somewhere, employed a misrepresentation/strawman (maybe two), and declared it unreasonable to disagree with you. :D Might have moved your goalposts too (like other posts it's not quite clear). Oh, and begging the question?

So ...

1. you just know
2. therefore anyone that differ are just wrong
3. done

Did I miss anything? Could you put some philosophy in here?

What is the evidence for this "Hitchens' razor"? It doesn't provide any evidence for it's claim, so it can be dismissed without evidence. — Henri

Nonsense. Every example of imaginary or fictional things you can come up with, and every example of evident things, comprise evidence. (But was your post an admission that you don't have evidence for your claims...?)

If the failure of proof of nonexistence is taken as proof of existence, then we must conclude that all exist. — Asimov

Prove that a human has to understand everything about reality. — Henri

Prove? Of course we're not omniscient. I'll take that as an admission that you don't know either. (Y)
Back to shifting the burden of proof? Otherwise please go ahead.
As an aside, do you then take the story of seeing things in the cave above, to be literally as postulated later by (non-Christian) believers?

Another brief story for your reading pleasure:

1400-or-so years ago a warlord walked into a cave in the countryside by himself. He stayed in there for some time (and on a few occasions by the way), and when he came out he reported having "seen things". Weird things, though related to the local culture, folklore and mythologies of that place and time. Others liked it all, and wrote things down — fantastic "from beyond" kinds of things.

Later this became like "the story of legends", supposedly with critically important messages for all of mankind, from a deity. An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, all-creator deity no less, or so they say.

Can anyone make sense of this? Why on Earth would a supposed all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good deity impart critically important messages for all of mankind in such an obscure way, that can't be differentiated from hallucinations, delusions, whatever cognitive shortcomings, ...? That's setting the stage for failure, delivering implausible, crucial messages ineffectively, even requiring humans to do the dirty work (which is where indoctrination becomes useful, if not crucial). Going by the stories, it's like deceit, clashing with other such stories. (And what on Earth is up with those countless Hindu pilgrims voyaging to the Ganges regularly?) Yet, today those believers claim that their belief is like a prerequisite for eternal joy, and avoiding eternal suffering. If this stuff doesn't raise some red flags and suspicions, then I suggest trying to acquire an understanding of larger contexts.

Nothing you wrote on this thread provided any reasonable argument for atheism. Maybe you can go back to the OP and provide an argument for atheism [...] But as I said, there is no reasonable argument for atheism, so distraction is next best thing [...] — Henri

Check up on shifting the burden of proof. You have some work ahead apparently, as also suggested earlier:

Anyway, we can't talk about atheism without first having talked about theism: You make some fantastic claims. You call yourself theist. I don't believe your claims. You call me atheist.

Indeed ...

[...] an unreasonable behaviour. — Henri

[...] there are basically two options - Christianity on one side and everything else on the other. [...] Bible is much more complex that any other text I have read or examined, it is in a different league. — Henri

This stuff reads a bit like an obsession. How would you suggest differentiating?

Not that God personally causes suffering but God allows suffering to exist. — Henri

It would seem that we humans sometimes do our best to do away with unnecessary suffering. Maybe we're just better at it than this God you keep mentioning. It's almost as if your God does not exist. I wonder why. ;)

Everything you mention as humanity's effort - for example medical research, educated veterinarians and social care workers, negligence laws put in place, etc - is given for us to do as part of God's decree. — Henri

Decree? For that matter, The Hippocratic Oath predate Christ by some 400 years. (If we're to take some of those stories as history.) Whatever you may attribute to your God, others may not.

And that's a big subject, not for this thread. — Henri

It's your opening post. I'll just have to ask: does your big subject involve quantum mechanics?

Anyway, not much philosophy in this thread this far, mostly just some assertions and stories and such. :s

, why do you just defer to The Bible? :o
What's wrong with all these texts anyway...?
(As an aside, I'm kind of partial towards The Silmarillion myself.)