Spacetime -> the present is only a single point in spacetime.
Thread over.
However isn't time itself really just a point of reference versus an actual property like mass? Does time have particles? Whenever I see people talk about time like this it really makes me wonder, since I haven't seen anyone give a good argument why time is a property that actually can go forwards or backwards.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Actually, yes, Ted Sider goes on for ages about light cones. That was a looooong reading assignment :P
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
Spacetime -> the present is only a single point in spacetime.
Thread over.
However isn't time itself really just a point of reference versus an actual property like mass? Does time have particles? Whenever I see people talk about time like this it really makes me wonder, since I haven't seen anyone give a good argument why time is a property that actually can go forwards or backwards.
The fact that time is affected by certain forces is a pretty convincing argument that it's not just something humans made up for a reference point.
Remember, huge forces of gravity (black holes, and to a small degree, even Earth) can affect time - astronauts taking an atomic clock with them in orbit will find it a few fractions of a second off from one that remained on earth when they return.
Edit: As far as things ceasing to exist goes, doesn't that assume that state changes and other events have real existance and meaning, instead of simply being a way to explain the discontinuities between two steps of time? It seems to me that it's arguable that there's no continuity whatsoever, that there's no reason to say that two objects that occupy the same space and have almost identical properties but occupy different locations in time are the same thing.
jothki on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Spacetime -> the present is only a single point in spacetime.
Thread over.
No. Science is only able to understand things as they occur in experience, and in many cases, require an objective observer.
The problem is that not everything that is important necessarily occurs in experience, or is able to be understood in terms of experience, and that any "objective" observer a scientist attempts to create will always be an object. Which is extremely problematic for things such as space and time.
However isn't time itself really just a point of reference versus an actual property like mass? Does time have particles? Whenever I see people talk about time like this it really makes me wonder, since I haven't seen anyone give a good argument why time is a property that actually can go forwards or backwards.
Time is an "actual property" like space (which stands to reason, seeing as how they are the same thing). They are necessary for the existence of objects.
Actually, yes, Ted Sider goes on for ages about light cones. That was a looooong reading assignment :P
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
I would explain relativity's relationship and explanation of absolute space-time, but the last time I did so, Katholic jumped in the thread, started shitting ignorance all over the place, and bitched about things he does not understand.
And searching is down. Oh well.
Basically all moments exist at all times. This can be proven.
Actually, yes, Ted Sider goes on for ages about light cones. That was a looooong reading assignment :P
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
Special relativity says your question is absurd. There is no absolute present, therefore the present can't be the only time that exists. To even speak of time in this way is to presuppose a view of time that has been entirely discredited.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Actually, yes, Ted Sider goes on for ages about light cones. That was a looooong reading assignment :P
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
Special relativity says your question is absurd. There is no absolute present, therefore the present can't be the only time that exists. To even speak of time in this way is to presuppose a view of time that has been entirely discredited.
You're trying to frame it in absolute times, which I didn't. I was using the universe in the way that it functions for "my world." Everything in possible relation to at one point is the present. (I think that the past and present exist synchronically, I'm just giving a definition of the present.)
Actually, yes, Ted Sider goes on for ages about light cones. That was a looooong reading assignment :P
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
Special relativity says your question is absurd. There is no absolute present, therefore the present can't be the only time that exists. To even speak of time in this way is to presuppose a view of time that has been entirely discredited.
You're trying to frame it in absolute times, which I didn't. I was using the universe in the way that it functions for "my world." Everything in possible relation to at one point is the present. (I think that the past and present exist synchronically, I'm just giving a definition of the present.)
You guy should really read the first post.
Then you're advocating solipsism. And of course no one else is going to agree with your solipsism.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Actually, yes, Ted Sider goes on for ages about light cones. That was a looooong reading assignment :P
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
Special relativity says your question is absurd. There is no absolute present, therefore the present can't be the only time that exists. To even speak of time in this way is to presuppose a view of time that has been entirely discredited.
You're trying to frame it in absolute times, which I didn't. I was using the universe in the way that it functions for "my world." Everything in possible relation to at one point is the present. (I think that the past and present exist synchronically, I'm just giving a definition of the present.)
You guy should really read the first post.
Then you're advocating solipsism. And of course no one else is going to agree with your solipsism.
You don't understand what solipsism is. Solipsism is an ontological position which states that everything exists in my and only my consciousness. That is completely different from what I am saying. I am saying that ontological awareness depends on the frame of reference and subject - object phenomenological interaction. Edit* And we can understand through noesis that objects necessarily exist for others, being objects ourselves in time.
Actually, yes, Ted Sider goes on for ages about light cones. That was a looooong reading assignment :P
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
Special relativity says your question is absurd. There is no absolute present, therefore the present can't be the only time that exists. To even speak of time in this way is to presuppose a view of time that has been entirely discredited.
You're trying to frame it in absolute times, which I didn't. I was using the universe in the way that it functions for "my world." Everything in possible relation to at one point is the present. (I think that the past and present exist synchronically, I'm just giving a definition of the present.)
You guy should really read the first post.
Then you're advocating solipsism. And of course no one else is going to agree with your solipsism.
You don't understand what solipsism is. Solipsism is an ontological position which states that everything exists in my and only my consciousness. That is completely different from what I am saying. I am saying that ontological awareness depends on the frame of reference and subject - object phenomenological interaction. Edit* And we can understand through noesis that objects necessarily exist for others, being objects ourselves in time.
Get your terms right.
I know exactly what solipsism is. IF you don't realize that that's the position you have to hold to make "only the present exists" coherent, then you apparently haven't understood anything about special relativity. You need to develop that understanding before you can say anything meaningful on the topic.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited February 2008
Zakkeil, not only is that NOT the only position you can hold to be a presentist (Arthur Prior, one of the biggest scientific philosophers of the 20th century, is a presentist), but I am actually not one, I am an eternalist, but trying to present both arguments in an honest fashion and show the problems that they both pose.
I am saying thatontological awareness depends on the frame of reference and subject - object phenomenological interaction.
Define your terms. What do you mean by "ontological awareness"? It sounds like you are making knowledge claims regarding being, but I am unsure.
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited February 2008
There can be no objective observers.
There is still science.
Well no shit there are no objective observers. But science is predicated on an imperative to objectively observe phenomena in experience.
Isn't is becoming accepted in the scientific community that subjectivity has to be taken into account, even with the most inscrutable "objective" data?
I am saying thatontological awareness depends on the frame of reference and subject - object phenomenological interaction.
Define your terms. What do you mean by "ontological awareness"? It sounds like you are making knowledge claims regarding being, but I am unsure.
Ontological awareness means that you are conscious and philosophically reflecting on every possible relation you have with every being.
Zakkeil, not only is that NOT the only position you can hold to be a presentist (Arthur Prior, one of the biggest scientific philosophers of the 20th century, is a presentist), but I am actually not one, I am an eternalist, but trying to present both arguments in an honest fashion and show the problems that they both pose.
But, you know, nice job not reading.
Your appeal to authority would be more convincing if Arthur Prior had more authority on this topic than Einstein. Sadly, he does not. What philosophers say about time is as worthless as what Aristotle had to say about mechanics.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Zakkeil, not only is that NOT the only position you can hold to be a presentist (Arthur Prior, one of the biggest scientific philosophers of the 20th century, is a presentist), but I am actually not one, I am an eternalist, but trying to present both arguments in an honest fashion and show the problems that they both pose.
But, you know, nice job not reading.
Your appeal to authority would be more convincing if Arthur Prior had more authority on this topic than Einstein. Sadly, he does not. What philosophers say about time is as worthless as what Aristotle had to say about mechanics.
It appears you did not read the OP and I have no more time to respond to your ignorant postulations until you indicate otherwise.
Zakkeil, not only is that NOT the only position you can hold to be a presentist (Arthur Prior, one of the biggest scientific philosophers of the 20th century, is a presentist), but I am actually not one, I am an eternalist, but trying to present both arguments in an honest fashion and show the problems that they both pose.
But, you know, nice job not reading.
Your appeal to authority would be more convincing if Arthur Prior had more authority on this topic than Einstein. Sadly, he does not. What philosophers say about time is as worthless as what Aristotle had to say about mechanics.
It appears you did not read the OP and I have no more time to respond to your ignorant postulations until you indicate otherwise.
Honestly, I stopped reading at
Thus, if I am on Alpha Centauri and you are here on earth, we may both be able to point to the same star and say simultaneously "This is star X and it exists because I see the phenomena." However, I may be closer to star X, so when the last beam of light enters my eye, I can afterwards say "Star X no longer exists." For a presentist, star X must no longer exist.
It was hard to muster the energy to endure more wrong.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
If we agree with special relativity then there's not much more that needs to be said.
The question of "Do other points in space time share the same point in spacetime as the point in spacetime designated 'the present'?" fairly clearly has an answer ; "No.". The only reason the question even appears to get off the ground is the fact that we can disguise the problems with words like "now" and our intuitions with regard to treating time in a Newtonian fashion.
Apothe0sis on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
If we agree with special relativity then there's not much more that needs to be said.
The question of "Do other points in space time share the same point in spacetime as the point in spacetime designated 'the present'?" fairly clearly has an answer ; "No.". The only reason the question even appears to get off the ground is the fact that we can disguise the problems with words like "now" and our intuitions with regard to treating time in a Newtonian fashion.
So do you feel comfortable saying that dinosaurs exist in the same manner humans or cars do?
It seems clear to me that they do, but I thought there would be more naysayers.
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
If we agree with special relativity then there's not much more that needs to be said.
The question of "Do other points in space time share the same point in spacetime as the point in spacetime designated 'the present'?" fairly clearly has an answer ; "No.". The only reason the question even appears to get off the ground is the fact that we can disguise the problems with words like "now" and our intuitions with regard to treating time in a Newtonian fashion.
So do you feel comfortable saying that dinosaurs exist in the same manner humans or cars do?
It seems clear to me that they do, but I thought there would be more naysayers.
I don't think it's exactly the same. Because, pragmatically, the scope of the statements of existence we make are restricted to points in spacetime close to the present.
I think it would be unfortunate to equivocate between "Dinosaurs exist in the current point in spacetime" and "There is a point in spacetime which contains dinosaurs".
EDIT: Also, Hi5 it looks like we agree on something.
Apothe0sis on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
If we agree with special relativity then there's not much more that needs to be said.
The question of "Do other points in space time share the same point in spacetime as the point in spacetime designated 'the present'?" fairly clearly has an answer ; "No.". The only reason the question even appears to get off the ground is the fact that we can disguise the problems with words like "now" and our intuitions with regard to treating time in a Newtonian fashion.
So do you feel comfortable saying that dinosaurs exist in the same manner humans or cars do?
It seems clear to me that they do, but I thought there would be more naysayers.
I don't think it's exactly the same. Because, pragmatically, the scope of the statements of existence we make are restricted to points in spacetime close to the present.
I think it would be unfortunate to equivocate between "Dinosaurs exist in the current point in spacetime" and "There is a point in spacetime which contains dinosaurs".
Well doesn't that require modal logic indicators, where WAS(exist dinsoaurs) is true for me, but (Exist dinosaurs) does not?
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
If we agree with special relativity then there's not much more that needs to be said.
The question of "Do other points in space time share the same point in spacetime as the point in spacetime designated 'the present'?" fairly clearly has an answer ; "No.". The only reason the question even appears to get off the ground is the fact that we can disguise the problems with words like "now" and our intuitions with regard to treating time in a Newtonian fashion.
So do you feel comfortable saying that dinosaurs exist in the same manner humans or cars do?
It seems clear to me that they do, but I thought there would be more naysayers.
I don't think it's exactly the same. Because, pragmatically, the scope of the statements of existence we make are restricted to points in spacetime close to the present.
I think it would be unfortunate to equivocate between "Dinosaurs exist in the current point in spacetime" and "There is a point in spacetime which contains dinosaurs".
Well doesn't that require modal logic indicators, where WAS(exist dinsoaurs) is true for me, but (Exist dinosaurs) does not?
Edit* Hi five!
I shouldn't think so. I'm just trying to indicate a linguistic disparity here.
I'd rather talk about the philosophical questions of time, specifically: Does only the present exist?
Now heres my question. If time (in the scientific sense) is merely our perception of chemical and energy reactions occurring within the physical universe, then isn't it impossible for humans to ever perceive the presence at the moment of which it occurs. Take for instance the chair that you're sitting on. When you look at it you are not really seeing the chair itself but the light reflections that are emitting off it. Due to the fact that that the speed of light is not instantaneous and we are hindered by our physical limitations (in this example how fast our eyes can process light into conscious images) then the image of the chair that you are seeing is not its present state but a previous one. Thus using this logic is it really possible for time to exist for humans in any form except the past?
Cheerios on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I'd rather talk about the philosophical questions of time, specifically: Does only the present exist?
Now heres my question. If time (in the scientific sense) is merely our perception of chemical and energy reactions occurring within the physical universe, then isn't it impossible for humans to ever perceive the presence at the moment of which it occurs. Take for instance the chair that you're sitting on. When you look at it you are not really seeing the chair itself but the light reflections that are emitting off it. Due to the fact that that the speed of light is not instantaneous and we are hindered by our physical limitations (in this example how fast our eyes can process light into conscious images) then the image of the chair that you are seeing is not its present state but a previous one. Thus using this logic is it really possible for time to exist for humans in any form then the past?
I would say that although the past and future definitely exist, the present most certainly exists. What you are speaking of is physical interaction. Indeed, we really don't interact with a "chair," either, but in a purely scientific view we only interact with certain atoms. However we humans have the ability to phenomenologically intend with things consciously. I can reflect upon China, like I mentioned before when discussing the brain in a vat with Mr. Mister, without ever having been there and my reflections can be pretty veritable when juxtaposed with the real. In this way we interact with every possible real set of relations in the universe. That is the present.
Everything happens at once - every possible arrangement of matter exists in some form of spacetime, and the passage of time and motion are just illusions and are relative. Only you as an observer move through spacetime along a "track" that consists of your brain in all of the states that you choose to move through in a "forward" direction. <---- written as though this was fact but it's obviously just an interpretation I find interesting. It would get rid of a ton of problems regarding time and motion and replace them with "what the heck counts as an `observer'?" and "is that something like a soul or something?"
grendel824_ on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Ted Sider uses the example of Theseus Ship. On a journey, Theseus lives on Ship "S" from the port of X, sailing to Y. Along the way, he replaces every single plank. Is it the same ship that arrives at Y? It would seem so. But what if every plank was sent back to X, and the ship was reconstructed plank for plank back at X. Which is the ship? Is S at Y, because it was the same ship through time, or is S at X because it is composed of its parts? Sider would say it depends on how we define a ship, but cases can be made for both because beings have both spacial parts and time parts.
Ted Sider uses the example of Theseus Ship. On a journey, Theseus lives on Ship "S" from the port of X, sailing to Y. Along the way, he replaces every single plank. Is it the same ship that arrives at Y? It would seem so. But what if every plank was sent back to X, and the ship was reconstructed plank for plank back at X. Which is the ship? Is S at Y, because it was the same ship through time, or is S at X because it is composed of its parts? Sider would say it depends on how we define a ship, but cases can be made for both because beings have both spacial parts and time parts.
So, is Theseus' ship at X or Y?
Assuming he didn't give up ownership of the old planks, both. Theseus now owns two ships. All he needs now is a garage and a pot full of turkey and he'll be living the American dream.
Posts
However isn't time itself really just a point of reference versus an actual property like mass? Does time have particles? Whenever I see people talk about time like this it really makes me wonder, since I haven't seen anyone give a good argument why time is a property that actually can go forwards or backwards.
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
Actually, yes, Ted Sider goes on for ages about light cones. That was a looooong reading assignment :P
But we're losing track here. Everyone agrees in special relativity. How does that relate to ontology? Do dinosaurs exist right now? What about the 50th president of the united states?
The fact that time is affected by certain forces is a pretty convincing argument that it's not just something humans made up for a reference point.
Remember, huge forces of gravity (black holes, and to a small degree, even Earth) can affect time - astronauts taking an atomic clock with them in orbit will find it a few fractions of a second off from one that remained on earth when they return.
Edit: As far as things ceasing to exist goes, doesn't that assume that state changes and other events have real existance and meaning, instead of simply being a way to explain the discontinuities between two steps of time? It seems to me that it's arguable that there's no continuity whatsoever, that there's no reason to say that two objects that occupy the same space and have almost identical properties but occupy different locations in time are the same thing.
I already did. It's the sum total in time of distinct relations in the universe for any given moment.
No. Science is only able to understand things as they occur in experience, and in many cases, require an objective observer.
The problem is that not everything that is important necessarily occurs in experience, or is able to be understood in terms of experience, and that any "objective" observer a scientist attempts to create will always be an object. Which is extremely problematic for things such as space and time.
Time is an "actual property" like space (which stands to reason, seeing as how they are the same thing). They are necessary for the existence of objects.
I would explain relativity's relationship and explanation of absolute space-time, but the last time I did so, Katholic jumped in the thread, started shitting ignorance all over the place, and bitched about things he does not understand.
And searching is down. Oh well.
Basically all moments exist at all times. This can be proven.
Einstein bitches.
There can be no objective observers.
There is still science.
Special relativity says your question is absurd. There is no absolute present, therefore the present can't be the only time that exists. To even speak of time in this way is to presuppose a view of time that has been entirely discredited.
You're trying to frame it in absolute times, which I didn't. I was using the universe in the way that it functions for "my world." Everything in possible relation to at one point is the present. (I think that the past and present exist synchronically, I'm just giving a definition of the present.)
You guy should really read the first post.
Then you're advocating solipsism. And of course no one else is going to agree with your solipsism.
You don't understand what solipsism is. Solipsism is an ontological position which states that everything exists in my and only my consciousness. That is completely different from what I am saying. I am saying that ontological awareness depends on the frame of reference and subject - object phenomenological interaction. Edit* And we can understand through noesis that objects necessarily exist for others, being objects ourselves in time.
Get your terms right.
I know exactly what solipsism is. IF you don't realize that that's the position you have to hold to make "only the present exists" coherent, then you apparently haven't understood anything about special relativity. You need to develop that understanding before you can say anything meaningful on the topic.
But, you know, nice job not reading.
Well no shit there are no objective observers. But science is predicated on an imperative to objectively observe phenomena in experience.
Define your terms. What do you mean by "ontological awareness"? It sounds like you are making knowledge claims regarding being, but I am unsure.
Isn't is becoming accepted in the scientific community that subjectivity has to be taken into account, even with the most inscrutable "objective" data?
Ontological awareness means that you are conscious and philosophically reflecting on every possible relation you have with every being.
Your appeal to authority would be more convincing if Arthur Prior had more authority on this topic than Einstein. Sadly, he does not. What philosophers say about time is as worthless as what Aristotle had to say about mechanics.
It appears you did not read the OP and I have no more time to respond to your ignorant postulations until you indicate otherwise.
Honestly, I stopped reading at It was hard to muster the energy to endure more wrong.
If we agree with special relativity then there's not much more that needs to be said.
The question of "Do other points in space time share the same point in spacetime as the point in spacetime designated 'the present'?" fairly clearly has an answer ; "No.". The only reason the question even appears to get off the ground is the fact that we can disguise the problems with words like "now" and our intuitions with regard to treating time in a Newtonian fashion.
So do you feel comfortable saying that dinosaurs exist in the same manner humans or cars do?
It seems clear to me that they do, but I thought there would be more naysayers.
I don't think it's exactly the same. Because, pragmatically, the scope of the statements of existence we make are restricted to points in spacetime close to the present.
I think it would be unfortunate to equivocate between "Dinosaurs exist in the current point in spacetime" and "There is a point in spacetime which contains dinosaurs".
EDIT: Also, Hi5 it looks like we agree on something.
Well doesn't that require modal logic indicators, where WAS(exist dinsoaurs) is true for me, but (Exist dinosaurs) does not?
Edit* Hi five!
I shouldn't think so. I'm just trying to indicate a linguistic disparity here.
So like when the Yanomamö take them drugs.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Now heres my question. If time (in the scientific sense) is merely our perception of chemical and energy reactions occurring within the physical universe, then isn't it impossible for humans to ever perceive the presence at the moment of which it occurs. Take for instance the chair that you're sitting on. When you look at it you are not really seeing the chair itself but the light reflections that are emitting off it. Due to the fact that that the speed of light is not instantaneous and we are hindered by our physical limitations (in this example how fast our eyes can process light into conscious images) then the image of the chair that you are seeing is not its present state but a previous one. Thus using this logic is it really possible for time to exist for humans in any form except the past?
I would say that although the past and future definitely exist, the present most certainly exists. What you are speaking of is physical interaction. Indeed, we really don't interact with a "chair," either, but in a purely scientific view we only interact with certain atoms. However we humans have the ability to phenomenologically intend with things consciously. I can reflect upon China, like I mentioned before when discussing the brain in a vat with Mr. Mister, without ever having been there and my reflections can be pretty veritable when juxtaposed with the real. In this way we interact with every possible real set of relations in the universe. That is the present.
So, is Theseus' ship "S" at X or Y?
Assuming he didn't give up ownership of the old planks, both. Theseus now owns two ships. All he needs now is a garage and a pot full of turkey and he'll be living the American dream.