The sequence of the moments from the beginning to the end and everything in between is a physical thing (if it is true). You are asking about an explanation or a story. You’re the one that made it. Stories don’t happen without people making them. Some of them are true.
I do not ask for an explanation of the story, only for the link that connects the two events. How can the future is as done as the past, If there is no obvious connection between the two? Saying that the moment unites them does not seem sufficient unification to me. The moment (or time if you prefer) is more like a concept and less “true”. The time is always identified implicitely through change of states and motions.
And stories like this do happen frequently.
Why do you think there has to be an obvious connection between them for them to both be done? For example, if you’re putting a film through a projector, it would make sense that it goes in a certain order. But you don’t need to do that to call forth a memory. You don’t have a projector in your mind. The being subsuming all time doesn’t even need to call forth. They are there actively perceiving (not merely
“processing” it but composing it—concurring our choices—so forth. I don’t know how else to explain structure to you because I can’t tell you the structure other than that). The Moving Spotlight Theory—if it doesn’t have a different spotlight for every perceiver (especially the one not subject to time)—is not the same one I’m talking about.
It is not a question if I can identify an obvious connection, but the idea of a connection has other implications, linked with ethical philosophical questions.
Superstition usually starts when people believe on a connection between the past and the future. Even if you do not intent to ask yourself the form of this connection today, you leave room to wonder:
What really unites them?
Can I predict the future?
Do I have any control on my actions, or everything is predefined for me?
My motivation to reject determinism and coexistence of past-present-future that Einstein/Spinoza supporters in scientific community believe is twofold: First, because by searching the link you risk to go into superstitious explanations, and second because I agree with Epicurus that determinism is worse than being overly religious: with religion you hope you can escape fate by pleasing God, determinism offers no escape and you are bound to destiny on which you have no power to change.
I do not say that you believe in determinism. Your point of view as you express it may not support superstition or surrender to destiny, but it does not prevent them either. I prefer a framework that straight up goes against both, without ambiguity.
Anybody can advance a guess. The one who is it doesn’t have to predict at all.
You can’t decide if you want the structure or the explanation.
And apparently you lack reading comprehension skills, because I already resolved your altertheses.
throws down
Isn’t it interesting, though, that we’ve gone from “correlation is not causation” to “appearance of sequence — even if you can repeat it in a lab — does not entail causality”? roflmao
Silly atheist scientists. Faith is for the forever young!
hysterical cackling
I guess now is not the most opportune moment to share the good news that you are loved despite your good or bad behavior, character, and values, and you won’t be left decomposing in it unless you want to be (and this love was foretold and demonstrated historically…and our very conversation is evidence all reality expresses it)?
I already mentioned that you did not personally imply determinism. i.e. possibility of future prediction, but you left room for it. Speaking about unification through moments, without elaborating further on that, allows others to make guesses.
Sorry for my lack of understanding of your texts, but none of the three replies make sense to me. Can you please speak more clearly? I mentioned from the beginning, I have not studied philosophy (the one you said I was lying, because apparently you can read people’s whole past from one line), so such texts are difficult for me to follow.
If it is simple sarcasm, do not bother to explain. I prefer a respectful conversation, as I have done so far, than a discussion that resolves to mockery.
This isn’t mechanical.
This is the condition for the possibility of freedom.
Just because the every-now is all-selves-determined, doesn’t mean it is determinism.
And this is your opinion and your definition of freedom (or what leads to freedom). Thanks for the clarification.
I started with definitions and propositions to make my point as clear as possible. Your proposition of what condition leads to freedom makes sense, we simply disagree.
Determinism is in itself a worldview, and therefore is not free from “overly religious”.
Your altertheses are:
escape fate/determinism by pleasing God
there is no escape of fate/determinism
The synthesis that resolves them is: We are co-creators of fate when we create in alignment with the eternal. Nietzsche says “amor fati” & create AS IF it were eternal. Paul says “Count it all joy” labors of love wrought through us from the love of God — not to “get in his good graces” — but because we are willing vessels satisfied in unchanging grace.
Per the Republic correctly decoded. A foreshadowing.
I do not support either of the two theses. My position is what I explained in the first post. No God intervention, no ultimate fate with no control on our part. By using Epicurus, I mention two separate propositions of reality that I disagree, I just commented with which I disagree less.
The “we are co-creators of fate” is essentially what I have said from the beginning, so where is the disagreement? The “when we create in alignment with the eternal” I do not understand it, so I do not comment it. In my position, we are co-creators of fate, full stop.
You don’t believe the future is done. What is your evidence the past is done?
No past — you (nobody) created nothing.
Don’t blink.
Philosophical discussions work with definitions and propositions. There is no proof involved. I discussed my opinion on how world and life works. You can agree or disagree with arguments, you can find inconsistences in propositions or conclusions, but apart from that no evidence can be provided.
I can use the flying spaghetti monster as my basis of creation of the universe. I can even take the position that I do not exist (Jupiter123 likes that) and build a full argumentation. You can argue with your own propositions.
What a load of malarkey.
Even a philosophy rug-rat like me can deal with this one:
Yes, there is proof involved. The first is that the idea must hold up under third-party scrutiny, and not make nonsensical assumptions that lead to nonsensical deductions. The evidence is provided when the idea can fulfil that. Otherwise it’s not philosophy, it’s just an undeveloped assertion.
No, you can’t. No one is going to agree with the fundamental claim that supports that assertion, so it is not philosophy. I think you should try argue with your own propositions more before you present them.
According to Spinoza, every man should be free to think what he likes and say what he thinks. That is basic philosophical principle that many agree. And who is the third party that will play the authority on which ideas are correct or wrong?
Funny enough, even science works in a similar way. When Einstein proposed his theories of relativity (special and general), he deviated from the authoritative Newtonian mechanics. Very few understood or agreed with what he was saying. Now many people agree with Einstein’s point of view.
Philosophy does not have experimental devices to check ideas, like in science. The scrutiny comes when the ideas contradict each other or when conclusions and assumptions (propositions) coincide.
If I define the future in one way, I cannot change the definition down the line of argumentation to fit a conclusion.
If, for example, I start by assuming that God exists, I cannot conclude that God does exist.
If I start that egg does not exist and I conclude that egg exists, then something went wrong in the argumentation.
If I start however with propositions related to nihilism and my conclusions are compatible to nihilism, which authority can stop me to do that?
I think that this last discussion deviates a lot from the scope of the original post. My arguments with regard to free will have been explained, generic discussion on what constitutes philosophy and what not is another topic.
I’m not disputing Spinoza on that, and yes, it is a basic philosophical principle that many agree on.
That’s not what you asserted, this is:
If something is to be considered “philosophy”, then it has to have merit outside of the mind that originated it. If it doesn’t, then it has no merit and is therefore not “philosophical”. The third party is another human being who validates your idea, otherwise, it is unverifiable, and only exists within the mind. Philosophy is ideas that have been expressed and agreed upon on some level, not just ideas “as is”. I might have 1000 ideas a day, they are not philosophy unless presented to others and verified by a third party.
Well look at that, ideas need verified, who knew?
The ideas must still follow agreed upon logic. If nonsense is involved, the idea is invalidated. There’s the experimental device: logical integrity.
Umm, that happens all the time. The definition is rarely fixed from the start, it evolves to provide something that works. No?
Then don’t start by assuming.. What do you think a line of reasoning is for, to always prove you right?
Only if you based your entire argument on an assumption..
You are free to express your ideas, mate, but you need to understand, to call something philosophy, requires consensus.
Disagree?
Agree to disagree. I will make no further comment on that. You can open a topic about what constitutes philosophy and I will express my position. I opened this to discuss free will, if you have a comment on that I will be happy to respond.
Fair enough, your OP is interesting and well-worded, but if you make statements like you did afterwards, then you are going to encounter disagreement.
No hard feelings.