Is the concept of spacetime philosophically logical?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Now I know science claims that time can speed up, and can produce mathematical equations to support this.

However, being more interested in in the subject from a philosophical stand point than science or maths, I have great trouble with the logic of ‘time’ speeding up. If it is proved philosophically illogical, does this then nullify scientific and mathematical proof? After all philosophy has pointed out how both science and mathematics rely on certain assumptions.

Anyway - here are some of my thoughts on the subject of time:

Time is a measurement system. It deals with short durations and long durations. A short duration is fast and long duration is slow. THe longer the duration of the measure the slower the measure. So surely it is the ‘duration of the measure’ that can be speedier or not, not ‘time’ itself as a measurement system.

Lets compare this with the measurement system of tempurature. You can have degrees of hot or cold within the tempurature system. But the Temperature ‘system’ itself cannot get hotter or colder. That is talking nonsense.

If I fly to another part of space where I age more quickly and the plants grow faster, and then fly back to earth and I look much older than you who have stayed on this planet, does that mean time went faster on the foreign planet. Or does it just mean the physical laws of nature move at a faster rate. After all, we all know there is a medical condition on earth where some people age very quickly. Was time faster on the other planet? Again. How could it have been; time itself can’t speed up. Even if I perceived that time was going at a slow rate on the foreign planet doesn’t necessarily mean it actually was. After all, we all know that time can appear to go fast when we’re having fun and slowly when we’re bored.

2

First off, I know I said it was fragile knowledge on my part before. This is true. I can’t get past solipsism as an answer for anything. Plus, I’m not really sure how one can be certain space time exists from a scientific standpoint. I always just thought (from science) that it would be rather silly to say that time has no base equation that represents all its points.

I have been thinking about your question. Keep in mind, I, nor probably anyone but Warrior Monk will claim they have the absolute answer, but this is just my take on the issue.

If it is proved philosophically illogical, then I’ll have to rethink my philosophy.

See, I don’t believe that we, as humans, experience time. Not in its true form. I stated in various threads so far that because electricity can only go so fast, human minds can only see parts of time. Proofs of this are in This Thread. Because we cannot see all of time, because there are blank spots in our experience, how do we know that one point in time leads directly to the next? My issue is that time may or may not be contiguous and we would be none the wiser.

What is the effect of the discrete mind? Well…let’s take this series of numbers (this is not hard math, I just want to show you…)

1/2 , 1/3, 1/4, 1/5…1/N

1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16…1/(N^2)

Now, these are both samples from two functions. Let’s picture those two sets as two different timelines. As you can see, the bottom one approaches zero much faster than the top one. There’s much more “space” or numbers or whatever between 1/2 and 1/4 than there is between 1/2 and 1/3. Now, since we cannot experience the “in betweens” of one point to the next, then what happens there is hard for us to understand.

Sooo, if the top and the bottom are both timelines that get smaller and smaller and smaller, both approaching nothingess, but never reaching it, then we could be in either one of those and never know the difference. We would only sample single points in time.

What if, however, we are on the second one, and then we switched to the first one. The first one is much “slower” than the second one, but again…we wouldn’t notice.

That’s why I think you cannot “picture” slowing time…but looksee! I just showed it’s possible.

In otherwords, it’s a relevance issue with you. What does it matter if time is slower or faster? It’s going to happen anyway!

First off, if time is more than a measurment system. That’s kinda like saying space is a measurement system. Or length is a measurment system. No, we have a system to measure length, but length is an attribute of our existence. So is time. Seconds, Minutes, Hours, Days. Those are measurments of time. Time doesn’t care how we measure it, though. It’s doing its thing regardless.

Yes. I agree, that is nonsense. The temperature system cannot get hotter or colder. Temperature just “is”. If something is X degrees hot, then it is X degrees hot. It has X energy in it. How we measure it would not matter.

But, the idea you fail to understand here…the actual and the possible. The Kelvin system measures the actual temperature to a certain accuracy. However, it has no effect on the temperature itself.

Seconds measure how much time has flowed to a certain accuracy. However, it has no effect on time itself.

“Time” is not a measurement system.

Yes.

Time is part of the physical laws of nature.

Key word…“appear”. Time “appears” faster when having fun and “appears” slower when bored. Why? Our minds are sampling points that are farther away from each other on the timeline because we’re too busy to concern ourselves with it when occupied. Ask someone who is listening to you, and bored. You may think time has passed fast b/c you’re chatting away, but to them, it’s boring, so it’s taking forever. Who is right? Neither because man cannot experience time directly, only as a system of discrete points.

3

My advice to you: Spend the rest of your life reading Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

4

I am imagining 2 houses. I live in one of them. My neighbour in the other. I spend the morning measuring my lounge. I write down the measurements. Then something magical happens. My house suddenly grows bigger. But not only does my house grow bigger, so does everything in it, including me and my ruler. i measure my lounge again and write down the meausrements of the bigger lounge. Then my house and everything in it suddenly shrinks back to normal size again. Then I suddenly notice that the two lots of meaurements of the lounge are recorded as being exactly the same on my piece of paper. How could this possibly be so when the lounge was so much bigger the second time round?

The answer is of course because I was using a different sized ruler (ie. a different measurement system - although I wrongly 'perceieved it as being the same measurement systme). It was the measurement systems that changed, not ‘length’ itself. Length did not get longer.
If my neibour was to sneak into my lounge and measure it after the growing had taken place, with his normal sized (small) ruler and measured my lounge, his measurement results would be completely different to my second lot.

A parallel analogy could be made of time. And as with ‘length’ ‘time’ cannot cannot speed up. We might percieve it as speeding up if we compare experiences in the changes of physical laws (other than time) like me and my house getting bigger. But neither length nor time themselces can change. Only our perceptions change. Just because our perceptions are ‘tricked’ doesn’t mean want they percieved was correct.

Time cannot speed up. Maybe other laws of nature can change in relation to each other - but not time itself.

This raises a further fascinating question. Does time then really exist at all. Or is it just a figment of our perception. Certainly if time doesn’t really exist then it can’t be said to be able to speed it. If soemthing doesn’t actually exist it can’t actually be said to ‘do’ anything.

5

Excellent post, moonface.

“Does time then really exist at all”

I could get lost is discussions about spacio-temporal frameworks and time continuums, and as I am looking through the lenses of a pair of sun glasses instead of an electron microscope most of the day, I’ll just worry about the phenomenological aspects of my experience and those structures and conditions that pertain to my perception at this macrocosmic level.

However, when Stephen Hawkings suggests things like the “sum over histories” theory, or Schroodinger(sp?) mentions his cat, I do tend to get a little excited.

I can’t answer your question simply because it depends on the nature of the universe, especially whether or not a “big bang” happened or the alternative of infinity. In cases where a big bang happened, I would say that time is nothing more than the duration of the cycle from creation to destruction. Time would essentially be the velocity of the entropic rate as the universe lost its momentum and closed back in on itself. “Time” would be going backwards, but “experience” would not repeat itself such that at the moment when all inertia stopped and the universe began a reversal, we would experience our lives in rewind.

If the universe is infinite then “time” only exists relatively, it would not be the ultimate entropic rate of the system as a whole because the whole is not contained if it is infinite. Time would be a duration that is relative to individual particular entropic rates of each contingency. Each “existent” would have a moment of some “length” in comparison to another, yet neither “existence” is timed in relation to an overall entropic rate of a closed and finite universe, so there is, in fact, no “time” in an infinite universe.

6

Wonderfully done moonface-

I think the fundamental flaw is that many assume time to be absoulte or “a priori”, when infact it is not even close. Time is not absolute, and philosophically it is not that hard of a concept to accept.
Time for this universe is different from time in another universe/or outside this universe. Infact do we have any reason to believe that there is time outside this universe?

The physical laws would not have to inherently change if time sped up or slowed down, the only thing that changes, is matter. And I have no philosophical problems with things changing in reguards to matter.

Why woudn’t time be able to change, there is no limiting force, there are no paradoxes with in it…All changing of time effects is the decadence of matter, and human perceptions. It would be an absurdity to call either absolute.

7

It appears then that time only exists in our ‘heads’ and we measure the duraction of other events solely in relation to the finite duration of our self-consciousness. After all, our definition of those events only make any sense in relation to our self consciouness.

Let’s take that a step further then. Does ANYTHING or ANY concept in life/existence really exist (AT ALL!) except in our ‘heads’ (That is, in relation to our self consciouness)?

I would argue NO. Our entire concept of existence is based on ‘measurement’. Measurement of: time, length, weight, mass, etc etc, in relation to OURSELVES (ie. our self consciouness). If the concept of time is only a figment of our minds (ie. in our ‘heads’), then it makes sense that every other concept is only a figment or our finite imaginings.

We are left then with two further questions: Is existence in its entirity actually infinite. If so - then does that make our self consciouness only an illusion to ourselves?

8

First off, I’d like to state that this is a confusion of terms.

In your relative-house example, you stated that the length of the lounge chair was the same. But…you also said your house, and everything in it got bigger.

Technically, it was not the same. It was only the same to you.

This shows how important perspective is to this argument. You state that it’s philosophically ludicrous to state that time speeds up. Well, I don’t agree with you on that.

Your example was not all that ludicrous. You took an outside-observer point of view and compared it with an inside-observer point of view.

That’s the key. Time is not a measurement, it is a function.

If you take a fixed-time observer and had them watch a clock that was in a variable-time universe, they would observe speeding up or slowing down of time via the clock. However, if you stood with the variable-time clock, you would see the clock stay the same and the world around you speed up or slow down in an inverse direction that you are speeding up or slowing down.

Now, this can be visualized. It can be comprehended. You can see that effect. The clock is not doing anything different, the outside observer is not doing anything different, and the inside observer is not doing anything different.

All that is changing is time.

The clock is a tool for relative measurment. However, it loses all meaning when it is not in a shared time density.

You stated the problem with your example! You did not use a fixed-perspective to analyze the change in the chair. Your tools changed with the world around them. This is a problem of scientific method. The chair wasn’t bigger to the ruler, but it was to your neighbor. Why not get your neighbor to come over and do the measurments instead? In my example, didn’t time speed up and slow down? Yes. How did you know? Outside perspective.

Again, your argument seems to boil down to relevance, not truth. However, it will not remain an irrelevant topic for much longer. Faster-than-light travel is very much becoming a topic of interest. Time theory is important.

I’m sorry, I don’t see where your analogy proves anything. In the example you gave, relative space did get bigger in relation to the room. Just because what we percieve is incorrect does not mean that time speeding up or slowing down is an impossiblity. I don’t see how you proved anything from the first paragraph to the next statement.

HOWEVER, from a philosophical standpoint, I love the next paragraph. Does time really exist?

Good question, and I’d say maybe. There’s two possibilities. I only have “now” and that “now” is random organization of spacetime at a discrete point where I materialized with various memories and inputs for an infinitely singular point in time. This means that all I have is now, and all my memories are bull. The other possibility, time exists, and all events are “somehow” related to each other. Somehow is a key word, because our reality could be intertwined with an infinite number of other realites that use space in time between our own discrete time samples. This does not mean causality exists, but it does mean that there is a correlation.

Can we ever know the true answer to this…I dunno, but it’s neat to think about.

But uhhh, your next point leads to solipsism. That’s exactly where I get to, too. It sucks.

Another thing, define self consciousness as you are using it. If you mean the perception of our own existence, I really think it’s pretty contradictory to state that our perception of ourselves is only an illusion to ourselves. shrugs I still cannot doubt that I doubt.

As for existence being infinite, what do you mean? Are you saying that zero is not a number?

9

What I was saying with my house example was that their were two different perceptions of length involved - mine and my neighbour’s. Just pretend for a moment that differing perspectives don’t come into it and that there was an ‘absolute’ length measurement system (I guess that’s what you mean’t by a ‘fixed’ measurement system). In that case there is no way length could have got longer as the length system is stable (from an absolute point of view).

From a similar point of view, pretend again, for a moment, that differing perspectives don’t come into it and that there was an ‘absolute’ time measurement system. In that case there is no way ‘time’ can get faster as the time system is stable (from an absolute point of view). This is because the absolute perspective always stays consistent. All that can be said to occur is that events and processes of nature speed up (even if somebody was involved in the natural change which involved their perspective of laws of nature going at a normal rate, even though those events were actually going faster. This is because something has happened in that persons make up and mind (again - nature) to make them wrongly percieve things as going at a normal rate like they did in their old world).

That’s what I was meaning when I was saying ‘time can’t speed up.’ I was looking at it from an ‘absolute’ perspective. I think you were looking at the argument solely from the point of view of the person involved in the change.

Now, I no what you’re going to say - in reality there probably ISN’T any absolute perspective (fixed time perspective). However, for the sake of helping us understand the problem we can for a moment pretend there is. That was where I was coming from in the argument , in my last post.

So we probably agree (in essence). It’s just that it depends if you centre the argument from an absolute perspecitve or the perspective of the ‘person’ involved in the changes in the laws of nature, whether we state that time is speeding up, or time doesn’t speed up.

Which then is the correct or the best position to centre the argment around? Maybe it doesn’t matter too much, as long as we make it clear in our arguments. Actually, on thinking on it - seeing it and explaining it from both positions might give a fullest picture.

Moving on in the arguement…

So if time might be only a matter of perspective - as with length, mass, weight, colour, etc. we can go as far to suggest that there might not be an absolute ‘anything’ (Soliphism). It all only exists in our self cosciuoness. It’s all only a matter of perspective. All that really exists is perspective. The reason I brought this up last post was because I think we have to resolve this issue first (ie. that there are no absolutes) before we can clearly explain the top issue (about whether ‘time can speed up’.) That is because saying ‘time can speed up’ is assuming that there is an absolute measure of time (unless the possibility of there being no absolute view is explicityly made clear in the time/speed argument). Before we can consider the possibility that there might be no absolute perspective, we have to comprehend the concept of an absolute perspective (be it actually a logical or illogical concept). My position in the top argument the considered the issue from an absolute perspective to help fascilitate the ‘idea’ of absolute perspective for this purpose.

Lets now consider the consequence of their probably being no abolute perspective. If there is a God, then maybe there is an absolute perspective - but that’s another argument. So there might only exist our own perspective . There would be no actuality - only the perspective of our self-consciousness.

And taking it a step further again - can we be sure then that even our self-consciouness really exists? Okay - it exists to each of ourselves and we can’t escape or deny that. But again - does it exist from an absolute perspective? If there is no absolute perspective, then it can’t do. That’s what I meant when I suggeted that our self-consciouness might only be an illusion to ourselves. That it doesn’t actually exist in absolute terms - rather only to ourselves. In which case (again, from an absolute perspective) it wouldn’t really exist - just as length. time, mass, weight wouldn’t really exist in abolute terms.

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - that’s all.”

10

I see what you want to do, but I don’t think you’ve solidified absolute perspective (one that does not change). As with my clock example, each perspective can say that they are the fixed point in time and everything else is speeding up and slowing down. However, neither one is correct. So, would it not be more fair to say that there IS NO absolute perspective.

The problem now is, who judges time? It would have to be something “above” time. We judge space and live in time. A two dimensional being may judge area and live in space. A linear creature may judge length but live in area. We cannot see beyond time, hence the issue with finding another perspective. It exists, mathematically, if you believe in such things. It’s rather hard to comprehend, though.

Your argument has many assumptions. If you could prove those premises true, it would be sound. However, as stands, it’s still up in the air.

11

I didn’t claim either that there was or wasn’t an absolute time perspective. I was just using the abstract idea to illustrate how time is probably only relative to ones perspective.

You say that there IS no absolute perspective. But that is making an assumption - you haven’t proven why there could be know absolute or correct perspective (say as perceived by a creator). Again, I’m not saying that there isn’t evidence that there is no absolute perspective - but you are assuming it until you present the evidence or sound argument.

My later points were assuming that there is no absolute perspective on time or anything in life. However, I stated that I was basing my conclusions on that assumption. You mentioned I have presented assumed premises (plural). I only made one assumption which is the one I’ve pointed out in this paragraph.

I think the later points I made in my last post are logically correct - ‘IF’ the assumption I made (and pointed out that I made) is true.

Perhaps that’s where we need to go in the argument now then - if we are to make progress. That is, we need to explore whether the idea of their being no absolute perspective on life is provable or not.

12

Good job. You’ve now argued what science has for the past 50 years.

Actually, you’re wrong there. I have argued for a common perspective since I’ve gotten here. However, you assume that “absolute perspective” and “absolute time perspective” are the same. No, I don’t believe that there is an absolute time perspective, as time is merely an abstraction layer to existence. However, there is an absolute “truth”, and anyone who asks questions like “why?” should believe this.

I have elsewhere. Basically, I don’t believe in god or a creator. God is a self-defeating concept as perfection is a self defeating concept. There’s too many paradoxes to overcome.

I don’t believe in a creator because I don’t believe there needs to be a first cause. This is due to the nature of timespace, the fact that time density can be logically represented as the function f(x) = 1/x and that causality is a deductive fallacy.

I think that we are capable of being objective. We don’t requre an outside source. It means starting in the theoretical and waiting years for the empiracal, but it’s possible for man to see the absolute truth.

Perspective has nothing to do with truth. It has to do with finding the truth. If you pick a wrong perspective, you’re basing reality on false assumptions. The truth requires the “right” perspective for a specific incident, not just any. However, there is no fail-safe-catch-all perspective for all arguments…except the ideal…math.

Wait, I thought I was arguing against you? Hell, I don’t even recall arguing, just probing. I think there’s enough cracks in your thought to make you question what you think. If this page was authored by me, it would sound very different, as I have different views that I pull from.

You assumed time is a measurment system. You wanted us to pretend that it was, just so your argument would fit better. It’s not. Seconds, minutes, hours. They exist only in human perception. Time, though, flows independent of human perception.

You assumed that there is no absolute perspective on time. You wound up being presented with a pretty harmful counter-example. Yeah, sure, if there was no absolute perspective on time, your later argument could be made sound. As is, it’s almost valid, but not sound. The premises are just not true neccesarily.

You want to assume that time cannot speed up. Why? It’s very damaging to say that time is not the same throughout space. You cannot state that existence is infinite if somewhere time hasn’t caught up with itself and is still in pre-bigbang limbo.

You assume that because we are inside the system of time that we cannot remain objective of time. This, too, I find untrue. We can observer how time dialates. We have run experiments to do so! Send an atomic clock into outer space for long enough, it will come back to earth giving the incorrect time. Not only that, but the time is off almost exactly as was predicted. How about this? Take two spaceships, send one twenty light years out, and another thirty light years out. Send them back. Measure the time change in relation to earth time. Boom, observing other time distortions while retaining objectivity.

I dunno, this quote bothers me…where the hell did you pull this from??

???

How does the first statement about existence relate to the second statement about self consciousness?

What you comitted was somewhat of a slippery slope. “If this is the case, then this must be the case, which means this must be the answer to life! Oh my god! I found the answer to life!” No, you found a possible answer. Work on the premises before you move on in the arugment.

Whoa there. I don’t think anything you’ve said is “correct”. It’s not even valid yet. You jump from the idea that if time is not absolute, that nothing in life is certain. Why?? That makes no sense!

There’s a difference between “correct”, “valid”, and “souind”. As is, you could argue that it is “cogent”, but what’s the fun in that? Now is the time to make sure it’s sound. Show that time is not absolute. Don’t assume it.

You’re the conductor. I thought you wanted to talk about timespace. If you ask me, we’re not nearly done there. Maybe another thread?

13

Moonface wrote:
I didn’t claim either that there was or wasn’t an absolute time perspective. I was just using the abstract idea to illustrate how time is probably only relative to ones perspective.

Good job. You’ve now argued what science has for the past 50 years.

( By good job I take it to mean you agree with my underlined words)

Moonface wrote:
You say that there IS no absolute perspective. But that is making an assumption -

Actually, you’re wrong there. I have argued for a common perspective since I’ve gotten here.

(I quote your OWN WORDS from one of your previous posts: "So, would it not be more fair to say that there IS NO absolute perspective. " - I took this to be a retorical question)

(then you contradict your underlined words above with your underlined words below)

However, you assume that “absolute perspective” and “absolute time perspective” are the same. No, I don’t believe that there is an absolute time perspective, as time is merely an abstraction layer to existence. However, there is an absolute “truth”, and anyone who asks questions like “why?” should believe this.

(So I am confused as to whether you think there is an absolute true perspective on everything or not.)

(My argument was initially about time perspective. I never claimed there actually was an absolute time perspective, I just used the abstract concept (whether it is a practical possible reality or not) as a tool to help us see that time is perspective related. We are all using this tool when we observe that time is perspective related. We are putting aside our current time perspective and taking an eye of God like approach in order to get an overall perspective. We can do this as humans because we are capable of abstract thought. For example, my father is eating dinner right now but I am not. Yet I can imagine how my father’s dinner is tasting and the perspective he is looking at the room from, even though it is different to my own.
Also, I never assumed that an absolute time perspective and and absolute perspective of everthing are automatically equivalent in the nature of their implications, without stating that I was making the assumption. I was playing with the idea - but by saying 'what if…" I pointed out that it might be a possible area worth exploring. Of course it wasn’t backed up with argument. I wasn’t making an arguement. Merely suggesting that the idea might be worth exploring. What’s more in my mind it’s got heaps to do with the concept of space time. Although we need to get our initial argument soughted out clearly before its worth exploring this teritory obviuosly)

You assumed time is a measurment system. You wanted us to pretend that it was, just so your argument would fit better. It’s not. Seconds, minutes, hours. They exist only in human perception. Time, though, flows independent of human perception.

[b](I still do argue that time is a measurement stystem. And the system varies according to the perspective. I think we agree that it is a matter of perspective. What we don’t seem to agree on is whether their is an absolute perspective on time. Sometimes you’ve argued there is an absolute perspective and sometimes you argue their isn’t (here are your quoted words to show you what I mean:

“So, would it not be more fair to say that there IS NO absolute perspective.” Then you say: “However, there is an absolute “truth”.”

So I don’t really know where you stand on it. Let me know so we can clear that up.)[/b]

You want to assume that time cannot speed up. Why? It’s very damaging to say that time is not the same throughout space.

(Who or what am I damaging?)

I pointed out in another post that it depends on how you look at it. If you imagine it from limited perspectives - sure, time speeds up. Yet - if you imagine it from an abolute perspective (remember I’m not claiming there is a literal absolute perspective - just that we are capable of imagining it because of our capacity for abstract thought) then time didn’t speed up - one person’s nature in the equation changed

You assume that because we are inside the system of time that we cannot remain objective of time.

(No I don’t. I’ve just argued that we can remain objective about it, as I argued the same point in a previous post.)

We can observer how time dialates. We have run experiments to do so! Send an atomic clock into outer space for long enough, it will come back to earth giving the incorrect time. Not only that, but the time is off almost exactly as was predicted. How about this? Take two spaceships, send one twenty light years out, and another thirty light years out. Send them back. Measure the time change in relation to earth time. Boom, observing other time distortions while retaining objectivity.

(This is all science. This is a philosophy forum not a science forum. Science proves nothing in a philosophical argument.)

I dunno, this quote bothers me…where the hell did you pull this from??

Moonface wrote:
We are left then with two further questions: Is existence in its entirity actually infinite. If so - then does that make our self consciouness only an illusion to ourselves?

How does the first statement about existence relate to the second statement about self consciousness?

(They are only questions - not claims or statements. There relevance? Let me explain breifly. If existence is infinite then measurement can’t apply (again from that abstract - not actual- absolute perspective). That is to say - you can’t measure infinity - it is measureless. The next part. Well, if infinity is real, my individual self consciouness can’t really be said to exist from this abolute perspective - because my self consciouness is finite (ie measurable).

What you comitted was somewhat of a slippery slope. “If this is the case, then this must be the case, which means this must be the answer to life! Oh my god! I found the answer to life!” No, you found a possible answer. Work on the premises before you move on in the arugment.

(No. I made a limited argument. I did not claim it was the meaning of life. The later ideas in my discussion were not arguments and I clearly pointed out that they were merely potential topics for arguement. I agree with you that we have to work on the premises in order to turn it into an argument.)

Moonface wrote:
Perhaps that’s where we need to go in the argument now then - if we are to make progress. That is, we need to explore whether the idea of their being no absolute perspective on life is provable or not.

(This can be proven if we can prove existence is infinite or not)

You’re the conductor. I thought you wanted to talk about timespace. If you ask me, we’re not nearly done there. Maybe another thread?

(This is still completely relevent to the topic of time space. Afterall if (and rememeber I’m NOT arguing it IS, only IF) existence is infinite there can be not actual (from an absolute perspective) measurement of anything, including time. In other words, time doesn’t exist anywhere except inside our heads. And if time doesn’t exist then timespace surely can exist either. And remember that is the fundamental issue being address in this thread.)_________________

[/b]

14

You’re confusing terms again.

Absolute truth. Existence and reason.

Absolute perspective. A standpoint in which all other views are judged.

I’m going to be rehashing what I said in another thread that is currently active to explain this. Instead, here’s the link.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 3&start=20

I hold that reason is the absolute truth. But, I showed in that point that reason itself can produce many logical perspectives. I know you hate math, so tell me if you want a re-explanation.

Remember, though…absolute perspective is absolutely true. Absolute truth, however, may be a matter of conditional perspecitve. Such is the nature of divergent, branching systems.

See the tree diagram I made to kinda illustrate this point.

What??

Please explain. How did one person’s nature change if, when looking at it from an absolute perspective.

Also, how can you expect anyone to discuss something with you if you refuse to stand for anything? “I assume but I don’t support” That’s not the art of discussion, that’s the art of confusion.

Which philosopher said that again? Aristotle? Sartre? Neitzsche?

There’s a reason we have a science forum here, you know. Just as there is a philosophy behind science, there is a science behind philosophy.

Categorically incorrect. You do not undestand what it means to be infinite. Infinity is a direction, not a number. It is a system. You can pull a chunk out of a system and give it finite properties. This is call quantification or “measurement”.

Also, systems that are infinite can approach hard limits. This is math. Math is philosophy. This is to say that outside of a function, one can observe a system becoming infinitely small and approaching a hard number…but never being equal or passing that number. In other words, the infinite can sometimes be finitely restricted.

I never said you claimed it was the meaning of life. That was an example of how a slippery slope fallacy works. The “No, you found a possible answer” was a response to the example…and indirectly, to you.

You are making no argument. You no longer support any clear premise that I can see. And there is no “we” about it.

This thread has no coherency whatsoever. Peace. I’m out, suckapants.

P.S. Use the quote button.

15

Moonface says: “My answers are in bold type”

You’re confusing terms again.

Absolute truth. Existence and reason.

Absolute perspective. A standpoint in which all other views are judged.

(I think they are the same thing (though I would leave out the existence part all together - it’s too confusing). How can a standpoint judge all other views without reason?)

I’m going to be rehashing what I said in another thread that is currently active to explain this. Instead, here’s the link.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 3&start=20

I hold that reason is the absolute truth.

( I agree, or rather, I’d say that reason leads to absolute truth)

But, I showed in that point that reason itself can produce many logical perspectives. I know you hate math, so tell me if you want a re-explanation.

(I disagree. Reason leads (ulimately) to one ultimate truth. I stress the word ultimate - ie. not just one persons finite perspective of their self consciouness)

(This is not a mathematics forum. Mathematics is not philosophy. It is a different discipline. Whatever you can explain with numbers you can expalin with words)

Remember, though…absolute perspective is absolutely true. Absolute truth, however, may be a matter of conditional perspecitve. Such is the nature of divergent, branching systems.

(You said earlier that absolute truth and abolute perspective are different. Here you’re saying absolute perspective is absolutely true. You’re contradicting yourself.)

(I disagree. I think absolute truth boes beyond mere conditional perspective.)

Moonface wrote:
I pointed out in another post that it depends on how you look at it. If you imagine it from limited perspectives - sure, time speeds up. Yet - if you imagine it from an abolute perspective (remember I’m not claiming there is a literal absolute perspective - just that we are capable of imagining it because of our capacity for abstract thought) then time didn’t speed up - one person’s nature in the equation changed

What??

Please explain. How did one person’s nature change if, when looking at it from an absolute perspective.

(Their body aged more quickly and their mind’s, and their mental perception perceieved time going more slowly than in planet earth time. These are all changes caused by nature)

Also, how can you expect anyone to discuss something with you if you refuse to stand for anything? “I assume but I don’t support” That’s not the art of discussion, that’s the art of confusion.

(I don’t remember saying those words. I can’t find them in my post. My posts do stand for something. In a couple of sentences: Whether time can speed up or not is a matter of perspective. From an absolute perspective (truth) point of view, it doesn’t. From a finite human point of view it does. If existence is infinite (THats a big IF) then spacetime is imposible, as the laws of measurement can’t apply to infinity)

(I have discuss. Above is the essence of what I’ve stood for)

Moonface wrote:
(This is all science. This is a philosophy forum not a science forum. Science proves nothing in a philosophical argument.)

Which philosopher said that again? Aristotle? Sartre? Neitzsche?

(I guess I’m a rationalist)

Moonface wrote:
(They are only questions - not claims or statements. There relevance? Let me explain breifly. If existence is infinite then measurement can’t apply (again from that abstract - not actual- absolute perspective). That is to say - you can’t measure infinity - it is measureless. The next part. Well, if infinity is real, my individual self consciouness can’t really be said to exist from this abolute perspective - because my self consciouness is finite (ie measurable).

Categorically incorrect. You do not undestand what it means to be infinite. Infinity is a direction, not a number. It is a system.

(I disagree. If infinity is a direction, you’d need a starting point. Infinity can’t have a start or indeed ANY limitations. Infinity is not a system. A system has a starting and fininshing point, and steps along the way. None of these limiting concepts can’t make any sense in relation to infinity)

Also, systems that are infinite can approach hard limits. This is math. Math is philosophy. This is to say that outside of a function, one can observe a system becoming infinitely small and approaching a hard number…but never being equal or passing that number. the infinite can sometimes be finitely restricted , .

(Maths is NOT philosophy. This is a philosophy forum. You said, “the infinite can sometimes be finitely restricted” This statement contradicts itself.)

You are making no argument. You no longer support any clear premise that I can see. And there is no “we” about it.

(I have made an argument - more than one. It’s there in back and white for anyone why wants to read it. There is a we about it. The both of us have been having a discussion.)

This thread has no coherency whatsoever. Peace. I’m out, suckapants.

(Yes, there is some coherency, for someone who really wants to read it all really carefully.)

(I think we actually agree on more than you give us credit for. We’ve got a bit confused about consitencing of the terms being used. You haven’t grapsed some of my explanations. The conversations got too complex before we had established some of the basic ideas.)

(Between a lot of ‘I said this, no I didn’t kind of talk’ I think quite a lot of good argument has been made in this thread. And I think good progress has been made toward answering the initial question.)

16

So your concept is time is some nonrational Intuition and by been rational its paradoxical.

17

Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen anybody hit the nail on the head when it comes to discussing time in a philosophical sense…and that is the concept of motion or movement. If all things in the universe came to an absolute standstill, all atoms, quarks, electrons, whatever, time would stop. But, things are in motion, and that is how time is measured, motion like the decay of atomic nuclei. I believe it was Kant who said that time and space are not things to observe, but ways of observing. If time and space are ways of perceiving things, then they are simply perceptions, and perceptions are relative to the perceiver. Let me know what you guys or gals think…

18

I made a mistake on my previous post, use this instead…Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen anybody hit the nail on the head when it comes to discussing time in a philosophical sense…and that is the concept of motion or movement. If all things in the universe came to an absolute standstill, all atoms, quarks, electrons, whatever, time would stop. But, things are in motion, and that is how time is measured, motion like the decay of atomic nuclei. Time is tricky, and Kant knew this, and he said I believe that time and space are not things to observe, but ways of observing. If time and space are ways of perceiving things, then all things we perceive are filtered through time and space. Let me know what you guys think…

19

I admire your approach and it seems like a reasonable argument from my end.

Some really interesting thoughts on a tricky concept: time.

As for myself, I see “time” as a measurement in terms of definition, but what exactly are we defining? As you pointed out, motion. Time was and is still founded upon the revolution of the planet and our orbit around the sun. We have segmented this measure to finer detail due to mathematical intervention, but the basic foundation for time is predicated by such cosmic motion.

Is such a measurement logical? I really do not think we have devised a better approach for such a measurement of motion. Is time measurement flawed? Perhaps to some extent based upon what you are comparing it with, but it is fairly consistent in regards to the motion it is carried over to represent. When we start to decipher the rules of other parts of the universe, then is it accurate to use our symbolic correlations of cosmic motion as an absolute measurement? This right here is when Einstein shook the world and pointed out how time is not quite as absolute as we once though it to be.

I think it is fair to claim that it is essential for us to use our own rules, definitions, and language to understand the universe; but the universe doesn’t cater to our understandings. Once we grasp a better mechanism for understanding the movement of the universe itself beyond reliance of our own solar system, then I think we will be able to interpret time differently. Not quite there yet, so we will just have to stick with the ole’ standby. :wink:

20

Would time really stop? Would it cease to be?

My point is, perhaps for every one quadrupleduplefugesunday of a second, everything does stop…and then it starts right back up again. Is it fair to say that everything was stopped for that time period, and time continued to flow…independent of motion?

Time is related to speed, and speed is related to time, however, the nature of that relationship does not allow for time to “stop”. So long as there is existence, there is time. What is time but a relationship between one point in existence to another? No causation, just a relationship.

That’s my point, we cannot conceive of time itself. There could be an infinite number of parallel timelines running concurrently with out own, taking up the space in time that we do not. We only see our common timeline, so we cannot understand the true nature of time… because…we …are …discrete …beings. :slight_smile: