Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Miracles
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by seer; 04-04-2015, 09:50 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell he has been saying that our experience is an illusion. I don't remember how he justified it though.
"That's just an illusion, caused by your brain. [proceeds to give a detailed description]"
"Then explain how the illusion changed, when you deny that anything changes."
Even if you call it an illusion that just moves the problem back one step and leaves the reality of change unexplained.
If he proceeds then to claim that the illusion really doesn't change, any B-time instance of myself just happen to think that it does. Then unless he's got very good arguments that superceds basic experience, then he'd be enganged in question begging. You can't disprove an attack on a position, by assuming the truth of the position.
As such I know of no really good arguments for B-time except: Its weird and fun (like most things in physics so there's a sort of argument from resemblance), its mathematically elegant (which some see as a good argument, I don't), its simpler (which is debatable) and finally its the worldview most popular between physicists (not a good argument).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View Post"I experience change, see this match I just lit, it was unlit before."
"That's just an illusion, caused by your brain. [proceeds to give a detailed description]"
"Then explain how the illusion changed, when you deny that anything changes."
Even if you call it an illusion that just moves the problem back one step and leaves the reality of change unexplained.
If he proceeds then to claim that the illusion really doesn't change, any B-time instance of myself just happen to think that it does. Then unless he's got very good arguments that superceds basic experience, then he'd be enganged in question begging. You can't disprove an attack on a position, by assuming the truth of the position.
As such I know of no really good arguments for B-time except: Its weird and fun (like most things in physics so there's a sort of argument from resemblance), its mathematically elegant (which some see as a good argument, I don't), its simpler (which is debatable) and finally its the worldview most popular between physicists (not a good argument).Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
I think the problem lies in the fact that physicists don't see that time is nothing more than a discription of the relationship between things that move, and a thing that doesn't move, a thing that in itslelf is eternal and infinite. An infinite and eternal vacuum, i.e. an infinite empty space, or an infinite and eternal cosmos, the whole of existence as opposed to the parts therein, being that it is eternal and infinite, doesn't move. I'm no physicist, so of course I could be way off, but I think that time is the relationship between the moving parts contained within the eternal, infinite, and so unmoving whole. In other words things move or change within the unmoved and unchanging, and the measure of that motion is what we call time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI think the problem lies in the fact that physicists don't see that time is nothing more than a discription of the relationship between things that move, and a thing that doesn't move, a thing that in itslelf is eternal and infinite. An infinite and eternal vacuum, i.e. an infinite empty space, or an infinite and eternal cosmos, the whole of existence as opposed to the parts therein, being that it is eternal and infinite, doesn't move. I'm no physicist, so of course I could be way off, but I think that time is the relationship between the moving parts contained within the eternal, infinite, and so unmoving whole. In other words things move or change within the unmoved and unchanging, and the measure of that motion is what we call time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI think the problem lies in the fact that physicists don't see that time is nothing more than a discription of the relationship between things that move, and a thing that doesn't move, a thing that in itslelf is eternal and infinite. An infinite and eternal vacuum, i.e. an infinite empty space, or an infinite and eternal cosmos, the whole of existence as opposed to the parts therein, being that it is eternal and infinite, doesn't move. I'm no physicist, so of course I could be way off, but I think that time is the relationship between the moving parts contained within the eternal, infinite, and so unmoving whole. In other words things move or change within the unmoved and unchanging, and the measure of that motion is what we call time.Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostBut the illusion of color is fundamentally different from the "illusion" of temporal becoming. The illusion of color is a misapprehension of external reality made by a brain state in a specific moment of time, while the illusion of temporal becoming is the perception of moving from one brain state to another.
What I'm objecting against is that this description of reality does not explain why it is that you're now aware of the particular moment of time that you're currently in, as opposed to any other moment of time.
My objection is that it would only explain the memory/perception of having moved from one moment to the next, it would not explain why we have the experience of presently moving from one moment to the next.
Let's suppose that we isolate one single temporal position, and one single brain-state which occupies that temporal position. Now, we have agreed that memory creates the illusory perception of having arrived at that moment from the previous moment. In what way does this differ from that brain state having the illusory experience of arriving at that moment from the previous? What would you expect to find in an experience which you do not find in a perception?
Right. How do you think defining the arrow of time by entropy relevant to our perception of temporal becoming? If it would be just as valid to define the arrow of time to be towards decreasing entropy, why is it that everything we know tells us that the universe is moving towards increasing entropy?
Is that simply a misconception due to the illusion of temporal becoming, or is it an objective facet of reality. I.e is there something about our spacetime-block that would lead a hypothetical outside observer to think that the history of the universe is towards increasing entropy, rather than decreasing entropy?
Originally posted by JimL View PostThat would mean that there are many different you's, consciously experiencing many different parts of your history, all the time.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI think that'd be uncharitable. Its not incoherent, what he describes makes sense.
I just think its completely detached from how reality is. We experience a change from state to another. This experience disproves it."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post...which I am arguing is a misapprehension of external reality made by a brain state in a specific moment of time.
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThis is why I am saying that you are stuck in an A-Theory mindset. You are still supposing that consciousness only actually occupies a single moment in time, and that this proceeds from one moment to the next.
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI think that's a distinction without a difference. The perception of having moved from one moment to the next is the experience of moving from one moment to the next.
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostLet's suppose that we isolate one single temporal position, and one single brain-state which occupies that temporal position. Now, we have agreed that memory creates the illusory perception of having arrived at that moment from the previous moment. In what way does this differ from that brain state having the illusory experience of arriving at that moment from the previous? What would you expect to find in an experience which you do not find in a perception?
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post...because we have defined "forward" to be in the direction of increasing entropy. If we had defined that direction to be "backward," instead, the universe would be moving toward decreasing entropy.
There does not seem to be anything about spacetime as a whole which would define a particular "forward" or "backward" for the arrow of time. I do agree that our intuitive labeling of the towards-increasing-entropy direction as being "forward" is due to the illusion of temporal progression.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAs such I know of no really good arguments for B-time except: Its weird and fun (like most things in physics so there's a sort of argument from resemblance), its mathematically elegant (which some see as a good argument, I don't), its simpler (which is debatable) and finally its the worldview most popular between physicists (not a good argument)."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYou sure said eternal and infinite a lot of times. Not sure what you mean though.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThere's also the fact that the A-Theory would require that one accept the existence of a single preferred inertial reference frame representing "actual" space and time-- an aetherframe. Not only is there no evidence for an aetherframe, there does not seem to be any way which there could be evidence for an aetherframe, since it would be entirely indistinguishable from all other inertial reference frames. The aetherframe seems to be both unfalsifiable and unnecessary, and thus clearly opposed to Occam's Razor.
You'd need something stronger to invoke an argument otherwise you're making a vague appeal to a consequence you don't like. I'm not sure its true either, as I've spent far less time on the interpretation of Theory of Relativity, than I've done on Quantum Mechanics. Even if true, so what? Yes, if it truly implies an absolute but unmeasurable frame of reference, then such a one exists, but is irrelevant in as much as it can't be measured. Just like the scalar and vector fields of electromagnetism can't really be determined either (and can be infinitely gauge transformed). We're not even capable of determining by measurement whether magnetic and electric fields are more basic than their vector/scalar form, though the later seems simpler and more conceptually sound.
You can only invoke Occam's Razor if the two alternatives are otherwise equivalent, but they're not here. B-theory of time is completely incapable of accounting for our experience of change. Or if it does, I don't see how you avoid begging the question. Clearly we experience change. Clearly B-theory of time denies that this experience represents reality.
Personally I don't see why the argument against the B-theory of time would need to be deeper than this.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostAlmost there, now. It would mean that there are many subsets of you each consciously experiencing many different parts of your history, at each temporal location which you occupy over the course of your life.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostAnd I'm arguing that the very nature of the perception of temporal becoming invalidates such an understanding.
You say that I'm stuck in an A-Theory mindset, but you're wrong. I'm not supposing that consciousness only occupies a single moment in time, I'm asking you to explain why we have the experience that our consciousness only occupies a single moment in time when on B-theory this is clearly not so.
I'm not sure about you, but I can clearly distinguish between my memory of having moved from one moment to the next and my experience that I'm currently moving forward in time.
I think the real question is what would you expect to find in an experience/perception that you do not find in a memory, and the answer to that would be the perception is about something happening in that very moment of time where you have the perception, while a memory is about something you experienced in a prior moment of time.
The reason I'm asking these questions is because I'm not entirely sure anymore what role the arrow of time has in your explanation on why we experience the illusion of temporal becoming.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThis is an interesting argument you're making, except you haven't established any point beyond the unavailability of scientific evidence.
Imagine, for a moment, someone had scattered one thousand little red balls over the floor of a room. Each one of these balls is completely physically identical to all the others-- shape, weight, color, material, etc.-- and the only difference between them is their position on the floor. Your host points to one of the balls and says, "That's actually the correct ball. All the others are wrong." What does that statement even mean?
You can only invoke Occam's Razor if the two alternatives are otherwise equivalent, but they're not here. B-theory of time is completely incapable of accounting for our experience of change. Or if it does, I don't see how you avoid begging the question. Clearly we experience change. Clearly B-theory of time denies that this experience represents reality.
Originally posted by JimL View PostI think that the B-time theory actually defines time as a non-existent thing in itself.
To say that you were born say 30 years ago doesn't really have any meaning because 30 years ago has always existed according to B-theory.
So if there is no process involved, if all of time, and all events in time, exist, if each temporal moment is just as real as any other, If you have always existed in time, "if all of your brain states have always existed," then why weren't you conscious of yourself 14 billion years ago at the beginning of time?"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI understand that. However, to simply assert that my analogy to color fails is question begging. I made the analogy precisely to illustrate that I believe the perception of temporal progression is a misapprehension of external reality made by a brain state in a specific moment of time.
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostAgain, this is precisely what we would expect of a brain state which cannot perceive stimuli from other temporal locations, so I'm not sure why you are confused, here. It is only aware of its own particular temporal location, hence the perception that our consciousness only occupies a single moment in time.
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostAlright, so how do you differentiate between an experience which is happening in that very moment of time where you have the perception, and an illusion of temporal progression caused by memory? What would you expect to find in the former which you would not expect to find in the latter?
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostIt's just an acknowledgement that, unlike spatial dimensions, there does seem to be a way to differentiate one direction of the temporal dimension from the other.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostRight, so you've managed to explain why a brain state is only aware of the specific moment of time which it occupies. But I'd appreciate an answer to my second question as well, the one that you snipped out.
I'm also asking you to explain why it seems that we are aware of that specific moment as if it was "the present", as opposed to any of the other moments spread along the timeline of our lives, when in reality, all brain states along that line are equally real.
If so, I omitted it because it seems to be a restatement of the same question. We are aware of that specific moment as if it was "the present," as opposed to any of the other moments spread along the timeline of our lives, because our brain state at that moment is restricted to perception at that moment. We would not expect a brain state to perceive a moment in which it does not exist as being "the present." Each brain state previous to that one similarly perceived itself to be in "the present," as will each subsequent brain state. So, again, I'm really not sure why you are confused, here. You seem to be saying, "I grant that each brain state perceives itself to be in the present at the particular moment it occupies, but I do not see why we perceive ourselves to be in the present at the particular moment we occupy." However, since you've also granted (for the sake of argument) that consciousness is a product of the brain state, there does not seem to be any justification in attempting to separate the perception of our brain states from our perception. The two are synonymous.
For one, the memory of having traversed time is a more or less vague recollection in your mind, while the experience of currently traversing time in the present is something more vivid and immediate. It's basically the same as the difference between seeing, for example, an elephant in real life and only imagining the elephant in your mind with the seeing the elephant in real life corresponding to the experience happening in the moment, and imagining the elephant corresponding to the memory.
Right. Will it ever become relevant to your explanation as to why we experience the illusion of temporal becoming?"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
23 responses
131 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 06:22 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,122 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,246 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
53 responses
420 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-11-2024, 11:01 AM |
Comment