Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is time physical?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Who cares what a philosopher thinks?
    Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.

    Westley: You're that smart?

    Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

    Westley: Yes.

    Vizzini: Morons.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Machinist View Post
      Kant didn't think space exists:


      "Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally". (Ak 2: 403)
      Kant should have read up on general relativity.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post

        As I said, TIME is a coordinate (or layer in my example) so each "slice" is a different time. So to say it all is at the same time is nonsense. They all have their own time slice. slice 1969 - men land on the moon, slice 2022 Seer starts this thread. I challenge you to look around and find events from 1969 floating around in 2022. You won't because they are in 1969. Each event exists in it's own time. Just like each object exists in it's own spacial location.
        Spock: He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two dimensional thinking.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Stoic View Post

          Spock: He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two dimensional thinking.
          I think he understands and is "playing dumb"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post

            I think he understands and is "playing dumb"
            People have said that about me when it wasn't the case, so I hesitate to make that assumption.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post

              Who cares what a philosopher thinks?
              What do you all make of what Kant is saying here anyway? I find it intriguing myself. It's very cryptic and sounds like it holds the key to some ancient mystery.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                Kant should have read up on general relativity.
                He couldn't.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                  He couldn't.
                  Yeah, that's my point. We've learned a few things since Kant was around.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    Yeah, that's my point. We've learned a few things since Kant was around.
                    I don't know about that. I keep reading things that claim that they've been wrong on a few things:

                    Here's just one article of many:

                    https://www.inverse.com/science/what-einstein-got-wrong

                    At any rate, if some form of Kantian Idealism were true, wouldn't general relativity still be a testable and verifiable thing within such a reality?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                      I don't know about that. I keep reading things that claim that they've been wrong on a few things:

                      Here's just one article of many:

                      https://www.inverse.com/science/what-einstein-got-wrong

                      At any rate, if some form of Kantian Idealism were true, wouldn't general relativity still be a testable and verifiable thing within such a reality?
                      Any scientific theory is potentially wrong, but general relativity is exceptionally well confirmed.

                      I'm just saying that if Kant had the evidence available to him that we do now, it's unlikely that he would claim that space is not something that is objective and real.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                        Any scientific theory is potentially wrong, but general relativity is exceptionally well confirmed.

                        I'm just saying that if Kant had the evidence available to him that we do now, it's unlikely that he would claim that space is not something that is objective and real.
                        Then why are there so many people today that believe in some variety of idealism? There are plenty of worldviews today, in all branches of academia, that assume mind as the fundamental.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                          Then why are there so many people today that believe in some variety of idealism? There are plenty of worldviews today, in all branches of academia, that assume mind as the fundamental.
                          You're right. I failed to consider that some people actually believe that the only thing that is real is their own mind.

                          I should have said that we know that space and time are generally considered to be as real as the computers we are using to access the internet. But I have to grant the possibility that those don't exist, either.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                            You're right. I failed to consider that some people actually believe that the only thing that is real is their own mind.
                            I guess that could be one variety of idealism, but there are many others. It isn't just their own minds. That's sort of a cartoony way of describing what idealism is.

                            I should have said that we know that space and time are generally considered to be as real as the computers we are using to access the internet. But I have to grant the possibility that those don't exist, either.

                            They exist whether idealism is true or not. The only difference would be their existence is in some way dependent upon mind. Any experiments set up to test general relativity would be just as stable, as Kant says that everything "originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme..." . I would imagine that in idealism, all the laws of general relativity and physics would be just as stable as a materialistic universe.

                            As a theist (and Kant was also a theist), I don't see why the notion of idealism is so absurd to other theists. All Christians accept that God spoke into the void, and His words became matter. Words do have a dependence upon thought in some way wouldn't you think? So in a way, it's God's thoughts that are the world around us, the very fabric of reality. I mean, that's really all it says in the Bible: God spoke...and it was. That, in and of itself is a form of theistic idealism.

                            And time. In keeping with the topic of the thread here. I think idealism better accounts for time.


                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                              What do you all make of what Kant is saying here anyway? I find it intriguing myself. It's very cryptic and sounds like it holds the key to some ancient mystery.
                              What are you smoking, dude?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                                You were asking for me to show you the layers in my analogy

                                Are you just playing dumb? Or is it for real?
                                That is the point, your ruler is objectively verifiable, unlike your layers. The idea of the past and future existing in the same universe as the present is a theory that can not be objectively verified. It is a theory based on our limited understanding of time.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by mattbballman31, 09-24-2022, 04:21 PM
                                31 responses
                                96 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 09-21-2022, 12:55 PM
                                24 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 08-03-2022, 11:33 AM
                                570 responses
                                2,369 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Working...
                                X