Time does not exist.

[HexHammer]

You might call that a false dyechotomy. (I wouldn't, though--I'd call it a false dichotomy.)

Yeye, call it what you want, but I'm still right.

[Terrapin Station]

You might call that a false dyechotomy. (I wouldn't, though--I'd call it a false dichotomy.)

Yeye, call it what you want, but I'm still right.

Forwarding a fallacy isn't generally a good recipe for being right.

[HexHammer]

You might call that a false dyechotomy. (I wouldn't, though--I'd call it a false dichotomy.)

Yeye, call it what you want, but I'm still right.

Forwarding a fallacy isn't generally a good recipe for being right.

Tell me what kind of job you have had?

[Terrapin Station]

Yeye, call it what you want, but I'm still right.

Forwarding a fallacy isn't generally a good recipe for being right.

Tell me what kind of job you have had?

I'm a musician/composer/arranger. (And actually I told you that already in a post you responded to yesterday.)

[HexHammer]

Forwarding a fallacy isn't generally a good recipe for being right.

Tell me what kind of job you have had?

I'm a musician/composer/arranger. (And actually I told you that already in a post you responded to yesterday.)

A thousand pardons, I didn't see that post, but thanks for answer.

Ok, jobs that doesn't require higher reasoning skills.

[Terrapin Station]

Tell me what kind of job you have had?

I'm a musician/composer/arranger. (And actually I told you that already in a post you responded to yesterday.)

A thousand pardons, I didn't see that post, but thanks for answer.

Ok, jobs that doesn't require higher reasoning skills.

You didn't see it? You responded to it:

Actually, I could have a job because of philosophy--well, or at least I could have had a job because of philosophy; I don't know if too much time has passed for that to be feasible. But I chose to make a living with music instead.

What kind of job would that be`?

I don't know if you're asking about the philosophy side of that or the music side, but I'll assume the philosophy side: I could have taught philosophy.

Maybe what you meant was that you didn't read more than the first nine words prior to responding?

[HexHammer]

Maybe what you meant was that you didn't read more than the first nine words prior to responding?

Have you ever been to a shrink?

[Terrapin Station]

Maybe what you meant was that you didn't read more than the first nine words prior to responding?

Have you ever been to a shrink?

Projection?

What exactly were you thinking would suggest psychiatry? The fact that you replied to a short post without reading the whole thing and then a day later didn't even recall that you'd done so?

[HexHammer]

Maybe what you meant was that you didn't read more than the first nine words prior to responding?

Have you ever been to a shrink?

Projection?

What exactly were you thinking would suggest psychiatry? The fact that you replied to a short post without reading the whole thing and then a day later didn't even recall that you'd done so?

Forgive me if I missed something in your post, it was pure torture to read, besides I've now read many of your posts and all resemble a mad man's ramblings, I was just curious what you suffer from.

[prothero]

It's fine as an instrumental construction with practical utility, and as such, it's largely a mathematical construction (where I think it's very important to not take mathematical constructions as making ontological commitments), but from an ontological perspective, it can't be "all process" and not involve something that processes are occuring "to," so to speak, because that's logically incoherent.

It is based on observation, empirical measurement and mathematics. Mathematics itself is based on logic. What is your ontology based on?
I realize the implications of relativity and quantum mechanics are counter to our usual "common sense" view of the world but "incoherent" is what the classical views of materialism, space and time are in view of modern science.

[Terrapin Station]

I was just curious what you suffer from.

The ability to read something more than Jack and Jill.

[Terrapin Station]

It's fine as an instrumental construction with practical utility, and as such, it's largely a mathematical construction (where I think it's very important to not take mathematical constructions as making ontological commitments), but from an ontological perspective, it can't be "all process" and not involve something that processes are occuring "to," so to speak, because that's logically incoherent.

It is based on observation, empirical measurement and mathematics. Mathematics itself is based on logic.

None of that is incompatible with what I said by the way (re instrumentalism, etc.)

What is your ontology based on?

Also observation and rationality/logic.

I realize the implications of relativity and quantum mechanics are counter to our usual "common sense" view of the world but "incoherent" is what the classical views of materialism, space and time are in view of modern science.

They're not incoherent, just incorrect in that view. There's a difference.

[prothero]

="Terrapin Station"They're not incoherent, just incorrect in that view. There's a difference.

The common every day sense of things is that space is lie an empty box, time is a clock and the world is composed of enduring physical objects situated in the box and subject to limited change over time. It is only science and philosophy that cause us to question those views.

Science tells us space and time are intricately connected and that both are a flexible active medium, wrapped by gravity and mass. Science also tells us that solid objects are mostly "space" and now that "matter" is less like some kind of solid "particle" (the billiard ball theory) than like an excitation or energy flux or wave ( repetitive event) in the quantum field of space-time. This is what lead me to suggest reality (including matter) is more like a process than like the traditional notion of "matter" (things or objects).

In any case, you are entitled to your view, I just don't think modern science (of which you typically seem an advocate) supports it. Time as traditionally conceived does not exist and neither does "matter". What best characterizes Reality on a scientific or philosophical level is flux, change, becoming (process) not a static permanent fixed (object, substance or being).

[Terrapin Station]

In any case, you are entitled to your view, I just don't think modern science supports it.

Sure, and I don't see that as a problem as long as we don't see science as making non-instrumentalist ontological commitments.

My background is philosophy, and that's the perspective from which I "attack" theses issues. I'm in no way subservient to the sciences, especially when they're seen as making non-instrumentalist ontological commitments.

[uwot]

Hey uwot, good to see you around. Whether you like it or not, in my book, you're one of the good ones.

Spheres me old china, it's not obvious why I should object to this, but if it gives you any comfort, I don't.

In truth I was insulted that it wasn't apparent to him, that I must understand those points he tried to 'school' me... Why do newbies seem to always do that? Is that what attracts them here, to join so they can tell, "that idiot?"

Well, some people are just obnoxious, smartarse pricks, and some are genuinely trying to be helpful. If I'm honest, I'm a bit of both.

As a matter of fact I was just reading up on GPS, and found this pretty interesting: "Periodic corrections are performed to the on-board clocks to keep them synchronized with ground clocks."

Who knows what science will discover? But given the staggering accuracy demanded of GPS, a clock on a satellite is sensitive to the influence of the topology of the landscape it is passing over, the gravity of every other body in the solar system, including passing near Earth meteorites and asteroids, even space junk. Eliminating all that and discovering some new phenomenon isn't going to be easy.