Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:56 am This is just some speculation here, contrasting two different ways of thinking about time, and there is no evidence for either one (as far as I know).

I'm addressing the everyday notion of time here. Past, present, future. Passage of time, arrow of time, flow of time etc.

(I'm aware that for example on the quantum level, or in many traditions, reality can also be understood to be timeless, that's not the aspect I'm addressing here.)

-------------------------

One-way-street time:

So we are born, we age, we die, and the world ages around us. Time and entropy always seem to flow in one direction. Time seems linear, an endless one-way-street, always flowing from the past towards the future.

The Bible also talks about "the beginning" and "end times", and so it is common to think of time as a one-way-street with a starting point and an ending point. According to the Bible, it's a finitely long one-way-street.

"Beginning" and "end" is discarded by many, but the underlying sensation of "one-way-street"-ness remains.

The Big Bang theory also usually implies that time is a one-way-street, with a beginning. That's where time started and there was no time before it. Some variations of it claim that the Big Bang was no beginning, and so the one-way-street continues further back, perhaps infinitely.

Some variations claim that the universe starts with a Big Bang and ends in a Big Crunch, and that's the start of the next universe. The next universe may be different or identical to this one. It's like an infinitely long chain of universes, where time still is a one-way-street.

(My personal opinion is that this picture is illogical, because finite things go on indefinitely.)

-------------------------

Circular time:

There's an alternative that may be counterintuitive and hard to grasp. Take a finitely long one-way-street time and stitch the two loose ends together, forming a circle.

In practice, this would for example (but not necessarily) look like this, just to give an example:

Take the variation of the Big Bang theory where our universe starts with a Big Bang and ends with a Big Crunch. Take the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of the Big Crunch, and stitch them together, forming a circle.

This isn't the same as "the prior or next universe is identical to this one", because there is no prior or next universe. It means that there is only this universe and time goes in circle.

So this means that when we talk about the distant past, and when we talk about the distant future, we talk about the same moment in time.

(My personal opinion is that this picture is logical, and perfectly compatible with the underlying timelessness of the quantum realm. It is compatible with the "eternal now" that many traditions are talking about.)

-------------------------

Which one is more likely to be the case? Or perhaps someone can refute one of these.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:08 am Time as perpetually folding set of linear dimension (ie frequency) can observe both without contradiction. Considering alternation seems to be a universal physical and psychological law, premised in space, the interpretation of time (at minimum) should be one of linear folding.

In theory, timelines should periodically alternate and fold upon themselves to produce new timelines, hence in theory we may alternate certain material constant periodically, and the laws of physics may change by a fraction every x number of ages.

If my memory serves, some physicists are beginning to find that certain "constants" are not actually constant...do the research yourself though on this subject as my memory is poor.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:08 am Time as perpetually folding set of linear dimension (ie frequency) can observe both without contradiction. Considering alternation seems to be a universal physical and psychological law, premised in space, the interpretation of time (at minimum) should be one of linear folding.

In theory, timelines should periodically alternate and fold upon themselves to produce new timelines, hence in theory we may alternate certain material constant periodically, and the laws of physics may change by a fraction every x number of ages.

If my memory serves, some physicists are beginning to find that certain "constants" are not actually constant...do the research yourself though on this subject as my memory is poor.

Mmmm interesting. What do you mean when you say alternation is a universal physical and psychological law? I'm not sure I'm seeing it.
Linear rotation as approximation of the most universal spatial constant: the circle. We cannot see the circle in entirety, due to the limit of temporality as individuation through 0 dimensional space as a "veil" of reality, hence we can only observe approximations of it through movement. The line, is the foundation for all unit-particulate, hence what we understand of approximation is a form of observing constants as approximates through the line. The Line is a the foundation for our approximation of reality, hence physical space (which is also a foundation for consciousness).

If there are more than one timelines inside this universe (which I think is the case), I see them as sort of summed together, not alternating. I agree though that certain "constants" could change over time or over distances.
To summate them would be to observe the circle, as an infinite number of points (most likely 1d, not 0d, which I argue on other threads) which in itself is a point. The point is the foundation for reality as literal glue and foundation, but we observe it temporally through the circle also. Hence our understand of time, as linear unit-particulate, as the foundations of degrees (which exist through rotation) is strictly the rotation of the line through frequency, which exists as a line in itself.

We do tend to jump back and forth between our hemispheres (especially men), between "direct" and abstract thinking, between the neocortex and the reptilian part of the brain (especially women), and so on and so forth, is that what you mean by psychological alternation?
One aspect yes, we can also observe alternation through the nature of sexuality, as a form of synthesis through reproduction at the biological level.

In a separate respect we altnerate ideas in order to synthesize new ones, and the same applies for making decisions at an emotional level. The fluctuation of various emotional duals (primarily joy and not-joy) provide the foundation for a constant median of emotional "universality" through embodiment of extremes which in turn manifest both us and our daily intuitive decisions.

We can observe the alternation of thoughts and emotions at the practical level through the nature of the decision making process as a form of rotation resulting in synthesis.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:12 am...

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:06 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:12 am...

Hmm our ways of thinking seem to be as different as possible. Once again I probably couldn't follow anything you wrote. So I'll just write random stuff that comes to mind.

On the most fundamental levels, reality does seem to be "made of" circular structures embedded into each other. Circularity is not a spatial constant.
In the respect that things alternate they do. Seasons alternate, along with people's moods, government structures (ranging from democracies to totalitarian dictatorships) alternate, habits observe a frequency of action, etc.

I don't know what linear rotation means here.
Alternating lines as frequencies.

Time in the everyday sense may be one such circle, but we will probably percieve it as a dead straight, linear line, so there is nothing that needs approximation.
Time is the observation of change, with change being approximation of constants. For example I may see a person's face change for a variety of reason's however it does not change the fact what makes the human face the human face is a variety of ratios, specifically multiple golden ratios. I may see a plant that varies from an organism such as a snail, but both may contain the golden ratio.

A flow of lava may be different in the rate of movement than the flow of water, or an air current, or the growth of a tree but all share a branching structure.



I don't know what it means that physical space is the"a" foundation of consciousness. Individual consciousness is in the head, universal "consciousness" is everything there is, including all veils and circles and what not.
And yet "all veils and circles and what not" exist inside the head.

I don't understand what observing the circle refers to. You observe reality or time or whatever, so you observe circularity. The circle itself is an abstraction.
That abstraction, as a constant, appears to be what glues the movement together.


0d is 0d, a dimensionless concept that doesn't refer to anything. A point is not the foundation of reality. To chop up reality into points and then glue them back together is an unnecessary cognitive double-twist.
In theory their should also exist a dual 1d point which it directed into itself ad-infinitum and is intradimensional in nature. It would provide the logical foundation for infinity as direction directed into itself. Considering the point has no structure, what we understand of dimensionality would be direction. Space mirroring into itself ad-infinitum as one moment would equate space ultimately as a 1d structure, not linear, but rather a point.

The three psychological examples I wrote for alternation are more like pseudo-alternations, they aren't fundamental. Nature of sexuality is also more like a pseudo-alternation.
Sexuality is a constant, even in artificial reproduction test tube and syringes display the same projective and passive nature we observe in the human anatomy either at the physical or emotional level. Projection and reception, active and passive, while embodied in the sex organs are constants in regards to the nature of sexuality.

Switching between different ideas is a pseudo-alternation, not fundamental.
And this exchange as opposite ideas does not justifies the point in the premise, where the alternation of ideas provides a foundation for understanding?

Making decisions at an emotion level is a pseudo-alternation, not fundamental. Besides many people have thinking and feeling basically unified into one process.
People reason emotionally, about what feels good and what feels bad. "X" feels good, "Y" feels bad, pursue "X" and avoid "Y" observes a process of reasoning that altnerates between extremes.


Emotional duals - pseudo-alternation.
People don't have highs and lows? The people feel the same all the time, let alone think that way?

Taking two pseudo-extremes and then making a median out of them is totally a pseudo-universality, a pseudo-constant. This kind of cognitive double-twist strikes me as quite Buddhistic, but then again such pseudo-dualities are to be transcended in Buddhism as far as I know. Dualism should be transcended, not taken to the extreme.
I am not saying reality is limited to a dualism, however the dualism is a fundamental quality observe primarily in actuality/potentiality, alternation of poles, and frequency.

Alternation of thoughts and emotions is pseudo-alternation. Dividing things into two extremes just doesn't always make sense. Things can have more than two extremes, and even two things can't always be fully contrasted etc. Differences can also be very mild, not extreme etc.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:50 pm In the respect that things alternate they do. Seasons alternate, along with people's moods, government structures (ranging from democracies to totalitarian dictatorships) alternate, habits observe a frequency of action, etc.

Alternating lines as frequencies.

Time is the observation of change, with change being approximation of constants.

And yet "all veils and circles and what not" exist inside the head.

That abstraction, as a constant, appears to be what glues the movement together.

In theory their should also exist a dual 1d point which it directed into itself ad-infinitum and is intradimensional in nature. It would provide the logical foundation for infinity as direction directed into itself. Considering the point has no structure, what we understand of dimensionality would be direction. Space mirroring into itself ad-infinitum as one moment would equate space ultimately as a 1d structure, not linear, but rather a point.

Sexuality is a constant

even in artificial reproduction test tube and syringes display the same projective and passive nature we observe in the human anatomy either at the physical or emotional level. Projection and reception, active and passive, while embodied in the sex organs are constants in regards to the nature of sexuality.

And this exchange as opposite ideas does not justifies the point in the premise, where the alternation of ideas provides a foundation for understanding?

People reason emotionally, about what feels good and what feels bad. "X" feels good, "Y" feels bad, pursue "X" and avoid "Y" observes a process of reasoning that altnerates between extremes.

People don't have highs and lows? The people feel the same all the time, let alone think that way?

I am not saying reality is limited to a dualism, however the dualism is a fundamental quality observe primarily in actuality/potentiality, alternation of poles, and frequency.

Things can have more than two extremes, but even then they can be broken down as such. I may feel multiple different types of happiness, and multiple types of sorrow, however for all the various extremes they contain they can arise from a duality.

All dualism is an observation of movement, nothing more, and in these respects it is merely an approximation about the nature of reality.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:50 pm In the respect that things alternate they do. Seasons alternate, along with people's moods, government structures (ranging from democracies to totalitarian dictatorships) alternate, habits observe a frequency of action, etc.

These things change, but I see no fundamental pattern here, as in "law".
[All human thinking is just approximation so yeah{color]
If all human thinking is an approximation then what are laws.

Alternating lines as frequencies.

You mean crests and troughs? If so then those go together, so it's a pseudo-dualism.
What is not a pseudo-dualism exactly? Or better yet what is one?

Time is the observation of change, with change being approximation of constants.

Not sure I agree. To me time is more like the observation of a special kind of change, in the direction of increasing entropy. We observe a part of the universe in a certain direction. It's probably not even fundamental, it's just needed because of the Anthropic principle. Without increasing entropy we couldn't be here.
And how is the anthropic principle justified when it observes rations much in the same manner a dualism observes an inherent relation of two parts of a greater whole.

And yet "all veils and circles and what not" exist inside the head.

Yes and no. The conceptualization of veils and circles are in the head. What they refer to are not, or not just in the head.
What seperates what is in the head and what is outside the head when both abstract and empirical observation are based upon spatial quantities and qualities?

That abstraction, as a constant, appears to be what glues the movement together.

Nothing needs to be glued together, "movements" are already there. An abstraction is an abstraction, it doesn't have an effect.
And what is movement? I already have an argument, but what is yours?

In theory their should also exist a dual 1d point which it directed into itself ad-infinitum and is intradimensional in nature. It would provide the logical foundation for infinity as direction directed into itself. Considering the point has no structure, what we understand of dimensionality would be direction. Space mirroring into itself ad-infinitum as one moment would equate space ultimately as a 1d structure, not linear, but rather a point.

Dunno what this means. I mean this is the kind of stuff I'm really bad at.
A point to me is a mathematical object that doesn't refer to anything in reality. Why does infinity need a foundation? Isn't space mirroring itself ad-infinitum simply an awkward way of saying that erverything is entangled with everything else in the universe?
Okay, so it does not refer to anything in reality...then why is math/geometry/logic used to define reality?

"Infinity" qualitatively and quantitatively is defined as "limitless limit", hence what we understand of infinity is both limit and no-limit. The question occurs, in understanding infinity what exactly is the nature of limit and no-limit.

Limit, we can observe as spatial boundaries with these boundaries fundamentally existing as space through direction. For instance if I observe an object its movement and its inherent form are defined by the dimensions which give direction to the moving object relative to certain conditions. If I throw a football, in a certain manner, its spins because of its dimensions. If I throw it another way is spins in another manner. The object, as movement, through its dimensions, observes the dimensions fundamentally are boundaries which give direction.

I will stop there, assuming there will be questions.

Sexuality is a constant

Not for all species. And it's a pseudo-constant anyway.

I never said it was a constant in all species (certain tree frogs, seahorses, etc.) , but it is a constant through the nature of reproductive organs. In a separate respect it is constant in other species.

Even artificial insemination requires a degree of projective and receptive space.

even in artificial reproduction test tube and syringes display the same projective and passive nature we observe in the human anatomy either at the physical or emotional level. Projection and reception, active and passive, while embodied in the sex organs are constants in regards to the nature of sexuality.

No universal laws here for sure. To get to the point where we are now, evolution was required. And this form of sexuality seems to have been an efficient way to do it.
Evolution is a theory not universal law. Under your standard of definition for what constitutes truth it is merely a human approximation.

And this exchange as opposite ideas does not justifies the point in the premise, where the alternation of ideas provides a foundation for understanding?

I wouldn't really call it an alternation of ideas, just a debate.
It is an alternation of ideas regardless of what you call it.

People reason emotionally, about what feels good and what feels bad. "X" feels good, "Y" feels bad, pursue "X" and avoid "Y" observes a process of reasoning that altnerates between extremes.

Some people reason emotionally. Others dont. Some people don't even have most emotions.
People reason emotionally in various grades. People have ups, people have downs, one does not need a depth of emotion to observe that. Even scientists who claim strictly empirical standards requires a subjective form of reasoning for the hypothesis.

People don't have highs and lows? The people feel the same all the time, let alone think that way?

Having personal highs and lows is as far from an universal law as it gets imo.
It is not universal for the human condition.

I am not saying reality is limited to a dualism, however the dualism is a fundamental quality observe primarily in actuality/potentiality, alternation of poles, and frequency.

Things can have more than two extremes, but even then they can be broken down as such. I may feel multiple different types of happiness, and multiple types of sorrow, however for all the various extremes they contain they can arise from a duality.

All dualism is an observation of movement, nothing more, and in these respects it is merely an approximation about the nature of reality.

All dualism is just in the human thinking. All human thinking is just approximation so yeah.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:15 amIf all human thinking is an approximation then what are laws.

What is not a pseudo-dualism exactly? Or better yet what is one?

And how is the anthropic principle justified when it observes rations much in the same manner a dualism observes an inherent relation of two parts of a greater whole.

What seperates what is in the head and what is outside the head when both abstract and empirical observation are based upon spatial quantities and qualities?

And what is movement? I already have an argument, but what is yours?

Okay, so it does not refer to anything in reality...then why is math/geometry/logic used to define reality?

but it is a constant through the nature of reproductive organs. In a separate respect it is constant in other species.

Evolution is a theory not universal law. Under your standard of definition for what constitutes truth it is merely a human approximation.

People reason emotionally in various grades. People have ups, people have downs, one does not need a depth of emotion to observe that. Even scientists who claim strictly empirical standards requires a subjective form of reasoning for the hypothesis.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:44 am

Okay, so it does not refer to anything in reality...then why is math/geometry/logic used to define reality?

Waaaaaait. Is this the basis of your reasoning?
Maths/geometry/logic don't define reality. They describe reality. They are all abstractions.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:51 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:44 am

Okay, so it does not refer to anything in reality...then why is math/geometry/logic used to define reality?

Waaaaaait. Is this the basis of your reasoning?
Maths/geometry/logic don't define reality. They describe reality. They are all abstractions.

And who knows, they may break down one day. So far it all went well because the observable unvierse seems to work in one certain way.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:01 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:51 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:44 am
Waaaaaait. Is this the basis of your reasoning?
Maths/geometry/logic don't define reality. They describe reality. They are all abstractions.

And who knows, they may break down one day. So far it all went well because the observable unvierse seems to work in one certain way.

I could go on arguing you point by point, and maybe I will eventually, but how you observe the world is a manner of continual change...hence by default...your view will change and eventually you will be wrong (no fault of your own.)

If it does not change, then their are constants, in which case you are still wrong but won't observe it.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:01 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:51 am
And who knows, they may break down one day. So far it all went well because the observable unvierse seems to work in one certain way.

I could go on arguing you point by point, and maybe I will eventually, but how you observe the world is a manner of continual change...hence by default...your view will change and eventually you will be wrong (no fault of your own.)

If it does not change, then their are constants, in which case you are still wrong but won't observe it.

Not sure what you mean, of course everything is in constant change including how we observe the world. It's not even possible to be right, we can only make the best guesses we can come up with.

My best guess is that, again, the obvious way to address why the "constants" are the way they are, is through the Anthropic principle. But "constants" themselves are abstractions, they wield no power.
Okay, lets condense all of this...if the anthropic principle is a constant...is man a constant?


But beyond that I also see the world as infinitely multiversal which also contains all possible constants and also configaurations where constants don't apply. I'm also aware that certain changes may not be observable.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:22 pm Okay, lets condense all of this...if the anthropic principle is a constant...is man a constant?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:30 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:22 pm Okay, lets condense all of this...if the anthropic principle is a constant...is man a constant?

Umm no.. to me a constant is usually a number, a value, like Planck's constant or the speed of light
"An abstraction is an abstraction, it doesn't have an effect" according to you... and what we understand of these "mathematical laws" are abstractions.

.. umm what do you mean by a constant?
The abstract? In a brief sentence: "form through space."

By Anthropic principle I basically mean that we can observe that we are humans, therefore we must have gotten here somehow, the world we observe around us must be able to produce humans.