Has anyone expressed this view already?
Time isn’t an illusion, but the flow of time probably is. As in, the feeling that the present is real and the past has already happened and we’re flowing, in time, into the future - the present will soon be the past and the future will soon be the present - that’s all quite possibly illusory. But time itself is probably real.
Agreed, for any empirical, re: falsifiable, theory, which speculative metaphysics is not, insofar as these are all predicated on the apodeictic certainty of pure syllogistic logic.
True enough, but can any such argument, pro or con, not be ill-posed? Seems typically human, donnit? To invent something of utmost speculative necessity, then rely on a relatively small range of personal preferences for what it is, in order to describe a vastly greater range of what it can do.
Of course. But one good thing about philosophy, which is rarely attained, is to think clearly about certain problems and if possible, eliminate certain concerns.
If you can show why a certain question is not profitable, because it contains a fallacy or is otherwise muddled, what are we doing?
I would never (nor could I) prohibit any question.
But if someone asks “is the world a computer simulation?” or “what’s it like to see red?”, then I ought to comment on what the problem may be, so they can move on to questions that could have answers or at least allow for constructive investigation.
Too true, but then, whoever suggests such a thing burdens himself with the responsibility for demonstrating a standard by which to “think clearly” satisfies the criteria of good philosophy.
Been a good while since that happened, I must say. Aristotle for the laws, Kant for the system in which they are found.
I don’t know of a system which can tell you what is the case and what is not the case all the time. Only instances.
Here what needs to be clarified is what is meant as an illusion with respect to time. I can understand what an illusion means in terms of a tree or a mountain or even a person, but with time, the term illusion does not have a discernable meaning I can discover.
This is an instance in which philosophy of language can be helpful.
His issue was with the god portrayed by religion, but his conservative outlook led to the reflexive statement, “God does not play dice,” which seemed like an abandonment of physics. I’m not a student of people, but years ago I came across one of his quotes where he dismissed “Time” as a concept. It may have been from his later years, as it was connected to the death of a colleague. What puzzled me was that, for someone who rejected the existence of “Time,” he still found something spooky about the phenomena of quantum entanglement—a concern for me, given that such a great mind held views at odds with my simple understanding, much like Hawking’s perspectives on time travel. As I’ve mentioned, the issues have been resolved. Einstein, even if his pride kept him from openly admitting it, eventually accepted the non-material nature of ‘matter.’ And Dawkins (cross that out, ‘Hawkings’) was simply putting things into layperson’s terms when discussing time travel.
To be clear, it’s not Einstein’s reference to ‘God’ that signifies a departure from his physics, but rather his unwillingness to accept the intangible nature of ‘reality’ as expressed ’ God does not play dice’
You claimed
I pointed out a problem with this, in that both air and water are not illusions, despite being invisible.
Even given that time is invisible (whatever that might mean), it would not follow that therefore it is an illusion.
Do you follow that?
His conservatism led him to use the metaphor of God not playing dice, but putting his personal views aside, he would have accepted that there is nothing “spooky” about quantum mechanics.
Time isn’t an illusion in the philosophical sense, but it’s not a tangible aspect in Physics.
Time is not an illusion but it is a misconception when used in relation to physics.
Well, that doesn’t look right, since time is integral to physics. Velocity is defined in terms of time, force in terms of change in velocity, energy in terms of force, and so on.
I don’t see that you have somewhere made your case for such an assertion.
As far as I know, we don’t have a final theory of time in physics, if one can even reach “finality” in such a field.
Nevertheless, the debate between time being fundamental and time being emergent is a live debate.
Even here, I doubt physicists would say time is illusory in any sense, but emergent.
This can be simplified. Time, for example, is a construct of our minds—a survival mechanism that helps us arrange events in a temporal sequence. Most other creatures have little need for a clock or calendar. In physics, however, ‘time’ (uncapitalized) refers to the rate of motion, but not any true temporal direction.
Your dog eats before it shits. That it doesn’t use a clock does not mean it has no “use” for time.
You do not appear able to make a case against time.
I don’t have much formal education, so I struggle to fully explain these simple concepts, and that’s with added interference from the Chronological Police (chronocops).But here’s another go: Time, when capitalized, refers to the philosophical concept, while ‘time’ in lowercase is about the rate of motion of objects in the physical sense.
What’s the “philosophical concept” of time?
Funny, but I need to point out that ‘before’ and ‘after’ refer to instances in ‘Time’, and these need to be only purely philosophical concepts, nothing truly tangible.
A logical system, which legislates in general, re: A = A? Or all bodies are extended?
Each thesis has its own example, I guess. I don’t have a problem with it, but that’s not to say there isn’t some better way to think about it.
I’m struggling with this—word skills, like logic, can be compared to a hammer, and mine, at 65 years old, is getting rusty. My nails (not the chewed-off fingernails) are used, blunt, and bent. Philosophically, Time is a chronological order of events, but in physics, without the existence of ‘Time’, nothing can truly be chronological. Before and after (time) states are (would be) irrelevant concepts in the detailed physical world.