They say time is an illusion, as example. They also define that as meaning, it’s radically different from what we understand, not that illusion means it does not exist.
Is nothingness based on the same concept ? For example thoughts. What are thoughts and can they be counted as something ? Is there a space where thoughts happen that can be viewed as such a nothingness ?
On locality, can we assume there are no locality properties with matter and energy ? I’m curious about this myself. I’m not stating it.
Can nothigness exist alongside thoughts, would thoughts make nothing something ? We may also use information for a better term than thoughts, if we move away from the mind.
If matter and energy have inate locality properties, but existed in a super causal state, there could still be nothingness,
Help me out, if something moves infinitely fast, it disappears from existance, how can it influnce nothingness if it only exist to itself ? Is that a super state ?
I think there is a difference to be made between things that are virtually not physical (if we assumed that “physical” refers to the very material of reality itself), and things that are actually not physical. Both can exist. Let me explain.
Something that is virtually not physical is a thought like you mentioned. A thought is like an experience. It is not really physical, yet, it can be traced back to a physical process. So one could say under materialism that even thoughts are physical in nature.
Something that is actually not physical is logic. The concept of logic exists, yet there it doesn’t trace back to anything physical… at least as far as I know.
Key word here is the concept. I would argue that the only way for something truly not physical to exist is for it to be a concept. Keep in mind that I am using physical to refer to the fabric of reality here, not matter. So in the case of nothingness, it does exist… but only as a concept. The concept of something existing does not mean that the thing itself / its physical version need to exist. We can precisely talk about things that do not exist because their concepts exist.
But a thought itself may be about a concept. So perhaps everything that can be conceptualized also has a physical trace.
I had never though about this before. My philosophy is usually guided by my evaluation of reality and what seems to explain what. This doesn’t seem to have strong explanatory power to me so I wouldn’t have come up with that in a millions years probably. Interesting nevertheless.
I believe I answer this question above. Information is another concept.
What do you mean by a super causal state?
I was not saying that time moves infinitely fast for the record. But I have no idea what would happen if something hypothetically moved infinitely fast. It would probably generate lots of chaos. And it can’t influence nothingness… I don’t know what you mean by super state.
Infinity if exists it says non-finite where every logical thought is created or understood as to be two points, where to understand infinity you must not think in 2 points, indicating if one doesn’t think infinity exists there but the human thought is without motion or change while if you are present in beginning of universe as an just a consciousness(hypothetical) you will see changes of universe in infinite forms but if your consciousness stops there by a thought or any presence you become finite. While infinite is not what you think or what i think. supposedly there’s nothing like infinite numbers in material and logical world, while it holds some catch in imagination
Hey, thanks for your reply,
On things that move infinitely fast.
Something moving faster than the speed of causality could already count, for example the hypothetical tachyon, that aside.
Do you think we should rather focus on how particles themselves behave ? If particles move and behave in a conventional way they will be visable. So A and B according to our discussion will make nothingness something and visible and space will emerge.
If however A and B behave and move in their inner parts faster than causality A and B will disappear from existance and nothingness will exist. This is a super state. A and B may also touch or be in harmoney or integrated due to their shared state or super state in how their parts behave.
So A and B don’t have to move infinitely fast, just faster within themselves or their parts than c.
Varient c sppeds are an open discusion and there are many disputes on whether c is still the maximum speed.
Thus the parts within something itself can move faster than c, this may be why we struggle to find or see tachyons or for that matter the graviton, although there can be more said about the graviton than just high c speed.
So what I’m saying, your thought experement can be more than a thought experement, depending on the state of the parts in A and B and how they move.
I don’t think it’s possible to move faster than the speed of causality. I don’t fully get the reasoning, but if you believe that something moving faster than the speed of causality would make nothingness exist, then it should not make you doubt the non-existence of nothingness, but rather the credibility of that concept. If we start from the assumption that nothingness can’t exist by definition, then an event that would entail the existence of it should therefore be impossible.
I suppose the speed of causality is akin to the speed of time itself or the speed at which reality follows its course. At least, that’s how I understand it. So nothing should be able to move faster than reality itself, since that thing would have to be part of reality. Whether that speed is the speed of light or not, I would just say it is not possible.
Unless I am misunderstanding you? Sorry it’s a bit hard for me to understand exactly what you are trying to get at.
I am not simply wanting to prove you wrong. I just try to point out on the claims that makes no sense, and put across what I think is right. Of course I might be wrong, but in the middle of the discussion with reasoning, right and wrong will emerge. And if we could learn from the discussion, that is what I am always trying to acheive.
If you pass, then I take it as you have nothing interesting or informative to add to the discussion. And it is perfectly fine with me. There is always something more to learn and find out there in the world, and forum.
Okay, go ahead and share your ideas. But disclaimer:
This is an interesting thing to consider if time were to be infinite. Even if you prove that time cannot be infinite somehow, I still enjoy thought exercises like that and would have still posted about this.
To clarify, I would further like to add that the conclusion I proposed is more akin to mathematical reality or a comprehension paradigm (kinda… if you know what I mean). That doesn’t mean straight up that time doesn’t exist at all. It would mean something closer to “in a way it doesnt, and here is the setting in which it does / doesn’t.” The actual reasoning after supposing that time is infinite may sound confusing, but it’s honestly pretty straight forward. I’d be surprised if you found an actual incoherence there.
I explained on the concept of time in the other thread. Time is just words in our language describing when-ness of events. Time manifests when we perceive the events of motions, changes or progress and measure the intervals in the instruments.
Likewise eternity is just a word describing the amount of intervals for events or processes with no indication of ending for human perception.
What time is it now? How old are you? How long has it been since x has started? What time does it start? How long has it been going on? etc etc.
Time exists. We can ask about it, and can answer them.
Time exists in the language describing our perception of the when-ness, intervals, ages, motions, changes.
Time exists objectively. Time is a civil contract. If you arranged to meet your friend at 1pm tomorrow. You and your friend knows exactly when that will be (the when-ness).
If your country’s main TV channel says, the show will start at 7pm this Saturday, you and whole your countrymen know when that will be (when-ness).
If you realised it is time to go to bed (whatever time on your clock is your bedtime), then you know it is bedtime for you (when-ness). You perceive time to do something or stop something. You also feel time is passing too quickly or too slow depending on what you are doing or not doing.
Hence time is both objective and subjective depending how it is manifested, used and perceived.
I don’t feel like the discussion is moving forward.
And no. What you said implies that time does not objectively exist. There is a difference between 2pm being an objective thing, and me being able to objectively identify 2pm. 2pm is subjective to humans, but I can objectively identify when it is 2pm. A concept can be subjective in nature, while the information surrounding it can be objectively assessed if the concept is well defined enough.
If the words objectively and subjectively create confusion between us, then answer this question that you avoided once already so I can understand your viewpoint:
If there are no living beings in the universe, leaving only inanimate objects, does “when-ness” still exist? If yes, then what is when-ness? Concretely please.
I thought my explanation on objective and subjective time was clear with no complexities or obscurities.
Can you explain your case of 2pm being an objective thing? Do you mean 2pm is an object thing? Does 2pm exist as an object in space somewhere visible with primary and secondary qualities? Or does it mean something else?
If time is a mental product i.e. your perception of “when-ness”, and if you and any living beings don’t exist, how could that mental product exist? Isn’t the answer already in the question?
No, 2pm is not an objective thing. I am explaining that something can be subjective (like 2pm) while allowing for an objective evaluation of surrounding information. This means I can objectively show it is 2pm, even if 2pm itself is a concept purely subjective to humans.
You are right, time exists, even if it is subjective. But what I meant by “does it objectively exist?” is: “would it still exist if no living agent was there to perceive it?”
Sigh… you know 99% of people on earth use time instead of “when-ness” and to refer to their perception of “when-ness” they just say “my perception of time.” You are just refusing to use the word time conventionally but sure, then again:
If time is not the same as “when-ness” and there are no living beings in the universe, leaving only inanimate objects, does “when-ness” still exist? If yes, then what is when-ness?
It’s amazing, it’s like you refuse to answer the question despite asking to talk about it…
Of course 2pm objectively exist, because everyone on the planet knows it, and uses it to arrange meetings, start works and go for the train or catching plane etc etc.
“when-ness” is the perception of time either subjectively or objectively conceived. When you perceived time for going to bed or go to work or feeling time is running slow or fast. This is subjective when-ness.
In the case of objective “when-ness”, you and your friend perceived time, and met at the arranged time, or everyone in your country switched on the TV to watch a show, or sports game at the publicly prearranged time.
If there was no living being in the world, there is no when-ness. The reason for that is obvious from above.
Not sure what you are saying here at all. The above points have been clearly explained with detail and examples in my previous post, but I repeated the more or less the same points and content again in this post, because they seem have not been understood or taken in for some strange reason. What is amazing to you, and what I refused to answer still remain mystery to me.
So time is the perception of when-ness and when-ness is the perception of time. Great circular definition
If you can’t conceptualize time without appealing to humans, then go do some research on it first and let me know when you can define it without appealing to human. Then, we can continue talking.
So we clearly do have a concept of time outside of living beings… it’s no secret as far as I know. Youtube is free. But regardless, you haven’t defined nor wellness nor time.
You give examples, but you literally said (and I could quote you) that when-ness is the perception of time and that time is the perception of when-ness… You can’t make this up bruh
People may think they understand a concept, but words and brains are tricky… if you can’t properly define it, it may be an indicator that you internally haven’t fully grasped the concept.
I don’t mean to be condescending at all, I am serious.
It is not a circular definition. Perception is your mental activity, and when-ness is a concept.
It doesn’t sound correct. My explanations and examples are all based on human activities.
I think you have difficulty seeing the difference between mental operation and concept. As said above, perception is a mental operation, “when-ness” is a concept. It is a neat concept describing what time is and means, in my opinion.
Ok, that’s fine with me. We don’t have to fully agree on all our ideas on these concepts and definitions. I think knowing how differently other folks think helps me a lot in understanding human psychology, so that is enough for me.
Do as you please. But please note, circular definition is not a crime, if it helps understanding the ideas. To me, it is not circular at all. Perception is a mental activity. When-ness is a concept. Perceiving and perceived is not the same.
My aim is understanding. Not definition. I gave you plenty of examples for your understanding. I gave you my definition, but you denied and rejected it without a legitimate reason, and I am not going to expect you change your mind.
My point is simple and clear. Why do you complicate ideas, concepts and definitions with needless redundancies and muddles, when the simplest and clearest can do?
You wouldn’t know if a planet existed or it moved an inch, if you didn’t exist. When no one exists, who would know about time? Who would know about planets or movements?
It is a daft hypothesis, because when no living exists, there is no way to confirm if a planet exists or it would move an inch. The suggestion degrades into a pure guess work.
Perhaps our minds are too far apart in thinking. But it’s ok, was good to know, as I said, how folks could think differently on the same topics. That fact itself is interesting.
