Further Treatises on Time... (Humans)

by dhw, Friday, March 18, 2011, 17:01 (4795 days ago) @ xeno6696

I adhere to the Chambers definition of time as "the continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past." At the heart of this lie the sequence of cause and effect, and the movement from before to now to after.-MATT: What you're discussing here is precisely my definition of time: Differences in state between at least two observations. But again--and I know you'll be flummoxed for me saying this--that which is 'real' is precisely that which exists without an observer.-I do NOT see "differences in state" as a definition of time. I see them as proof that time is real. Differences in state (cause followed by effect) denote a SEQUENCE, and my specific question to you was what you would call the something or other during which such SEQUENCES take place. I call it time. (For that which is 'real' see below.)-MATT: We've already agreed that knowledge is an agreement based on perception (I think its time to merge this to the "framework" thread) but what hasn't been dealt with is the question on confidence in the accuracy of perception. (This underlies both our agreed upon framework and our own personal frameworks...)-It has been dealt with many times. For instance, in my response to the article on eyewitness accounts, I wrote that human perception and memory are notoriously unreliable, "but our unreliable interpretation of things does not mean that the things themselves are not real." My unreliable perception of the sun moving in the sky does not mean the sun is not there.-MATT: Since time (and we DO agree on this--to me you just reworded my definition) is 'a difference of state between at least two observations,' time is only part of the fabric of reality when an observer is involved. -We do not agree on this as a definition of time (see above). If it is part of the fabric of reality when an observer is involved, it is part of the fabric of reality, unless you wish to argue that because something is observed, it is unreal.-MATT: It is real to us (as humans) but not at all real to the cosmos. (Unless of course you posit that the cosmos can perceive itself...) [...] I posit that the earth does not care about a sequence of events, and is agnostic to both the events that created it as well as the universe at large... what role then, time?-I have no problem believing that the earth and the cosmos are unconscious and impersonal, although David might disagree. Why do we think they exist? Because we observe them. The only 'realities' we know of are those we observe, and the only observers we know of are ourselves, so if you're going to argue that 'reality' is that which exists without an observer, you will have to say that nothing we humans observe is real. This makes your argument against the reality of time part of a much wider and unopposable philosophical argument, which ultimately ties in with one of the first points raised on the epistemological thread concerning levels of discussion, and on this level nothing is real, including you. Goodbye, Matt.
 
MATT: Probably the greatest triumph of quantum mechanics is that it can describe reality independent of any observer... and thusly without time...-If there were no humans to describe reality, explain quantum mechanics, and celebrate this great triumph, then according to you there would be no triumph or cause for triumph. Or are you saying the cosmos can perceive quantum mechanics?-MATT: The cutting criticism (when eastern thought is taken to its extreme) is that if you don't comprehend reality without causes and effects... then you will never comprehend reality as it is.-According to your argument, no-one can ever comprehend reality as it is. According to your argument, reality as it is has to be independent of an observer. Who is this comprehending "you", if it's not an observer? But we have agreed that on a philosophical level no-one can be certain that what he/she observes corresponds to an objective reality. That applies to absolutely every 'reality' you can think of. The bus is on its way, so make your choice between philosophy and common sense! If you choose the former, please note the SEQUENCE of cause and effect (e.g. bus hits you, physics bible squashed, philosophical treatise on time scattered in the wind, fingernail broken, bus-driver collapses with shock, has nervous breakdown, bus wrecked, bus company goes bankrupt...) and tell me what you would call the something or the other during which that SEQUENCE takes place.