| In this world, there are things that we presume to exist, and then there are constructs of the mind. For example, we can sense a table, then through various means ascertain that it is physical, and is made up of molecules. Even though we envision the table as a mental construct, a table also exists that we refer to. On the other hand, an action is not a thing, but simply some coherent, localized movement. Movement is just an object, made up of molecules, changing locations over multiple states of time. If we can say that an object exists in a particular state of time, then an action must be larger than any particular state of time, since no particular state of time can denote an action. And what does it really mean to say that something that transcends time "exists"? So are actions just figments of our imagination, or are they real, as properties of the world? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Nope, they are verbs. |
| this is some hardcore physics stuff, ELI5 anyone? |
| I'm too stupid for this shit. |
A stupid thread deserves a stupid answer!  |
| You're thinking way too much man. |
 |
| How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real |
 |
| You make a lot of well thought out threads. |
 |
| If love is real then what is not real is considered an adverb but it can't be unnecessary. But can it still begin? |
|
| Action must be larger than the particular state of time is a wrong assumption. Action is merely something that occurs during the traversal of time, it is merely a a small change in the location of an object within a small time frame. Actions are not figments of our imagination but It is what happens during the course of time. |
Vanser said: How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real Dammit, you beat me to it. |
M_F_M said: How can any object in a particular time (imagine a freeze-frame) be said to move?Action must be larger than the particular state of time is a wrong assumption. Action is merely something that occurs during the traversal of time, it is merely a a small change in the location of an object within a small time frame. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: In this world, there are things that we presume to exist, and then there are constructs of the mind. For example, we can sense a table, then through various means ascertain that it is physical, and is made up of molecules. Even though we envision the table as a mental construct, a table also exists that we refer to. On the other hand, an action is not a thing, but simply some coherent, localized movement. Movement is just an object, made up of molecules, changing locations over multiple states of time. If we can say that an object exists in a particular state of time, then an action must be larger than any particular state of time, since no particular state of time can denote an action. And what does it really mean to say that something that transcends time "exists"? So are actions just figments of our imagination, or are they real, as properties of the world? Well, I guess an action is supposed to be a segment of a 4th dimensional segment rendered around one 3 dimensional object (person). |
Bunnay said: I'm too stupid for this shit. |
| Op must be smoking weed or some shit. |
| I've been here way too long... |
| Nope, in my thoughts model, action is entropy, and by the exact moment something moved, time is created. Because I don't believe in predetermined time-space cosmology or the alternatives of multiverse. We live in 'now', as we move, we 'create' time, therefore time itself is only another distance gained in time-dimension. Time itself, is the action. The state of time is only observable because it is now 'in the past' where we perceive changes to 'now', it is not the action that is illusion, but time is. |
azzuReAug 12, 2014 5:47 AM
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
| Your reality is a lie, and your nightmares are real. |
| You really need to sleep. |
| The only way to know if something is real is to commit suicide if it isn't real it won't matter |
| Let me preface, this response will not be a self-contained, comprehensive explanation of the issues at hand. Rather, this will be my attempt at a basic elucidation of particular presuppositions within this thread. Thus, I will attempt to entertain these issues in a re-direction of focus vis-a-vis these presuppositions. First and foremost, the op and the responses that I have read seem to be an amalgamation of Aristotelian time and Cartesian epistemology. Aristotelian Time Aristotle: "For this is what time is: a number of change in respect of before and after." The following questions are what Aristotle posed at the outset of his treatise on time, Physics a8-a29, and still are pertinent insofar as an Aristotelian conception of time is concerned. Hence your question, "How can any object in a particular time (imagine a freeze-frame) be said to move?" And another respondent literally just echoes Aristotle's definition of time of that which is numbered with respect to before and after on a Cartesian plane. Time is conceived as a set of collected nows that are numbered in light of change. Nevertheless, this leads to problematic metaphysical issues regarding the present. If time is constituted on the basis of the now, but the now qua unit is indefinite, then what is to be made of time? In other words, if between two sets of nows, there are an infinite amount of possibly enumerated nows, then how is there time? Moreover, when does a now end? Does the now end at the same time that it started? If that is the case, then how is there such a thing as a lapse? But, what does it metaphysically mean to say that a now ended at another now? What is to be made of time then? These are the two possible dilemmas, is the now always the same? or is the now always different? Both lead to issues, so Aristotle attempts to resolve these two issues via his definition of time. The unit that traverses from the before and after is precisely the now. Moreover, before is a no-longer now, while after refers to a not-yet now. Thus, the analogy that equates the now to a point on a line that traverses an arbitrary distance x. In this way, the point is the same insofar as it is the same point; however the point is different insofar as its position is different. Hence, the analogy between the now and the point. The individual now is different from one another, but insofar as a particular now is concerned, it as a now is the same. The major implication that follows from this claim is the relationship between the now and time itself. For example, Aristotle claims, "and the now determines time, in respect of before and after." The now qua point determines time. In the same way that a line-point determines the entirety of the line. That which constitutes the line are the points on the line. Therefore, time is fundamentally and metaphysically linked with the now. What follows is the implicative problematic of equating that which exists, strictly on the basis of whether it is present. E.g. something is in change, and time is that which is numbered in this process. Nevertheless, the now determines time as aforementioned. Thus, the thing in change is only concerned and persists insofar as it is located at a now. Alternatively, existence, persistence, the very verbal activity of existence is only concerned insofar at any given moment, the activity is grounded in a now. But the now is indefinite, so is the activity indefinite? Cartesianism The Cartesian position is assumed by fiat in most circles. That is, the claim that we have to prove the existence of the outer world, whether that be philosophically or scientifically; and the claim that there is still yet a proof against solipsism or the claim that the only thing you are certain of is your consciousness. I find these claims dubious and overall defined by a lack of moving past Cartesian epistemology. This is Heidegger's critique of Kant's attempt, in Critique of Pure Reason, to move past the Cartesian position, which I think is still relevant today. "Kant never got beyond Descartes’s position, nor did he ever question its foundations. One might object that in a noteworthy section of his Critique of Pure Reason, which is titled [293] “Refutation of Idealism” (B 274–275), Kant did try to overcome the Cartesian position. But this objection is mistaken. In that section Kant tries to demonstrate the existence of things in space; i.e., he thinks it necessary that the being of the outer world (as we would put it) has to be proven, and he declares it an outright scandal that philosophy has no such proof. But insofar as Kant thinks the outer world must be proven he presupposes the Cartesian position, namely, that at the start I do not yet securely possess this curious outer world, but rather have to prove it in the strict philosophical sense of that word." ―Logic: The Question of Truth, pg.242 This, I think, is a rigorously clear elucidation of the presuppositions undertaken. To fancy our intellect as if it has been endowed with the privileged capacity to ground the outer world; such a claim is an outright scandal. Moreover, such a claim is patently abstract and does not take into account how the subject is subjectivized from the outset of being born. Thus, if the world is foundation-less without the intellect, the intellect is foundation-less without the world. Some conclusive remarks Thus, how do we move past this? As I stated prior, I will be only giving a brief overview of the presuppositions, but at a later time I will attempt to give a brief overview of some claims that attempt move past these positions. But I will leave with a question. With this conception of time in view, how does one make sense of a melody? A song? Would we say that a song is entirely encapsulated at any given now? Can we determine the whole song just via one now? Or is there more at stake? That is, is time contextualized? Is the now always contextualized with regard to the past and the future? In other words, is time this linear set of nows, or this ever-looping spiral that consistently refers outward to the future and backwards to the past. E.g. I hear a song, and at any given now, I am able to contextualize that now in light of the fact that I am always re-directed to a not-yet and a no-longer. But does that mean the not-yet and the no-longer are still existent? So, that existence is no longer dominated by fiat via the now? Just something to think about. edit: tl;dr |
CitizeninsaneAug 12, 2014 12:55 PM
Citizeninsane said: Does a song, in the strictest sense, exist?With this conception of time in view, how does one make sense of a melody? A song? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Citizeninsane said: Aside from the quantum physics angle, which I admit am not fully knowledgeable of, we do not know that time is indefinite or continuous, nor does it really matter in this context. Suppose that even if time is continuous, "now" refers to an infinitesimal slice of time, perhaps immediately before an observation, such that we could reasonable assert that there is existence in or around that time. The precise length or boundaries of "now" does not change that existence.Nevertheless, this leads to problematic metaphysical issues regarding the present. If time is constituted on the basis of the now, but the now qua unit is indefinite, then what is to be made of time? In other words, if between two sets of nows, there are an infinite amount of possibly enumerated nows, then how is there time? Moreover, when does a now end? Does the now end at the same time that it started? If that is the case, then how is there such a thing as a lapse? But, what does it metaphysically mean to say that a now ended at another now? What is to be made of time then? These are the two possible dilemmas, is the now always the same? or is the now always different? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| These discussions are the reasons philosophers and scientists go mad and depressive. I just assume they are real. I also assume my waifu is real |
 |
| actions are real |
| RRRRRRRRRR |
Bunnay said: I'm too stupid for this shit. |
FragOutFire said: Why am I a Berserk fan? All I ever experience is pain. We are in the eclipse and Miura has sacrificed us |
| We could even going through instrumentality, or in the matrix But we'll never know |
Bunnay said: I'm too stupid for this shit. Glad I'm not the only one. |
| Ha. Ha. HA. HA. HA. HA. HA. HA. I'm laughing because you got hurt. |
katsucats said: Does a song, in the strictest sense, exist? katsucats said: Aside from the quantum physics angle, which I admit am not fully knowledgeable of, we do not know that time is indefinite or continuous, nor does it really matter in this context. Suppose that even if time is continuous, "now" refers to an infinitesimal slice of time, perhaps immediately before an observation, such that we could reasonable assert that there is existence in or around that time. The precise length or boundaries of "now" does not change that existence. Let me expand a little bit here, as I might have been a tad vague. When I utilized the claim by Aristotle to say "the now determines time...", I emphasized the important implications that arise from this. So, yes, you can go down this route. However, what results is this abstract sense of time, which allows for the possibility of questioning in the following way: "Does a song in the strictest sense, exist?" At least from understanding, if you take existence = presence, and by presence I mean being existent at any given now, then the question I originally posted becomes relevant. That is, how does one explain the phenomena of approaching a song in the way that we do vis-a-vis this "now-time"? How can we explain the human comportment to melody in light of this interpretation of time? Which is why I alluded to the possibility of moving past this conception of time. Aristotle's conception of time reduces existence to presence, which seems to be dubious if we examine our daily comportment to time; it seems to be the case that we couldn't possibly function in the way we do if existence was merely presence. There are certain stakes lost with this conception of time in mind. On an important note, I don't think it is the case that contemporary physics necessarily collides with Aristotelian time, to the extent that I know of course. We still conceive of time as constituted by units that move along a path, whether that be solely as time, or space-time. There are four dimensions but time is still conceived as being strictly a one-dimensional addition in the union of space-time. So, there are different variations, the example given earlier about different functions applies here. Depending on the properties of the object, e.g. velocity, mass, etc. One could conceive of an object that traverses time according to a different function than our standard, hence time dilation, and an appropriate example would be the muon http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html Nevertheless it still abides by a function that flows only at a differing rate, which could be found out through mathematical transformations. |
| Yeah, they're real, as we can have access to it through our senses, but if you want to go a bit farther, we could ask ourselves... what's reality? Are our senses enough to assume something really exist? |
I luv u |
| I'm a Wizard, so whatever I want to be real, is real. |
 |
Citizeninsane said: Quite simply. The mind, presumably, through whatever mechanism, arises from brain states, for which there is one per any instance of time. That brain state contains memories, or relevant details recorded from a previous time, such that we could construct out of our imaginations a variety of experiences which do not actually exist.That is, how does one explain the phenomena of approaching a song in the way that we do vis-a-vis this "now-time"? Citizeninsane said: We may consider different conceptions of time, but there is nothing lost by reducing some metaphysics to psychology.Aristotle's conception of time reduces existence to presence, which seems to be dubious if we examine our daily comportment to time; it seems to be the case that we couldn't possibly function in the way we do if existence was merely presence. There are certain stakes lost with this conception of time in mind. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: We may consider different conceptions of time, but there is nothing lost by reducing some metaphysics to psychology. So, is time entirely psychological? Not to say that you are stating this, but I am just interested in your answer. |
Citizeninsane said: Time may or may not exist. If it does not exist, then the sense of a passage of time, whether through a general passage of "being" or observation of relative movement, could be psychological.katsucats said: So, is time entirely psychological? Not to say that you are stating this, but I am just interested in your answer.We may consider different conceptions of time, but there is nothing lost by reducing some metaphysics to psychology. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| The notion of a song (the entire melody) existence is the same as the notion of an action. It is a transfer of energy from one point to another, even if hypothetically no atoms were moved, there are changes in the entropy in the form of energy and heat. So, yes. A song exist. Of course in the sense of observation it's existence can only be confirmed by a recollection of 'past' state which suggest that time is continuous. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
azzuRe said: This is non-sequitur. Sure, energy exists, and we "understand" what is meant by transference or action, but that does not indicate that actions must exist.The notion of a song (the entire melody) existence is the same as the notion of an action. It is a transfer of energy from one point to another, even if hypothetically no atoms were moved, there are changes in the entropy in the form of energy and heat. So, yes. A song exist. azzuRe said: I don't see how past states would suggest a continuous time either.Of course in the sense of observation it's existence can only be confirmed by a recollection of 'past' state which suggest that time is continuous. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
cabacc2 said: Does entropy exist? Yes, we have the capacity to note a state of thermal disorderliness or denote, through vocabulary or mathematics, the potential for work to be done on any particular system, but that doesn't quite mean existence. The word "solid" has a scientific meaning, such that we have irrefutable evidence of solid objects. A case could be made that solid objects exist, if we accept empiricism, but whether solidness exists, as a property, is questionable. Evidence of a concept does not grant existence, necessarily.katsucats said: If he defines actions as change, like you did in your opening post (aka. movement), and "changes in the entropy" is the unrefutable evidence for change occurring.. yes it kinda does indicate it.This is non-sequitur. Sure, energy exists, and we "understand" what is meant by transference or action, but that does not indicate that actions must exist. Am I getting something wrong here? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Time may or may not exist. If it does not exist, then the sense of a passage of time, whether through a general passage of "being" or observation of relative movement, could be psychological. This sentiment reminds me of a passage by St. Augustine in Book XI of his Confessions "si nemo ex me quaerat, scio, si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio" "If no one asks me, I know what time is; if I want to explain it to him, I don't know what time is." Anyways, I am much more inclined to state that through whatever means, time eventually became the expression of human existence, that which structures the means through which the human being categorizes and comports itself to the world. Rather than conceiving time as being this exterior force whereby the human being "is in time." So, instead of time being some abstract metaphysical concept or a just a psychology, it is an ontological expression of how the human being comports itself to the world. |
CitizeninsaneAug 12, 2014 10:19 PM
cabacc2 said: While we colloquially suggest that things "exist" inside our minds, these are not really things at all and they do not physically exist in the same sense that a table exists. Certainly, we could say that tables are also mental conceptions which represents some external world, but the boundaries of sense is debatable.If we assign a certain, observed quality to the term "solidness", then yes. It does exist. It exists as concept in our minds, which represents a certain quality of "the outer world" (or at least we can hope that). It makes sense to accept empiricism for the sake of developing a practical worldview. In this case, solidness could be broken down into two senses. First, it is the subjective experience when we touch certain objects that give resistance. It is questionable whether this qualia could be asserted as being objective, since it is a feeling with no likeness in the physical world (by that I mean that it would be impossible to qualify feelings through scientific observations of the object itself). Second, solidness describes a certain density of molecules. We could say that the existence of molecules in this density proves solidness, density being the ratio of space between a number of molecules. However, herein lies the ambiguity of language, for we have not really proved that solidness exists independent of anything else, but that molecules exist in a configuration. Thus solidness might just be an expedient way to refer to a class of properties of objects, making solidness a grammatical artifact. Properties of objects, then, are the various ways we approach objects--they are the objects themselves, and do not make separate existences despite our grammatical ability to refer to them as nouns. Of course, it is also possible to argue for the existence of solidness, either as a property of objects, or as a thing in itself. Actions are much less ambiguous, but can still be seen as real or unreal. cabacc2 said: "Practical" is vague and borderline meaningless since it could comprise a laundry list of things, from scientifically-accepted facts to questionable cultural values. The suggestion that something practically exists might mean that it can be colloquially referred to, but not much more. The suggestion that change in entropy means that some kind of change has occurred is a tautology. The suggestion that a series of sounds cause change in entropy is true, but neither proves the existence of a melody nor the existence of entropy.It exists in a practical sense, and azzuRe gave the practical proof: The song causes a "change in entropy", which irrefutably means that some kind of change occured, thus it exists as the notion of action (since action equal change aka. movement). |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Citizeninsane said: How is it that a human being comports itself to the world?Anyways, I am much more inclined to state that through whatever means, time eventually became the expression of human existence, that which structures the means through which the human being categorizes and comports itself to the world. Rather than conceiving time being this exterior force whereby the human being "is in time." So, instead of time being some abstract metaphysical concept or a just a psychology, it is an ontological expression of how the human being comports itself to the world. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| First and foremost, we are born into a world, history, culture, genetics, etc. without our consent. This sort of character expresses the fact that we always have a "past." That is, we cannot somehow rid ourselves from our "past". Furthermore, the "past" so-to-speak forces us into a context with a set of possibilities. In light of this, we are always directed to a "future," e.g. I go to university for the sake of attaining this degree in order to achieve monetary gains, I post on MAL to achieve entertainment in order to benefit myself, so there are endless examples of these projects. Moreover, the primary way in which I encounter things aren't as abstract philosophical objects, but rather as tools or equipment to be utilized for accomplishing the aforementioned tasks. The past and the future in unison contextualize how I encounter objects. I utilize this keyboard not as some abstract object, e.g. I am the subject and this the object, I examine the object empirically to epistemically verify that I can utilize it. Instead, I just use the keyboard fluidly for the sake of writing; the way in which I encounter the keyboard is strictly on the basis of its capacity for being a tool for the sake of accomplishing my tasks. In this way, the human being is consistently self-referentially looping back to its past, towards the future, and with these two views in mind, contextualizes the "now." This is how the human comports itself to the world, albeit in a half-assed interpretative explanation. Edit: Anyways, I should probably elaborate, but this sort of interpretation has much more to do with how the human being encounters entities, e.g. ontology, and the existential features of the human being, which has little to do with the metaphysical/epistemological question of the reality of action. |
CitizeninsaneAug 12, 2014 10:59 PM
Citizeninsane said: First, the aspects you speak, which I will call "past" so that we are using the same terminology, comprises all human thought. It does not reduce to common or popular thought. Second, the "things" in which you encounter are objects. You interact with keyboards. You interact with solid keyboards, that are also black or grey. Do you interact with greyness or blackness or solidness? Do you interact with the tactile response of the keys, or do you interact with the keys which give tactile response?Moreover, the primary way in which I encounter things aren't as abstract philosophical objects, but rather as tools or equipment to be utilized for accomplishing the aforementioned tasks. I agree that your response has little to do with the metaphysical question of the reality of action. How a human encounters things is rather uninteresting for me. For example, a person might encounter "de ja vu" as a genuine familiarity with a particular event for which he has never experienced. Does that mean we should accept this experience at face value, on account of the "past"? We don't limit ourselves to the past, we are limited by the past. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Replied on your profile, figured I wouldn't derail the topic further. |
| I'm taking a psychology class and a philosophy class and this is deeper than any of the shit I'm learning |
 |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Bluey is the most watched anime in the world nowtsukareru - Yesterday |
24 |
by SaiteiDaOrette
»»
41 seconds ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Yesterday |
21 |
by _Nette_
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
43 |
by LordSozin
»»
41 minutes ago |
|
» Do you enjoy nature?Kamikaze_404 - Apr 23 |
31 |
by Kushna
»»
48 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Worst social mediaIpreferEcchi - Mar 19 |
28 |
by hypergoob
»»
54 minutes ago |