Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Time

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 11:02:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think I've ever seen a debate on this site regarding the philosophy of time. Does anyone have an interest in the dynamic view vs the static view of time? McTaggart's Paradox?
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 7:28:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 11:02:20 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a debate on this site regarding the philosophy of time. Does anyone have an interest in the dynamic view vs the static view of time? McTaggart's Paradox?

What is the resolution you would like to debate?
Tsar of DDO
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 7:38:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 7:28:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/20/2013 11:02:20 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a debate on this site regarding the philosophy of time. Does anyone have an interest in the dynamic view vs the static view of time? McTaggart's Paradox?

What is the resolution you would like to debate?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 7:43:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 7:28:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/20/2013 11:02:20 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a debate on this site regarding the philosophy of time. Does anyone have an interest in the dynamic view vs the static view of time? McTaggart's Paradox?

What is the resolution you would like to debate?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 8:30:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 11:02:20 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a debate on this site regarding the philosophy of time. Does anyone have an interest in the dynamic view vs the static view of time? McTaggart's Paradox?

I've seen it debated here from time to time, usually when the discussion is physics or cosmology, and of course there's always the God discussions regarding eternal and transcendent.

It's one of my favorite subjects but mostly around the temporal implications of relativity, cosmology and quantum physics. I'm familiar with McTaggarts Paradox but reject it as an irrelevant semantics game. It's pretty common and I think very lame to find a paradox of logical thought and conclude from it that the subject matter doesn't exist, I think that's the tail wagging the dog. It only shows the limitations of our conceptual categories and deductive processes, and it's kind of silly to conclude that the subject matter therefore doesn't exist. I've seen just about everything ontologically denied around here on that basis, knowledge, logic, time, space, matter, energy, God, free will, consciousness, self, just about everything. I think every one of those epistemic arguments are resolved by recognizing that the dualities are polar opposites, they constitute a whole. Thinking itself has a dual nature, it has analytic and synthetic aspects that are mutually sustaining and reciprocal in their nature. To take one aspect of thought and find inconsistencies doesn't just logically disappear the subject matter of thought, in the end, those logical processes that conclude the subject of thought doesn't exist are about as fallacious as anything. Reality is logically ambiguous, there is an implicit duality in thought, that is the reality of the situation, and conclusions that the reality being thought about doesn't exist just strike me as inane.

That said, if you want to talk about the implications of physics and what it's telling us about time, I'm in. That is fascinating to me.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 8:36:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 7:28:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/20/2013 11:02:20 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a debate on this site regarding the philosophy of time. Does anyone have an interest in the dynamic view vs the static view of time? McTaggart's Paradox?

What is the resolution you would like to debate?

If anybody is nuts enough to want to debate the validity of McTaggart's lame-o conclusions, I'm your huckleberry.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 11:05:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 8:30:48 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/20/2013 11:02:20 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a debate on this site regarding the philosophy of time. Does anyone have an interest in the dynamic view vs the static view of time? McTaggart's Paradox?

I've seen it debated here from time to time, usually when the discussion is physics or cosmology, and of course there's always the God discussions regarding eternal and transcendent.

It's one of my favorite subjects but mostly around the temporal implications of relativity, cosmology and quantum physics. I'm familiar with McTaggarts Paradox but reject it as an irrelevant semantics game. It's pretty common and I think very lame to find a paradox of logical thought and conclude from it that the subject matter doesn't exist, I think that's the tail wagging the dog. It only shows the limitations of our conceptual categories and deductive processes, and it's kind of silly to conclude that the subject matter therefore doesn't exist. I've seen just about everything ontologically denied around here on that basis, knowledge, logic, time, space, matter, energy, God, free will, consciousness, self, just about everything. I think every one of those epistemic arguments are resolved by recognizing that the dualities are polar opposites, they constitute a whole. Thinking itself has a dual nature, it has analytic and synthetic aspects that are mutually sustaining and reciprocal in their nature. To take one aspect of thought and find inconsistencies doesn't just logically disappear the subject matter of thought, in the end, those logical processes that conclude the subject of thought doesn't exist are about as fallacious as anything. Reality is logically ambiguous, there is an implicit duality in thought, that is the reality of the situation, and conclusions that the reality being thought about doesn't exist just strike me as inane.

That said, if you want to talk about the implications of physics and what it's telling us about time, I'm in. That is fascinating to me.

Regarding the implications of physics and what it's telling us about time, I hold to a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity, and an anti-realist view with the Minkowskian union of space with time. I'm not sure yet my views regarding quantum mechanics...

What about you? Do you hold to Einstein's special relativity or Minkowski's interpretation? Or Lorentz's?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 11:06:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 8:36:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/21/2013 7:28:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/20/2013 11:02:20 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a debate on this site regarding the philosophy of time. Does anyone have an interest in the dynamic view vs the static view of time? McTaggart's Paradox?

What is the resolution you would like to debate?

If anybody is nuts enough to want to debate the validity of McTaggart's lame-o conclusions, I'm your huckleberry.

I was more interested in a discussion regarding dynamic vs static time.
Cinco
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 10:01:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 11:05:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 2/21/2013 8:30:48 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/20/2013 11:02:20 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a debate on this site regarding the philosophy of time. Does anyone have an interest in the dynamic view vs the static view of time? McTaggart's Paradox?

I've seen it debated here from time to time, usually when the discussion is physics or cosmology, and of course there's always the God discussions regarding eternal and transcendent.

It's one of my favorite subjects but mostly around the temporal implications of relativity, cosmology and quantum physics. I'm familiar with McTaggarts Paradox but reject it as an irrelevant semantics game. It's pretty common and I think very lame to find a paradox of logical thought and conclude from it that the subject matter doesn't exist, I think that's the tail wagging the dog. It only shows the limitations of our conceptual categories and deductive processes, and it's kind of silly to conclude that the subject matter therefore doesn't exist. I've seen just about everything ontologically denied around here on that basis, knowledge, logic, time, space, matter, energy, God, free will, consciousness, self, just about everything. I think every one of those epistemic arguments are resolved by recognizing that the dualities are polar opposites, they constitute a whole. Thinking itself has a dual nature, it has analytic and synthetic aspects that are mutually sustaining and reciprocal in their nature. To take one aspect of thought and find inconsistencies doesn't just logically disappear the subject matter of thought, in the end, those logical processes that conclude the subject of thought doesn't exist are about as fallacious as anything. Reality is logically ambiguous, there is an implicit duality in thought, that is the reality of the situation, and conclusions that the reality being thought about doesn't exist just strike me as inane.

That said, if you want to talk about the implications of physics and what it's telling us about time, I'm in. That is fascinating to me.

Regarding the implications of physics and what it's telling us about time, I hold to a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity, and an anti-realist view with the Minkowskian union of space with time. I'm not sure yet my views regarding quantum mechanics...

What about you? Do you hold to Einstein's special relativity or Minkowski's interpretation? Or Lorentz's?

I suspect the impossibility of all things "special".
If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan