Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is time merely a concept?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 49 of 55 (442071)
12-19-2007 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by quasimotto
12-17-2007 4:06 AM


Re: Re:man-made
I believe in what Russell said about "believe" which IS NOT what is taught at Cornell or was at Harvard.
I have answered you here.
EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall II.
You are asking too many too easy questions for the substance of this thread it seems to me. Just the opposite of what was asked of Gould on the video "A Glorious Accident".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by quasimotto, posted 12-17-2007 4:06 AM quasimotto has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by godsriddle, posted 12-20-2007 5:07 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 55 (442280)
12-20-2007 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by godsriddle
12-20-2007 5:07 AM


Re: Time is in our minds.
I must say, for me at least, I DO NOT think so much with Aristotle, as I do with Newton, when I do. I have not made up my mind fully with developments since about 1900 however.
I used to think that I was supposed to think of an atom (regardless of the vaccuum) from about this time frame but I now realize this is not so. I DO NOT, however, see the need to refer to Democritus etc. Going back to Newton's thought seems good enough for me, especially as science seems to me to be dominated by Cartesianism rather than Aristotlianism. The references primarily to Aristolte I find in 1950s science scholarship but if I am going back to 1900 or so is rather philosphical than pragmatic towards whatever the experimental philosophy is. I understand that occult bodies seem analytical if the synthesis of the atom is not to the molecule but if the analysis of the genetics yields "a periodic crystal" then the difference of liquid and solid and not proton vs electron is controling for me. Thus finess of clock differences in atoms remains a purely physical rather than a chohesive collective divided it seems to me. It is like thinking that man is a machine. I have no use for this at all. Others may. I can eliminate a notion of feedback where 1950s science did not. Maybe that is just me however.
Edited by Brad McFall, : a-of

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by godsriddle, posted 12-20-2007 5:07 AM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by godsriddle, posted 12-21-2007 3:10 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 53 of 55 (442599)
12-21-2007 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by godsriddle
12-21-2007 3:10 AM


Re: Time is in our minds.
Well in 1800 Kant had said this -
quote:
Finally, as regards the history of Logic, we will only mention the following:-
Logic, as we have it, is derived from Aristotle's Analytic. This philosopher may be regarded as the father of Logic. He treated it as an Organon, and divided it into Analyticand Dialectic. His treatment is very scholastic, and is directed to the development of the most general and fundamental notions of logic. Of this, however, we can make no use, since almost everything ends in mere subtilties, except that the names of several actions of the understanding are taken from it.
Since Aristotle's time Logic has not gained much in extent, and indeed its nature forbids that it should. But it may gain in respect of accuracy,definiteness,anddistinctness. There are but few sciences that can come into a permanent state, which admits of no further alteration. To these belong Logic and Metaphysics. Since Aristotle has omitted no essential point of the understanding; we have only become more accurate, methodical, and orderly.
It was believed indeed that Lambert's Organon would much enlarge Logic. But it contains nothing additional except more subtitle divisions, which, like all correct subtilties, no doubt sharpen the understanding, but are of no essential use,
Amongst more recent philosphers there are two who have brought general Logic into vogue, Leibnitz and Wolff
(Introduction to Logic Philosophical Library New York page10-11)
I am here to report that despite Russells’ methodical order and accuracy since “the vogue time” we still actually only have more subtilties and no essential use of Aristotle anyway. Aristotle made the distinction of distributive justice and yet our legal system can not recognize this. I even petitioned the District Court of the US. They did not want to answer.
I did say in the beginning of this thread that I really have little need to explore the physcisits notions which do not attempt to relate life on all levels but this does not stop me from trying for a more accurate description, a better method and a more orderly tracing of life. This I do not think is in our minds. Maybe Aristotle should be, but for various reasons, still, he is not, in mine. Perhaps because, scientifically, I am focused on heritable changes, Aristotle's general view is less helpful from "my" things being ordered.
Because we have subtilties rather than better than Russell order since Wolff and Leibniz I can not really even get the EVC discussion back to Newton's absolute space as I address it on
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
This does not stop me from hoping we will, just I dont find this subsumtion of Aristotle just as I dont see but a limited use (so far)(I am working on it)of the notion of time as fgarb and salamander write in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by godsriddle, posted 12-21-2007 3:10 AM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by godsriddle, posted 12-22-2007 3:01 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 55 of 55 (443759)
12-26-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by godsriddle
12-22-2007 3:01 PM


Re: Time is in our minds.
I can not test whether it responds subconsicously to Aristotle or not simply because I am aware that the discipline of logic is not able to help yet even where it should be helping. This is a matter of rather recent culutral history rather than historical sublimated influences even if they might be such.
I am fairly confident that much recent elite philosophy of biology IS dependent on a particular reading of Aristotle (unmoved movers of final causes) but I think the logical issue has less to do with motion here than it has with kinematics in a system. It seems that Aristotle has been used to make clear a position on teleology that need not be so, so it seems to me. I strain to get logic on my side of this. Immpenetribility is different than occult causes and yet the relation of chemistry BETWEEN physics and biology may be written to not notice this where you assert this is Aristotle's, I think.
If what I have been working for and towards is something that is simply dirty or dead, I dont see how or why I MUST always have to be or have been talking about something beyond knowledge. A mixed body is already changed. I just incline to continue to analyize where others deparmentalize. As to how time is supposed to be thought in all this for me, I am trying to see if my ideas of real and complex numbers are simply times for me or if they are a bit more objective, relevant to a kind of chemistry that does not yet exist except in the science of electricity which really are not chemicals but are shared instead (hence no time there).
The notion of a particle IS different than "impenetribility".
Edited by Brad McFall, : perpetually editing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by godsriddle, posted 12-22-2007 3:01 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024