Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (9005 total)
44 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Pollux (3 members, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,107 Year: 12,855/23,288 Month: 580/1,527 Week: 19/240 Day: 19/17 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16549
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 273 of 289 (881746)
08-28-2020 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Phat
08-28-2020 11:49 AM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
quote:
Creationists often invoke the catch-all phrase "God did it" which explains nothing. Critics could well claim that "Math explains it" or that QM explains it and would in fact be using these scientific disciplines to explain a beginning point in time. They could further argue that if the creationist claimed that God was eternally before that first point when time began, then so too could be immaterial concepts such as mathematics, calculus, and ideas in general.

You mistake an important part of the “critic”’s view. There is no need to argue whether “immaterial concepts” exist eternally. These are just descriptions, and it is the things they describe that must exist - although not necessarily eternally.

quote:
So are you a materialist? A materialistic determinist? Do we have any reason to believe that it makes as much sense to speculate that matter is eternal as it would be to speculate that God is eternal?

I am not a determinist, and I prefer physicalist to materialist since matter is not as basic as was once thought. But there is no need to say that matter is eternal. Spacetime might be, or it might not. For the purposes of this argument I have assumed that it is not.

quote:
Priority monism states that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them; e.g., in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One.[1] In this view only one thing is ontologically basic or prior to everything else.
Existence monism posits that, strictly speaking, there exists only a single thing, the universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.[2]
Substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.[3] Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff, e.g., matter or mind.
Dual-aspect monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance.

Of these, substance monism comes closest to my views.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Phat, posted 08-28-2020 11:49 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:09 PM PaulK has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14597
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 274 of 289 (881784)
08-30-2020 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by PaulK
08-28-2020 4:17 PM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
PaulK writes:

...In my view mind is supervenient on physical phenomena.

Wow! New word!
Wordnik writes:

Coming in upon something as additional or extraneous; superadvenient; added; additional; following in close conjunction.
adj.
Coming as something additional or extraneous; coming afterwards.
adj.
In a relationship with another set such that membership in the other set implies membership in the present set

So which is it? Mind over Matter or Matter over Mind?


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killosophy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2020 4:17 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2020 2:24 PM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16549
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 275 of 289 (881785)
08-30-2020 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Phat
08-30-2020 2:09 PM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
Supervenience came up in NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology? although Richard Wang didn’t seem to really grasp the concept.

To try to put it simply physical reality is basic. All mental states are based in the physical - “no difference without a physical difference” is a key phrase you may see.

To put it in terms relevant to the earlier thread, information in DNA is supervenient on the chemical structure of the DNA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:09 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:37 PM PaulK has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14597
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 276 of 289 (881787)
08-30-2020 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by PaulK
08-30-2020 2:24 PM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
So would that then imply that Brain is over Mind?

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killosophy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2020 2:24 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2020 2:58 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16549
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 277 of 289 (881789)
08-30-2020 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Phat
08-30-2020 2:37 PM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
quote:
So would that then imply that Brain is over Mind?

I would say that the mind is a way of looking at the operation of the central nervous system (the brain is very important but it isn’t absolutely everything).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Phat, posted 08-30-2020 2:37 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 08-30-2020 3:09 PM PaulK has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32915
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 278 of 289 (881790)
08-30-2020 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by PaulK
08-30-2020 2:58 PM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
Would you say that mind even exists as an entity or is mind simply a process like digestion?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2020 2:58 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2020 3:23 PM jar has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16549
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 279 of 289 (881792)
08-30-2020 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by jar
08-30-2020 3:09 PM


Re: Framing The Issue Using Definitions
Obviously the mind is a process - thinking, feeling are all active things. That is why it’s another way of looking at the operation Of the central nervous system, rather than the physical system alone,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 08-30-2020 3:09 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1163
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 280 of 289 (881851)
09-02-2020 8:22 AM


Deep down
It's very hard what to make of these things.

Ultimately one would like to say something like:
Large object -> High level material description -> Chemistry -> Atomic Physics
in some sense.

The problem is ultimately you reach atomic level phenomena and things at that level are only described in terms of their effects on larger things not in terms of what they are in themselves. And thus one's fundamental physical theory requires the "Large Objects" at the start of the chain to even get off the ground. Also the theory has to assume some form of "observer" that "chooses" what phenomena to evoke from the microscopic scale.

This is just one of the many ways in which QM violates reductionism. Technically for example the colours I see aren't supervenient on the electromagnetic spectrum. I don't really think there is a philosophy that captures the current picture of the world from physics except to learn Quantum Theory in detail.


Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by vimesey, posted 09-02-2020 8:46 AM Son Goku has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 281 of 289 (881852)
09-02-2020 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Son Goku
09-02-2020 8:22 AM


Re: Deep down
Hi there So Goku - good to see you back again.

Whilst I’ve got you on this thread, can I ask a quick question about our velocity through space time. Is my recollection correct, that we (and I guess I should include every particle in that term) are moving though space time at a uniform velocity equal to the spatial velocity of the speed of light. And that that velocity is equal to the sum of our spatial and temporal velocities ? (This being a way, for me, as someone who has no chance of doing the maths, without some serious study to catch me up, to get to grips with how time dilation works, for people (or particles) experiencing different relative spatial velocities).


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Son Goku, posted 09-02-2020 8:22 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Son Goku, posted 09-02-2020 9:00 AM vimesey has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1163
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 282 of 289 (881853)
09-02-2020 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by vimesey
09-02-2020 8:46 AM


Re: Deep down
Yeah that's right.

Just with the caveat that it only works with classical relativity, i.e. you don't start talking about quantum matter. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by vimesey, posted 09-02-2020 8:46 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by vimesey, posted 09-02-2020 9:21 AM Son Goku has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 283 of 289 (881854)
09-02-2020 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Son Goku
09-02-2020 9:00 AM


Re: Deep down
Thanks :-)

Might have a look at trying to learn the maths when I retire :-)


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Son Goku, posted 09-02-2020 9:00 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Son Goku, posted 09-02-2020 9:33 AM vimesey has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1163
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 284 of 289 (881855)
09-02-2020 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by vimesey
09-02-2020 9:21 AM


Re: Deep down
The first 50 pages of Ray d'Inverno's "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" are generally considered a nice intro to Special Relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by vimesey, posted 09-02-2020 9:21 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by vimesey, posted 09-02-2020 9:42 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 285 of 289 (881856)
09-02-2020 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Son Goku
09-02-2020 9:33 AM


Re: Deep down
Thanks again - just found it on line to read through. Looks like I’ll need to roll up my mental sleeves :-)

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Son Goku, posted 09-02-2020 9:33 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by AZPaul3, posted 09-02-2020 12:16 PM vimesey has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5309
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 286 of 289 (881859)
09-02-2020 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by vimesey
09-02-2020 9:42 AM


Re: Deep down
Serendipity. One of my favorite YouTube teachers just did a vid on this question.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by vimesey, posted 09-02-2020 9:42 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1163
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 287 of 289 (881861)
09-02-2020 12:52 PM


She's really good at explaining stuff in quantum theory as well. I'd check out her measurement problem video.

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Phat, posted 09-20-2020 9:17 AM Son Goku has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020