Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Definitions of ''TIME''


Forums Forums Philosophy Definitions of ''TIME''

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 94 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #326326
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    I do not accept that information is physical.  Information does not have a physical existence.  Information is the conclusions reached through data processing.  Conclusions are not physical.

    Because our system of real numbers was/is invented, not discovered, and includes the concept of infinite spaces between entities means that it is not physical and was/is not a part of the natural world.

    Basing the existence of time on any numerical and/or mathematical system, all of which were/are invented, is absurd.

    #326398
    @sree
    Participant

    I do not accept that information is physical. Information does not have a physical existence. Information is the conclusions reached through data processing. Conclusions are not physical.

    What do you mean by “physical”? How would you define it?

    #326432
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    What do you mean by “physical”? How would you define it?

    Any thing that we might stump a toe on.  IOW anything composed of atoms.  I suppose one could say anything that follows the Pauli exclusion principle.

    #326455
    @sree
    Participant

    Any thing that we might stump a toe on.

    What if you stumped your toe on a rock and don’t feel a thing? This is a thought experiment, something even theoretical physicists do.

     

    #326523
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    What if you stumped your toe on a rock and don’t feel a thing?

    That would be something unexpected.  Or a miracle.  Depending on who you ask.

    Of course if it were a thought experiment, it would be a virtual “experience” anyway.  Gravity and acceleration are different phenomena and the accepted consensus that we can’t tell the difference doesn’t mean that they are the same.

    #326534
    @sree
    Participant

    Of course if it were a thought experiment, it would be a virtual “experience” anyway.

    My “what if” question was an invitation to examine how we detect that a thing is “physical”. A rock has physical existence because we can see and touch it. A thing is said to have physical existence if we have a sensate relationship with it. A thing is not virtual even if we cannot see it but can touch it. Why would a stubbing a toe on a rock be a virtual experience if we can see the stubbing but cannot feel it?

    #326619
    @write4u
    Participant

    What if you stumped your toe on a rock and don’t feel a thing?

    That is a serious life threatening disease.

    Congenital insensitivity to pain

    Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, is one or more rare conditions in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.[1] The conditions described here are separate from the HSAN group of disorders, which have more specific signs and cause. Because feeling physical pain is vital for survival, CIP is an extremely dangerous condition.[1] It is common for people with the condition to die in childhood due to injuries or illnesses going unnoticed.[1][2] Burn injuries are among the more common injuries.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Write4U.
    #326641
    @sree
    Participant

    That is a serious life threatening disease.

    You are digressing but thanks for the info. I did not know this.

    You are either incapable or unwilling to follow my argument which cannot be dismissed by CIP.

    There are folks who are born blind. They are humans with only four senses. Now, I know there are also people without the sense of touch. The nature of their respective realities are as valid as that of our own within the field of sight, touch, taste, hearing and smell. Note that there are healthy specimens of other species that detect their environment differently without our perceptual faculties. They live in their worlds just as we do in our own.

    What, then, is a physical thing? Does it have subjective qualities or is it an absolute object that can exist outside the field of perception?

    #326701
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    You are either incapable or unwilling to follow my argument which cannot be dismissed by CIP.

    actually that’s you. The original statement was “anything you might stump a toe on”. A perfectly understandable statement about what is real. It actually doesn’t matter if you feel it or not, the statement has the same meaning. Being blind does not make light go away. The reality of light is still there, exactly as it was before eyes even evolved. It’s not a “respective reality”. We all live in the same world, we just perceive it differently.

    #326761
    @write4u
    Participant

    What, then, is a physical thing? Does it have subjective qualities or is it an absolute object that can exist outside the field of perception?

    Physical things  are molecular patterns of varying densities and are absolute objects. As you indicated yourself conscious awareness  and recognition of these patterns depend on sensory abilities and stored memories in the brain.

    When any of our senses are impaired that person has an impaired ability to experience the full extend of that existence. However, sometimes another sense can take over from an impaired sense and create work-arounds  that allows the brain to make a best guess of what it erceives.

    A blind person can get a picture of his surroundings by clicking  or whistling much as other animals do with sonar. Some people may be color blind but can taste colors and experience the relative difference in colors by a diffrent recognition in the brain .

    If we look at the range and abilities of biological organisms able to experiece their environment, it is filled with strange evolved adaptive cognitive abilities, from semi-stationary plants (heliotropism) to single celled organisms motile organisms (physical/chemical responses), to advanced sensory experiences  (electro/chemical responses).

    If is of use, natural selection will discover it and that organism will have a survival advantage. That is how the incredible variety of living things and their mode of living can be found everywhere on earth, from 750F black smokers, to the enormous icepacks at the poles, to deep crust organism living a mile deep in the earth. They can exist because the can use conditions in their immediate environment for energy.

    • This reply was modified 6 months ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 6 months ago by Write4U.
    #326765
    @sree
    Participant

    Being blind does not make light go away.

    It does too, if you were born blind, or are a worm.

    I once asked a visually handicapped guy if he was living in a state of darkness. He said: “I don’t know what is darkness. I was born blind. I don’t know what is light.”

    The reality of light is still there, exactly as it was before eyes even evolved.

    Supposition. This kind of argument has a biblical cadence that invites ridicule in atheist circles.

    It’s not a “respective reality”. We all live in the same world, we just perceive it differently.

    If “we” perceive it differently? Who are “we”? Perception, in absolute terms, is not a point of view that can be shared, or debated upon, by a group of perceivers. Perception is either yours or that of the housefly. You, alone, live in your world.

    #326779
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    This kind of argument has a biblical cadence that invites ridicule in atheist circles.

    I gave one of the basic premises of the scientific method and you call it biblical.

    #326790
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    Lausten:  The reality of light is still there, exactly as it was before eyes even evolved.
    Sree:  Supposition.

    You may call it supposition and I think you would not be that far off.  One of the principles of science is that an object’s existence is not dependent on our ability to perceive it.  However, we cannot claim that an object exists unless we do perceive that it interacts with its surroundings.  Time is not seen to interact with anything.

     

    #326795
    @sree
    Participant

    One of the principles of science is that an object’s existence is not dependent on our ability to perceive it.

    I dispute this.

    Science is based on the premise of an observer making observations of the observed: the object

    However, we cannot claim that an object exists unless we do perceive that it interacts with its surroundings.

    All scientific claims are based on observations of the observer. If it can be perceived, it exists. The nature of the object is dependent on the observer.

    Time is not seen to interact with anything.

    As you said, time is an artifact of the memory. I wish you would investigate this with me and find out how time is created by the memory. Don’t be scared. Exploration of the unknown is literally mind-blowing. But this is eminently more worthwhile than risking your life going to the moon.

    #326825
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    I dispute this.

    Science is based on the premise of an observer making observations of the observed: the object   — Sree

    The best interpretation of that, the most generous, is that you are talking about empirical evidence. But even if we were sightless creatures, not perceiving light through our eyes, light would still have all of the exact same properties it has now.  It would be a lot more difficult, but somehow, we would start from first principles, we would sense light by it’s warmth, we would have light detectors that gave us sound that would fluctuate and we would define color based on that. We wouldn’t have a distinction between visible and non-visible light, maybe we would call all it “rays”. Doesn’t matter. It just wouldn’t change what light is.

    If you want to refute something so fundamental, give some references, find a website on the basics of science. Somewhere around 4th grade level should do it.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 94 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.