Time/Space Continuum a Fraud?

Zoey234: How does Time or even Space qualify as an existent entity with the same status as, say, the chair in the corner or the keyboard under the fingers? One hears this term (Time) thrown around with wild and reckless abandon when nobody seems to realize they're talking about something that just doesn't meet any of the ontological criteria for existing. And Space by its very definition being the emptiness that surrounds gasses or teeny weeny particles cannot possibly exist either. Both concepts then, being completely devoid of any ontological status or dignity, turn out to be arbitrary inventions or conventions that could just as easily be identified by the names Xddslduf and L:diheh. Ya' feelin' me?

MrSteveA67: Did yesterday exist or is it something imagined?

Can you prove yesterday exists? If I were to expect precise physical proof, I don't think anything can provide it. Spacetime reflects properties of the mind/memory.

At a minimum, the property of yesterday or a past exists because I know of things that have past properties. I simply can't (similar to a quark) find 'yesterday' or 'the past' etc. as some isolated physical object that can be shown ... if you experience time, you experience time, just as someone couldn't prove that motion, light, heat etc. exist if something/someone had no ability to detect these properties.

StuckInTheSixties: I think it was entirely appropriate that you placed this thread in the philosophy Forum, rather than S&T.

Paul McBon Ruthford: i think if we are somewhere to see time and space than it would be somewhat tangable. But in this reality i think we're just too tiny and right in the middle of them too contain them, touch them, or even see them (unless we use our minds too do so)

StuckInTheSixties: Hi Stuck!

Paul McBon Ruthford: hi back at ya stuck

Zoey234: Gotcha and grateful!

Esse is Percipi if I understand you correctly. The old "to be is to be perceived" principle. Correct Steve and Stuck?

So there's a category of Existents which are honored (because of popular consensus perhaps) and granted status equal to furniture and such, but for which no proof is possible and not required. Okay, good. Which branch of science or learning grants this status to things like Time and Space? Philosophers are pretty picky about what they are willing to consider "real". In fact Philosophers deny the reality of even things like furniture as far as I know as do certain Buddhist sects.

So if it's in my mind its real. Doesn't that open the door to a carnival of errors?

Paul McBon Ruthford: you could be right, essence is perception?, and the perception is past tense <<gets it
and most methods of acient teachings are sectored do to perception(s), so yeah very probable. After all, all particles are sparated by space and energy. Simular to memories of the past and the human brain,,,,

StuckInTheSixties: Let me sidestep all the deep, philosopical discussion and return to the premise of this thread, the question initially asked:

"Time/Space Continuum a Fraud? How does Time or even Space qualify as an existent entity with the same status as, say, the chair in the corner or the keyboard under the fingers?"

Simple. Because they're peceived in an obvious, palpable way. Because our lives are filled with an infinite amount of experience that points to their existence. And because there's direct evidence of their existence. And no evidence that they don't exist.

Time is a little more slippery than space, but it exists. They exist.

Else this is all a dream or something.

MrSteveA67: Thanks for the thoughts, Zoey.

I'd have to say that everything is either illusion or reality. There's really no difference. Do dreams not exist? Dreams exist as well as waking moments.

I simply see it as all real, though the properties of different forms of experience can be different and not easy to draw correlations across.

In a similar manner, I don't think there's a true line dividing subjective and objective views.

The way that seems best to look at everything is simply in terms of information - all of the experiences, memories etc. one has.

Many people in science would claim this is the subjective view of things, but how do they make that judgement? Isn't it their own (subjective) experiences that determine what characteristics they decide are subjective or objective?

It seems no matter what, the information one is working with is simply whatever "window of experience" one has and a belief that one can somehow see further than the entirety of themself or their experiences etc. seems to be false.

I guess even if someone really did have some "magic" view of an external reality "out there" beyond any ability for someone to be able to (subjective) verify, I wouldn't believe it and in that manner I think subjective and objective reality are fundamentally the same.

The closest thing to a truely external/objective "out there" reality would seem to be unknowns in the future (and it's even questionable to what extent those are truly unknowns).

Consider this - what could someone say about something they truly had no experience/information regarding? It would appear nothing could be said about something truly external. When people talk about objective reality, they're really referencing aspects of experience which they've personally encountered already and have constructed their own interpretation of ... that's actually what subjectivity is, so I see no difference between the two views.

It used to be considered "objectively true" that everything orbited the Earth. Then that was changed to being "objectively true" that the Earth orbits the Sun instead.

Actually neither of those statements are objectively true, even according to conventional physical theories, gravity acts mutually and everything is influenced by everything else and the Sun orbits the Earth too ... you have to select a reference for what mass you're referring to determine a gravitational field.

It's all subjective (including what someone judges to be objective reality).

StuckInTheSixties: MrSteve says:

"I'd have to say that everything is either illusion or reality. There's really no difference."

You appear to be contradicting yourself in adjacent sentences. You just made a distinction (my emphasis added) ... "EITHER illusion OR reality." The words "either" and "or" denote that you're drawing a distinction between "illusion" and "reality." And, of course, dictionary definitions of those words draw a rather wide distiction, IE: they're essentially opposites.

"I don't think there's a true line dividing subjective and objective views."

You appear to be making the point that "reality" is whatever you care to make it, and that any point of view is as valid as any other. Most people would see that as ... well ... a detachment from reality. Like schizophrenia. If you're merely arguing for the philosophical exercise of it, that would be one thing. But if you, for instance, actually believed that the voice that spoke to you from your refrigerator was "real," then I'd say you're nuts.

"Many people in science would claim this is the subjective view of things, but how do they make that judgement? Isn't it their own (subjective) experiences that determine what characteristics they decide are subjective or objective?"

No, it's not their own experiences. It's the collective experiences of the scientific community as a whole. Just describing a phenomenon does not science make. Having that phenomenon scrutinized and subjected to the rigors of science methodology does.

"It seems no matter what, the information one is working with is simply whatever "window of experience" one has ..."

Unless it's a shared experience, unless someone else works with the same information.

"I guess even if someone really did have some "magic" view of an external reality "out there" beyond any ability for someone to be able to (subjective) verify, I wouldn't believe it and in that manner I think subjective and objective reality are fundamentally the same."

I'm completely lost on this statement. Verification, particularly scientific verification, leads to objectivity, which would make a verified observation fundamentally different than one that was made only by an individual.

"Consider this - what could someone say about something they truly had no experience/information regarding?"

(laughs)

A great deal! Are you kidding?!?! The technical term for that is "bullshitting." Would you like me to show you some of that here in Wireclub? I think you, even with your ... um ... rather open view of subjectivity/objectivity would agree that the texts I could show you were "bullshit."

"It would appear nothing could be said about something truly external. When people talk about objective reality, they're really referencing aspects of experience which they've personally encountered already and have constructed their own interpretation of ... that's actually what subjectivity is, so I see no difference between the two views."

Well, again, I'd characterize that statement as you saying that "reality" is whatever anyone cares to make it, and that any point of view is as valid as any other. I'd disagree. Often, people perceive something in a way which is simply not real. This often leads to them saying things like, "Oops!" or "Oh fz@* ... "

☀▃▂▁/V\iragε▁▂▃☀: Doesn't everyone travel to the moon & back?...0ops ..I thought it was normal

StuckInTheSixties: Please! Don't be offensive with a term like "normal"!

The correct way to say that is "subjective/objective."

☀▃▂▁/V\iragε▁▂▃☀: I brought back some cheese & I'm willing to share it with you

MrSteveA67: Do you have some way of seeing things "as they truly are"? If so, do you believe your specific view of reality would be in disagreement with reality as I experience it?

By my own views, there's no way to violate reality and that reality is simply everything in ones experiences/awareness/memory etc. (obviously this includes all the physical interactions and knowledge as well)

My view of reality is that people can have different perspectives, though one is seeing it from ones own "first person perspective", hence you and I can have apparent disagreements, yet there is only one reality and for you, that's whatever the entirety is for you and for me it's similarly everything I experience (yes, including whatever dreams, thought, emotions etc. I might have also).

In the end, I don't know what forms of 'inner experience' you might have and so I only have my own (subjective) view of things and I don't claim any special ability to see some for of external truth outside of that, except in terms of whatever it may prove to be over time.

It's fine. If you know what objective reality is outside of your own (subjective) experiences of it, that's great. I don't have such an ability myself (and I don't believe you do either - we're both working with our own individual view of things and finding out how those fit together).

StuckInTheSixties: This is both facetious, and serious:

If your refrigerator began talking to you, would it be real?

MrSteveA67: Well answer it yourself. What would you say? If you both made observations that a refrigerator was talking to you and you were able to continually verify the reliability of these observations by collecting empirical evidence that, sure enough, yes it kept talking, then wouldn't you have to admit it was something shown to be scientifically true?

The fact that it might be surprising shouldn't deny it from being able to be integrated into a scientific framework. There have been many surprising discoveries over the years (no, I don't expect talking refrigerators to be 'next on the list' though! LOL)

How many past discovers go tossed out or unnecessarily fought against simply because they disagreed with the common conventions people accepted at that time?

If you want a stable rational foundation for things though, then you have to apply such methods in how you put it together. (Yes, I do recommend being a bit extra careful in verifying things that seem unlikely, but if something's true, then it's true and emotions shouldn't deny accepting reality as it is)

So what would it be? Would you define that talking refrigerator example be something real or illusion?

Similarly, let's say you see a magic show and a guy suspends a ball in the air with no obvious strings or magnets etc., then at least from that immediate perspective is that something that is real or illusion?

How could you claim it to be illusion if the ball is sitting there right in front of your eyes? (What reality would also likely contain in that case is your expectation for some mechanism which made this possible to fit in with your knowledge, but at the moment at least, it should be considered that yes, the ball appeared to be suspended in the air without any obvious mechanism to explain how)

I believe you're applying double standards to things in favor of your personal perceptions (which I admit appear to be stereotypically predictable).

StuckInTheSixties: Try showing the fortitude to answer a simple question with a simple answer instead of hiding behind a speech. What's the harm?

I'll humor you, and answer yours. What's the harm?

If my refrigerator spoke to me, knowing that refrigerators don't talk, I'd first suspect that I was being pranked, and look around for the camera. If it kept speaking to me, I'd become alarmed, and probably seek psychiatric help. The only thing that would lead to me assuming that it was "real" was if I was insane. So between real, or illusion, I'd call it an illusion.

If I saw an illusionist with a floating ball, I'd assume it was an illusionist. I have common sense, and it is, after all, an illusionist. I'd enjoy the show, since I have a keen appreciation for a good illusion (not those big, flashy tricks with a tiger and a half-nekkid girl, but close up stuff, where nothing [seemingly] is hidden from view).

If by "stereotypically predictable," you mean imbued with a reasonable amount of common sense, then I'm guilty as charged.

Okay, MrSteve. I've answered your questions. Now ...

... if you dare ...

... a simple, straightforward answer to a simple, straightforward question:

If your refrigerator spoke to you, would it be real?

MrSteveA67: I'm certain I'd do the same thing and try to figure out how the heck the fridge was talking (to be honest, I bet if there aren't already talking refrigerators, the technology isn't out of reach. Speech synthesis is almost old hat), but yes, if the evidence is obvious and I could verify some level of predictability to it then sure enough, it's a talking fridge.

If I instead simply denied this and held fast to beliefs that such was impossible, I'd be guilty of hypocracy at a minimum (as I claim that reality is simply all of what ones experiences, knowledge, emotions etc. are) and just as many other examples in history, holding on to an outdated and unjustifed system of beliefs.

I'm certain many people were skeptical that flying machines existed until aircraft became a common occurance etc.

StuckInTheSixties: "If I instead simply denied this and held fast to beliefs that such was impossible, I'd be guilty of hypocracy at a minimum (as I claim that reality is simply all of what ones experiences, knowledge, emotions etc. are) and just as many other examples in history, holding on to an outdated and unjustifed system of beliefs."

You wouldn't consider the possibility you had gone insane? Or is insanity (at least the kind with a talking refrigerator) one of those things you would consider to be just some "alternative objective" (or whatever you call it) point of view?

"I'm certain many people were skeptical that flying machines existed until aircraft became a common occurance etc."

Do I really have to explain why that analogy is lame?

There are birds. And people make machines. And for hundreds, probably thousands of years, people thought about making things, like machines, that would fly like birds. (Remember Da Vinci?) So it's just lame to think that in the same way that the average person would react to the notion of their refrigerator speaking to them, the average person prior to any of these guys ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_flying_machine

... would react to the notion of a flying machine.

That still wasn't a simple, straightforward answer to a simple straightforward question, but by your standards, it was an heroic effort.

MrSteveA67: But by what standard should I judge myself insane? Do you think someone truly insane could self determine a standard for sanity? Are you, yourself thinking clearing?

Do you believe that if you were truly insane you could judge yourself correctly and recognize it? Wouldn't that imply that you were actually sane if you had an ability to recognize your own insanity?

As I've said, most every thought process begins with some implicit assumption that ones view are correct and applicable, otherwise if one tried to begin with an uncertainty in their own memories and thought processes, that would not allow something of certainty to be later derived.

Yes, I really did spend a lot of time thinking these things over. You're going to have to do some work and move past the stereotypical responses if you hope to show me something new.

To me, it seems your views are actually not very rational/scientific, though you might believe them to be. On the other hand, I recognize value in storytelling and simply having fun making things up, but I prefer to also have a solid foundation to reference things against and I've done a lot of work in life trying to resolve some of the paradoxical and conflicting views others have presented me with and I'm not going to drop those efforts at the first pin drop. Offer me some deep thinking and new ideas to consider and maybe I'll move a little.

StuckInTheSixties: (laughs)

Oh, dude. Give it a rest.

StuckInTheSixties: I'm bored. Bored enough to answer this pseudo-intellectual fluff:

"But by what standard should I judge myself insane?"

Well, something like a talking refrigerator might be an indication.

"Do you think someone truly insane could self determine a standard for sanity?"

Sure. People commit themselves all the time, particularly people that have had previous difficulties, recognize the onset of symptoms, and seek help. How many times do you think a mental health worker has heard someone say, "I think I'm going crazy"?

"Are you, yourself thinking clearing?"

I assume you meant "clearly." Yes, I think so. Clearly enough to recognize self-indulgent pseudo-intellectual masturbatory philoso-junk when I see it.

"Do you believe that if you were truly insane you could judge yourself correctly and recognize it? Wouldn't that imply that you were actually sane if you had an ability to recognize your own insanity?"

No, it wouldn't imply that at all. You're suggesting that people can have only two mental states: Complete sanity or complete insanity. You're suggesting that there's nothing between the two. You're suggesting that it's either impossible for a person to recognize that they were having mental or emotional difficulties, or if they did recognize they were having difficulties, that in itself would prove they were sane. If that were the case, no one would ever ask for help. And of course, many people ask for help. (You didn't really think that one out all the way, did you?)

"As I've said, most every thought process begins with some implicit assumption that ones view are correct and applicable, otherwise if one tried to begin with an uncertainty in their own memories and thought processes, that would not allow something of certainty to be later derived."

Well, no, I don't think you've said that at all, until now. In fact, for the most part, you've been repeating ad nauseum that there is no assumption of a view being "correct and applicable" (objective), but rather, everything is always subjective.

"Yes, I really did spend a lot of time thinking these things over. You're going to have to do some work and move past the stereotypical responses if you hope to show me something new."

No, I'll stick to good old common sense and rationality, rather than pandering to your fluff-texts.

"To me, it seems your views are actually not very rational/scientific ..."

I'm not surprised that you think that.

"... though you might believe them to be."

I do.

"On the other hand, I recognize value in storytelling and simply having fun making things up ..."

Of course you do. Your schtick is based upon that.

"... but I prefer to also have a solid foundation to reference things against and I've done a lot of work in life trying to resolve some of the paradoxical and conflicting views others have presented me with and I'm not going to drop those efforts at the first pin drop."

Well, of course you're not. That would mean you'd have to abandon this facade of pseudo-intellectual verbal cotton candy that you serve up in lieu of meaningful thoughts and observations.

"Offer me some deep thinking and new ideas to consider and maybe I'll move a little."

Move or not. Why should I give a rat's ass?

splurrrk: Time is the passage of light through space. Space is real,gravity is the way mass warps space. Time as measured by the spin of ceasium atoms in an atomic clock changes with the speed of that clock through space ,and the distance of that clock from a gravity well in space. Clocks on an orbiting space craft run fractionally slower than do clocks on Earth.
Space is expanding in all directions,carrying matter along with it .

Zoey234: Dearest Sits - regarding your 2/28/11 at 3:24 p.m.
Gotcha and thank you! Yes, it does seem obvious and simple on the one hand but why can't Zoey make the obvious and simple stand up under closer scrutiny? For me both Time and Space are both so slippery as to slip right out of existence. And unfortunately for me I've been exposed to a sh............load of evidence to this effect. All in the form of "experience" - which is so difficult to translate into words, let alone cohesive argument. But what I seem to be stuck on is that the essential nature of Reality resembles more an Event than a "Thing" which is why chasing elementary particle conglomerates and such might never bring Reality into proper focus. Zoey adored your last line Sits - Reality as Dream/a dream in which we're more awake than we've ever been

Zoey234: Dear Mr. Steve: (regarding yours of 2/28/11 at 7:17) You are cutting through Zoey's brain haze now. It's ALL REAL even the illusory stuff (because that too "occurs" in the mind in the form of Event). Love this approach because it eliminates the Physicists ad the Philosophers from the picture and leaves it up to the Individual to determine the ontological stature of Time and Space. As you pointed out this ALL IS REAL thing (which I call the EVENT) is a hotbed of variants, but that aside Mr. Steve synthesizes beautifully and eases Zoey's stressful struggle a bit.

Yes there is no separating the Perceivor and the Perceived, cannot be done. We are all Physicists ad Philosophers - may not have their knowledge but we are looking straight into the heart of Reality just like they are. Therefore no scientist no matter how gifted (and God knows they are Wizards) can make a final pronouncement on Time and Space that trumps John Doe's.

Also Steve, I'm imagining this (All is Real) Event as a veritable Satori eliminating once and for all the distinction between Subjective and Objective.