Necessity

[Resha Caner]

A very nice post, quatona. I enjoyed it. You may stop me in my tracks before I even get to the point I was trying to make, but then that's the fun of it.

1. To me this definition rather seems a bit too unspecific. "Ordering of manifestations in relation to some reference" also describes a lot of other phenomena/concepts.
2. The only word I have a question about is "ordering". This seems to imply someone who does the "ordering" (correct me if I´m misunderstanding you). Who would that be, in your concept?

I would say both of these are true. What is forcing me into these vagaries is the attempt to avoid time-based language. I'm not sure, since I'm a finite being, that I will ever find satisfactory expression for the idea in my head. But I keep trying.

So, with respect to #1, yes. "Time" is an abstraction of the human mind that bears many similaries to other abstractions of the human mind. What specifically does the "time" abstraction reference? As I was leading up to, it references the way a finite being comprehends an infinite extention - specifically, the physical extension of a body in space.

With respect to #2, yes. The observer is who the observer is. A later point I intended to make is that with "time" we try to find a fixed reference, but no fixed reference exists (except for God, who is outside of our abstraction of time and therefore not an acceptable reference for time).

So is your actual question "Is time real?", or, if it isn´t, is your presupposition that time is real?

I'm saying time is an abstraction used by a finite being to attempt to comprehend something that is infinite. My question then, is whether it is necessary for finite beings to use this abstraction, or if there is an alternative based on the specific properties of the object that would do a better job of describing the object. So, there is an attempt to describe reality, but I don't think time is that reality itself. As such, I think the idea of fixing time to reference a specific object leads us to misinterpret other objects. And, I think I have an alternative.

But, the way I'm testing my alternative is to question what is necessary and what is not. I'm trying to root my alternative only in what is necessary, and not be led to base it on false conceptions of what is necessary. As such, we left the last step with my proposal that extension is a necessary property of the physical.

Yes, sure. Yet, since we seem to have some problems determining what is real (i.e. what reality is), this distinction appears to lead into circularity or begging the question.

Somewhat true. I'll say more later.

On another note, I notice that your above paragraph (the part I have bolded) suggests that everything that is real is therefore necessary.

I didn't mean to imply that. In fact, I tried to clarify that I didn't mean that in my reply to sandwiches.

In my view, btw., time is one way of perception.
I guess, if one day I would find myself experiencing/perceiving without time (i.e. without change, dynamics - statically) I would assume I am dead.

I agree with your first statement. But you're giving up too easily with the second statement.

Yes, but here I would remind you of the problem I have mentioned above: Since we don´t know that these things exist, we can´t call them reality. We don´t know if they are real reality or hypothetical reality. A situation in which they are but hypothetical reality, for us.

This is one difference between us, and maybe a general difference between Christians and atheists. I would say there are things we do know as real because they have been revealed to us. But, for the purposes of this conversation, I'm not asking you to accept revelation. I suppose I am looking to pass by these quandries simply by asking you to accept what I'm saying. If you don't accept it, we'll spiral into a pointless, never-ending debate. So, for the purposes of this thread, we can just say that some of these things are axiomatic. For me, I intend to look to scripture to see if these "axioms" are rooted in scripture. And I don't do that because I'm a scholastic who thinks reason will lead me to truth. In many ways I do it just because it's fun. But, it also helps me make sense of some difficult passages in scripture.

Though not a particular one. For something to exist it would just need any property. IOW: Things without properties can´t exist. Is that what you mean?

Yes, I think I am saying that. It seems many philosophers try to separate substance and property. I don't think they can be separated. Trying to do so seems to turn substance into a property.

I suspect that my problem with such statements is that - just like with "time" which I consider a way that our mind orders "ThatWhichIs" - the same goes for "properties". IOW: "properties" is a method of our mind to order ThatWhichIs as it needs it.

A good point. So are you saying that for any properties a thing has, it is arbitrary to choose which are necessary and which are not? Or that they are all necessary? Or that none are necessary? I don't think I'd agree with any of those.

However, if you think I've picked the wrong necessary property, I'd be interested in hearing alternative ideas.

 

[Chatter]

We all have a tendency to gravitate to our preferred theory. Accusing the opponent of being "controversial" is just an ad hominem reply.

I said his theory was controversial because it is controversial, in the very literal sense that there is a large philosophical controversy over whether his classification makes any sense. I cited Quine as an extreme example, but I can just as easily point to all those philosophers who have been influenced since the positivists in rejecting metaphysics entirely.

How is what I said an ad hominem? That's just a bizarre accusation.

It doesn't bother me much if my view is a minority one or even if it appears ridiculous to others (I realize the above statement wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to reply to the nature of the content). I've based my views on what I think is appropriate. I try to listen to the challenges others raise, and sometimes I do realize faults in my approach. That's one of the reasons I post in places like this.

That's certainly admirable. I'm not trying to belittle your ideas, only suggest what I take to be more fruitful alternatives.

That logical necessity is incoherent sounds like an oxymoron to me. How can one's logic necessitate the conclusion that logical necessity is incoherent? I can see a challenge to metaphysical necessity, but ...

Read the paper. The canonical example of the logically necessary truth is "all bachelors are unmarried". It's logically necessary, so they say, because the word "bachelor" means "unmarried man", and substituting the right for the left, we get "all unmarried men are unmarried", which is a tautology. Thing is, this idea hinges on the meaning of words, and we're in very muddy waters once we start talking about meaning, as Quine (and others since) was so fond of pointing out.

Even then, when people start challeging the necessity of things like existence, I have to laugh at the ridiculous position to which it drives them. Sure, some metaphysical concepts aren't necessary, but I don't understand what drives people into endless debate on certain things. I suppose they just enjoy being contrary or are trying to prove their superior intellect or something. I'm not sure what it is.

Look, I love talking philosophy. I just despise the sorts of conversations had on internet philosophy forums, which often degenerate into metaphysics and talk of "necessity". I'm trying to change the subject. Don't worry, I don't think I'm ever going to succeed

 

[Heavens]

I don't know anything about metaphysics, but I do know physics and I do know about reality and I do know God. I hope that is ok. I didn't know this was an atheist thread but that is ok with me if ok with you.

~"Time" is an abstraction of the human mind that bears many similaries to other abstractions of the human mind.~

Incorrect. Time is not an abstraction of the human mind.
It is unique in it's dimension of purpose intended, unlike any other aspect of reality or our perception of it.

Amoebas and other creatures that have no mind at all are within the necessity of time lapse to exist, yet they have no abstraction of mind concerning time.
Time is a dimension that has nothing to do with our perception of it. Yes, our perception of it is skewed, but that doesn't affect time lol! Time simply gives us the ability to exist and determine events. It will be altogether dispensed with eventually.

~With respect to #2, yes. The observer is who the observer is. A later point I intended to make is that with "time" we try to find a fixed reference, but no fixed reference exists (except for God, who is outside of our abstraction of time and therefore not an acceptable reference for time).~

Why would anybody imagine to look for a "fixed reference" in time? Time was created for us to measure one moment to the next. Not to compare with "one point in time".

~I'm saying time is an abstraction used by a finite being to attempt to comprehend something that is infinite.~

Incorrect premise altogether. It is impossible for a finite being trapped in a brief moment in time to comprehend infinity regardless of how "abstractly" we attempt to use it. Time is not an "abstraction" that can be used to "comprehend" infinity lol.

Which makes this question moot;

~My question then, is whether it is necessary for finite beings to use this abstraction, or if there is an alternative based on the specific properties of the object that would do a better job of describing the object.~

Now you are getting warm You KNOW the alternative But only the brave can go there.

~But, for the purposes of this conversation, I'm not asking you to accept revelation. I suppose I am looking to pass by these quandries simply by asking you to accept what I'm saying.~

There is a vast gulf between revelation and accepting someone else's word for something. shouldn't it be our first step, to ask Jesus to turn the light on to reveal? Bumping into furniture in the dark, (no matter how tall), is illogical. Those who we would invite over into that dark room would also be banging their shins and foreheads on the invisible things. Let's get that light turned on lol. There are no mysteries in Jesus, also no need to trust what someone else says. I'm a scholastic too, but tempered by Him who is outside of time. Only He can enlighten us. He is the only actual fully self contained truth and He gladly gives the answers to those who ask the right questions. But they will never come without knowing Him. Only Jesus is axiomatic. HE is that fixed point in "time" you need to look at if any. All of eternity past and forward center on 2000 years ago.

Scripture is full of all the answers you seek dear Resha, and I would love to help you

~For me, I intend to look to scripture to see if these "axioms" are rooted in scripture.~

Absolutely! That is a true scholarly spirit

Blessings in Christ

 

[Resha Caner]

How is what I said an ad hominem? That's just a bizarre accusation.

Maybe I inferred too much and it is not strictly ad hominem, but it came across as an attempt to discredit, and such a tactic says nothing about the substance of the debate. As I tried to explain, I don't care how many philosophers weigh in on one side or the other. So, whether a certain idea is controversial or not is irrelevant to me.

That's certainly admirable. I'm not trying to belittle your ideas, only suggest what I take to be more fruitful alternatives.

OK. But I'm not sure I've heard you on what those alternatives are.

Read the paper.

Hmm. I'm willing to, but you're the one who brought it up. I hoped you would have a summary to go with the discussion.

The canonical example of the logically necessary truth is "all bachelors are unmarried". It's logically necessary, so they say, because the word "bachelor" means "unmarried man", and substituting the right for the left, we get "all unmarried men are unmarried", which is a tautology.

Yes, I'm familiar with the "nominal essence" in the bachelor example. This is the type of hair splitting that I find tedious though, so maybe we agree on that point. I didn't think this was what I was doing, though. In fact, I thought I was trying to do the exact opposite.

I can give you a real world example from my engineering that might be better. When making a change to a machine, one thing people consider is "operator acceptance" - a very tricky, very subjective requirement. Sometimes an engineer will try to improve a product, but the person using the product doesn't like the improvement, and, therefore, won't pay the increase in price now associated with the product. Unfortunately, focusing on "operator acceptance" often paralyzes the engineer into doing nothing. So, I call it a "false requirement". Instead, my approach is to get the engineer and operator to agree on a metric - say efficiency. So, if the engineer can prove he has improved efficiency, then the operator is more likely to accept it, even if said operator is somewhat change adverse.

I'm trying to do the same thing here. I'm trying to avoid "false necessities", and I think "time" is one of those. However, what I admit is that it is such a basic concept, so firmly rooted in the nature of people, that there may be no practical reason for moving to an alternative perception. Still, it's keeping me entertained at the moment.

Thing is, this idea hinges on the meaning of words, and we're in very muddy waters once we start talking about meaning, as Quine (and others since) was so fond of pointing out.

Yes. For me Hofstadter gave the best example of how meaning can lead one to a logical fallacy. So, I don't preclude the possibility that I have done such a thing. If so, I'd appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

Look, I love talking philosophy. I just despise the sorts of conversations had on internet philosophy forums, which often degenerate into metaphysics and talk of "necessity". I'm trying to change the subject. Don't worry, I don't think I'm ever going to succeed

But it seems you're bickering about personal preferences for the topic of conversation, not debating the point. On my reading list is an entire book about necessity, and I'm anxious to get to it. I even wonder if I've jumped the gun with this thread. So, I think it is a very valid topic.

If you prefer an alternative topic, feel free to post away.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't know anything about metaphysics, but I do know physics and I do know about reality and I do know God. I hope that is ok. I didn't know this was an atheist thread but that is ok with me if ok with you.

Feel free to participate, but I think you've misread me. I know God as well. Look at my info.

Further, I don't know your familiarity with physics, but I am also quite familiar with it. We can trade resume's if you wish.

Incorrect. Time is not an abstraction of the human mind ...

Why would anybody imagine to look for a "fixed reference" in time?

Internet threads are notorious for wandering, so I've not had a chance to express certain things about time - at least not in this thread. We can review them if that will help you.

I'd start with this question: how do you measure time?

There is a vast gulf between revelation and accepting someone else's word for something.

Of course. I'm merely asking a courtesy, one commonly used in debate. When a debate reaches a sticking point and both sides refuse to yield, one way of getting past it is to ask for acceptance of the sticking point as axiomatic. In other words, it is understood that one side accepts the idea and the other side rejects it. But, once accepted as axiomatic, the debate can continue to search out where the logic leads.

So, I don't expect atheists to accept my beliefs. Instead, I'd rather go along as we search out the logic together. Of course part of me hopes they will reach the same conclusion I do, but that's out of my hands. The Spirit will do what the Spirit will do. I'm just here to play my part.

shouldn't it be our first step, to ask Jesus to turn the light on to reveal? Bumping into furniture in the dark, (no matter how tall), is illogical.

One has to believe in Jesus before asking him to turn the light on. Let me reassure you I have faith in Jesus as my Savior. But also check my profile. I didn't accept Jesus. He accepted me. I won't find him. He has to find me. Now, once I believe, yes I should ask him for help. The problem is, there are some personalities (mine included) who remain a bit stubborn. Illogical as it may seem, that doesn't remove my stubborn independence.

Scripture is full of all the answers you seek dear Resha, and I would love to help you

Feel free to talk to me about what is on your mind at any time.

 

[Heavens]

Okay, cool Launching from an assumption is always fun Resha. And reviewing is good if you believe I'm missing something. I'm curious as to the hoped end of things in this... how fun
But I'm sure you know, very few folk ever come to Christ through cerebral analysis, whether on the relativistic or quantum levels. And typically, one's view of their own cerebral content is the death stroke of pride, an enemy against both science as well as religion.

God has provided the simple minded with the wisdom to be able to just look up and see the design and creation and know there is a designer and creator, without spending one nanogram of thought. From that perspective, we can see science for what it is, as God's answers continually turn up in progressive scientific confirmations of what Sons of God know by His Spirit. It is quite awesome how He works in that manner. Science can only discover God in His design if we are honest. I am with you in this

I have observed amongst my colleagues that mental capability is often a definitive roadblock to progression in truth to those who think everything that exists is chanced through the Drake equation. The amount of thought energy flushed down that path is incredible. Myself primarily included, no matter how much worldly learning we heap to ourselves it usually serves to only get in the way of what is important in reality.

Yes, a good starting question, "how do we measure time";
Cesium clocks are good hehe. Even quartz is ok for the common guy. But time is always measured by the elapse between events regardless of the mechanism. The events can be eons apart or a billioneth of a nanosecond apart. It can be measured by our lifetimes, or it can be measured by local planetary revolutions. Time is certainly relative, speed being affected by the other dimensions, but certainly not abstract. It is linear and only moves one direction regardless of point of observation. Entropy is certain in time.

Entropy is certain for our mortal bodies and minds. That should be the sobering thought in all this. God has provided us the way to exit this "time rationed" universe of entropy, bringing us into His timelessness. The "time" comes (lol) when the elect are outside of time with Him and can see all things from the beginning to the end, and can spend an "eternity" in any one point of this universe's time if we so desired. Masters of Time.

Your statement that one needs to believe in Jesus before asking him to turn the light on is pleasantly debatable as well
Jesus accepts us when we take that step forward in faith to prove Him. The brave will do this. It is like your statement above when you asked others to accept your position and move forward on that pretense. That is exactly how anyone can come to faith in God.
Whoever has root enough in themselves and aren't fearful or full of cerebral pride, can do it! It is as easy as reaching out and feeling for the light switch, knowing that is a much more intelligent first step to take rather than stepping over the threshold into a dark room. It may not be where we think it is as we feel around, but you can take it to the bank that Jesus will grab the hand that searches, and guide him to the switch, just as you would your child.

Yes, please fill me in on what you think I might have missed earlier. Thank you for the time! LOL.
Blessings in Christ

 

[jonmichael818]

I'd start with this question: how do you measure time?

I know you were not asking me, but to put it simply, I am not really sure?
I came across this documantary regarding time, and I think it is excellent:
-BBC Horizon: Do You Know What Time It Is/ with Brian Cox
It talks about measuring time and what we currently theorize about time from a physics perspective.

Of course. I'm merely asking a courtesy, one commonly used in debate. When a debate reaches a sticking point and both sides refuse to yield, one way of getting past it is to ask for acceptance of the sticking point as axiomatic. In other words, it is understood that one side accepts the idea and the other side rejects it. But, once accepted as axiomatic, the debate can continue to search out where the logic leads.

Seems fair enough.

 

[Resha Caner]

I came across this documantary regarding time, and I think it is excellent:

Thanks for sharing. It was very good and touched on many of the same issues I'm trying to bring out here. Watching it was worthwhile just for the simple fact that I learned something new about space-time that hadn't sunk in before. In fact, a science fiction story I wrote in highschool is based on one of the oddities of space-time - essentially on the fixity people seem to attach to the concept of "dimension" - something I have always found a bit silly. I now see that my story idea was based on a misconception of what Einstein was saying about space-time ... though I still think people err in thoughts about "dimension".

It also did the same thing that all such documentaries do. When the tough questions come up, there is much mystical handwaving. Not that I think I have the answer to it all. Rather, I think people end up in these dead ends because they're asking the wrong questions (I call them "square table" questions). For example, the documentary never questioned whether time is really necessary - which is what I'm doing here.

P.S. "Square table" questions are this: Suppose you are sitting at a square table, and someone comes up and asks you, "Is this table round or triangular?", refuses to accept that any but those two answers are possible, and then calls you idiotic, evasive, overly philosophical, or something else because you won't choose from their list of answers.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have observed amongst my colleagues that mental capability is often a definitive roadblock to progression in truth

Certainly true. There is another roadblock as well, however, which one must be wary of. It is prejudice against opposing views. Just because I know someone to be wrong about one thing does not mean they are wrong about all things. Too often I see my Christian brothers and sisters shutting out what unbelievers say. Rather than listening, they try to shout louder.

Since we are talking about time, let me give an example. Young Earth Creationists (YEC) have posed legitimate challenges to the dating methods used by geologists, etc. In essence it boils down to the fact that geologists must calibrate their time meter somehow, and that calibration is based on assumptions they can never prove. While that may be true, it is not a victory that proves YEC correct. To be honest, I find the methods used by YEC to date the earth to 6000 years much sillier than the methods used by geologists.

So, I think both YEC and geology to be wrong.

Yes, the creation account in Genesis speaks of what is best translated as "days". But, if one thinks about what occurred before the mention of the first day, it is not really clear how much "time" passed before the completion of that first day - or even how long that first day was. Even the video posted by Jon speaks of how the earth is not a good measure of time. It's rotation is not a consistent 24 hours. Surely God must know that, and by using it as the reference in Genesis, what is He really telling us?

The Hebrew concept of time is different than the Greek concept of time. To back up that statement, read these references:
Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings
Hebrew Time Concepts

What led me to look at this was to notice that the Old Testament never really uses the word "time" the way we do. In fact, for each of the first dozen or so references to time in the OT, the word is different for each instance. So, there are several interesting comments in the references I gave. First, Hebrews did not abstract time as the Greeks did. Second, Hebrews used concepts of distance to make time references. Third, Hebrews often referenced life events as a way of marking time. Fourth, and maybe my favorite line from these references is that for the Hebrew, "time" was derivative.

Yes, a good starting question, "how do we measure time";
Cesium clocks are good hehe. Even quartz is ok for the common guy. But time is always measured by the elapse between events regardless of the mechanism.

Yes. And so every measure we used is based on motion. Therefore, are we not deriving our measures of time from motion? Further, are we not hoping that these measures remain fixed, i.e. that the behavior of cesium does not change?

Yet for both accounts, the Biblical and the Big Bang, there was a "time" before cesium (or before days and nights). So what was the reference for that time? Matter existed, but there was no fixed reference for measuring time.

One challenge I have raised is whether we really know that cesium has constant behavior even now. We don't. We only know that it seems consistent down to the uncertainty level. The reply is usually that even if inconsistency exists below that level it is irrelevant, but I disagree.

In the video the dilemma of the beginning is explained with "unseen dimensions" (the multi-universe or "brane" theory) - yes much more scientific than an appeal to an unseen God.

Also, there is Hawking's supposition that at the moment of the Big Bang time had collapsed to a physical rather than a temporal dimension, i.e. we've gone from a 4-space to a 3-space,1-time universe (I have a copy of the paper that resulted from that idea if anyone wants to try to comprehend it).

I think all of those ideas contain pieces of the truth, but it seems no one has been able to completely get their hands around it. I think the "brane" theory is right to say time has no beginning or end. I think Einstein's space-time ideas are right to say that there is no fixed reference and everyone perceives time differently. I think Hawking's idea has some tantalizing tidbits by suggesting that time is really just some unique manifestation of physical extent. But what seems to confuse them all is this square table question that leads to many oxymorons: Did time have a beginning?

If time is just an abstraction we use to explain how we perceive God's creation, then that is the wrong question to ask.

 

[quatona]

A very nice post, quatona. I enjoyed it. You may stop me in my tracks before I even get to the point I was trying to make, but then that's the fun of it.

Hi Resha, and thanks for considering my thoughts.

Let me say upfront that I am a little lost, though.
Firstly, I don´t know which point it is you are gonna try to drive home (or putting to the test here). That´s fine with me, but it means that my comments may be completely irrelevant. In which case I pre-emptively apologize.

Secondly, I really still have problems understanding your use of the "big words", and particularly of the word "necessary". For the time being I will work from the assumption that you mean something to the effect of "axiomatic, inevitable concept" (correct me if I´m wrong).

And I would agree with that. In my opinion, it´s even more than a concept. It´s our most basic way of experiencing. Even if it could be proven without doubt that time doesn´t "exist" (or is an inaccurate concept) I can´t even begin to fathom how experiencing/perceiving/encountering would be like without dynamics, development, drama, anticipation, hope, regrets, plans, expectations etc.
Encountering in terms of passing time is such a basic condition of the way my mind works.
As such, yes, time is "necessary" for existence/reality as I know it. Maybe there could be a different form of reality/existence out there that does without time, and in which everything is static, and in which time would not be "necessary". That would be a fundamentally different reality/existence than mine.
(Let me clarify here that I personally don´t care much for ideas like "objective reality/existence". Although I have no problem assuming that there is an immediate "ThatWhichIs" (untouched by my concepts, my mind), I fail to see the relevance of it. As soon as I approach it it will necessarily become a relation between my mind/conceptualization. This relation is what I consider "reality". There are many variables in this reality (e.g. I can easily bring myself to consider this thing on the wall a guitar, but also a piece of heating wood), but time is one of the few concepts that aren´t disposable.

I would say both of these are true. What is forcing me into these vagaries is the attempt to avoid time-based language. I'm not sure, since I'm a finite being, that I will ever find satisfactory expression for the idea in my head. But I keep trying.

I guess there´s a reason why there is no such thing as language that is not time-based. I am suspecting that this idea in your head isn´t even an idea.
Because you are a finite (note the implication of time in "finite") being you are not only uncapable to speak a language that is not time based, but - more fundamentally - also uncapable of conceptualizing in a way that is not time based.

So, with respect to #1, yes. "Time" is an abstraction of the human mind that bears many similaries to other abstractions of the human mind. What specifically does the "time" abstraction reference? As I was leading up to, it references the way a finite being comprehends an infinite extention - specifically, the physical extension of a body in space.

Hmm. Do you realize that "inifinite extention" is itself a concept that helps you making sense of "ThatWhichIs"?

With respect to #2, yes. The observer is who the observer is.

Sorry - did you mean to say "the orderer is who the observer is"?

A later point I intended to make is that with "time" we try to find a fixed reference, but no fixed reference exists (except for God, who is outside of our abstraction of time and therefore not an acceptable reference for time).

I have to insist that you cannot escape the realm of your conceptualization/abstraction, and as soon as "God" becomes part of it, "God" will, for all purposes of these discussions and contemplations, itself be part of it.

On another note, I don´t know that it´s my desire to find a fixed reference for "time".

I'm saying time is an abstraction used by a finite being to attempt to comprehend something that is infinite.

And the abstraction "infinity" is an attempt to comprehend what?
Anyway, I don´t agree that time is an abstraction. Time, much more than anything, feels very concrete, very direct, very straight-in-the-face. Sort of like hunger. It doesn´t require abstraction. We can´t help feeling in terms of time.

My question then, is whether it is necessary for finite beings to use this abstraction,

In any case, I would think it´s more "necessary" than using the abstraction "infinity".
Experiencing in terms of time is about as "necessary" as having feelings, as having thoughts. I don´t think the "necessary" part about time is the post hoc abstraction - it´s the inevitable function that it has in our experience.
Prove that time doesn´t exist - I still will encounter my existence in terms of time.

or if there is an alternative based on the specific properties of the object that would do a better job of describing the object.

Sorry, you lost me here. What do you mean - "object"? Which "object"?

So, there is an attempt to describe reality, but I don't think time is that reality itself.

Going by my definition of reality (above), it definitely is - more than anything else.
I am assuming that all these philosophical contemplations serve the purpose to help make sense of ThatWhichIs. To me, that means: I want it to make sense to me. I want to relate. Personally, I find it a bit odd to hypothesize a sense/meaning that it might make to me if my way of making sense of things were different.
Maybe God doesn´t experience in terms of time. So what? I do, and I can´t help it. God relates to it his way, I relate to it my way.

As such, I think the idea of fixing time to reference a specific object leads us to misinterpret other objects. And, I think I have an alternative.

I´m not sure I understand what you are saying here. It seems to me that you are equivocating different meanings of "time". The desire to
"fix time to a reference a specific object" may be a scientific desire (I don´t know), but this seems to refer to a completely different concept "time" than the one we have been working from so far.

But let´s hear your alternative!

But, the way I'm testing my alternative is to question what is necessary and what is not. I'm trying to root my alternative only in what is necessary, and not be led to base it on false conceptions of what is necessary.

Again, I am having problems understanding what you mean by "necessary".

As such, we left the last step with my proposal that extension is a necessary property of the physical.

"Extension" is a concept, not a property - in my philosophy.

I agree with your first statement. But you're giving up too easily with the second statement.

Well, hypothesizing a reality that isn´t mine is tricky.
What would life be like if I wouldn´t think? I don´t know. Thoughts (just like time) are so basic to my existence...
What would life be without having a body?
Without having a body and without having thoughts and feelings and a mind?
How does it feel to be an apple? Do apples possibly feel, but completely differently than we do? Not time-based?
All these are mind games, and no matter what, the results will be results of that very mind that you are intending to bypass.

This is one difference between us, and maybe a general difference between Christians and atheists. I would say there are things we do know as real because they have been revealed to us.

Would this knowledge be a relation to these things, or would it be identical/congruent with what you assume to be their true nature?

But, for the purposes of this conversation, I'm not asking you to accept revelation. I suppose I am looking to pass by these quandries simply by asking you to accept what I'm saying. If you don't accept it, we'll spiral into a pointless, never-ending debate.

I am definitely willing to work from the premises you are proposing. However, I would have to know them. I´m not sure I know them. Would you be willing to list them for me?

However, there´s a caveat: I don´t see much point in trying to explore what is "necessary" by starting from premises that haven´t been established as "necessary" themselves. I´m sure you understand the problems with this approach.

Yes, I think I am saying that. It seems many philosophers try to separate substance and property. I don't think they can be separated. Trying to do so seems to turn substance into a property.

I would - again - like to submit that as soon as a philosopher (or whoever) starts exploring ThatWhichIs, the result will inevitably be properties, not substance. If substance is that which something is without being conceptualized or mind-processed, contemplating about the substance is an paradox.

A good point. So are you saying that for any properties a thing has, it is arbitrary to choose which are necessary and which are not?

No. What I am saying is: There aren´t things, and there aren´t properties. It´s all our making. We divide ThatWhichIs into separate objects, concepts and whatnot.

Or that they are all necessary? Or that none are necessary? I don't think I'd agree with any of those.

Necessary for what?

However, if you think I've picked the wrong necessary property, I'd be interested in hearing alternative ideas.

Honestly, I am having problems understanding your questions.
If "properties" are our concepts, then at best they may be necessary in our conceptualization (axiomatic, logically necessary). If "substance" is ThatWhichIs (untouched by our mind), then the fact that some "properties" are "necessary" doesn´t yet mean that they describe the "substance".

Bottom line: The "substance" is not accessible to you, no matter how hard you try to bypass your mind by using it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Let me say upfront that I am a little lost ...

I don´t know which point it is you are gonna try to drive home ...

I really still have problems understanding your use of the "big words", and particularly of the word "necessary".

Sorry. I appreciate your patience. It's fun for me, so hopefully it doesn't get tedious for you. I have some mathematical constructions regarding time, but before I got to those I was trying to establish the metaphysics that underpins how people use concepts of time. I suppose it seems to me that many are making time a fundamental axiom whereas I am trying to say that it is derived from other axioms. So, what are those other axioms?

For the time being I will work from the assumption that you mean something to the effect of "axiomatic, inevitable concept" (correct me if I´m wrong).

I've come to realize that my use of "necessary" may not be fixed. It is probably different for each step in the argument. So, I don't know if there is a more fundamental concept I could appeal to, but let me try to restate where we are at. And, with that said, maybe I need to downplay the emphasis on necessity.

If the axioms I propose turn out to be just an interesting alternative, I would be disappointed with my efforts. So, I'm trying to find those things behind the idea of time that people would accept as irreducible. If people think existence can be deduced from another premise, then I haven't reached back far enough. But it seems much of philosophy starts with existence rather than trying to argue that existence exists because of some other prior cause. So, in this sense, existence is necessary.

From there, it seems a good next step is to say that one category of things that exist is physical things. There are also supernatural things, abstract things, etc. So, I wouldn't say physical things are necessary in general. However, since we are physical, the physical is necessary for us to exist.

Once we have the physical, it seems extent is really the only necessary property of the physical. For most other properties I can recall, I can also think of cases where they are not necessary or where they derive from extent in some manner. This is as far as we've gotten. What I thought might come next is whether infinity is a necessary implication of extent.

In my opinion, it [time] is even more than a concept. It´s our most basic way of experiencing. Even if it could be proven without doubt that time doesn´t "exist" (or is an inaccurate concept) I can´t even begin to fathom how experiencing/perceiving/encountering would be like without dynamics, development, drama, anticipation, hope, regrets, plans, expectations etc.

That's what I'm trying to challenge.

I guess there´s a reason why there is no such thing as language that is not time-based. I am suspecting that this idea in your head isn´t even an idea.

No, it's an idea. I'm a very conceptual thinker, and I have long struggled to find language to express what I'm thinking. I'm tempted to digress into a list of anecdotes, but I'll try to keep this as simple as possible.

Because you are a finite (note the implication of time in "finite") being you are not only uncapable to speak a language that is not time based, but - more fundamentally - also uncapable of conceptualizing in a way that is not time based.

No, I was using "finite" as a term for my spatial limitations.

Hmm. Do you realize that "inifinite extention" is itself a concept that helps you making sense of "ThatWhichIs"?

Yes, and it is the beginnings of the alternative I would offer for time.

And the abstraction "infinity" is an attempt to comprehend what?
Anyway, I don´t agree that time is an abstraction. Time, much more than anything, feels very concrete, very direct, very straight-in-the-face. Sort of like hunger. It doesn´t require abstraction. We can´t help feeling in terms of time.
In any case, I would think it´s more "necessary" than using the abstraction "infinity" ...

Maybe God doesn´t experience in terms of time. So what? I do, and I can´t help it. God relates to it his way, I relate to it my way ...

But let´s hear your alternative!

I understand that the "so what?" is important. So maybe I need to back up.

I would - again - like to submit that as soon as a philosopher (or whoever) starts exploring ThatWhichIs, the result will inevitably be properties, not substance. If substance is that which something is without being conceptualized or mind-processed, contemplating about the substance is an paradox.

I agree with what you're saying here to some extent. But I hope you're not saying all that exists is one big indivisible thing and that all attempts at division are pointless. I tried to say that dividing necessary properties from the substance is a useless excercise. But I do think some things can be divided. Anyway, let's put this on the back burner for awhile.

Instead, I'll focus on your comment that one being relates to time his way and another may relate to it another way. So what? The "so what" comes when those two beings try to communicate. If they can't agree on common ground for that communication, it's going to be a very frustrating excercise.

And that is often the case. So let me pick a very specific, very scientific example to demonstrate that: the rubber grommets used when connecting 2 devices. The idea is to isolate one device from the vibration of the other device. I'm not sure how many details I should provide, but I mention a specific example to be clear about several things. 1) This started from an attempt to solve a real problem. 2) There are several possible models for this example, but I found a paper that didn't use any of them. 3) The reason for picking a completely new model was to obtain better correlation than could be achieved with existing models. 4) It is debatable whether some of the states produced by existing models are physically manifest. 5) The new model was restricted to a "usable" range. In other words, the math used for the model has undefined regions.

So, I started pondering these oddities: [edit: Sorry, but this struck me funny as a scientific rendition of Goldilocks - 2) = too much porridge, 3) = too little porridge, 1) = just the right amount, but it's cold. ]
1) There is a model where tests show it to physically manifest over it's entire space, but this model does not correlate with rubber grommets.
2) There is a model where tests show it correlates better with some (but not all) grommets for one solution space, but there is no data to show that the other solution spaces are manifest.
3) There is a new model that correlates to some of the exceptions of #2, but it cannot cover the entire physical space because the functions are undefined. In other words, I can devise a test for which the model has no answers.

Why is this? Should I just keep guessing and inventing new models? Rather than do that, I took a different route. It was a very long route, so I'll try to cut to the chase. One of the key questions in that journey was: What is the fundamental principle of the physics I am using?

Most would answer: Newton's First Law.

I disagree. I actually think the fundamental principle is a mathematical one that has never been stated, but which is implicit in many laws in addition to Newton's First (Hooke's Law, Kirchoff's Law, etc.). I would state it (shall we call it Caner's First Postulate - C1?):

C1: Classical physics assumes that physical phenomena can be represented based on the arithmetic of differences.

Actually, I think all of current physics should be included in C1, but I'm not as sure of myself outside of classical physics.

I'm not sure how long to keep going in this direction before I pause to let you comment. So, I'll stop here. If you have nothing to say, I'll post some more. But I'll also say that usually when I get to this point, people get bored and stop listening.

 

[lucaspa]

Any thoughts on the idea of "necessity"?

As a clue to where I'm headed with this, I've been pondering whether "time" is a necessity of reality.

Absolutely. Spacetime comes together as a unit. In order to correctly state the position of any object, you not only have to place it in the 3 dimensions of space, but you must also specify a time.

or consider this. The only way you can get to work is with the necessary factor "time". Without time, you cannot change position because velocity is change location over time.

So, instead, I would start with this: it seems "existence" is necessary.

Actually, no. If there was no existence, then you and I wouldn't be pondering the issue. For us to ponder existence, then it is necessary for us to exist. But existence as a whole? No.

 

[quatona]

Resha, just a short reply. I am enjoying this conversation. It isn´t boring or tedious at all, and I like how you are serious about putting your ideas to the test.
However, I´m afraid I won´t respond in detail today or tomorrow. I just don´t have the time (!! ), and I regret it. Well, that´s not entirely true: I happen to have other priorities, in my real life. I promise to get back to you as soon as possible.
Thanks so far!

 

[Resha Caner]

I'll be existing in a finite state ... or in terms you can understand: I'll be waiting.