Necessity

[Resha Caner]

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. I'm leaning toward saying it isn't - a very convenient abstraction for we finite beings, but not a necessity. Still, some convinced opponents of that idea may help me find the weaknesses in my position. Or, if what I say seems similar to philosopher x or y, I'd like to know that as well.

I'm not headed toward the ontological proof of God (the "necessary being" argument) - at least not yet. I've always thought that argument very weak (though at the same time I've always wondered if I'm not completely understanding it).

And, this would have implications for Biblical dates - 6 days, 6000 years, etc. - but I don't think that's a good place to start.

So, instead, I would start with this: it seems "existence" is necessary. That doesn't mean subject (the "I") or object (the "you") is necessary. But existence is. Whether I exist as a figment in the imagination of some other being, or whether the world is a figment of my imagination, or whether it be something else, at the very least something exists.

 

[sandwiches]

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. I'm leaning toward saying it isn't - a very convenient abstraction for we finite beings, but not a necessity. Still, some convinced opponents of that idea may help me find the weaknesses in my position. Or, if what I say seems similar to philosopher x or y, I'd like to know that as well.

I'm not headed toward the ontological proof of God (the "necessary being" argument) - at least not yet. I've always thought that argument very weak (though at the same time I've always wondered if I'm not completely understanding it).

And, this would have implications for Biblical dates - 6 days, 6000 years, etc. - but I don't think that's a good place to start.

So, instead, I would start with this: it seems "existence" is necessary. That doesn't mean subject (the "I") or object (the "you") is necessary. But existence is. Whether I exist as a figment in the imagination of some other being, or whether the world is a figment of my imagination, or whether it be something else, at the very least something exists.

Just because some 'is,' I wouldn't necessarily deem it necessary. Now, if you mean that for us to know that something 'is,' existence is necessary, then I'd agree.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just because some 'is,' I wouldn't necessarily deem it necessary.

Agreed. Although there is one thing that needs to be clarified. As an explanatory example, my existence is not necessary to the existence of humans in general. But, my existence is necessary to the specific state of human existence. No matter how small my impact might be, and whether for better or worse, without me things would be different than they are. So, I'm speaking of "necessity" in the general first sense.

Now, if you mean that for us to know that something 'is,' existence is necessary, then I'd agree.

I'm not sure I completely understand you here, but I think I agree with this as well.

Next, if we agree "existence" is a necessity, it follows that the existing thing must have some type of substance. Philosophical discussions about essence and substance get confusing. We can imagine many different types of essence, none of which can probably be proven as necessary. So, our physical substance may not be necessary, but if we agree physical substance exists, it seems a necessary consequence is that it will have extent.

 

[AlexBP]

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. I'm leaning toward saying it isn't - a very convenient abstraction for we finite beings, but not a necessity.

I believe that time is a necessity for matter to exist. However, time is not absolutely necessary in the philosophical, Saint Thomas-style understanding of the term.

If matter exists, then it must be capable of movement, otherwise it's not matter. But what is movement? To say that an object moved is merely to say that it was at one location at one time and then at a different location at a later time. Hence, without time there would be no motion and thus no matter.

However, through meditation, contemplation, and prayer, humans can move towards a state of timelessness, and the great mystics are the ones who can most nearly approach timelessness. Hence it seems likely that God and the angels exist in a state of timelessness, since mysticism is merely the process of moving closer to godliness.

 

[Resha Caner]

I believe that time is a necessity for matter to exist. However, time is not absolutely necessary in the philosophical, Saint Thomas-style understanding of the term.

If one imagines a spectrum separating the mystical from the physical rather than a distinct dichotomy, I understand that the beginning of this thread was very mystical/philosophical. But, my intent is to drive it as much toward the physical as I possibly can. I don't know if I'd ever cross the tipping-point that would cause physicists to accept it, but I'll try.

If matter exists, then it must be capable of movement, otherwise it's not matter.

Why? I accept the idea (from another thread) that matter is just a form of energy, and that though photons have no rest mass, a system of them can have a rest mass ... mass being a key manifestation of matter.

So, I accept that matter must have motion to "exist", i.e. that mass does not manifest unless there is internal motion at the atomic scale.

But, I wonder if motion is an abstraction used by finite beings to explain something else. In other words, "motion" may be what we perceive, but not reality. As such, it may be impossibly difficult to get past the idea of motion, but I'm going to try and see if it works.

Even then, you've described time as a derivative of motion. So what makes that derivative necessary? It's just a concept.

 

[Heavens]

I've been pondering whether "time" is a necessity of reality. I'm leaning toward saying it isn't - a very convenient abstraction for we finite beings, but not a necessity.

It is around here, if you want dinner on time

 

[quatona]

Any thoughts on the idea of "necessity"?

First thought that comes to mind: I have never understood what "necessary" was supposed to mean when it was used without a qualifying "necessary for/to/of...".

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

Would you be willing to define "time" for purposes of this thread? (And possibly, if it isn´t asked too much, "reality", as well?)

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

For what? (Or do you mean "necessary" as in "axiomatic"?)

 

[jonmichael818]

I am not very well versed in the philosophical arguments of ontology or perhaps existentialism, but I think I can contribute from a physics standpoint.

Why? I accept the idea (from another thread) that matter is just a form of energy, and that though photons have no rest mass, a system of them can have a rest mass ... mass being a key manifestation of matter.

So, I accept that matter must have motion to "exist", i.e. that mass does not manifest unless there is internal motion at the atomic scale.

In theory what gives a particle its mass is the Higgs partical/field, once the partical has mass it then is able to release gravitons giving rise to gravity.

So yes I would agree that motion is needed for matter to exist, because unless the theoretical Higgs does not interact with other particles then there would be no mass.

But, I wonder if motion is an abstraction used by finite beings to explain something else. In other words, "motion" may be what we perceive, but not reality. As such, it may be impossibly difficult to get past the idea of motion, but I'm going to try and see if it works.

Well I believe that time may be an abstaction or even an illusion to us humans, but whether motion is or not, I don't know where I stand.

As John Wheeler said, "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once."

Not only that but as Special Relativity has tought us, time is so relative.
One explanation that I really like discribing time as an illusion to us goes like this:

Imagine drawing a line on a piece of paper. The begining, the end and everything in between that line are all there at once. Now imagine that line as if it were our reality of experience. The begining, the end and everything in between our reality may all exist already, but our human minds experience that reality in terms of sequencial events.

 

[Heavens]

Right. Without "time" a physical universe can not exist. "Spin" couldn't exist, which is the primary integer of mass.
Without "time", finite creatures could not assimilate sequences of events. Finite creatures wouldn't even exist for that matter.

God is outside of time of course. When He created the universe, time was simply one of the dimensions He created to give it shape and subsequential purpose(s).
He is not just everywhere present, but "everytime present". He exists at every point of what we would term the "timeline".
This universe is just a minor temporary neccessity to provide us a lifespan to choose His free gift of grace. He entered into our space and time and brougt forth a son of our own flesh and blood. In "Time", He is bringing His Elect unto Himself. In the "fulness of time", comes the end when this purpose is completed and we are "all in all" in the Eternal God.

In reality, we, who are one in Christ, have eternal existence in all time, being of God and outside of time. One day, we will come to see all this when this temporary flesh body is done. Then hallelujah knowing as we are known for ever

 

[Resha Caner]

Imagine drawing a line on a piece of paper. The begining, the end and everything in between that line are all there at once. Now imagine that line as if it were our reality of experience. The begining, the end and everything in between our reality may all exist already, but our human minds experience that reality in terms of sequencial events.

I've heard this illustration before, and it's very close to where I was going.

 

[Resha Caner]

Would you be willing to define "time" for purposes of this thread? (And possibly, if it isn´t asked too much, "reality", as well?)

Hmm. My definition is very derivative. In other words, it would serve the purpose of supporting my point. I define time as the ordering of manifestations in relation to some reference.

That definition probably has many words in it that you would also like defined. If so, ask. You could also propose an alternative.

As for reality, I wasn't insisting on attaching much meaning to the word. My definition would be rather trite, much like that at dictionary.com: the state of being real.

For what? (Or do you mean "necessary" as in "axiomatic"?)

In my OP I was speaking with complete generality: necessary for whatever one considers to be reality. In that sense, it is necessary for reality to exist or one couldn't consider it. A hypothetical reality is a bit of an oxymoron. Yes, one could propose a hypothetical reality, but then it wouldn't be reality. It would be a hypothetical reality. My initial statement was that whatever one boils things down to - whether one believes in a causeless cause or whatever it is, it seems necessary for one to believe that such a thing exists. From there, these existing things have properties. Some of them may not be necessary, but it seems these existing things must have at least one necessary property. My suggestion was that for the physical, a necessary property is that it have extent (I'm being rather Cartesian so far).

 

[quatona]

Hmm. My definition is very derivative. In other words, it would serve the purpose of supporting my point.

That´s ok, and I think it´s a good thing you are aware of that.

I define time as the ordering of manifestations in relation to some reference.

That definition probably has many words in it that you would also like defined. If so, ask. You could also propose an alternative.

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?

As for reality, I wasn't insisting on attaching much meaning to the word. My definition would be rather trite, much like that at dictionary.com: the state of being real.

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

In my OP I was speaking with complete generality: necessary for whatever one considers to be reality. In that sense, it is necessary for reality to exist or one couldn't consider it. A hypothetical reality is a bit of an oxymoron. Yes, one could propose a hypothetical reality, but then it wouldn't be reality. It would be a hypothetical reality.

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.

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

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.

My initial statement was that whatever one boils things down to - whether one believes in a causeless cause or whatever it is, it seems necessary for one to believe that such a thing exists.

Necessary for the worldview that is based upon that fundamental belief? I would agree.

From there, these existing things have properties.

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.

Some of them may not be necessary, but it seems these existing things must have at least one necessary property.

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?

My suggestion was that for the physical, a necessary property is that it have extent (I'm being rather Cartesian so far).

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.

 

[Chatter]

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.

Why start with necessity? That conversation doesn't go anywhere, and I have the history of Western philosophy as evidence of that.

If you want to talk about time, talk about time, and talk about physics and the mystical ideas it can inspire. Talk about weird things such as T-symmetry, which says that if you played a video of the universe backwards, what you would see would be completely consistent with nearly all our physical laws. You can then ponder whether time is just an illusion a human will have in a universe with low entropy at one of its boundaries. Talk about special relativity, which says that questions such as "what time is it?" and"when did that happen?" depends on how fast you are going. Consider a conclusion from this: that we can only talk about spacetime, and that time flowing is again an illusion of creatures existing as worldlines in a four-dimensional spacetime block. Talk about dynamical systems, where the idea of causes preceding their effects is impossible to recover as variables are tightly coupled. Ponder whether this means that causality itself is an illusion.

Lots of stuff to play with there and you get to start from something solid. Seems that if you want to eventually interest the physicists, you are better off starting with empirical science and mathematical physics, rather than the vagaries of pure metaphysics.

 

[Heavens]

In any case, if you don't start with a creator of all things, no amount of understanding physics will bring any form of comprehension of reality. Unless a rat in a maze is reality... As demonstrated with all the questions so far, all that is left is just as bumping into furniture in a dark room. Let's just reach over and turn on the light switch Carnal learning means nothing without knowing Him who engineered all things. With Him in us, then we can know

 

[Chatter]

In any case, if you don't start with a creator of all things, no amount of understanding physics will bring any form of comprehension of reality.

I don't think that's what the thread is about. Resha wants to start with necessity to talk about time. Let's just talk about time. There's a wealth of more profound ideas to be had there than there is in metaphysics.

Unless a rat in a maze is reality... As demonstrated with all the questions so far, all that is left is just as bumping into furniture in a dark room. Let's just reach over and turn on the light switch Carnal learning means nothing without knowing Him who engineered all things. With Him in us, then we can know

It's OT, but I agree with this. But I'm also an atheist, so your point is turned on its head: if you are after the Truth, comprehension of ultimate Reality, then tough luck. You're not in a universe that was made for you.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I stumblesd across this site after searching for an explanation of "logical necesity". It gives an explanation of what is meant by that, and also empirical necessity. On the next page metaphysical necessity is explained.

 

[Chatter]

I stumblesd across this site after searching for an explanation of "logical necesity". It gives an explanation of what is meant by that, and also empirical necessity. On the next page metaphysical necessity is explained.

It doesn't. It gives a philosopher's controversial theory on how to classify certain kinds of sentence. The essay by Quine, available on the net called Two Dogmas of Empiricism challenges even the coherence of "logical necessity."

A few pages later, the author talks about a priori truths and suggests that the statement "the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees" is an a priori truth. This is another case where sometimes you need to talk to mathematicians before you try to talk metaphysics or rationalism. Even undergraduate mathematicians will tell you that the proposition

the angle sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees

depends on the geometry you are in, that since Gauss it has been regarded as an empirical matter, and that since Einstein it has been regarded as false.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why start with necessity? That conversation doesn't go anywhere, and I have the history of Western philosophy as evidence of that.

Lots of stuff to play with there and you get to start from something solid. Seems that if you want to eventually interest the physicists, you are better off starting with empirical science and mathematical physics, rather than the vagaries of pure metaphysics.

I'm not starting here in general, but only for this thread. This is merely one aspect of a very broad discussion.

And, starting within existing paradigms only serves to support those paradigms. One argues minutiae rather than the true root cause of the disagreement - at least IMO. If I want to learn about science or discuss it (and I have had that objective in other threads), I'll put aside the metaphysics. Here I'm exploring an idea. Since it's only been rattling about within my own meager mind, I doubt it has sufficient rigor. I hope to improve that - or decide to cast it away entirely.

Whether metaphysics is part of the conversation or not, I happen to believe science rests on metaphysical assumptions, even though some deny that.

 

[Resha Caner]

In any case, if you don't start with a creator of all things, no amount of understanding physics will bring any form of comprehension of reality. Unless a rat in a maze is reality... As demonstrated with all the questions so far, all that is left is just as bumping into furniture in a dark room. Let's just reach over and turn on the light switch Carnal learning means nothing without knowing Him who engineered all things. With Him in us, then we can know

I don't disagree with the spirit of what you've said. Yet it must be recognized that, even though the hope is that everyone will arrive at the one truth, different people follow different paths. Some of us have to stumble around in the dark for awhile stubbing our toes on the furniture before we decide this approach isn't going to work.

Also, my theology disagrees with your analogy in one respect. IMO, the furniture is piled to the ceiling and creates a barrier I can't penetrate. I will never find the light switch on my own. It's up to God to turn it on for me. My idiocy, then, is to say the light is too bright and to close my eyes and continue walking in the dark even after what He has done for me.

With all that said, I find reason to be a gift, not a curse. And I enjoy using my reason.

 

[Resha Caner]

It gives a philosopher's controversial theory on how to classify certain kinds of sentence.

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

The essay by Quine, available on the net called Two Dogmas of Empiricism challenges even the coherence of "logical necessity."

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 ...

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.