Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

[k]

That is not my claim. I have difficulty understanding why you think it is.

Then what is the claim?

Ah, I misunderstood your point. (I'm having great difficultly bridging the gap between our philosophies and communication styles.) But you still misunderstand mine. I do not claim that time causes change in the temperature of food. I agree that heat does. This doesn't contradict my points, though.

Okay, so is time necessary for change? If yes, what is the causative link?

 

[k]

I am sorry, but I don´t see how this makes any sense.
Writing is the causation of written words. Language is the prerequisite for giving that which is written meaning.

It seems circular to say "Writing is the causation of written words." Isn't like saying God wrote the bible and someone asking, "How do you know that" and the response being, "Because the Bible says so."

Literacy is the prerequisite, not language.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Okay, so is time necessary for change? If yes, what is the causative link?

No. If there is change, there is time. However, time is not some metaphysical entity or force or process apart from change. Time is simply another way of looking at the issue of change, especially as regards issues of measurement, such as speaking of "t=0". Saying "time is passing" is another way of considering the observation that "change is happening." There is no need for a "causative link" since I'm not talking about two separate phenomena.

 

[k]

No. If there is change, there is time. However, time is not some metaphysical entity or force or process apart from change. Time is simply another way of looking at the issue of change, especially as regards issues of measurement, such as speaking of "t=0". Saying "time is passing" is another way of considering the observation that "change is happening." There is no need for a "causative link" since I'm not talking about two separate phenomena.

That's been my overall point...that time does not really exist. If it is nothing more than another viewing lens, then it is substancless insofar as any universal ontological inquiry is concerned.

Not sure I agree or even understand why time is a necessary condition for change to exist if time is simply another way of looking at change. Can we not think of change w/o thinking of time? Is that a flaw in the finite human mind?

Is it being claimed that NO change can happen in the absence of time?

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's been my overall point...that time does not really exist. If it is nothing more than another viewing lens, then it is substancless insofar as any universal ontological inquiry is concerned.

I find the concept of time useful in many contexts. Just because time isn't an ontological category of its own distinct from change, that doesn't mean we should stop using the word.

Is it being claimed that NO change can happen in the absence of time?

That's like claiming that no change can happen in the absence of change. No one is asserting this.

 

[k]

I find the concept of time useful in many contexts. Just because time isn't an ontological category of its own distinct from change, that doesn't mean we should stop using the word.

Time is extremely useful in many ways and without it, there would be absolutely no organization in the world, at least not at this point. I'm not advocating abdicating use of the word.

That's like claiming that no change can happen in the absence of change. No one is asserting this.

It was said that "If there is change, there is time." That seems to be laying down at least one necessary condition for change to occur, namely time. Am I misunderstanding that?

 

[quatona]

It seems circular to say "Writing is the causation of written words."

Maybe it seems so, but it isn´t. "Written words" is a description of the cause. Spoken words are caused by speaking, written words by writing.
Dependent on the view point, we might call other things causal for written words, too (e.g. the mechanism that makes the ink flow from the pen), but language is certainly not among them. Language is merely a concept, and it causes nothing.

Isn't like saying God wrote the bible and someone asking, "How do you know that" and the response being, "Because the Bible says so."

I don´t see how this analogy applies in any way.

Btw. can I conclude that in your terminology language caused the bible?

Literacy is the prerequisite, not language.

Language is the prerequisite for literacy.

 

[k]

Maybe it seems so, but it isn´t. "Written words" is a description of the cause. Spoken words are caused by speaking, written words by writing.
Dependent on the view point, we might call other things causal for written words, too (e.g. the mechanism that makes the ink flow from the pen), but language is certainly not among them. Language is merely a concept, and it causes nothing.

Ah..now I understand what you were saying. Thanks.

I don´t see how this analogy applies in any way.

Btw. can I conclude that in your terminology language caused the bible?

Literacy is the cause of the bible, or any text because w/o literacy, there could be no written word.

Language is the prerequisite for literacy.

True, and literacy must exist for written word to have form.

 

[quatona]

Literacy is the cause of the bible, or any text because w/o literacy, there could be no written word.

Literacy is one of countless prerequisites for the bible.
I hope we agree that a prerequisite is not necessarily a cause, not to mention the cause.
On the other hand literacy wasn´t there as long as there were no written words. Thus, by your argumentation, written words are the cause of literacy, as well.
In fact, literacy and written words are interdependent and must have developed simultaneously.
There is always a problem with assuming an abstract thing (like literacy) to be "the cause" (or even only the prerequisite) for concrete things.


Do you acknowledge a distinction between prerequisite and cause? How would you describe it?

True, and literacy must exist for written word to have form.

A lot of things must exist for written words to have form. Would you all count them as causes for written words?
If yes, we will have agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "cause".
If no, what makes literacy - other than all the other prerequisites - the cause of written words?

 

[k]

Literacy is one of countless prerequisites for the bible.
I hope we agree that a prerequisite is not necessarily a cause, not to mention the cause.
On the other hand literacy wasn´t there as long as there were no written words. Thus, by your argumentation, written words are the cause of literacy, as well.
In fact, literacy and written words are interdependent and must have developed simultaneously.
There is always a problem with assuming an abstract thing (like literacy) to be "the cause" (or even only the prerequisite) for concrete things.

True, a prerequisite is not the same as a cause, but it can be. Communication is the cause of the bible and literacy was the tool used.

Do you acknowledge a distinction between prerequisite and cause? How would you describe it?

Yes. A prerequisite can never be a cause but only a necessary condition for any cause to exist.

A lot of things must exist for written words to have form. Would you all count them as causes for written words?
If yes, we will have agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "cause".
If no, what makes literacy - other than all the other prerequisites - the cause of written words?

To me, literacy is a tool of communication, that is why I was saying it was a cause (in thinking of Aristotle's Four Causes), but I can see how it is seen as an abstract and troublesome.

 

[quatona]

True, a prerequisite is not the same as a cause, but it can be. Communication is the cause of the bible and literacy was the tool used.

I´m afraid I cannot follow you, because you have not given me definitions, by which I can check whether your assertions are consistent with your definitions. Instead you are simply claiming that this is so.

Yes. A prerequisite can never be a cause but only a necessary condition for any cause to exist.

For a cause to exist? I´d rather say for something to exist.
Now, how do you tell a cause from a condition?
Do you think that this cause you are referring is the one meant when people speak of the hypothetical "cause of the universe"?

To me, literacy is a tool of communication, that is why I was saying it was a cause (in thinking of Aristotle's Four Causes),

Which of the Four Causes are you thinking of specifically?
Why did you decide this one of the four causes to be the most important one, the one that counts here?

 

[k]

I´m afraid I cannot follow you, because you have not given me definitions, by which I can check whether your assertions are consistent with your definitions. Instead you are simply claiming that this is so.

You'll just have to believe me. Just kidding...

For a cause to exist? I´d rather say for something to exist.
Now, how do you tell a cause from a condition?
Do you think that this cause you are referring is the one meant when people speak of the hypothetical "cause of the universe"?

Can anything exist w/o a cause?

The difference between a condition and a cause is the former is necessary but insufficient, while the latter is sufficient but cannot exist w/o the necessary conditions. Oxygen is necessary for fire, but not the cause. A spark to start the fire is necessary and oxygen must be present, but the cause is the proper conditions working together.

Which of the Four Causes are you thinking of specifically?
Why did you decide this one of the four causes to be the most important one, the one that counts here?

Efficient. Because the bible is here for communicative purposes.

 

[quatona]

Can anything exist w/o a cause?

I don´t know. We have never observed coming into existence. We merely observe things transforming.

The difference between a condition and a cause is the former is necessary but insufficient, while the latter is sufficient but cannot exist w/o the necessary conditions. Oxygen is necessary for fire, but not the cause. A spark to start the fire is necessary and oxygen must be present, but the cause is the proper conditions working together.

By this definition I fail to see how literacy is the cause of written words. It seems to be one of the necessary conditions for the cause (someone taking a pen and forming meaningful signs).

Efficient. Because the bible is here for communicative purposes.

Howw does that translate to the time/universe discussion?

 

[k]

I don´t know. We have never observed coming into existence. We merely observe things transforming.

Doesn't that transformation sometimes mean coming into existence? I.e. cocoon to butterfly

By this definition I fail to see how literacy is the cause of written words. It seems to be one of the necessary conditions for the cause (someone taking a pen and forming meaningful signs).

I was wrong to say literacy; should have been language to communication.

Howw does that translate to the time/universe discussion?

I have absolutely no idea. Actually, in any of the four causes, I cannot see how time satisfies even one.

 

[quatona]

Doesn't that transformation sometimes mean coming into existence? I.e. cocoon to butterfly

No, it´s merely change/transformation. The fact that we detect material to match certain concepts we find useful ("cocoon", "butterfly") doesn´t mean something comes into existence.

I was wrong to say literacy; should have been language to communication.

Seems to be a little better, but still not convincing. The existence of language is, by your definitions, exactly a condition for verbal communication.

I have absolutely no idea. Actually, in any of the four causes, I cannot see how time satisfies even one.

I am confused. If I am not entirely mistaken (which, though, could well be possible ), our little discussion intermezzo arose from your claim that time is the cause for - what was it again? change? the universe? - and I assumed that you made all your analogies in order to substantiate this claim.

 

[k]

No, it´s merely change/transformation. The fact that we detect material to match certain concepts we find useful ("cocoon", "butterfly") doesn´t mean something comes into existence.

I LOVE chocolate milk. I LOVE Nestle chocolate milk...so when the powder is in the can, and the milk is still in the jug, I don't have choc milk. But, when I put the powder in the glass and pour milk, am I not watching chocolate milk come into existence?

Seems to be a little better, but still not convincing. The existence of language is, by your definitions, exactly a condition for verbal communication.

Sure, w/o the need for communication language would not exist.

I am confused. If I am not entirely mistaken (which, though, could well be possible ), our little discussion intermezzo arose from your claim that time is the cause for - what was it again? change? the universe? - and I assumed that you made all your analogies in order to substantiate this claim.

No, I'm saying time does not exist except within the confines of our finite minds for the explicit purpose of control and organization.

 

[quatona]

I LOVE chocolate milk. I LOVE Nestle chocolate milk...so when the powder is in the can, and the milk is still in the jug, I don't have choc milk. But, when I put the powder in the glass and pour milk, am I not watching chocolate milk come into existence?

No, you are watching matter transforming into something that matches your idea "chocolate milk".


[quotes]No, I'm saying time does not exist except within the confines of our finite minds for the explicit purpose of control and organization.[/quote]
Oh, then I seem to have been chasing a dead rabbit all the time.
I agree with this notion (on first glance, and without knowing the particularities that you may or may not apply to it ).
I think, however the same is true for the existence of chocolate milk.

 

[k]

No, you are watching matter transforming into something that matches your idea "chocolate milk".

There have been times when I had one kind of soda in my hand while in my mind I believed I was drinking another kind. After a few sips I would think, "Wow...this XXXX soda tastes funny." My point is that the object imposed itself on me.

Oh, then I seem to have been chasing a dead rabbit all the time.
I agree with this notion (on first glance, and without knowing the particularities that you may or may not apply to it ).
I think, however the same is true for the existence of chocolate milk.

I'm not quite an Idealist, but I'm not quite a Dualist either. Let's just say I'm confused.

 

[quatona]

There have been times when I had one kind of soda in my hand while in my mind I believed I was drinking another kind. After a few sips I would think, "Wow...this XXXX soda tastes funny." My point is that the object imposed itself on me.

Hadn´t you had concepts of "soda", "brand X soda" and "brand Y soda", your experience would have been different and that which you felt imposing itself on you would have been something else.

 

[k]

Hadn´t you had concepts of "soda", "brand X soda" and "brand Y soda", your experience would have been different and that which you felt imposing itself on you would have been something else.

Yeah, I figured that would be the response, and a valid one too.

What I think is that some part of my mind was aware but it took my senses a few minutes to catch up.