@Razzleg,
Cyracuz wrote:
Nothing happens 'outside of time' for the simple reason that any two objects that occupy the same space establish time relative to each other. But this time is not a fixed value. It is relative to space and speed and direction and viewpoint.
But our perception of linear time, that is, the idea that the order of events we perceive is how reality unfolds, isn't necessarily accurate.
i'm not defending the notion of linear time -- as noted in my response to JLN, i am totally amenable to multiple (ie non-linear) notions of time as a result of observations of "times". My argument critiques "time" regarded as a superficial product of thought and experience rather than an integral condition of the same.
Your use of the words "relative", "speed", "direction" and "view[point]" do not imply an atemporal or even a time-critical perspective --all are sub-temporal terms. Relativity theory, as represented by Einstein, doesn't allow for objects' occupying the "same" space in anyway except relative within time; your stated position, which implies that "space" determines "time", is not the same thing as "space-time" relationship/proximity. Nor does space-time imply that the nearness of two objects innately determines the affect or the speed of each objects' non-relationally involved ("internal") processes.
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:Here's a thought experiment far afield from our previous mental exercises: i've had five relatives die of cancer in my adult life; and seven more have survived it, so far. Statistically, i'll have to be treated for it as well, to some degree. At each stage of the mutation, both the victims and survivors of this disease were unaware and then made aware of the progress of that disease. While it was never predictable, the development of the cancer was always measurable in hindsight...and their death or illness as a cause of it was certain -- did they die of their perceptions?
This implies that there is a difference between the illness and the perception of it. But is there a difference between an object and the perception of that object?
You've got a brass pair, i'll give you that... all my aunt perceived was an ache that started in her hip area and that slowly spread over time into an excruciating agony around her entire body. But she didn't die of "pain". i received a more comprehensive diagnosis of the "illness" by speaking to her doctors and googling the **** out of her condition. My simple answer to your question is, "yes" (which is far more of an answer than you've given any of my questions to you in this thread.) Still, let me inspect your apparent counter-example:
Cyracuz wrote:
I heard of another experiment. Nerve impulses take approx. 80 milliseconds to reach the mind from the fingertips. Then there was a button that turned on a light, and the light was set to come on 40 ms after the button was pushed. The test subjects said that the light came on before they pushed the button.
That happened because the electricity traveled from the switch to the light bulb faster than the nerve impulses traveled from the finger to the brain.
Doesn't your example only imply that events proceed each other faster than the individual's perceptions can grasp? In my prior post, i wasn't trying to prove that the mind's observation of change was the sole evidence of time, but that even the mind's failure to register the causal structures involved could not but evidence the results of temporal processes beyond its experiential range. Your "experiment" confirms this hypothesis. Time seems a condition of experience, even if those times have not been experienced.
As for the real-world examples of my relatives' deaths, perhaps you mistake the meaning of mystery vs. unpredictable object. In ye olden days a person could die of cancer without knowing the exact cause of her malady, but given modern means of observation, cancer is detectable. It is not, however, predictable -- that is, the thoroughness of the observation is not indicative of the development of the cellular mutation, despite treatment. The detection and the surveillance of the disease is in no way determinative or constitutive of the disease's being or progress -- it often kills the subject regardless and it develops independently of observation.
Perhaps you would be shocked by how often a heart disease kills the subject without any prior observation whatsoever, and cancer patients are sometimes both unable to track the progress of the disease themselves and not told how dire their circumstances are. A heart defect, whether acquired or otherwise, is often undetectable; cancer's affects are often sudden and deadly. A disease need not be observed to be proven "real".
Cyracuz wrote:
Nothing happens 'outside of time' for the simple reason that any two objects that occupy the same space establish time relative to each other. But this time is not a fixed value. It is relative to space and speed and direction and viewpoint.
You say that nothing happens "outside of time" without the condition of at least two objects, their relationship, speed and direction. If those are your "simple reasons" then where is the argument? Please, provide an example of any situation in which most of those elements do not present themselves? If you cannot demonstrate that circumstance, then i will insist that "time" is not an arbitrary, but an essential condition of their occurrence.
cicerone imposter wrote:
Your wrote,
Quote: but not dogmatic, empirical bent.
What do you mean by that? Isn't it the object of discussions to challenge what is said rather than attack the writer?
i's write: That's a weak response to my trolling. Here's my full paragraph:
razzleg wrote:
Nice touch. i don't know if we totally agree, but we agree so far... and i appreciate your contributions to this thread. It's nice to read a post from someone with a reasonable and enthusiastic, but not dogmatic, empirical bent.
The object of discussions, seems to me, to be to reach a consensus; and my compliment to
sibilia, while completely representative of my personal perspective, was also indicative of a willingness to reach just such a consensus despite the unlikelyhood of total agreement. That is, that while i was not sure that we would ultimately agree on the details of any one subject, we might at least agree on the conditions, or at least some basic rules of debate, that precede such an agreement.
Challenging the writer in the process of seeking a consensus in what is said does not seem antithetical to discussion to me. But i can't speak to what you are out to get from such an exchange...
