Timing is everything

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Timing is everything

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 04:55 pm
Is God Time?

Is God really just time?

You do not need to think about what God is here to much, just think of what time is and tell me if that is not what might be a decent description of God.

(I had no idea where to put this)
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 06:05 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;142753 wrote:
Is God Time?

Is God really just time?

You do not need to think about what God is here to much, just think of what time is and tell me if that is not what might be a decent description of God.

(I had no idea where to put this)


[CENTER]:bigsmile:
There are connections. Tyme was used to sc are off :devilish:and used in Churches.
[/CENTER]
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 08:19 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;142753 wrote:
Is God Time?

Is God really just time?

You do not need to think about what God is here to much, just think of what time is and tell me if that is not what might be a decent description of God.

(I had no idea where to put this)


God is time, and space, and spacetime... In other words: you cannot define an infinite with an infinite...
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 09:27 pm
@Fido,
Fido;142784 wrote:
God is time, and space, and spacetime.

time=God
God=space
Therefore, time=space

This is a valid inference, but the conclusion is false. So one of your premises must be false.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:12 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;142800 wrote:
time=God
God=space
Therefore, time=space

This is a valid inference, but the conclusion is false. So one of your premises must be false.


Ortho-d0x vision is God Out-side Time and Space. Second God is actual Maker (the Math Potter). Therefore Time and Space are the Human Realm; not of the God/God(es)s or Holy Trinities.

And I see Human Realm quite conform Teacher Jezus X, Teacher Boeddha S. and numerous teachers who copied our books, translated it word by word. Thanks to the printers ! Thank Freedom of Speech by Speaking Up !

It not nice to loose Faith in an All Powerfull Being. Now I have to make do with people more or less as good or bad as myself.

Pepijn Sweep, Magister TYM (wanna bee)
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:16 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;142800 wrote:
time=God
God=space
Therefore, time=space

This is a valid inference, but the conclusion is false. So one of your premises must be false.

Actually, my premise goes deeper than that: If God created all, then God is all, having nothing but God with which to create... And what does this tell us about creation, or God, or anything in general??? Nothing, since we cannot suggest that the rules of logic apply to the creater of logic and a logical reality; and for us, God is an abstraction, and so is space, and so is time, and so is space time, and our desire to define abstractions with abstractions may be normal, but only the underlying reality, the reality that is abstracted can define the abstraction, and vice versa.... What is the definition of time??? We should like to say the movement of matter in space is time, but that is our sense of time, because as they said in the late middle ages: the universe is a great clock... Yet, time is not time if not constant and we presume it is anything but, no matter what the seasons say, or our watches and clocks... We know by way of a small example that time always stops 15 minutes before quitting time, and always moves faster when late for work or with a pretty girl... But such changes in a constant are not true to the concept, so the concept is wrong or our perceptions upon which the constant abstraction of it are wrong...
 
Extrain
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:40 am
@Fido,
You need to slow down. You are touching on too many topics deserving more attention than you are allowing.

Fido;142936 wrote:
Actually, my premise goes deeper than that: If God created all, then God is all,


God creates X
Therefore, God=X

Sorry, I don't understand how this inference is valid and what it is supposed to mean, especially if it doesn't tell us about creation which you say it does not.

Fido;142936 wrote:
And what does this tell us about creation, or God, or anything in general??? Nothing,...


If this doesn't tell us anything about creation, then why did you tell us that creation=God???

Fido;142936 wrote:
...since we cannot suggest that the rules of logic apply to the creater of logic and a logical reality;


But you said God created everything. And "Everything" happens to include logic as a part of the set of things God created. And if God is Creation like you say, then it follows that Logic is a part of God.

Fido;142936 wrote:
...and for us, God is an abstraction, and so is space, and so is time, and so is space time, and our desire to define abstractions with abstractions may be normal, but only the underlying reality, the reality that is abstracted can define the abstraction, and vice versa....


You just said:

God is an abstraction.
Space, time, and spacetime are abstractions.
We define abstractions with abstractions.
We abstract reality
Only Reality defines abstractions and...
Abstractions define Reality.

What the??? A rock is part of reality. So a rock defines, just like a person does, other words? Do Camels define words too? They are part of reality.

Further, we might offer scientific, philosophical, or mathematical explanations for what happens in reality, but we certainly don't "define" reality. We define concepts and words with other words. Abstractions are concepts. And concepts are not words, but defined with words.

Fido;142936 wrote:
What is the definition of time???


A set of events ordered by a set of earlier-than/later-than relations extending indefinitely in two directions.

Fido;142936 wrote:
We should like to say the movement of matter in space is time, but that is our sense of time,


Movement of matter in space is how we measure time. But movement is not time. However, according to STR, acceleration and mass will affect ones actual spacetime parameters and framework.

Fido;142936 wrote:
because as they said in the late middle ages: the universe is a great clock...


Clocks measure duration, just as a yard, meter, or centimeter stick measure space. A clock is not the time, but measures time. And a yard stick is not the length, but measures length.

Fido;142936 wrote:
Yet, time is not time if not constant and we presume it is anything but, no matter what the seasons say, or our watches and clocks...


Watches, clocks, and seasons are ways of keeping track of time. But they are not time. And they repeatedly tell us that time IS constant.

Fido;142936 wrote:
We know by way of a small example that time always stops 15 minutes before quitting time,


I get out of class at 3pm, and I have never observed time literally "stop" at 2:45 pm. Besides the clock being a convention for measuring time, I can't recall having ever been "frozen" in time itself. Have you? The rate of time just appears to *slow-down* when we are anticipating quitting time. But it doesn't ever actually *slow down* no matter how much it appears that way--this is an illusion just like a stick being broken in a glass of water is an illusion. It appears broken, but it is not actually broken.

Fido;142936 wrote:
and always moves faster when late for work or with a pretty girl...


Again, it just appears this way. The rate of time does not actually "move faster."

Fido;142936 wrote:
But such changes in a constant are not true to the concept,


But you are mistaking your subjective illusions of changes in the rate of time for the objective reality of the actual rate of time which is constant.

Fido;142936 wrote:
so the concept is wrong or our perceptions upon which the constant abstraction of it are wrong...


Inductively, I think is much more likely that our concepts are correct, but our own perceptions often deceive us. We can verify this time and again.
 
morganix
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:51 am
@sometime sun,
This kinda builds upon what Fido had to say as he touched on the concept of time. My favorite quote regarding time is the most simple. Time is relative. How could a god be relative? Wouldn't he/it have to be absolute?

I guess that also depends on your interpretation of god. Kinda coming back to the old gods vs new gods discussion. The old gods were relative. The "one true" god is absolute. In that regard though, the one true god could not be time. At least not if you believe time is relative.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:09 am
@morganix,
morganix;142960 wrote:
This kinda builds upon what Fido had to say as he touched on the concept of time. My favorite quote regarding time is the most simple. Time is relative.


According to Einstein's STR, time is not "relative" in the sense of how "fast" or "slow" it seems to you between two disparate moments. Time is only relative to your velocity, accelaration, and mass, and it is constant once these parameters are set no matter what illusions you may be experiencing.

morganix;142960 wrote:
How could a god be relative? Wouldn't he/it have to be absolute?


What does this even mean?

morganix;142960 wrote:
I guess that also depends on your interpretation of god. Kinda coming back to the old gods vs new gods discussion. The old gods were relative. The "one true" god is absolute. In that regard though, the one true god could not be time. At least not if you believe time is relative.


Why do you think God=time? I thought most people conceived God as being timeless. And what does a STR relative vs. Newtonian absolute space and time conception have to do with God??
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 08:21 am
@Fido,
Fido;142784 wrote:
God is time, and space, and spacetime... In other words: you cannot define an infinite with an infinite...

Please give another example

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 02:36 PM ----------

morganix;142960 wrote:
This kinda builds upon what Fido had to say as he touched on the concept of time. My favorite quote regarding time is the most simple. Time is relative. How could a god be relative? Wouldn't he/it have to be absolute?

I guess that also depends on your interpretation of god. Kinda coming back to the old gods vs new gods discussion. The old gods were relative. The "one true" god is absolute. In that regard though, the one true god could not be time. At least not if you believe time is relative.

I am not sure God is relative which wa sone of the reasons i dicounted God as time, but just the time was the first thing there was, space needed to fit inside of something.
But this is where i became unglued recently, i read in the Reith Lectures by J z Young will find the quote if asked but it basically stated and in a way that i never recognised before, that time may not ever have strated that time has always been constant, even before a big bang which may have contributed to matter and space but not necessarily time.
So going by this Time and God never begun, they have always been, and i took this one step further than what if all matter has always existed, just expanding and contracting, i am not putting it well at all, but my point is, somethigns might have always been and if we cant call them God we ought be able to call them time.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:22 pm
@sometime sun,
Extrain; you are a smart fellow, but you miss the point... If there was nothing before God, and God created all, then there was nothing to start with but God of which to create... Now; I would be the first to agree that the application of Logic to God is specious, and still, if you had nothing but ear wax to build a castle out of, would it not be you, and your castle???

Every concept if it is a true concept tells us something about the object conceived, and while I may use a number, for example, to illustrate a word, and what the word reflects I can hardly define a word with a number, or a number with a word... The object limits, and so, defines the concept of the object, and the concept defines the limits of the object... What the concept says the object is it is and what it says it is not, by the definition of what it is, it is not...
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:15 pm
@Fido,
Fido;143148 wrote:
Extrain; you are a smart fellow, but you miss the point... If there was nothing before God, and God created all, then there was nothing to start with but God of which to create... Now; I would be the first to agree that the application of Logic to God is specious, and still, if you had nothing but ear wax to build a castle out of, would it not be you, and your castle???

Every concept if it is a true concept tells us something about the object conceived, and while I may use a number, for example, to illustrate a word, and what the word reflects I can hardly define a word with a number, or a number with a word... The object limits, and so, defines the concept of the object, and the concept defines the limits of the object... What the concept says the object is it is and what it says it is not, by the definition of what it is, it is not...

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
What I never Un derstand is the believe that there was an actual Beginning. I can wrap my Mind around the ID that peoples evolved, learned to speak etcetera. Wonderfull an-sich.

We know hardly any-thing about gods, let a~lone GOD Himselves.
It's like Arnold discussing this Topic in Kindergarten. Do not get me wrong, I totally feel the same. Lost.

Pepijn Sweep, Magister TYM
[/CENTER]
 
Extrain
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:19 pm
@Fido,
Fido;143148 wrote:
Extrain; you are a smart fellow, but you miss the point... If there was nothing before God, and God created all, then there was nothing to start with but God of which to create... Now; I would be the first to agree that the application of Logic to God is specious, and still, if you had nothing but ear wax to build a castle out of, would it not be you, and your castle???


I am not missing the point. I am merely repeating your very own words back to you. And to tell you the truth, I don't think you know what you're talking about at all. Again:

So you think (1) God created Logic and Logic is a very part of what God is, but the application of Logic to God is "specious" (whatever that means).:perplexed:

And this is somehow supposed to be analogous to,

(2) I build a castle out of my own earwax. Therefore, I am the earwax (whatever that means) but the application of earwax to me is specious (whatever that means)?:perplexed:

But suppose I burn my the earwax in the fire. Then I burn myself in the fire? No, this is clearly false. Therefore, I am not identical to my earwax.

The correct way of saying all this is that,

God created logic, and God is by nature logical. So God has the property of being-logical since being-logical is just part of God's nature. But God is not identical to Logic anymore than that I am identical to logic even though I possess the property of being logical.

Fido;143148 wrote:
Every concept if it is a true concept tells us something about the object conceived,


What is "it"? The earwax? Every concept that succeeds in veridically representing the actual color, composition, viscosity, and nature of the earwax tells us something about the earwax. Ok. So?

Fido;143148 wrote:
and while I may use a number, for example, to illustrate a word and what the word reflects


How do numbers "illustrate" words?
And how do numbers "illustrate" what words "reflect"?

Fido;143148 wrote:
I can hardly define a word with a number, or a number with a word...

?? Though I may not be able to define words with numbers, I can certainly define the concept of number with words:

"A member of the set of integers; A member of any of the further sets of mathematical objects, such as negative integers and real numbers."

Or I can define numeral:

"one of a series of symbols representing numbers that are fixed in an order that can be derived by counting."

Fido;143148 wrote:
The object limits, and so, defines the concept of the object, and the concept defines the limits of the object... What the concept says the object is it is and what it says it is not, by the definition of what it is, it is not...


?? How do objects "define" concepts? Rocks and trees define concepts? This is false.

But wait. Concepts now define objects? No they don't.

Words define concepts, and concept either represent or fail to represent the world, since the world limits us from being able to conceive just anything we want about it. So whereas I can apply the concept of possessing-a-million-dollars to my actual financial situation, this concept of my-possessing-a-million-dollars does not accurately represent my actual financial state of affairs at all because I don't possess a million dollars.

But so what? What is so novel about all this anyway?

And finally, what does all this have to do with relative and absolute conceptions of time?
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 03:18 pm
@sometime sun,
Retrain time for extrain:

What it means is, applying our logic which is based upon our known physical reality to an infinite like God is meaningless... Existence is a big place, and there is room for contradictions, which the clerics of the middle ages would never suggest of God, thinking God incapable of contradiction; but if that were true, that God had to follow some rule book, then God would not be God....

It is rocks which define, limit, the concept of rock..It is trees which limit the concept of tree... Give me a break...Do you not see the reality reflected in the concept???

Let me offer you something else...While you might be able to use words to illustrate something of numbers, and numbers began with words, and mathematics follows verbal logic to a point, one cannot resort to a conception of number based solely upon words...Consider identity...At some point, 1 is 1... All numbers are based upon that single concept of 1... In fact, 1 alone is the concept, and numbers as a whole are only signs based upon 1... If that quality, that identity is not conserved then the whole of numbers falls flat, which is the usual point where every concept falls flat...

Every word is a concept, and just as concepts define objects as a certain meaning, every word is defined as a certain meaning, and like all concepts, that meaning is conserved... It is that conserved identity which makes all forms/concepts/ideas useful; that they are not all over the place, changing as we consider them... So words do not define concepts any more than words define words... Words are used to define words and other concepts, but there is a one to one relationship between the object and the concept, even though the concept is general, and the object is specific... The conceptual rock it the real rock, and the real rock is the conceived rock, and you can't slide Occam's razor between them... Who do you see in your mirror??? Concepts mirror reality, so we say in the mirror, that is me...In fact it is a reflection of me... With concepts we say that concept is that object, or more commonly, that object is, insert the name, that concept...
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:24 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;143170 wrote:
I am not missing the point. I am merely repeating your very own words back to you. And to tell you the truth, I don't think you know what you're talking about at all. Again:

So you think (1) God created Logic and Logic is a very part of what God is, but the application of Logic to God is "specious" (whatever that means).:perplexed:

And this is somehow supposed to be analogous to,

(2) I build a castle out of my own earwax. Therefore, I am the earwax (whatever that means) but the application of earwax to me is specious (whatever that means)?:perplexed:

But suppose I burn my the earwax in the fire. Then I burn myself in the fire? No, this is clearly false. Therefore, I am not identical to my earwax.

The correct way of saying all this is that,

God created logic, and God is by nature logical. So God has the property of being-logical since being-logical is just part of God's nature. But God is not identical to Logic anymore than that I am identical to logic even though I possess the property of being logical.



What is "it"? The earwax? Every concept that succeeds in veridically representing the actual color, composition, viscosity, and nature of the earwax tells us something about the earwax. Ok. So?



How do numbers "illustrate" words?
And how do numbers "illustrate" what words "reflect"?


?? Though I may not be able to define words with numbers, I can certainly define the concept of number with words:

"A member of the set of integers; A member of any of the further sets of mathematical objects, such as negative integers and real numbers."

Or I can define numeral:

"one of a series of symbols representing numbers that are fixed in an order that can be derived by counting."



?? How do objects "define" concepts? Rocks and trees define concepts? This is false.

But wait. Concepts now define objects? No they don't.

Words define concepts, and concept either represent or fail to represent the world, since the world limits us from being able to conceive just anything we want about it. So whereas I can apply the concept of possessing-a-million-dollars to my actual financial situation, this concept of my-possessing-a-million-dollars does not accurately represent my actual financial state of affairs at all because I don't possess a million dollars.

But so what? What is so novel about all this anyway?

And finally, what does all this have to do with relative and absolute conceptions of time?

Conceptions on Time sounds groovy. Is the existence of Time allready explained. Calling it a dimension is twisting the Thruth. Who would compare Time to 3-dimensional Space ? More dimensions don't solve the core of the problem. We have no good definition of time. We have no Universal time, not even Standard Earth Time. There is no absolute value to Time.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:09 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;143274 wrote:
Conceptions on Time sounds groovy. Is the existence of Time allready explained. Calling it a dimension is twisting the Thruth. Who would compare Time to 3-dimensional Space ? More dimensions don't solve the core of the problem. We have no good definition of time. We have no Universal time, not even Standard Earth Time. There is no absolute value to Time.

Time is only a dimension in relation to space... What is time: It is space... What is space??? Space is time... Neither one exists as a thing in itself as matter is... To say what the one is requires a reference to the other...
 
Extrain
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 11:31 pm
@Fido,
Fido;143206 wrote:
Retrain time for extrain:


yeah right. Here are some more criticisms..

Fido;143206 wrote:
What it means is, applying our logic which is based upon our known physical reality to an infinite like God is meaningless...


But again, you said God=Logic. Therefore, Logic as applied to God is not meaningless. If it were, you would not say "God=Logic." What IS your view, actually? Repeating the same nonsense doesn't suddenly make your view more comprehensible or clear.

Fido;143206 wrote:
Existence is a big place, and there is room for contradictions, which the clerics of the middle ages would never suggest of God,thinking God incapable of contradiction; but if that were true, that God had to follow some rule book, then God would not be God....


But Logic doesn't exist outside God, remember? God created it. And God just is Logic, according to your view. So you have a problem.

Contradictions are necessarily false; that is, there are no possible worlds in which they are true--not even in any worlds God is capable of creating--Logic demands this. Here's the dilemma:

Either God is so powerful He can create contradictions and hence God is not Logical at all, or God is Logical and hence God cannot make contradictions true. But as your premise suggests,

(a) God=all creation. (premise)
(b) Logic is a part of creation. (from a)
(c) So God=Logic. (from a and b)
(d) Therefore, God is Logical. (from a, b, and c)

But if God can make contradictions true, as you suggest, then God is not logical. Therefore, your own view is contradiction:

God both is, and is not, Logical.

Fido;143206 wrote:
It is rocks which define, limit, the concept of rock..It is trees which limit the concept of tree... Give me a break...Do you not see the reality reflected in the concept???


Of course I do. You just apparently have problem using proper English, or reading it for that matter. I will repeat: Rocks and trees don't "define" concepts because the task of defining words with other words is a human linguistic activity, not the activity of a rock because a rock does not have the sentient, linguistic, or semantic capacity of defining words at all.

On the other hand, the world does limit us from being able to ascribe just any such properites to objects because the world either permits or prevents the application of our concepts to it. Conceptual applications which fit the actual world are considered veridical, conceptual applications which do not fit the world are considered erroneous.

Fido;143206 wrote:
Let me offer you something else...While you might be able to use words to illustrate something of numbers, and numbers began with words, and mathematics follows verbal logic to a point, one cannot resort to a conception of number based solely upon words


I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. What do you mean by "numbers began with words"? That numbers are created, or sprung into existence by words? Or that numbers are linguistic entites and not abstract mathematical values?

And what do you mean by "mathematics following verbal logic to a point"?

Logic can be verbalized in natural language just like mathematics, sure. But neither logic nor mathematics are natural languages like English, French, or Japanese are natural languages. Logic and mathematics are purely formal languages. The subject matter of propositional calculus and quantification concerns the correct rules of thinking, specifiying conditions of validity, invalidity, and truth-conditions. The subject matter of mathematics concerns the various properties of numbers, functions, and the relations between numerical values, etc.

Fido;143206 wrote:
...Consider identity...At some point, 1 is 1... All numbers are based upon that single concept of 1... In fact, 1 alone is the concept, and numbers as a whole are only signs based upon 1... If that quality, that identity is not conserved then the whole of numbers falls flat, which is the usual point where every concept falls flat...


They are? What about the number 0? What about fractions, imaginary numbers, and negative numbers?

Also, the number 4 cannot be entirely "based on" the number 1, because 4 has numerical properties that 1 does not have, for instance, the property of being even or of being the square-root of 16.

Further, certainly "1=1" or "a=a" are expressions of logical identity. But "1+1=2," on the other hand, is not an expression of logical identity; instead, it is rightly considered by mathematicians to be the mathematical equality that results from performing the operation of addition "+" on two instances of the same number. That is, the equality is saying the resulting value "2" is the outcome of the addition of the number "1" to itself.

Further, how is the concept of a linear function which maps each and every X value to one and only one y value based on the number 1?

What is this "based-on" relation anyway? Do you mean derivable, deductively inferred, or ontologically dependent, or what?

Do you mean that the number "1" is an axiom from which further numbers, mathematical principles, or theorems can be derived such as the pythagorean theorem or the probabilistic law of large numbers? This is false. The number "1" is not a axiom at all. It is a value.

Fido;143206 wrote:
Every word is a concept, and just as concepts define objects as a certain meaning,


Physical objects may have intrinisc or relational value, but they don't have linguistic meaning. Only words and concepts have linguistic meaning and those meanings are defined by other word-meanings.

So again, concepts and words don't "define" objects because objects don't have linguistic meaning. Concepts and words only apply, or do not apply, to objects. So concepts and words only define other concepts and words. Take this example:

It is clear that the meaning of the word "bachelor" is defined by the meanings of the set of words "umarried adult male." And suppose John is, in actual fact, a bachelor. So when I say, "the word 'bachelor' means unmarried adult male" I am not saying "the word 'bachelor' means John himself" or "the word 'John' means bachelor itself".

Nor am I saying (1) "John himself defines the word 'bachelor'" nor that (2) "the word 'bachelor' defines John." This is just stupid.

If (1) were true, then as soon as John got married, this married man John would still be the definition of the word "bachelor"--which is false. For how can a married man be the definition of the word "bachelor"? So the meaning of the word "bachelor" never changes, even though John does change. This is precisely why John cannot be the meaning of the word bachelor, since the meanings of words never change due to the mere changes undergone by people.

But suppose (2) were true, like you say it is. Then as soon as John got marrried, the meaning of the word "bachelor" would still define John--which is false, since John is no longer married. Words don't define people and things because definitions deal solely with linguistic meanings, not with the properties expressed by our linguistic utterances:

Notice, the same words "unmarried adult male" always define the concept bachelor, since the meaning of the concept bachelor just is unmarried adult male. This is not the case if "unmarried adult male" always defines the person John, since then it would have to be the case that the meaning of John just is umarried adult male. But this is false. It is a complete category mistake to say that the meaning of John is umarried adult male.

Linguistic meanings are not properties. But properties are expressed by our linguistic meanings when we utter words like "bachelor." So when I say "John is a bachelor" I am really ascribing the property of being-a-bachelor to John by my use of the linguistic meaning expressed by my utterance of the word "bachelor" in this statement about John. John doesn't have the meaning of the word "bachelor." John has the property expressed by the meaning of the word "bachelor" when I utter this word in the statement "John is a bachelor."

For this reason we say that it is true that John has the property of being an unmarried adult male. But it is not the case that we say it is true that the meaning of John just is unmarried adult male.

Only words and concepts have linguistic meaning; people and objects, on the other hand, don't. People and objects have properties, enter into relations with other things, and have more or less intrinsic value and objective purpose in the grand scheme of things--but they certainly don't possess linguistic meaning.

So the concept of bachelor is certainly applicable to John because John is, in fact, a bachelor. This is why when I say "John is not a bachelor" when he, in fact, is a bachelor, I would be saying something false because I would be denying the property of being-a-bachelor of John, the property which John, in fact, has. I wouldn't be saying something false because I was denying that John had the linguistic meaning of bachelor when he, in fact, had it. Again, this would be to commit category mistake between meanings, properties, and concepts.

Fido;143206 wrote:
every word is defined as a certain meaning, and like all concepts, that meaning is conserved... It is that conserved identity which makes all forms/concepts/ideas useful; that they are not all over the place, changing as we consider them..


It is precisely in the interest of preserving linguistic meaning that "John" does not mean bachelor or that the word "bachelor" means John since John can change, while linguistic meaning does not. So words do not define things, and things do not define words.

Fido;143206 wrote:
So words do not define concepts any more than words define words...


Of course they do.

(A) The word "bachelor" is defined by the set of words "unmarried adult male."
(B) Likewise, the meaning contained in the word "bachelor" is defined by the meaning unmarried adult male.
(C) Similarly, the concept designated by the word "bachelor" is defined by the meaning unmarried-adult-male.
(C) Finally, the property being-a-bachelor just is identical to the property being-an-umarried-adult-male. They are one and the same property.

Fido;143206 wrote:
Words are used to define words and other concepts, but there is a one to one relationship between the object and the concept, even though the concept is general, and the object is specific...


That's right. "The dog Spot is mean" is true if and only if Spot is, in fact, mean--or, there is an entity such that, that entity is a dog and has the property of being-mean expressed by the concept mean in my utterance of the word "mean." In other words, the statement "there is an entity x such that, that entity is a dog, and for all Y, if Y is a dog then Y=X, and x is mean" can be quantified thus:

(Ex)(Dx & Ay (Fy-->y=x) & Mx)

The concepts designated by the symbols "Dx" and "Mx" are the concepts mean and dog. So the statement,

(Ex) (Dx & Mx)

is true if and only if there exists at least one entity satisfying the concepts Dx and Mx.

If there are no mean dogs, then the statement above is either false or truth-valueless and can be expressed such as,

~(Ex) (Dx & Mx)

Fido;143206 wrote:
The conceptual rock it the real rock, and the real rock is the conceived rock, and you can't slide Occam's razor between them...


huh?? The concept of a rock is not the rock itself. And both the concept of the rock and rock itself are equally real. But one is a mental or a linguistic kind of entity, the other is a physical kind of entity.

Fido;143206 wrote:
Who do you see in your mirror??? Concepts mirror reality, so we say in the mirror, that is me...In fact it is a reflection of me...


Of course. Who denies this? Perhaps anti-realists? Skeptics?

Fido;143206 wrote:
With concepts we say that concept is that object, or more commonly, that object is, insert the name, that concept...


This is totally incorrect, unless you're an idealist in thinking that the concept of the rock is numerically identical to the rock itself. You are confusing the "is" of identity with the "is" if predication.

Take Spot the Dog. When we say that "Spot is mean" we are not saying

"Spot is identical to the concept of meanness"

Nor are we saying,

"Spot has the concept of meanness."

Instead, we are saying,

"Spot has the property of meanness."

If you think actual objects have mental concepts as components, then you are mistaking the map for the reality. Concepts either do, or do not, successfuly represent a property an object does or does not have. So concepts either successfully, or not, apply to things; they are not had by those things. Only properties are possessed by things. For this reason many objects can possess one and same property such as doghood, because each one of these entities instantiates one and same type of property of which it is a token instance.

The general concept of dog can successfully (or not) designate a really existent property that an object does, or does not, have. So if George Bush is not a dog, we say that "'George Bush is a dog' is false" because the concept designated by my word "dog" does not successfully pick out any property George Bush has, namely, doghood.

There are words such as "dog" which designate
a concept dog expressing
the property being-a-dog which an actually existent object is or is not--does, or does not, have.

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 12:12 AM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;143274 wrote:
Conceptions on Time sounds groovy. Is the existence of Time allready explained. Calling it a dimension is twisting the Thruth. Who would compare Time to 3-dimensional Space ? More dimensions don't solve the core of the problem. We have no good definition of time. We have no Universal time, not even Standard Earth Time. There is no absolute value to Time.


How is calling time a dimension a way of "twisting the truth"?

Who is comparing time to three-dimensional space?

To what problem are you referring that needs to be solved by "adding more dimensions"?

Why are our current definitions of time no good? And what are those definitions?

What is "universal time"? What is "Earth time"?

What is absolute value? And why does time not have it?

*************************

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to answer these questions yourself. If you can't answer them at all, then you are just talking nonsense.

Just stringing words together without explaining what you mean by these claims is a completely senseless enterprise.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:23 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;143403 wrote:
yeah right. Here are some more criticisms..

But Logic doesn't exist outside God, remember? God created it.

According to lore God created Logos Outside Himself

The number "1" is not a axiom at all. It is a value.

What about the number O , or the infinite amount of numbres between O and I; just concepts, axioma's or real number

How is calling time a dimension a way of "twisting the truth"?

Who is comparing time to three-dimensional space?

I feel strongly about Time being something very different from Space, 3 Dimensional or More. For me Now is real, Past & Future are Un-certainties. I did not say comparing; I just re-marked not agree-ing calling -Time a fourt Dimension.

To what problem are you referring that needs to be solved by "adding more dimensions"?

It's part of what I vaguely remember from a boox on String-theory. It actually raised more questions than it answered. You right, I should check the book first !

Why are our current definitions of time no good? And what are those definitions?

We try to measure Time as a constant, which it's not. We keep using Newtonian Laws, Einstein etcetera. It Generally known these "laws" have no universal meaning. Even on Earth we notice difference in Time-dominated processes.

What is "universal time"? What is "Earth time"?

Universal Time would make it possible to have the same seconds on March and Earth. Now we all-ways have to wait on the signal. Like typing on a locked key-board.

Earth-Time I call the standard we have now. GMT and others before.

What is absolute value? And why does time not have it?

An absolute value is hard to find. Science says speed of light,
O0 Kelvin and charge of electron
.

*************************

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to answer these questions yourself. If you can't answer them at all, then you are just talking nonsense.

Just stringing words together without explaining what you mean by these claims is a completely senseless enterprise.


I yust spend Time to type out my answers for your pleasure. A'bout Spring-theory I forgot most. Was very badly written too.

Since I wouldn't answer them all, I failed your Sens Or NonSense test. Many people do make connection in Thought based on a few words.

Wish U Well,

Pepijn Sweep, Magister ex. UvA
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 04:28 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;143403 wrote:
yeah right. Here are some more criticisms..



But again, you said God=Logic. Therefore, Logic as applied to God is not meaningless. If it were, you would not say "God=Logic." What IS your view, actually? Repeating the same nonsense doesn't suddenly make your view more comprehensible or clear.



But Logic doesn't exist outside God, remember? God created it. And God just is Logic, according to your view. So you have a problem.

Contradictions are necessarily false; that is, there are no possible worlds in which they are true--not even in any worlds God is capable of creating--Logic demands this. Here's the dilemma:

Either God is so powerful He can create contradictions and hence God is not Logical at all, or God is Logical and hence God cannot make contradictions true. But as your premise suggests,

(a) God=all creation. (premise)
(b) Logic is a part of creation. (from a)
(c) So God=Logic. (from a and b)
(d) Therefore, God is Logical. (from a, b, and c)

But if God can make contradictions true, as you suggest, then God is not logical. Therefore, your own view is contradiction:

God both is, and is not, Logical.



Of course I do. You just apparently have problem using proper English, or reading it for that matter. I will repeat: Rocks and trees don't "define" concepts because the task of defining words with other words is a human linguistic activity, not the activity of a rock because a rock does not have the sentient, linguistic, or semantic capacity of defining words at all.

On the other hand, the world does limit us from being able to ascribe just any such properites to objects because the world either permits or prevents the application of our concepts to it. Conceptual applications which fit the actual world are considered veridical, conceptual applications which do not fit the world are considered erroneous.



I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. What do you mean by "numbers began with words"? That numbers are created, or sprung into existence by words? Or that numbers are linguistic entites and not abstract mathematical values?

And what do you mean by "mathematics following verbal logic to a point"?

Logic can be verbalized in natural language just like mathematics, sure. But neither logic nor mathematics are natural languages like English, French, or Japanese are natural languages. Logic and mathematics are purely formal languages. The subject matter of propositional calculus and quantification concerns the correct rules of thinking, specifiying conditions of validity, invalidity, and truth-conditions. The subject matter of mathematics concerns the various properties of numbers, functions, and the relations between numerical values, etc.



They are? What about the number 0? What about fractions, imaginary numbers, and negative numbers?

Also, the number 4 cannot be entirely "based on" the number 1, because 4 has numerical properties that 1 does not have, for instance, the property of being even or of being the square-root of 16.

Further, certainly "1=1" or "a=a" are expressions of logical identity. But "1+1=2," on the other hand, is not an expression of logical identity; instead, it is rightly considered by mathematicians to be the mathematical equality that results from performing the operation of addition "+" on two instances of the same number. That is, the equality is saying the resulting value "2" is the outcome of the addition of the number "1" to itself.

Further, how is the concept of a linear function which maps each and every X value to one and only one y value based on the number 1?

What is this "based-on" relation anyway? Do you mean derivable, deductively inferred, or ontologically dependent, or what?

Do you mean that the number "1" is an axiom from which further numbers, mathematical principles, or theorems can be derived such as the pythagorean theorem or the probabilistic law of large numbers? This is false. The number "1" is not a axiom at all. It is a value.



Physical objects may have intrinisc or relational value, but they don't have linguistic meaning. Only words and concepts have linguistic meaning and those meanings are defined by other word-meanings.

So again, concepts and words don't "define" objects because objects don't have linguistic meaning. Concepts and words only apply, or do not apply, to objects. So concepts and words only define other concepts and words. Take this example:

It is clear that the meaning of the word "bachelor" is defined by the meanings of the set of words "umarried adult male." And suppose John is, in actual fact, a bachelor. So when I say, "the word 'bachelor' means unmarried adult male" I am not saying "the word 'bachelor' means John himself" or "the word 'John' means bachelor itself".

Nor am I saying (1) "John himself defines the word 'bachelor'" nor that (2) "the word 'bachelor' defines John." This is just stupid.

If (1) were true, then as soon as John got married, this married man John would still be the definition of the word "bachelor"--which is false. For how can a married man be the definition of the word "bachelor"? So the meaning of the word "bachelor" never changes, even though John does change. This is precisely why John cannot be the meaning of the word bachelor, since the meanings of words never change due to the mere changes undergone by people.

But suppose (2) were true, like you say it is. Then as soon as John got marrried, the meaning of the word "bachelor" would still define John--which is false, since John is no longer married. Words don't define people and things because definitions deal solely with linguistic meanings, not with the properties expressed by our linguistic utterances:

Notice, the same words "unmarried adult male" always define the concept bachelor, since the meaning of the concept bachelor just is unmarried adult male. This is not the case if "unmarried adult male" always defines the person John, since then it would have to be the case that the meaning of John just is umarried adult male. But this is false. It is a complete category mistake to say that the meaning of John is umarried adult male.

Linguistic meanings are not properties. But properties are expressed by our linguistic meanings when we utter words like "bachelor." So when I say "John is a bachelor" I am really ascribing the property of being-a-bachelor to John by my use of the linguistic meaning expressed by my utterance of the word "bachelor" in this statement about John. John doesn't have the meaning of the word "bachelor." John has the property expressed by the meaning of the word "bachelor" when I utter this word in the statement "John is a bachelor."

For this reason we say that it is true that John has the property of being an unmarried adult male. But it is not the case that we say it is true that the meaning of John just is unmarried adult male.

Only words and concepts have linguistic meaning; people and objects, on the other hand, don't. People and objects have properties, enter into relations with other things, and have more or less intrinsic value and objective purpose in the grand scheme of things--but they certainly don't possess linguistic meaning.

So the concept of bachelor is certainly applicable to John because John is, in fact, a bachelor. This is why when I say "John is not a bachelor" when he, in fact, is a bachelor, I would be saying something false because I would be denying the property of being-a-bachelor of John, the property which John, in fact, has. I wouldn't be saying something false because I was denying that John had the linguistic meaning of bachelor when he, in fact, had it. Again, this would be to commit category mistake between meanings, properties, and concepts.



It is precisely in the interest of preserving linguistic meaning that "John" does not mean bachelor or that the word "bachelor" means John since John can change, while linguistic meaning does not. So words do not define things, and things do not define words.



Of course they do.

(A) The word "bachelor" is defined by the set of words "unmarried adult male."
(B) Likewise, the meaning contained in the word "bachelor" is defined by the meaning unmarried adult male.
(C) Similarly, the concept designated by the word "bachelor" is defined by the meaning unmarried-adult-male.
(C) Finally, the property being-a-bachelor just is identical to the property being-an-umarried-adult-male. They are one and the same property.



That's right. "The dog Spot is mean" is true if and only if Spot is, in fact, mean--or, there is an entity such that, that entity is a dog and has the property of being-mean expressed by the concept mean in my utterance of the word "mean." In other words, the statement "there is an entity x such that, that entity is a dog, and for all Y, if Y is a dog then Y=X, and x is mean" can be quantified thus:

(Ex)(Dx & Ay (Fy-->y=x) & Mx)

The concepts designated by the symbols "Dx" and "Mx" are the concepts mean and dog. So the statement,

(Ex) (Dx & Mx)

is true if and only if there exists at least one entity satisfying the concepts Dx and Mx.

If there are no mean dogs, then the statement above is either false or truth-valueless and can be expressed such as,

~(Ex) (Dx & Mx)



huh?? The concept of a rock is not the rock itself. And both the concept of the rock and rock itself are equally real. But one is a mental or a linguistic kind of entity, the other is a physical kind of entity.



Of course. Who denies this? Perhaps anti-realists? Skeptics?



This is totally incorrect, unless you're an idealist in thinking that the concept of the rock is numerically identical to the rock itself. You are confusing the "is" of identity with the "is" if predication.

Take Spot the Dog. When we say that "Spot is mean" we are not saying

"Spot is identical to the concept of meanness"

Nor are we saying,

"Spot has the concept of meanness."

Instead, we are saying,

"Spot has the property of meanness."

If you think actual objects have mental concepts as components, then you are mistaking the map for the reality. Concepts either do, or do not, successfuly represent a property an object does or does not have. So concepts either successfully, or not, apply to things; they are not had by those things. Only properties are possessed by things. For this reason many objects can possess one and same property such as doghood, because each one of these entities instantiates one and same type of property of which it is a token instance.

The general concept of dog can successfully (or not) designate a really existent property that an object does, or does not, have. So if George Bush is not a dog, we say that "'George Bush is a dog' is false" because the concept designated by my word "dog" does not successfully pick out any property George Bush has, namely, doghood.

There are words such as "dog" which designate
a concept dog expressing
the property being-a-dog which an actually existent object is or is not--does, or does not, have.

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 12:12 AM ----------



How is calling time a dimension a way of "twisting the truth"?

Who is comparing time to three-dimensional space?

To what problem are you referring that needs to be solved by "adding more dimensions"?

Why are our current definitions of time no good? And what are those definitions?

What is "universal time"? What is "Earth time"?

What is absolute value? And why does time not have it?

*************************

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to answer these questions yourself. If you can't answer them at all, then you are just talking nonsense.

Just stringing words together without explaining what you mean by these claims is a completely senseless enterprise.

I can't believe it...I am an old fart sitting on my retired butt and I found some one with more time on their hands than myself... I am sorry you put so much time into a subject I rarely put even a moment into...

I don't talk about God exactly because as an infinite I can get none of my expected rules to apply...In fact it is a mistake to try to get human logic to fit nature at all because it blinds us, and in this vein I would offer a good book I am reading called Critique of Scientific Reason by Kurt Hubner... But I am not writing a book... I don't know, but I will say you look foolish to me spouting off about my logical contradictions when that is my point, that no logic can apply to God, that if you accept God you must accept that God is all, logic and illogic, time and space and matter, life and death and every opposite and antipod you can imagine, all the forces, and there is no reason to expect that God, if there is a God did not suffer obliteration in the process of creation... There is enough of riddles within my sight, and I do not feel the need to penetrate the gloom of every infinite I encounter... I am responding only to the common conceptions I have experienced in regard to that infinite of which to speak with authority is folly, because just as I poke holes in the thoughts of others you seek to poke holes in my thoughts and when the day is won what is the prize??? Is it greater knowledge??? Dream on night train... Sorry you bit on so little bait, but I don't care; certainly not enough to read or write a book on the subject...So I guess that makes you the winner... Forgive me if I revisit and revise, and try to distill your thoughts down to some point of signifcance and reply... I don't even have the time for backspacing all you wrote...
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 04:48 am
@Fido,
Fido;143442 wrote:
I can't believe it...I am an old fart sitting on my retired butt and I found some one with more time on their hands than myself... I am sorry you put so much time into a subject I rarely put even a moment into...

I don't talk about God exactly because as an infinite I can get none of my expected rules to apply...In fact it is a mistake to try to get human logic to fit nature at all because it blinds us, and in this vein I would offer a good book I am reading called Critique of Scientific Reason by Kurt Hubner... But I am not writing a book... I don't know, but I will say you look foolish to me spouting off about my logical contradictions when that is my point, that no logic can apply to God, that if you accept God you must accept that God is all, logic and illogic, time and space and matter, life and death and every opposite and antipod you can imagine, all the forces, and there is no reason to expect that God, if there is a God did not suffer obliteration in the process of creation... There is enough of riddles within my sight, and I do not feel the need to penetrate the gloom of every infinite I encounter... I am responding only to the common conceptions I have experienced in regard to that infinite of which to speak with authority is folly, because just as I poke holes in the thoughts of others you seek to poke holes in my thoughts and when the day is won what is the prize??? Is it greater knowledge??? Dream on night train... Sorry you bit on so little bait, but I don't care; certainly not enough to read or write a book on the subject...So I guess that makes you the winner... Forgive me if I revisit and revise, and try to distill your thoughts down to some point of signifcance and reply... I don't even have the time for backspacing all you wrote...


Sorry Fido, wrong post in thread. Please stay seated.Laughing

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 03:58 AM ----------

[CENTER]:perplexed:
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Timing is everything
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2024 at 09:22:22