Being is a function of Time

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Being is a function of Time

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Deckard
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 02:19 am
Is Being a Function of Time?

Quote:
The mathematical concept of a function expresses the intuitive idea that one quantity (the argument of the function, also known as the input) completely determines another quantity (the value, or the output). A function assigns a unique value to each input of a specified type. from the wikipedia
At a given moment in Time (t) Being = x.
f(t)=x.

Objections?
 
prothero
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 09:14 pm
@Deckard,
There certainly must be other inputs into "being" than time (I prefer temporality).
Of course I think there is a growing recognition in Western religion, science and philosophy that reality is more about "becoming"(process,change,flux) than about "being"(static, essence). Process requires temporality.
In the East "being" has always been understood as "illusion" and impermanence as "reality".
 
north
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 09:22 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;163788 wrote:
Is Being a Function of Time?

At a given moment in Time (t) Being = x.
f(t)=x.

Objections?


what is the essence of the function of time though ?

---------- Post added 05-13-2010 at 11:28 PM ----------

the mathematical definition of a function is ;

a quantity whose value is dependent on the value of some other quantity

hmmm...
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 09:34 pm
@prothero,
prothero;164061 wrote:
There certainly must be other inputs into "being" than time (I prefer temporality).
Of course I think there is a growing recognition in Western religion, science and philosophy that reality is more about "becoming"(process,change,flux) than about "being"(static, essence). Process requires temporality.
In the East "being" has always been understood as "illusion" and impermanence as "reality".


Right, I was hoping someone would bring up Becoming. Now I don't think Becoming is all that different from change. If there is some important difference please point it out. I think Aristotle pointed out that there is no Time without Change just as there is no Change without Time. Eddington's Arrow of Time owes something to Aristotle.

So the variable "t" seems to me to be both Time and Change/Becoming.

f(t) = x = Being

And we should keep in mind that we're talking about the a whole function Being and not just one specific value of t and x along that function.

You mentioned other variables and I think you have a point but what would these other variables be? There are of course multivariable equations and I would be happy to expand f(t) = x to f(t,u,v....) = x.

Maybe matter is an additional variable in the equation... but what of the other possible substances? We run up immediately against the next big question of metaphysics after the question of Being and Time. How many substances are there? Is there just one?

Are there other variables besides Time and Substance(s)?

f(t, s1, s2, s3...) = x = Being
 
north
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 09:43 pm
@Deckard,
what a lode of mathematical non-sense this thread is
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 10:05 pm
@north,
north;164067 wrote:
what is the essence of the function of time though ?

---------- Post added 05-13-2010 at 11:28 PM ----------

the mathematical definition of a function is ;

a quantity whose value is dependent on the value of some other quantity

hmmm...


As to the essence of Time the function could be inverted to say that Time is a function of Being.

f2(b) = t = Time

We can describe a relation between two things such as Being and Time without knowing the essence of either. Or perhaps to say x is the function of y is to say that y is (or is part of) the essence of x.

north;164073 wrote:
what a lode of mathematical non-sense this thread is

Oh come on now, I'm just throwing this out there. I'm completely open to refutations of this mathematical approach. I'm fairly certain it is a very naive approach but I can't articulate exactly why. Feel free to help me out by telling me why it is non-sense.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 10:06 pm
@Deckard,
I don;t see anything wrong with using mathematics as a metaphor. I mean, the metaphor did lead to mathematics; why not vice versa?
 
north
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 10:11 pm
@jack phil,
jack;164078 wrote:
I don;t see anything wrong with using mathematics as a metaphor. I mean, the metaphor did lead to mathematics; why not vice versa?


what metaphor lead to mathematics ?

just to be clear
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 10:41 pm
@north,
What metaphor lead to mathematics ?

Abstraction?
 
north
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 10:43 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;164088 wrote:
What metaphor lead to mathematics ?

Abstraction?


no , accounting

as in finance
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 10:57 pm
@north,
north;164090 wrote:
no , accounting

as in finance


Well it is true mathematics probably has its roots in some Egyptian or Summerian accounting but I think it has evolved beyond that. Language itself may have began as a tool within the context of some activity like hunting.. i.e. "You go that way and I'll go this way" but language has evolved beyond that I think... though perhaps we are still hunting for things when we speak.

Some of the first markings that have been recognized as writing were those Summerian tablets which turned out to be some kind of accounting table or receipt of purchase. The very first symbolic markings were likely just a replacement for territorial pissings. Though I think it is more likely that the first word meant something like "Watch out Sabertooth!" or "Help!" but I think the word "Mine!" probably arrived soon after... as is the case with two year olds.

But I'm not sure if you are talking about the origins of mathematics or mathematics itself. Do you consider all mathematics to be a mere extension of accounting... as in finance? That say Einstein and Newton were really just accountants... as in finance?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:00 pm
@Deckard,
It seems that an abstraction like being would have to develop within the womb of time. From immersion in beings, perhaps, to greater abstractions until perhaps the greatest abstraction is attained: being.
 
prothero
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:02 pm
@north,
[QUOTE=Deckard;164070] Right, I was hoping someone would bring up Becoming. Now I don't think Becoming is all that different from change. If there is some important difference please point it out. I think Aristotle pointed out that there is no Time without Change just as there is no Change without Time. Eddington's Arrow of Time owes something to Aristotle. [/QUOTE] Well of course I am a process philosophy person so process is primary. Time or temporality and being are both secondary to process.

[QUOTE=Deckard;164070] So the variable "t" seems to me to be both Time and Change/Becoming. [/QUOTE] I am going to say that process is more than just change. That process is the actualization from the realm of possiblities. I am going to say that being is sustained by process not the other way around. The notion of static being of an unchanging realm of eternal actual entities where no change occurred and no time passed is not possible.

[QUOTE=Deckard;164070] f(t) = x = Being [/QUOTE] What we perceive as being is the incorporation of elements of the past into the present through process. Static being, permanence is an illusion albeit a persistant one.

[QUOTE=Deckard;164070] Maybe matter is an additional variable in the equation... but what of the other possible substances? We run up immediately against the next big question of metaphysics after the question of Being and Time. How many substances are there? Is there just one? [/QUOTE] While spinoza would say there are infinite substances of which only mind and matter are directly perceived by man. Descartes would say there are two primary substances mind and matter, which interact through the intervention of god (maybe that makes three, a trinity?). Plato had three categories (that which is generated, that which it is generated in and that in the likeness of which that which is generated is made (the Receptacle). I am a neutral monist so there is one ultimate principle creativity and one ultimate reality process (of which mind and matter are both manifestations).

[QUOTE=Deckard;164070] Are there other variables besides Time and Substance(s)? [/QUOTE] Well for me both time and substance are generated by process. Process is how time is perceived and how the illusion of substance is sustained. Now there has to be some realm of possibility, some ground of being, some essence of existence on which process proceeds to create time and substance (some call that God).
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:02 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;164070 wrote:

Maybe matter is an additional variable in the equation... but what of the other possible substances? We run up immediately against the next big question of metaphysics after the question of Being and Time. How many substances are there? Is there just one?


I think we can't help but look for unification, and as I probably say too much, I think that unification itself is at the root of being and time, but only to the degree that they are objects of thought. (I can't explain qualia or value this way. )

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 12:04 AM ----------

Deckard;164070 wrote:
Right, I was hoping someone would bring up Becoming. Now I don't think Becoming is all that different from change. If there is some important difference please point it out. I think Aristotle pointed out that there is no Time without Change just as there is no Change without Time.


Is there becoming, change, or time without memory and the desired concept? (Future?) I think a creature/"consciousness" with zero memory or desire would be utterly immersed in the spatial present and could not see change.

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 12:10 AM ----------

Deckard;164077 wrote:

Oh come on now, I'm just throwing this out there. I'm completely open to refutations of this mathematical approach.


I just read a great book by Lakoff and others on the metaphorical basis of mathematics. Concept blends, etc. Math seems grounded on intuition, even if extended by axioms that do not click. I think you're approach is interesting. Spengler made a big deal about the function concept being essential to our culture/civilization. I think he's right. We live not so much in objects but maybe in relationships?
 
north
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:10 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;164097 wrote:
Well it is true mathematics probably has its roots in some Egyptian or Summerian accounting but I think it has evolved beyond that. Language itself may have began as a tool within the context of some activity like hunting.. i.e. "You go that way and I'll go this way" but language has evolved beyond that I think... though perhaps we are still hunting for things when we speak.


truth ?

Quote:
Some of the first markings that have been recognized as writing were those Summerian tablets which turned out to be some kind of accounting table or receipt of purchase. The very first symbolic markings were likely just a replacement for territorial pissings. Though I think it is more likely that the first word meant something like "Watch out Sabertooth!" or "Help!" but I think the word "Mine!" probably arrived soon after... as is the case with two year olds.


the barter or trade system evolved

( I'm surprised you knew about the Summerians )

Quote:
But I'm not sure if you are talking about the origins of mathematics or mathematics itself. Do you consider all mathematics to be a mere extension of accounting... as in finance? That say Einstein and Newton were really just accountants... as in finance?


zero , 0 , was first introduced in accounting

mathematical equations , and the numbers within a said equation , by Newton and Einstein , always represent some physical object , either real or imagined

and all were beyond any mathematical time function
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:11 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;164088 wrote:
What metaphor lead to mathematics ?

Abstraction?


This is just a theory, but isn't the number one quite similar precisely to the concept of a thing or a being? And then one just invents a glyph system to iterate this strange root abstraction of pure quantity.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:18 pm
@prothero,
prothero;164101 wrote:
Well of course I am a process philosophy person so process is primary. Time or temporality and being are both secondary to process.

I am going to say that process is more than just change. That process is the actualization from the realm of possiblities. I am going to say that being is sustained by process not the other way around. The notion of static being of an unchanging realm of eternal actual entities where no change occurred and no time passed is not possible.

What we perceive as being is the incorporation of elements of the past into the present through process. Static being, permanence is an illusion albeit a persistant one.

While spinoza would say there are infinite substances of which only mind and matter are directly perceived by man. Descartes would say there are two primary substances mind and matter, which interact through the intervention of god (maybe that makes three, a trinity?). Plato had three categories (that which is generated, that which it is generated in and that in the likeness of which that which is generated is made (the Receptacle). I am a neutral monist so there is one ultimate principle creativity and one ultimate reality process (of which mind and matter are both manifestations).

Well for me both time and substance are generated by process. Process is how time is perceived and how the illusion of substance is sustained. Now there has to be some realm of possibility, some ground of being, some essence of existence on which process proceeds to create time and substance (some call that God).


I just became aware of "process philosophy" and I don't really have a grip on its main premises yet. "Possibilities" seems to be central to process philosophy and you mentioned that word several times in your response. Can possibility be a variable? No, not really. However, keeping with my original idea of f(t)= x = Being, I think the possibilities would be the field over which this function operates; you can picture that as the Cartesian grid, space, multi-dimensional space which contains all possibilities. By this, the possibilities do indeed precede both temporality and being. Would that work for process philosophy?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:26 pm
@Deckard,
I'm curious to see what sort of mathematical operations you might be inclined to put in that function. b = f(t) = e^(it) ? Should b be a complex function? Then we can get some more dimensions in our graph, right? I can't wait for truly 3-d holographic monitors.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:39 pm
@Deckard,
Its funny, I could spend 10 pages critiquing the cartesian system as a mathematical system, but whence it is noted to be used as a metaphor my critique can never be against the system but must be pressed against the metaphor.

The system and the symbolism are never the same...
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:47 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;164109 wrote:
This is just a theory, but isn't the number one quite similar precisely to the concept of a thing or a being? And then one just invents a glyph system to iterate this strange root abstraction of pure quantity.

That seems right. This origin should be somewhat humbling for one. It is a far cry from All is One, the opposite end of the spectrum. We get to All by a sort of weariness of counting "1,2,3,4,5,6... ah frack it! infinity! ...or wait the perfect is finite so: All!" There is a difference between beings and capital B Being.

Thinking again about my understanding of prothero's comments I see that actual Being and possible Being are related to each other as is a line (or curvy line) to a plane. There is then the question of whether Possible Being and Actual Being should be subsumed under a third term... perhaps Absolute Being ... but that could get messy.... This may indeed be the moment at which this mathematical model fails due to its bias toward the quantitative. Is Actual Being nothing more than a line (or curvy line) drawn upon the field of Possible Being? Or does this mathematical model fail because it is incapable of taking into account (with a nod to North) the qualitative difference between the Actual and the merely Possible?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Being is a function of Time
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2024 at 02:39:59