Some things are easy. But is Time entirely equivalent to your physical body? Or logically equivalent?

Some things are easy. But is Time entirely equivalent to your physical body? Or logically equivalent?

But there’s no way to prove that Is it “more likely” that everything remains once there’s no one to perceive it? Sure. But absolutely so?

—-

You can base it on an imaginary system called logic that human beings use instead, sure.

===

Someone has to be there to deduce.

===

If a Peter laughs his ass off and there’s no one to hear it, was there any laughing at all?

===

Your feelings are nice, and I’m glad you share them. But they’re not relevant.

===

Does logic exist without a logician?

===

Yes, they’re assumed ahead of time. [before time lol – so platonic

You said that I thought it was and then said it wasn’t and feel satisfaction (according to :) ). Much assumption going on rather than observation.

====

You have a system that proves itself, removing itself from the necessity of having a basis in reality.

===

Such arguments have often been used in past times as proofs for God. They’re also used in ontological deduction. There is this thing that must be accepted regardless. Once you accept that something, then all else follows. But if you do not accept that something, then it blows away like a balloon whose end was let go of.

====

I’m not arguing for the superiority of empiricism. I’m asking you to know the limits of your own methodologies. You of course can refuse.

====

Of course, you can argue that I’m using the very system that you speak of in order to produce arguments that you can concede to or refute, and by my usage of such systems, I validate its authenticity and by validating its authenticity by my usage, it validates the system as valid a priori, compelling me by necessity to concede that ontological necessity is valid, therefore your argument is valid and mine invalid.

But that’d be a lot of twisting to get there.

====

“Only a fool or an idiot” as an argument is not exactly intellectual rigor.

===

Where your logic fails, you mock. It weakens your rhetoric.

===

^ case in point. Mockery is the domain of the weak-minded and empty headed.

====

I do not think of you as weak-minded nor empty headed, which is why it’s somewhat disappointing when you participate in it. But, my approval or disapproval is a weightless thing.

====

What is sad to me is that you come up with some brilliant deductions and hold fast to them but when you hit a brick wall and can go no further in your arguments, you mock instead of discussing further.

It’s a trait that perhaps one day you will be embarrassed by, as you look back upon the past (current) you from the future or perhaps not.

Well, at this point, you can say “cool story, bro”. I’ve earned it lol etc

====

Here. I accept you as you are Peter and yes, Time is an ontological fact as it an integral part of spacetime. Time exists, is real, empirically and ontologically.

===

Fair enough. But, time-as-measure-of-change is empirical, is it not?

===

[ok, it’s going back to ‘thing-in-itself’… but I still have some issue with the noun-ification of a process.

===

The sciences (and much of philosophy) rests on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization – turning non-nouns into nouns, then working with them as if they’re nouns. It’s a sneaky devil that’s hard to spot.

====

In MAK Halliday’s https://www.amazon.com/Hallidays…/dp/1444146602 – where he goes over what is basically the “internal logic of grammar”, he devotes a whole section on nominalization and the sciences, and how fundamentally misleading it can be.

It says “Introduction” but it’s really the whole thing. While dry to many (not to me), it’s extraordinarily complete and being able to move around the logic of grammar while analyzing what someone is really saying (and glossing over without realizing it) is a powerful tool as it goes a level deeper than standard philosophical logic into the logic of phrases themselves.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 5 = twelve

Leave a Reply