You mean he would need to learn the philosophical terminology? Or the terminology of the closest discipline (here sciences)? If so, I agree, if he uses scientific premises as a part of his method, he needs to know about sciences and keep updated on scientific discoveries. But in the end, he would still use a new vocabulary he invented for the rest of the method since the end goal of his discipline is philosophy, and not sciences. And sciences, as it is now, is quite clueless about philosophy. No philosophical thought can be studied using only the scientific method. — Skalidris

This would delve deeply into private language use which has nothing to do with the creation of innovative ideas. Just because an idea is presented in a different language does not mean it’s truly innovative on the other hand a few philosophers such as Kant have come up with their own terminology which was innovative and never used before such as thing-in-itself, a priory etc . The creation of new words or terminology is only necessary when existing vocabulary fails to describe certain aspects of reality or phenomena.

Thanks for the answers so far they’re good ones, and welcome to the forum Julian.

It appears to me then as Vera Mont stated that time is a concept and not a real “thing” like the other 3 dimensions which are more tangible, so time to that effect only makes sense in terms of past, present future which make time appear more concrete in terms of its existence .

If however, in a purely hypothetical world where only consciousness existed without dimensions to speak of, then time would be a but comparison of different states of consciousness which are events or thoughts in themselves and in terms of linearity of their occurrence. This is of course hard to imagine.

But then this consciousness wouldn’t be nothing as events or more precisely thoughts are happening in it. Yet it’s all happening without any dimensions being present, would time be more tangible in this scenario or would it still present an illusion to this mind for if past thought was a fabrication of the present state of mind then there would be no linearity but merely the illusion of it unless grounded in concrete stuff which would still somewhat present the same limitation from an idealistic (idealism) perspective?

A bottle of wine contains more philosophy than all the books in the world - Louis Pasteur

You might find this very useful and it has links at the bottom for further reading such as Quine, Wittgenstein et al

https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/PhilMath.pdf

Another question one could ask is whether metaphysics is necessary at all and if so why ? I would answer in the positive for the reasons that it’s the father of the scientific method not only in its rationality and application of reason to the real world but hypothetical scenarios which if it’s able to contemplate with rigour, robustness and clarity than it’s results could not be wrong from a hypothetical standpoint. The upshot of this is just like math can correspond to reality so can metaphysics without having to invoke experience.

If the results of experience or observation match the results of metaphysical speculation can we not say that metaphysics has succeeded in this regard? Despite correspondence to reality not being its aim as metaphysics stands alone in this regard in its pure speculative endeavour into the nature of reality and ontology.

In modern science especially quantum physics the lines between metaphysics and physics have become blurrier and blurrier so it’s fair to ask who will get us out of this muddle, physics proper with its application of empiricism which finds it is limited when explaining physical phenomena at the quantum level or metaphysics? Or perhaps a combination of both?

@Bob Ross

Without having to dig for quotes do most secular/atheist scientists claim that science can offer explanations regarding various phenomena that were previously undertaken by religion ?

Nothing gives you nothing so I don’t see how your universe could start with nothing. However if you posit that something has ALWAYS existed then something coming from nothing would not be an issue as that’s impossible. 0 gives you nothing we can even math it out 0+1 gives me the one I started with.

You guessed right. Now what else do we need besides time? — punos

Matter or energy ?

I still don’t see what you’re trying to prove, if you think that something can come out of nothing I am yet to be convinced.

I have no idea…let me guess…time ?

0th order time (non-spacial and scalar): The innate ability of "nothing" (0) to change state to "something" (1). — punos

That’s impossible, how do you get something out of nothing? Explain please.

Just addressing your claim that 0th order time brings about first order time is that what you’re saying? And I stated that time cannot effect change as it’s only a measuring tool not a thing that can act on another thing and certainly not a prime mover. If so you have to explain how it does so.

This concept of "effector time" or "0th order time" is the origin and source of all energy in space; the source of everything, the prime mover. — punos

No, my theory says that 0th order time has always existed even before the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang happened when the "arrow of time" began. — punos

Yet you have failed to distinguish the difference between these two orders of time 0th & 1.

You also claim in a previous post that 0order time brings about 1st order time but have not provided any explanation or mechanism as to how they come about. You have invoked two types of time for the sake of your argument which still doesn’t explain how it brought about the time that we ordinarily perceive.

Just because you have a placeholder for 0 (nothing) does not mean that nothing exists, it’s just a placeholder. That’s like saying adding 0 to 1 makes two, no it doesn’t which is what you appear to be saying with your 0 order time theory which is why I’m critiquing it. @punos

Correct, but since i'm saying that time is all that exists then it's not really nothing, in the same way that 0 is not really nothing when you understand that [-1 and +1 = 0 = -1 and +1] (something is nothing, and nothing is something), that is the nature of primordial nothing. — punos

What sets the first thing in motion? — punos

Well whatever it is it’s not time, how could it be ? Please explain the mechanism of how time would be able to do so.

What if it's not just a concept, but the realest thing possible? If you define time as just a concept then the concept of it being a concept precludes you from accepting the reality of time. — punos

I’m not denying the reality of time at all, I’ve previously stated that time is used for measuring change, you say it causes change. It does not, change happens because of entropy not because of time, time just measures the rate of change so it’s like a measuring tape would be to the 3dimensions and not the 3 dimensions themselves.

That’s like saying clocks created the Big Bang which is what your theory ultimately entails.

To gather the clues necessary to understand this kind of time, which is virtually unknown (or hidden) one must probe the coldest places and the coldest things. — punos

And since this is impossible due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that you brought up your theory is unprovable. In addition to time not being a thing but a placeholder of the arrow of time in relation to events occurring sequentially in space.

For quite some time life has been relatively easy to maintain, which gives us time to think about many more meanings, — BC

Meaning would then be a subjective enterprise for each individual whether that is to make one’s life comfortable or to remove barriers that make it uncomfortable. Some are more positive such as seeing more of the world, exploring, doing philosophy, meditating, reflecting or conquering oneself. Life sometimes is just there to be appreciated and be glad that you are here on this journey.

Why does anything move or change? — punos

Things move because they’re set in motion by something else which is in turn set in motion by something else etc. you’re positing that 0th time whatever that is, is the prime mover and I’m having a hard time accepting this premise because time is a concept and not something real so cannot produce change it’s not physical. How could a concept have an effect on the natural world?

Change happens because atoms decay they lose energy not because of time. Plants don’t wither because of time they wither because they’re deprived of nutrients during seasonal changes etc.

Why do you think absolute zero is an impossible temperature? — punos

Absolute 0 is not attainable because the amount of effort required to remove all heat from an object would be infinite…what does this have to do with time ?

Reality exists even when I stop thinking about it and yes thoughts exist otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion we’re both engaged in thinking.

More over, the reason quantum fluctuations occur is because of time. — punos

If there was nothingness you are saying time would still exist and because time does exist even if there was nothing it would have an effect on non-existence - I find this hard to accept.

Nothingness would exclude the existence of time too and with it quantum flux. Time cannot affect change, change just happens and time is simply the measure at which change happens and does not exist without it.

If you had an eternal unchanging object time would not be necessary as no actual change is happening or time would be meaningless.

But reality exists independently of my thoughts. Thoughts are very different to reality and sometimes they don’t correspond to it as they relate to processes occurring inside minds (which are real)

If you’re saying that thoughts are subjective then I have no qualms with that, but reality now that’s a different ball game. Now I might have different thoughts than you of what reality consists of but to say that reality and existence are different is slightly misleading. For me they’re the same thing because real things which make up reality is also what existence is, consisting of things that exists ie real objects or even concepts such as numbers.

I find your distinction between reality and existence unnecessary on the above ground.

In that case is there really a difference between reality and existence ? If so what are they ?

I think the question you are asking is about being an independent thinker rather than group think but even an independent thinker would need some sort of education to learn the terminology and ideas employed by the current field of academics he wishes to present his ideas to otherwise it would seem like he was talking in a different language.

In order to have truly revolutionary ideas does not necessarily mean being a hermit from the rest of academia as existing ideas have to be understood first in order to overcome them, and have one’s own ideas adopted if they match or model reality correctly or have predictive prowess that science looks for from its theories (if it’s a scientific field).

The pace would depend on the amount of good ideas being produced and being accepted by the academic community at large.

None after AGI has been achieved (i.e. post-Singularity). — 180 Proof

Automating a politician would be hard though now that’s a future challenge for current AI :lol: it would crash and burn with contradictions

It’s not a problem because our sense of touch is still able to feel the solidity of everyday objects.

Solidity after all is just a type of highly dense gas in its solid form, the fact that we’re able to feel it confirms that solidness and matter do exist.

But even if one was to doubt it one could simply bring up the matter energy equivalence that states that energy = matter

Don’t psychotherapists just sit there and listen? If anything can be automated psychotherapy is the easiest one of all as all they do is ask you “and how did that make you feel” every once in a while whilst you’re lying on their couch :lol:

I agree with that and if nihilists ever lacked meaning then they should create one but that’s asking too much of them.

But if we take meaning to be the same as purpose then even a nihilist can’t complain unless they’re the suicidal type.

The purpose of man is to exist simple as that and try to make that existence a happy one not just for oneself but for others to.

If our purpose here is to simply be is that not meaning enough ? Why do we try to look for some sort of extravagant meaning ?

Reality is different from existence, existence precedes reality, but the existence that causes reality to occur is actual existence, not potential. If something exists and its existence is potential, it has not occurred until it is actual, and there is no talk of its reality. The condition of something being real is the occurrence of that thing that makes an impression on us. — Ali Hosein

How does existence precede reality instead of say vice versa. Reality precedes existence has an equal claim to being true to what you’re claiming.

Why would you make the claim that existence precedes reality …I’m not quite clear.

There would be no need for traffic signals then as the comrades would share the road in the good ol’ spirit of communism!!

In my opinion, everything that is perceived, whether it is a feeling derived from sensations or a thought created by the mind, is considered reality. — Ali Hosein

Things that cannot be seen are real too. Where I am it’s night that does not mean the sun does not exist.

How do you account for these things which are not currently perceived not being real…?

It seems the word real has many meanings depending on which subset of philosophy you wish to answer it from. The empirical or the speculative metaphysical are equally correct and the issue only arises in under certain dualities for example is light a wave or a particle? The duality of light challenges the notion of reality by having the observer involved whereas in actuality light is both a wave and and a particle by behaving as such.

If someone who is not well acquainted with the English language was to ask what does cat mean you would have an easier time explaining it to them then if they were to ask what does mean mean? First of all you would be perplexed by the nature of the question as they’ve correctly used the word mean in this enquiry so they must know what mean means.

Just going of on a slight tangent there…

We have here a theory of meaning in which each sentence is replaced by one for which we know the circumstances in which it is true. And if we know the conditions under which a given sentence is true, then what more is there to its meaning? — Banno

Are you saying that truth and meaning are the same thing ? Maybe I’ve misunderstood your post.

I believe the most fundamental level of existence is time. — punos

It’s debatable if time really exists fundamentally as it’s very different to the types of measurements of length, height and width.

Time only occurs in terms of events happening even the ticking clock is itself an event and if you had no dimensions what is it that would be ticking ? It wouldn’t be the clock as it wouldn’t exist.

Is there a difference between ordinary communication and art ? By some criteria a well articulated piece of writing done so with flare can be artistic in a sense it all depends on how touched or moved the person receiving such a communication is by it that makes it art rather than just another informative blurb of text.

Meaning signifies word usage in context but it’s also a referent or descriptor of abstract objects/ideas or real things.

Words can also be used to instruct or command such as go or stop, the meaning of these can be conveyed without the use of words and non-linguistically such as in the form of traffic lights so meaning is always context driven in these types of scenarios but what does this mean in terms of language use? Well it in order for instructive or descriptor words to be understood one must be acquainted with their usage by understanding those signs or that language. It could well be that the colour red in another country means go rather than stop so meaning is also culturally relevant.

Art is a creative process but sometimes it’s a destructive one too. Destructive in terms of destroying our deepest held convictions about the world and creative via romantic ideals or impressionism. Whatever the style may be beauty is mostly universal if it’s expressed elegantly enough and transcends time by being timeless and says something no matter how much society changes through the centuries.

The question is what distinguishes human creativity from machine creativity as the latter is merely a program which produces results via input whereas human creativity stems from something different altogether such as emotion which machines are incapable of feeling.

As emotion can be conveyed in an aesthetically pleasing way in a sense the AI is just faking emotion but we only know this post fact of the work being produced.

Whilst aesthetics is an important part of art it’s not the be all end end all of art because as long as art is able to meaningfully communicate some aspect of human experience than beauty (aesthetics) does not necessarily come into play because life sometimes can be ugly in certain ways such as misery and suffering but if these can be expressed aesthetically then the better the work is for it…without depriving it of subjective interpretation from the viewer point aspect.

Could a comparison then be drawn with production line of other products such as cars, electronics, fashion where automation has taken over…why should art be different if the end result is the same if not better eventually. There is human input in both art that is currently output by current AI and production line manufacture of other goods - the question pertinent is that of originality which is what real art should bring to the table and if originality is indistinguishable between ai and human art then ai has been a success no ?

Also it’s the aim of every artist, be it bands who wish to make it into the mainstream rather than stay under the radar and thus reap the rewards of their creativity. So to me just because something is cheap and mass produced does not always necessarily mean it’s of lower quality.

We have higher bit rates of music reproduction since the days of Vinyl though vinyl retains its value in terms of a physical asset/sentiment which you can exhibit in your living room.

I was under impression that metaphysics has remained unchanged since the days of Aristotle whose work did not really gain traction until the age of Reason or Enlightenment beginning in the 17th century where Kant, Liebniz and others built upon it ?

Pop art has been around for ages now, but that does not negate its value - if it can alter the perspective to the viewer then it’s been successful in that regard …no ?

I think special effects such as CGI have to be combined with compelling story telling otherwise it’s just unsatisfactory eye candy which after novelty loses its appeal it becomes tedious and empty but the same criticism can be levelled at human created art. The issue is art is meant to evoke emotion to the observer by changing the way we look at the world.

1. Reasoning based upon experience to make claims about something beyond experience, as opposed to merely creating a predictive model for experience, is indistinguishable from human imagination; because that claim is not grounded in experience. It is all fine and well to claim that I should expect things within experience to behave like X, but to posit that about things beyond experience is completely devoid of empirical content — Bob Ross

Yes I agree with you, metaphysics in its nature is not always concerned with producing knowledge but it’s more of a method of thinking and reasoning . You can leave that to science which employs metaphysical methods and theories to yield knowledge such as testable theories that behave as expected in the real world so it’s a fore runner to the scientific method.

Take this tautology: All bachelors are unmarried men. Now you don’t need to go around and check if this is true as this is self evident and knowledge of its truth is produced in the sentence itself.

Metaphysics is a purely speculative and knowledge is a by product of its enquiry rather than its ultimate aim as it makes no claims of knowledge therefore it remains purely theoretical and abstract.

I think it was Einstein who said “imagination is more important than knowledge” and it seems to me quantum theory is ripe for metaphysical speculations of how things at the subatomic scale don’t behave as expected according to ordinary experience.

2. Math and logic are grounded in empirical arguments. We can introspectively analyze how we reason to construct them both, and, in the case of math, test to see how well they relate to the world outside of us. — Bob Ross

I made a thread specifically related to this question with posters positing that math precedes the physical empirical universe but that there are correlation between the two either by accident or design:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14673/is-maths-embedded-in-the-universe-

True, but that’s like saying differentiation between say land and water. Water can give you pleasure if you’re by the beach enjoying a nice swim to cool down, however a tsunami could wreck havoc and be a cause of suffering. So differentiation as cause of suffering depends on context.

Suffering is also relative for example some people have plastic surgery because they’re insecure or unhappy about their looks, but in a world without differentiation in terms of attractiveness this cause of unhappiness would be eliminated.

So I guess it comes down to equality if we’re born equal and remained equal in all aspects the general level of suffering would be fairly low.