Time: The Bergson-Einstein debate

Rich

Bergson's claim it's that time is heterogenous and continuous. We each experience time differently from others and within our own lives. Sometimes it feels fast and sometimes it feels slow. Sometimes it disappears or morphs into an extreme state, as when we we are unconscious or asleep, and then appears again when we wake up. We attempt to synchronized our experiences with clocks, but clocks are a synchronization mechanization, they are not real time.

In this video, Jimena Canales, author of a book on the same subject, outlines the differences in the metaphysical philosophies of Relativity and Duration. Though no where near the depth and insights if Stephen Robbins, still a good primer on the metaphysical issue of. The importance of Bergson's stance is that it is critical to understanding the nature of evolving life as it brings back the experience of duration into consciousness and doesn't externalize as is the persistent rhythm of materialism.

Bergson says: If we did not have a prior notion of time, then clocks would just be bits of machinery which we would use to amuse ourselves.

Magnus Anderson

I think that Bergson, like every other mystic, is against awareness. He hates it. He wants to go back to being blind because he finds reality to be too painful. Normally, people want to be aware and that means they want to discriminate; they want to see separate and distinct elements where previously only a unity was seen. But when reality becomes too painful, the opposite process becomes fashionable.

Rich

↪Magnus Anderson

I have no idea where that come from, but I'm glad you got it off your chest.

Magnus Anderson

↪Rich

Observation. This guy thinks that time is something other than a sequence of moments. When you ask him what this "something other" is, he tells you that it is something that cannot be described using words.

Rich

This guy thinks that time is something other than a sequence of moments. When you ask him what this "something other" is, he tells you that it is something that cannot be described using words. — Magnus Anderson

No, it is as I described it.

Perplexed

↪Magnus Anderson

What you are describing is not mysticism but denial. i.e. hiding from valid distinctions. The trouble is that a great deal of discrimination takes place without us being aware. It seems to me that Bergson takes a phenomenological approach to time so he would be interested in discussing distinctions as they appear rather then by comparative measurements of different observers via the objectification of space-time.

Rich

What you are describing is not mysticism but denial. i.e. hiding from valid distinctions. The trouble is that a great deal of discrimination takes place without us being aware. It seems to me that Bergson takes a phenomenological approach to time so he would be interested in discussing distinctions as they appear rather then by comparative measurements of different observers via the objectification of space-time. — Perplexed

Yes. Time (duration) is the actual, personal experience of life.

Magnus Anderson

↪Magnus Anderson What you are describing is not mysticism but denial. i.e. hiding from valid distinctions. The trouble is that a great deal of discrimination takes place without us being aware. — Perplexed

That's right. What I am describing is denial. The thing is that mysticism in general is about denial. That's simply what it is. Why is it that meditation is the holy grail of mysticism? Is it not because meditation is a form of denial? It is a return to a more primitive way of thinking that is known as intuition.

It seems to me that Bergson takes a phenomenological approach to time so he would be interested in discussing distinctions as they appear rather then by comparative measurements of different observers via the objectification of space-time. — Perplexed

Bergson is opposed to any conception of time as a succession of moments.

Rich

Bergson is opposed to any conception of time as a succession of moments. — Magnus Anderson

Bergson opposes spacialization of time. If you don't understand what I just said, you have to either think about it or read about it.

Magnus Anderson

Bergson opposes spacialization of time. If you don't understand what I just said, you have to either think about it or read about it. — Rich

Or you can simply explain it to me so that I can be enlightened.

"Spatialized time" is precisely the kind of time that I am talking about i.e. the kind that can be thought of as a succession of moments. For Bergson, everything that is divisible is considered "spatial".

Rich

"Spatialized time" is precisely the kind of time that I am talking about i.e. the kind that can be thought of as a succession of moments. For Bergson, everything that is divisible is considered "spatial". — Magnus Anderson

Time is exactly as you are experiencing it. Is time starting and stopping for you as a succession of moments? Mine is continuous.

Time for me sometimes feels slow, sometimes feels fast, sometimes exists without space (in my dreams), sometimes feels disrupted as when I am unconscious. Real time (duration) of life is heterogenous and is fundamental to the experience of life.

Perplexed

Meditation is the holy grail of mysticism. Why is this so? Is it not because meditation is a form of denial? — Magnus Anderson

I believe meditation is a technique for focusing ones mind, no? I suppose it could be considered a denial that unfocused use of the mind delivers the truth, or perhaps there is the denial of the ascetic who runs away to live on a mountaintop. There's good and bad denial right. Denial of a lie could be pretty important.

Bergson is opposed to any conception of time as a succession of moments. — Magnus Anderson

Are you sure it is not just the conception of time as only a succession of moments that he is opposed to? As this is a very simplistic and linear way of describing it.

Magnus Anderson

Time is exactly as you are experiencing it. Is time starting and stopping for you as a succession of moments? Mine is continuous. — Rich

What does it mean for time to be "starting and stopping"? The point is that my past is a succession of moments. You have one moment coming after another moment.

Magnus Anderson

I believe meditation is a technique for focusing ones mind, no? I suppose it could be considered a denial that unfocused use of the mind delivers the truth, or perhaps there is the denial of the ascetic who runs away to live on a mountaintop. There's good and bad denial right. Denial of a lie could be pretty important. — Perplexed

Meditation is a tool that we use to reduce mental stimulation. So yes, by eliminating distracting impulses, it can help us focus. It's a very useful too but in the case of those who consider themselves mystics it is a tool used to simplify their process of thinking to a degree that is quite astonishing.

Are you sure it is not just the conception of time as only a succession of moments that he is opposed to? As this is a very simplistic and linear way of describing it. — Perplexed

No, he says that such a conception falsifies the reality of time.

Perplexed

It's a very useful too but in the case of those who consider themselves mystics it is a tool used to simplify their process of thinking to a degree that is quite astonishing. — Magnus Anderson

I suppose meditation can also have quasi-religious interpretations which seek a way of knowing not captured by discursive, logical or linguistic methods.

No, he says that such a conception falsifies the reality of time. — Magnus Anderson

Would Einstein's relativity of simultaneity not put him in agreement with Bergson? ie. there are moments but they are subjective for different observers.

Rich

What does it mean for time to be "starting and stopping"? The point is that my past is a succession of moments. You have one moment coming after another moment. — Magnus Anderson

If the moments are continuous there are no moments. That was Bergson's point. This is what Zeno's paradoxes are all about. When you do away with points (the arrow never stands still) the paradoxes vanish. Whenever there are paradoxes there are problems with the ontology. Moments are the problem. Spacialization of time creates these paradoxes.

Magnus Anderson

If the moments are continuous there are no moments. That was Bergson's point. This is what Zeno's paradoxes are all about. When you do away with points (the arrow never stands still) the paradoxes vanish. Whenever there are paradoxes there are problems with the ontology. Moments are the problem. Spacialization of time creates these paradoxes. — Rich

Right. Bergson thought that Zeno's paradox of the arrow demonstrates that time is not made out of points. But I don't agree. Zeno's argument is just a word game. Motion is a difference in position between two points in time. That's what the word means. The fact that we can say the object is at rest at every point in time does not mean its position is not different at different points in time.

Rich

But I don't agre — Magnus Anderson

Well then you have an expected paradox. It is an outgrowth of your ontology which brings us right back to my first question, if you think you are moments then do you feel each moment starting and stopping.

If you understand the paradox, then you understand why moments and spatiality yields it. As soon as I understood Bergson's perspective, I immediately gave up on spacial time. I'm very flexible. I have no agenda. Not wedded to any philosophy or science. Just looking to better understand nature.

Magnus Anderson

Well then you have an expected paradox. It is an outgrowth of your ontology which brings us right back to my first question, if you think you are moments then do you feel each moment starting and stopping. — Rich

You will have to define what it means for a moment to "start and stop". Moments do not start and stop, they simply follow one after another. For a moment to start and stop, it must have a duration. But moments are durationless by definition.

Rich

But moments are durationless by definition. — Magnus Anderson

If a moment is without duration, exactly how many moments does it take to make one second? The stuff that the clock is measuring. That science it's measuring.

Magnus Anderson

If you understand the paradox, then you understand why moments and spatiality yields it. — Rich

I understand the paradox. The paradox is a word game. In other words, there is no paradox. If an object is at rest at every point in time, it does not follow that it is not moving. The solution to the "paradox" is to understand what the word "motion" means.

Magnus Anderson

If a moment is without duration, exactly how many moments does it take to make one second? The stuff that the clock is measuring. That science it's measuring. — Rich

There can be any number of moments within a second. Bergson claims that time is indivisible. I claim that time is not only divisible but also infinitely divisible.

Rich

If an object is at rest at every point in time, it does not follow that it is not moving. — Magnus Anderson

Well apparently you are fine with this so nothing is going to convince you otherwise. For me, it is strange and doesn't coincide with every day experience.

Rich

There can be any number of moments within a second. — Magnus Anderson

I realize this. I asking the precise number. Scientifically speaking of course.

Magnus Anderson

Well apparently you are fine with this so nothing is going to convince you otherwise. For me, it is strange and doesn't coincide with every day experience. — Rich

Maybe you should try to explain why you find it counter-intutive?

Rich

↪Magnus Anderson

How something can be at rest all the time and moving? Hmm. I'll try it out later today and see if I can teleport myself somehow.

Banno

How something can be at rest all the time and moving? — Rich

How does this issue keep recurring? A grasp of integral calculus is a very basic piece of mathematical literacy.

Rich

How does this issue keep recurring? — Banno

Since you don't understand the issue and why integral calculus has nothing to do with it, I guess we will be plagued by this issue forever. Maybe if you have it have it done thought, instead of just repeating what some teacher in college was paid to teach you, we might not have to revisit this issue. Or do you think Bergson didn't understand integral calculus? Or maybe you think you understand it better? Which is it?

Banno

↪Rich

So the logic of infinitesimals has nothing to do with infinitesimals. And this is not to be demonstrated, but instead you just attack your critic.

That's poor form. It tells us about you, not about time and movement.

Wayfarer

What I am describing is denial. — Magnus Anderson

Whereas, I think what you are describing is ‘fear of religion’. Thomas Nagel described it in his essay Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.

It ought to be noted that Nagel writes as a professed atheist.

Rich

↪Banno

Pulling out a Law on me. Nice. It seems like that is very fashionable when someone wants to quickly take the high ground. I have to remember this trick.

There is no LAW. Just a mathematical symbolic tool that works ok in approximately solving certain types of problems. All created by our Creative Minds.

Time: The Bergson-Einstein debate

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions