Tuesday, May 02, 2006

The Presence of Time

Response to Derek and Lisa.

I do agree that an object can hold a rigid definition. However, this definition takes place only once at certain time. For example on Monday we understand the Prof was discussion the trash can. Except that trash can on that day does not exist anymore. It only existed on that one day containing those particular molecules. Therefore, at one point in time the trash can does posses a rigid definition. Furthermore, there is no possible way to go back in time (to Monday) and claim that the trash can might posses some different definition than the one given on that day. This even includes if the trash can has exactly the same particles. This is due to the fact that the particles on Monday are not the same any time since or before because they existed in a different time.

Chad F


Blogger Undercover Sheep said...

Are you arguing that there there is a new object at every instant in time? Whenever new molecules are added or taken away a new object forms, or are you arguing for with temporal parts in mind?

On takeover theory - It becomes complicated becaues whenever ANYTHING changes, a new object is formed. It becomes difficult because everything is in constant change, becoming a new object. This is why temporal parts make it all so much easier.

9:52 PM  
Blogger linford86 said...

Even if the identity of the trash can did not change, that still does not allow for fluid definitions. Please note that definitions are always independent of time - it doesn't matter when you define something, it's just the case that that thing will always have that definition. Otherwise, you have not formulated a proper definition.

When you define a given term, you do so so that there is universal agreement as to what you will refer to when you utter that term again. If definitions could change, then it would be the case that there could never be universal agreement as to what you are refering to upon uttering any term.

12:48 PM  
Blogger chad said...

To Undercover Sheep

I am arguing that nothing exist until you either view it (with your eyes) or speak it into existence. Then once it leaves your mind it no longer exist. This argument claims it exist for some determined amount of time. Therefore, it does not exist constantly. And it holds the condition of having temporal parts.

6:04 PM  
Blogger kipepeo said...

So...everytime that we forget about something, it ceases to exist? I think we have gone back to the days of peek-a-boo. Sure, we don't see the person when we close our eyes, but they are still there. Just because we can't see something does not preclude the possibility of an underlying truth. If it is true that when we forget about something, then it ceases to exist, then wouldn't it follow that there could never be any constancy in our world. If thoughts are only real as we are thinking them, then where do they come from? Do they pop into existence from nothing? Now consider language, isn't it true that we occasionally forget the meaning of a word? That doesn't mean that it has actually lost its meaning to others, or more importantly, that whatever it referred to is now moot. Supposedly, if someone is only justified in believing what they see, then wouldn't it be the case that if someone is really out of it because they did drugs or something, that their swirly world would actually be the real world? I don't think that is true. How about dreams? Are they true? Not all of our thoughts are valid, and not everything that we perceive is real. It is possibly more ridiculous to believe that things only exist for a certain time because they are being thought about, than to believe that there is some continuity to existence independent of coherent, or not so coherent thought.


8:10 AM  
Blogger linford86 said...

Presumably, there is some finite set of things that you know at some time t, and there some also some set of things represents the union of all human knowledge.

Obviously, what you know is some small subset of that larger set of all human knowledge. Now, the set of things that you know at time t is going to be different from the set of things that you know at some other time t', either because you forgot something or because you learned something new or both (we know that the sets aren't identical because they have unequal cardinalities - that is, they have a different number of members.)

Now, what can be said is that the set of thoughts you have at time t is uniquely determined by the set of things that you know at time t; obviously, one cannot both think something and not know it at the same time and vice versa. Now, since the set of things that you know at time t is not identical to the set of things that you know at some other time t', it follows that the set of things that you could be thinking about at time t is different from the set of things you could be thinking about at time t'.

Let's suppose that are you are thinking about different things at t than you are at t', and that what you are thinking about at t is not a member of the set of things that you know at time t'. Then, it is impossible for you to have the thought that you had at time t at time t'. Let's also make the rather reasonable assumption that your thoughts are not identical to any one else's thoughts - i.e. no one else can have your thoughts (other people can have similiar thoughts, but you can't ever think precisely what I'm thinking). Then, the thought that you had at time t isn't even logically possible for someone to think it at t'. If it isn't even logically possible for someone to think a given thought at time t', then it must be the case that the given thought does not even exist at t'. Therefore, it must be the case that the given thought does not even exist at t'.

Of course, this also doesn't cause you not to be able to remember what you once knew; however, your never going to have exactly identical thoughts to those you had at t. Therefore, the thoughts you had at t have a transistory existence, and do not exist indefinitely.

11:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home