Time Doesn't Exist

[ibjamming]

I love it when people try and argue for free will by saying life would suck without it. This is not an argument and it does nothing to belittle existence because no matter what we say, we operate under the misguided assumption that we have free will. If we didn't, we couldn't have concepts of responsibility, justice etc. However almost any microbiologist/physiological psychologist will tell you there is no free will.

Everything in the world is physical, all physical matter follows physical laws including the neurons and neurotransmistters that govern our cognitive processes and "decision" making. We are merely biological/analog computers. We receive stimuli, the processors in our brain interpret the information and then output a response.

In regards to time as a human construct. WHAT IS TIME. Very few people can give a coherent answer to this question. Most simply, it is a measure of change. Change of the position of the sun around the earth, change of the position of the hands of the clock etc.

I don't know...I think it's too simplistic. There is a lot more to human behavior than simple stimuli response. Don't forget about all the second guessing we do...the going over multiple scenarios...and the outright CRAZY effect hormones have. Nah...I think we have choice...albeit limited ones. It's pretty much which brand to buy, which woman to marry, which house to buy, which car, how many kids. Choices, but not meaningful ones.

The people really making choices are the people who founded this place...the revolutionaries, the first adopters, the people who gave it up and made Cannabis a profession. I took the "other" path...more like a rut. Looking back, I should have moved to CA a lot sooner and become an activist/grower up north. Oh well, never too late right? Time for my retirement hobby...

Time IS change. No change, no time. And it's relative to size. At the scale of an atom, time seems "normal" as you watch an electron go round and round the nucleus. At our scale, "normal time" is the earth's rotation, a day, or the going around the sun, a year. At a larger scale...it takes millions of years for stars to go around a galaxies center...time is "slower" there.

Think about it...it's like hour, minute, second hands on a clock. The second hand is the scale of an electron zipping around in it's cloud. We can't even tell where it is at any given time. It's too fast to measure. Now, to someone standing at that scale, on the nucleus...the electron is moving at a "normal" speed...the other motions, that of the earth rotation, "our time" is ridiculously slow to them. They watched the electron go around a billion times and we didn't move an inch. ike the second hand going around and around for every 1 time for the minute hand.

Likewise, at the scale of a galaxy, "normal time" for us, our rotation, even our year, is as fast to them as the electron zipping around the atom is to us. Time and the motion it measures, is relative to size.

I'm telling you...nature is a fractal. It works. Everything is built upon patterns. Nature is also efficient...nothing get's wasted. Just like the life cycle. A plant is born and lives off the dirt...an animal eats the plant to live...the animal shits out what's left of the plant...feeding the microbes in the dirt...who then feed the plant... Energy works in patterns...cycles...supposedly neither created nor destroyed (something I don't buy, there is NO perpetual anything).

And time just clicks on...forward only. It's measurement relative to you...the observer. That's the part people don't get...the OBSERVER is the reference point...everything is "normal" for that point only...everything else measured is relative to that point.

I had a theory of why special relativity works...the whole gravity/acceleration vs time thing...but I forget it now. I don't write anything down. Time exists as long as ANYTHING is moving...

 

[GMT]

I love it when people try and argue for free will by saying life would suck without it. This is not an argument and it does nothing to belittle existence because no matter what we say, we operate under the misguided assumption that we have free will. If we didn't, we couldn't have concepts of responsibility, justice etc. However almost any microbiologist/physiological psychologist will tell you there is no free will.



Everything in the world is physical, all physical matter follows physical laws including the neurons and neurotransmistters that govern our cognitive processes and "decision" making. We are merely biological/analog computers. We receive stimuli, the processors in our brain interpret the information and then output a response.



In regards to time as a human construct. WHAT IS TIME. Very few people can give a coherent answer to this question. Most simply, it is a measure of change. Change of the position of the sun around the earth, change of the position of the hands of the clock etc.

I'm very dissapointed that a philosophy student could have misread what I said so completely. Far from using the arguement You claimed I did, I merely pointed out the problems that would follow from the conclusion that both all time exists simultaneously and the existence of free will. They were rhetorical questions, meant to prove the problems of free will. I was looking for a more in depth analysis of the problem from someone educated in this particular subject in the hope of generating a more detailed analysis of the subject matter. However by taking the absolute position that free will is an illusion, you proclaim we live purely mechanical lives where we simply follow our programming to the end. In your view, every effort anyone ever makes is not so much pointless, but unavoidable. I grow weed because I like it, and I like it because I'm programmed to. I can only say that when you graduate, I hope you dont try to feel any pride in it, as your success was nothing to do with you, you just recieved the correct programming.

 

[dagnabit]

imo,,the creator formed the planets and the creator set the planets in motion,,,the motion of the planets created the first "day",,,

im i the only guy who believes in inteligent design?

"and now tom with the weather.....tom

thanks jim it looks like the forecast is calling for a 100% chance of a

 

[sac beh]

no matter what we say, we operate under the misguided assumption that we have free will. If we didn't, we couldn't have concepts of responsibility, justice etc. However almost any microbiologist/physiological psychologist will tell you there is no free will.

Everything in the world is physical, all physical matter follows physical laws including the neurons and neurotransmistters that govern our cognitive processes and "decision" making. We are merely biological/analog computers. We receive stimuli, the processors in our brain interpret the information and then output a response.

I don't think the presence of natural laws proves a lack of free will. Natural laws aren't like God, in that they impose on us rules of behavior from without. Nor are the things themselves reducible to merely the laws. The laws are our laws, stated in various languages, including mathematics, as predictive tools. In any given moment, with any given object of study, and with any given predictive formula, science assumes absolute knowledge of the object and its conditions. It does this because its necessary, and it produces very useful results from which we abstract and form various laws. But science never has absolute knowledge in any given context, it knows this, but doesn't consider it a fault but rather a necessity.

In this necessity of subjectivity, of human knowledge, lies freedom. Quantum mechanics recognizes this better now, as it gives more importance to the role of the observer in the predictive laws that result.

The analogy of humans to a computer doesn't really work, because the computer is a physical replication of the laws which were originally predictive abstractions from non-abstract things. I don't hear many scientists, and much less philosophers, arguing that natural laws prove absolute determinism, but rather the very fact that there are laws and that these laws are abstract and predictive in nature proves freedom.

 

[statusquo]

@GMT I never said that you were arguing this point, I was merely reminded of the argument and was clarifying to anyone out there trying to use this to champion free will that it is a fallacy. Also, regardless of what my beliefs are, my brain (and everyone elses') convinces us that we have the ability to make decisions - this is fundamental and unavoidable. This is why the conclusion that there is no free will is somewhat meaningless in all practicality. Also it is impossible to not be a fatalist if you champion a 4 dimensionalist view of time.

@ibjamming: Just because we second guess and are subject to hormones doesn't mean we make decisions. These processes are governed by physical matter (neurotransmitters) that kick into action after a stimuli is received. For example, our eyes receive input data in the form of light. We see the weed sitting on the table. The signal is then travels through sensory neurons to the brain and the brain takes this information and does an analysis based on our genetics and past experience. It then churns out an appropriate response. This isn't governed by a mystical essence of "you" - it is merely the playing out of neurochemistry.

@sac beh: I never said that scientists use the presence of natural laws to prove determinism. It is just an introductory argument to get people thinking. If one is not a dualist, than what we are is purely physical. THere is no spirit. If you hold the no-spirit view than you also believe that the brain is what constitutes the mind. The brain is physical and we as agents don't have control over physical matter/laws. I don't see how a law would imply freedom in any sense of the word; it implies the exact opposite. Laws are rigid, that is why they are laws. Quantum mechanics, i.e. wheeler's delayed choice and the double slit experiment, does not prove that observers have free will (I am not saying this is what you are arguing) it just says that in order for there to be a reality, there must be an observer. Until particles are observed, they exist in a super-state of many potential outcomes.

 

[Weird]

there is no such thing as going against the laws of biology

see this monk does not possess free will, he just likes burning to death

June 11, 1963, Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk from Vietnam, burned himself to death at a busy intersection in downtown Saigon to bring attention to the repressive policies of the Catholic Diem regime that controlled the South Vietnamese government at the time. Buddhist monks asked the regime to lift its ban on flying the traditional Buddhist flag, to grant Buddhism the same rights as Catholicism, to stop detaining Buddhists and to give Buddhist monks and nuns the right to practice and spread their religion.While burning Thich Quang Duc never moved a muscle.


there is video too if you doubt the authenticity of his actions

 

[straintester]

"and now tom with the weather.....tom

thanks jim it looks like the forecast is calling for a 100% chance of a

I think thats an understatement at this point in 'time'...

 

[150wclub]

Time is created by desire. Think about that one.

 

[sac beh]

@sac beh: I never said that scientists use the presence of natural laws to prove determinism. It is just an introductory argument to get people thinking. If one is not a dualist, than what we are is purely physical. THere is no spirit. If you hold the no-spirit view than you also believe that the brain is what constitutes the mind. The brain is physical and we as agents don't have control over physical matter/laws. I don't see how a law would imply freedom in any sense of the word; it implies the exact opposite. Laws are rigid, that is why they are laws. Quantum mechanics, i.e. wheeler's delayed choice and the double slit experiment, does not prove that observers have free will (I am not saying this is what you are arguing) it just says that in order for there to be a reality, there must be an observer. Until particles are observed, they exist in a super-state of many potential outcomes.

But why is being purely physical and non-spiritual in contradiction to the possibility of freedom? Freedom doesn't have to be interpreted spiritually or in a non-natural way, although it has been by many philosophers and theologians. Again, unless you want to say that the essence of things are absolutely reducible to physical laws, then of course the physical laws are contingent and abstract. Contingent because they come into existence when physical observation meets reason. Abstract because we don't claim that any one law or set of laws are themselves the thing.

Even if you do say that, the reduction would be an infinite calculation according to the infinite calculable properties. Our knowledge of this or that thing is always composed of our knowledge of it + unknown. The unknown isn't anything mystical nor inconsequential, its a necessity of human knowing. Unknown simply means nothingness or void of anything determinable, which means possibility. Freedom appears in this movement among what is known and what is possible. This movement is also time or temporality. But more on this later perhaps..

 

[Mudita]

free will is probably an illusion

 

[bentom187]

as is all reality,if you try to find fault with it ,you wont, it comes from your own mind.

 

[GMT]

@GMT I never said that you were arguing this point, I was merely reminded of the argument and was clarifying to anyone out there trying to use this to champion free will that it is a fallacy. Also, regardless of what my beliefs are, my brain (and everyone elses') convinces us that we have the ability to make decisions - this is fundamental and unavoidable. This is why the conclusion that there is no free will is somewhat meaningless in all practicality. Also it is impossible to not be a fatalist if you champion a 4 dimensionalist view of time.
.

Sorry SQ, I wrongly thought that your post which so closely followed the post I made in which I raised the problems of free will was directed towards me as it also adressed this problem, rather than being inspired by my post I took it to be a response to it.

 

[statusquo]

No worries, not your fault. My word choice was rather poor. Just a commonly used/tired argument that irks me haha.

 

[Frozenguy]

I love it when people try and argue for free will by saying life would suck without it. This is not an argument and it does nothing to belittle existence because no matter what we say, we operate under the misguided assumption that we have free will. If we didn't, we couldn't have concepts of responsibility, justice etc. However almost any microbiologist/physiological psychologist will tell you there is no free will.

Everything in the world is physical, all physical matter follows physical laws including the neurons and neurotransmistters that govern our cognitive processes and "decision" making. We are merely biological/analog computers. We receive stimuli, the processors in our brain interpret the information and then output a response.

We do have free will. Just because our thinking is limited to the laws of physics/quantum physics, doesn't mean we dont have free will. Just furthers the reach of the physical laws.

More specifically, our brains are chemical computers. But people can override emotion, we can exercise restraint even though our brain is telling us to do something. Maybe you dont, lol, but a lot of us do.

 

[EdddieVHalen]

I remember a documentary many years ago that discussed different dimensions, like the 4th dimension.

It used the example of a man called the 2d man. He only had two dimensions and therefor could not see the 3rd. What that pointed out was that a three dimensional man would only see three dimensions and not be aware of the fourth.

 

[BrainSellz]

We do have free will. Just because our thinking is limited to the laws of physics/quantum physics, doesn't mean we dont have free will. Just furthers the reach of the physical laws.

More specifically, our brains are chemical computers. But people can override emotion, we can exercise restraint even though our brain is telling us to do something. Maybe you dont, lol, but a lot of us do.

Absolutely we have free will' its a way of thinking'

 

[BrainSellz]

It used the example of a man called the 2d man. He only had two dimensions and therefor could not see the 3rd. What that pointed out was that a three dimensional man would only see three dimensions and not be aware of the fourth.

Basically 1st dimension = space
2nd dimension = planets
3rd dimension = us
4th dimenstion is the reason things are 4/for'

if tha 3 dimension man could only see 3d then that seems accurate that just because someone seez 3d doesnt meen they know what thoze 3d items are for'
when you add reasoning to things eye think tha fourth dimension kicks in for whatever it iz you are reasoning

just a thought

 

[Mitch Connor]

Basically 1st dimension = space
2nd dimension = planets
3rd dimension = us
4th dimenstion is the reason things are 4/for'

??? pretty sure that made absolutely no sense

What do you mean 2nd dimension equals planets? Not even sure what you're trying to grasp at here

 

[BrainSellz]

Basically 1st dimension = space
2nd dimension = planets
3rd dimension = us
4th dimenstion is the reason things are 4/for'

??? pretty sure that made absolutely no sense

What do you mean 2nd dimension equals planets? Not even sure what you're trying to grasp at here

tha second demension equaling planets was just tha thought of what it would have looked like

1st dimension black space would look like an unpainted picture' with nothing in it' planets would look 2D in space like a painted picture its 2D until something that could see 3D exists'
which would be us (us standing for tha breathing thinking etc.) that adds tha 3rd dimension through our C'z (eyez) and our minds that would add tha fourth dimension

hopefully tnat made scense' eye know what eye am trying to say but just dunno how to say it'

 

[BrainSellz]

if the way the eyez cee make things 1 2 and 3D than eye would have to think 4th dimension is mind since 3d iz az real az it gets physically that would only leave one option for the 4th dimension to be and thats 4 reasoning in tha mind' making scense of things