/lit/ - Literature

Well if i'm tired i'll go to bed, if i'm not i'll stay up as long as can, depends on if i'm doing something engaging at night like shitposting/reading/gaming.

Idk OP but I'm really interested in this kind of shit. Any recommended reading?

What ever?

flat circle

Closest to A-theory, as in, I believe in real becoming, but I still think present time-slices are mere abstractions from the actual substances there are. Time is the numbering of change.

Possibilism
>implying I care about this shit

Possibilism seems reasonable I guess
any layman readings about this stuff?

>>6829491
Slaughterhouse 5

>>6829480
Why shouldn't you care? Don't tell me you prefer boring shit like "whats the best way to live haha xd" to this. This is all there is

Physics proves that no two events can be truly simultaneous. Eternalism is the only viable option.

It's a human construct


/bread

>>6829042
Presentism's always been my favorite.

Presentism is the only choice in a Christian universe.

>>6829042
I think there is no such thing as "present", only past and future. In my opinion when most people refer to present they are referring to their immediate past or future

>>6830602
yes it is.

>>6829314
is that Nietzsche? shut the fuck up.

>>6829042
1 0 0 0
0 -1 0 0
0 0 -1 0
0 0 0 -1

>>6830602
That's like saying blue is a color, it's correct but only as a tautology, it explains nothing.

B - theory. Most analytic philosophers today are B - theorists.

>>6830743
>not based
1/y^2 0
0 1/y^2

What a pleb.

>>6829042

The Block Universe all the way. Only I still still believe in free will, I think that we made all of our choices simultaneously. Everything is set, but things could have been otherwise if we chose differently." Past moments" have ontological priority to "future moments", and this is the reason why we get the illusion of becoming.

>>6830677
Why?

>>6829042
“Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it.” - Albert Einstein

>>6830544
Anon, I think you have real-life autism :(

>philosophers having a go at dimensions

to physicists this really is like watching a toddler stack two legos and pretend he's some ground-breaking engineer

>>6830363
>i read memehouse 5 and now I know about how time is really a dimension you move back and forth in just like left and right.

oh god this thread is truely pathetic

for anybody wanting to actually know it:
space and time are one dimension, meaning if you move from left to right, that left from before is gone just like the time when you were there is gone.

so instead of:
t1, x1 --move right--> t2, x2 --move left--> t3, x1

it goes
(t,x)1 --move right--> (t,x)2 --move left--> (t,x)3

so there's that problem solved. But now that we're all here philosophically discussing problems that were solved 50 years ago anyways, does anyone want to have a go at free will?

>>6830926
Physicists have no say in what time is, though. The modern conception of time comes from Minkowski, who was a mathematician. Not to mention that all models, irregardless of discipline, comes with its own philosophical assumptions and ramifications.

As Dennett rightly put it: "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."

Read a book or two, faggot. It might help you avoid further embarrassment(s).

>>6830945
So then only the present exists. Augustine was right!

>>6830544
This question is so big it's impossible for me to give a shit about. I don't understand how it could effect me or how I could gather any evidence for any side of it. It's both pretentious and boring.

>>6829042

Block time. Just like how your high school is still there when you aren't in it, last Wednesday is still there, even though you aren't in it.

>>6830945
>space and time are one dimension
No, they are not. They are one dimension under a specific formal theory. It is a PHILOSOPHICAL issue whether or not its model actually conforms with reality and whether or not it will get replaced by a more accurate theory in the future.

>>6830962
yes only the present exists, the past does not physically exist and the future does not exist yet.

this might sound a bit counterintiuitive but that's because our minds have memories of past events and predictions/expectations about future events. for particles, these don't exist

>>6830961
>>6830977

fuck off fagots get a real job

>>6830961
Are you implying physicists don't do philosophy?

>>6830945
I understand spacetime and movement in spacetime but does GR give answer to the question which appears in OP's pic? AFAIK GR is deterministic so it would probably be eternalism, right?

>>6830987
>looking for the answers to philosophical questions about space/time in gravity's rainbow
ishygddt

>>6830987
>AFAIK GR is deterministic so it would probably be eternalism, right?
Yes. GR gives unique geodesics for every position in spacetime and thus is deterministic.

>>6829042
Definitely Presentism. The Past and Future only exist as concepts, and there can only be a Now, which carries all the world along constantly like a river.

>>6830992
GR = General Relativity

>>6830992
this may be b8 but if it is not jesus christ you are retarded

>>6830985
Most don't, because they belong to the "shut up, and calculate" school. Whenever they express their opinions about science, you often get to hear opinions that are a confused, sometimes to the point of incoherence, mess.

Physicists that are also interested in philosophical issues surrounding their physics are a rare breed.

However, there are some that have PhDs in physics and that also do philosophy of physics these days, so that's good.

>>6831011
Well, apart from understanding the process and limits of science, fundamental theoretical physics also makes assumptions about how the world works, i.e determinism, structure of space and time, algebrae of measurements etc.

Although I do concede the averate experimental guy won't know much about that (however they're still far from "shut up and calculate", that's just mean spirited)

>>6831011
>implying philosophers will be able to give a comprehensive opinion on time as described by physics without knowing a shit load of physics and maths

>>6830972

are you serious m8?

Presentism is the only empirical one

Eternalism is the only choice if you get your metaphysics from physics

Possibilism is the only choice if you do science based on mind/body cartesian dualism

in the end you can't know nothing

>>6831061
As a matter of fact they do, and they are insightful accounts of time indeed. But I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it since you obviously haven't read a single paper in contemporary analytic philosophy. Who would have thought the exotic fruits of analytic philosophy to be more known than physics and mathematics to the general, pop-science gobbling public!

May I suggest Sider's "Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time" as starting point? Pre-requisites are standard themes in Mathematical Logic and Theoretical Physics (concerning time).

>>6831032
I agree, but I don't get what you're getting at.

>>6831091
> to be more known
Sorry, change that to "to be less known".

>>6831091
you type like a tryhard spaz dude

continue posturing in the phil department and thoughtfully stroke your chin while reams of calculus fly over your head

How is presentism not the only viable option?
I mean, do you have any proof the past has any existence after it happend? And how can the future exist if it's "things that are to come" as a definition.
I guess i'm just missing somthing, so can someone explain please?

>>6830908
This.

And I don't believe in any essence to time or to the concepts of past and present, because compare one of the graphs with the other, what is the difference? I mean, what is in question here? Are we talking about which one of them is an illusion and which one of them is the real thing? Is that the issue? Because I don't believe in this differentiation at all.

The past is memory, the future is intention, the present is perception. But each one of those things are only the angles we can talk about at this very moment. Each day is a different day, coming from a new context that was all of the previous days plus this one, it comes with a new texture, a new sensation each time. Every turn of events is different from the previous ones. Because when it is the same, that is to say it cannot be felt and talked about, there is no differentiation, but if it was entirely different from the previous moment, a complete arbitrary shift to everything, it would also be impossible for us to comprehend, it would be as if it didn't change at all and it was always like that.

The present moment is not a second. The present moment is July, the present moment is 2015. A music is not a series of notes, but the passing of one note to the other. Time exists in the destruction, in the accumulation, in the action. It is our concept of the way we experience the physical world. But the physical world, along with time, are not essential, they are not real in any sense that evokes stability, because stability is a quality of time, a quality of space. But at their very core, they are absolutely empty.

The concept that we live in a timeline, from birth to death, from this age to the next, this is an extremely particular notion. People perceive time in absolutely different ways. An old person sees the passing of time in an alien way to the kid and vice-versa. You don't even have to go that far, because the shifting of your moods and thoughts is itself a shift in the nature of time. I'm not talking only of slow or fast (qualities within time), I'm talking about a completely different relationship with it. Time can be circular, it can be about this week, it can be about distant memories, you can see time as decay, or chance... Each situation is unique. We have no idea of how ancient people lived, all we have is an imagination projected from the present and I wouldn't even get into whether it is a crude view of them or a precise vision, but to point out that there is no way to differentiate between the two, there is no reference of the past except for memories, except for what didn't change, what didn't get destroyed and reintegrated. So the real question is what you do with your memories and your intentions? You certainly can organize them in your head in a line, arranging them "chronologically". But that's only one way. The physical world invite us to relate with time in multiple ways.

>>6831213 here

But what is most important is that past, present, and future and this idea of time is only one of the possible interpretations of our memories, our perception and our intention.

If you think the past and the future are less real than the present, you're relying too much on your senses, but they are as illusory as memory and intention. What is most interesting is that you use memories to validate the present, and you use your perception to validate the memories.

Really astonishing how ignorant /lit/ is of contemporary metaphysics. Do you guys even read or are you all failed stemfags who decided to take up shilling for /sci/?

>>6831104
good stuff, brother.... lots of love and wisdom

>>6831278
Recommend us some books.

>>6831213
>>6831223
Good post. OP needs to read Bergson, Hegel and Proust.

The past is like a different life. We have only memories of it, no emotional attachment, only lingering feelings your memories make you feel IF it might still be related to the present in any way. The past for all previous intents and occurrences are only building blocks to new selfes. Vice versa for the future. It gives more meaning to the phrase 'life for the present' if you will not be the same person living in the future and to life primarily for that different person and continually over various 'life's' you go through is silly and childish. So glad I grew up. Now I only waste half of my life.

>>6831619
Start with the Greeks

Discrete instants of meaning which forms the axle of the ceaseless wheel of time where being, becoming, and unbecoming dance around each other.

>>6830980
Explain calculus then, faggot.
Oh wait, you can't.

>>6831797
Sometimes I like to think of time as a mathematical equation, who's form unfolds to illuminate new truths, but only to the intuitive, and which can fold back on itself as gracefully as it flowers outwards.

>>6831686
But thought, conception, and language are infinity self referential. You relive your past as you experience the future, and time is the mask of small differences that existence gives itself.

>>6831835
>But thought, conception, and language are infinity self referential.
Yes. Your different selves experience more or less the same world you do. This is what helps give the illusions of continual existence. It doesn't change the fact that mentally, physically you are a distinct self and don't actually have any relation to your past except what your memories will not allow you to forget. You have to take into account that it's not your memories purpose to illusion you with the perspective of a continual existence but, and it is beyond my knowledge, probably some survival characteristic or other such thing. We because of delusions of souls and the play of memory and such have made the continual existence falsely axiomatic.

>>6829042
Don't know.

I don't believe time, as something separate from space exists. I think you have time when you have a thing moving through space. If nothing is happening anywhere then there is no time. And time can be moving faster in some places than in others.

What is that?

>>6832008
What makes you think the two are tied?

>>6832037
I'm not that anon, but space and time are absolutey related, not even that, they are sides to the same thing. Time cannot exist without anything physical deteriorating and space cannot exist if it is not perceived in time. This not new or strange at all, it is a common scientific notion, but also understood and expressed in several other ways in religion and art.

>>6832037
The two what?

Time and space?

I only know of time from experience in one way: I remember that things were arranged a certain way in space and then they were arranged a different way. Even in a sensory privation chamber, were perception of time is distorted, my body moves and my thoughts change, and those shifts are what gives me an impression of time.

>>6831885
>Your different selves experience more or less the same world you do. This is what helps give the illusions of continual existence
I don't see how this is illusion. I exist in the world, so my existence is more or less continual.

Man is a social animal. His "self" extends beyond his physical being and into the social sphere. Take for example language: English exists outside of me, yet I experience it and use it personally as an extension of myself.

It's the same with social bonds and memories. I constantly cause myself to exist, not as an unmoved mover, but as a moving mover, a self conscious force. My "self" extends beyond my physical being and into the past, the present, and vaguely into the future.

Existence is as much symbolic as it is physical. The narratives we build for ourselves are always referential to our past, even if we have to re-imagine our past in reference to our future.

If your life feels disconnected, it's because life is the space between the reference points of birth and death, so it's impossible for life to experience it's permanence and it's totality until death, and then some. It's not because we don't have souls, that's just silly.

>>6830972
>last Wednesday is still there, even though you aren't in it
Can you pull out last Wednesday and show it to us?

>>6830977
he's explaining their identities within the specific model ya dolt

I believe I will live forever as long as I get trips at least once a week

>>6833000

you're cute

>>6832953
He didn't. Had he done it, he would be specifically careful and indicated this.

>>6833000
The only interesting post in this thread.

>>6830544
You are wasting your life thinking instead of living it and enjoying it to fullest

but then again you seem to have a special kind of autism, so it wouldn't surprise me if you spent your life willingly choosing this over other things

>>6833112
>living it and enjoying it to fullest
This is a meme

>>6832302
More or less is not definite.
From one moment to the next you are two different people because the organical components differ in substance and arrangement. Technically, the you and the you of the next hour are not the same being, and very much less the one you in a year or ten, where it's much more visible.
Even if it is less than one percent difference it is still difference.
You not think the same, or behave, react -- like a different person.

As you say, various parts are an extension of you, but none of them are inherent characteristics, they change, your interaction changes them for you and it you.
Your personality, say, is just your current being, it's not a stagnant component subject to change but a fluid biological and environmental subject that morphes as the external and internal data affect you. As silly as it may sound; your personality is just a state of being which is influenced by your actual inherent biological alternations.

Your self is influenced by past and present and even future considerations but this alone can not make it a continual (in the sense that it is the same) existence.

And we don't have souls, that is silly! Unless you define it as the constantly changing self that gives you the impressions all through your life of you. But that's a semantical snare, there certainly isn't any such thing as a soul in the biblical sense, at least one we can prove.

>>6829042

Time is like a box of chocolates, it's goes quicker for fat people.

interesting as heck

Spinoza - Eternalism - Determinism - Pantheism.

Try your hardest, spinoza alredy won.

>>6834550
Then why do they move so SLOW?

>>6835318
They cherish each digestion movement as it comes.

I have no idea if this is something that has any basis in science or something that has been proven wrong, but I have a bit of a theory on time.

Basically I believe that time is just a fourth spatial dimension composed of 3 dimensional spaces stacked onto one another at a right angle from the 3 dimensions we exist in. That line simply cannot be fathomed by a 3 dimensional being. The same way that a 2D object can only experience an infinitesimally small portion of the 3rd dimension at a given time, so can we only experience an infinitesimally small portion of the fourth dimension, that being our present 3D environment.

Like I said it could be a completely dumb idea, but it makes sense to me and my limited understanding of physics.

>>6833000

>>6829047
Not OP, but McTaggert's The Unreality of Time

>>6829314
It wasn't supposed to be taken literally

>>6830887
free will and other herping of the derp

>>6831011
>Physicists that are also interested in philosophical issues surrounding their physics are a rare breed.

Y-you too?

>>6830967
>pretentious and boring

You're basically repeating yourself. The former means "I don't like a topic."