[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.68 MB, 1106x1557, 1330181948665.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2977268 No.2977268[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

in philosophy class.
>toodamnhigh
the manifold is the totality of all events that ever will have occurred. There must be events to allow time to pass. Space exists independent of objects. Does time exist without events?

>discuss
have fun /lit/tle children

>> No.2977284

Thought is an event. Therefore the human consciousness cannot exist free from time. Similarly, the fact that we inhibit a body of which we are in all cases aware means that we cannot imagine the non-existence of space.

On another note, what is that artist called again? I used to love his drawings of Hell.

>> No.2977290

well time itself is a way of ordering things in past present and future. If there is nothing to put in order I doubt time could exist. Time exists because of its relation to space. if only space were to exist this universe would be in a lower dimension.

>> No.2977299

As far as I know, the most accurate description of time is the accumulation of events and the increase in entrophy, no? If that is true, it must mean that time can only exist as a meaningful concept if there are events.

Also: Does space really exist independent of objects? I'm trying to picture an infinite void and I'm failing because there is no contrast to it - if there is only empty space, then isn't calling it empty is meaningless?

>> No.2977304

>>2977299
yeah if there are no means of combination for which objects interact there is no possibility of building a system of infinite complexity. Which are universe is supposedly

>> No.2977331

I think everything exists in a relation with other things and can only be defined with / in that relation. Let's take humans for example. If there were no other beings besides us, the definition of "human" would collapse because there is nothing to separate and discern humans from non-humans.
The same it is with time. You need the contrast between passage of events and non-passage of events to even define time. If everything was standing still, we would have no reference frame to measure and define time. However in the contrary situation (like we are in now, i.e. there are events), it seems to be much easier to imagine a non-time.

When taken further, does it mean that in a hypothetical room void of events, time would stay still? Apparently, the contrary is happening: The faster you move, the slower time passes for you (see twin paradox), that is if you see movement through space as separate consecutive events like frames in an animation.

>> No.2977338

>>2977268
>Does time exist without events?

No. Time is a property of our universe, it did not exist prior to the singularity.

>> No.2977371

“Not ‘time is’, but ‘Dasein (i.e.; the being of our human being) qua time temporalizes its Being’”.

Ecstases are phenomena that stand out from an underlying unity (i.e.; ecstases as horizons, in the sense of what limits, surrounds or encloses, and in so doing discloses or makes available.) Temporality is a unity against which past, present and future stand out as ecstases while remaining essentially interlocked. The importance of this idea is that it frees us from thinking of past, present and future as sequentially ordered groupings of distinct events. Thus temporalizing does not signify that ecstases come in a ‘succession’. The future is not later than having been, and having-been is not earlier than the Present. Temporality temporalizes itself as a future which makes present in a process of having been.

We are time.

>> No.2977403

>>2977304
>>2977299
/thread

come on, OP. You can do better than that. Though it is possible to start a butthurt discussion out of fucking nowhere for /lit/'s fags.

>> No.2977741

i CAN do better than that, but there are hundreds of different ways to explain time, its an undoubtedly hot topic in philosphy. and the question i posed, a philosophical one. therefore id like to see what /lit/ has to offer, then complicate their discussion as best i can.

>> No.2977759

>>toodamnhigh
goddamnit there is a little shit who comes to my philosophy lecture and highjacks every single class for 35 minutes talking about shit that everyone has figured out on their first gloss of the text

op i hope you get hit by a bus and die

and besides, this is a question for physics, not philosophy

>> No.2977806

>Space exists independent of objects

space is merely the relation between objects, lrn2 principle of identity of indiscernibles, bucket spinning in space, etc

>> No.2977830

>>2977806
This /lit/. If you want to answer questions of such complexity at least learn a little bit of math and physics

>> No.2977832

>>2977268
Your question is absolute childish nonsense. You have to be kidding me if a professor is using the word "manifold" in some sort of pseudointellectual context.

>>2977806
That's wrong. Your breathtakingly dishonest anti-scientific subhuman activist garbage has nothing to do with the physical concept of space.

>> No.2977849

>>2977832

>subhuman activist garbage

haha wtf are you talking about?

>> No.2977857

>>2977299
Well, vacuum isn't actually empty (and I'm not talking about the one atom every cubic meter). Thanks to quantuum mechanics, we know there are little jump starts of energy even in the most perfect entropic state possible.

>> No.2977874

First of all it's spacetime, you can't have space and time separate. It's been 107 years since special relativity c'mon guise.

>> No.2977883

>>2977759
hes right. I think your question isnt clear do you mean human consciousness perceiving and labeling something an event, or the chaos of space with mass and energy but free of life to observe.

I say if you mean just mass, gravity, and energy then yeah it would continue existing.

>> No.2977884

>>2977874
It's a really long time, some of us start to forget. Growing senile a bit more every day.

>> No.2977897
File: 8 KB, 189x267, einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2977897

>>2977884
Getting old sucks. Wish I could chill with this bro.

>> No.2977918

>>2977299
On a large scale space has a kind of inherent curvature, so in this sense it's almost like a terrain, and so a kind of object in its own right. On a small scale there's vacuum energy. From certain perspectives (and it does seem to be the paradigm in current scientific thought) that events are the defining or interesting or meaningful part of reality, but a vacuum in itself is a kind of event anyway.

>> No.2977931

Time is a human concept which exists inside the mind.

I'd say no.

>> No.2977969

>>2977931
And a hundred other moronically wrong your professors taught you...

>> No.2977970

>>2977969
THINGS, motherfucker.

>> No.2977990

>>2977931
I'll assume that was meant to imply my statement was stupid.

>tfw dont even study philosophy

dont get so butthurt about it

>> No.2977995

>>2977990
It was incredibly stupid. "Time" describes, accurately, the forces of entropy and change upon the universe. It doesn't exist merely in the human mind. It exists. Whether or not humans described it, or what they described it as, is irrelevant; it's merely the word we use to describe a particular provable observable fact. You're a fucking retard.

>> No.2978083

Philosophy takes a step back when science is in the place.

>> No.2978397
File: 15 KB, 640x480, ohmygod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2978397

>>2977857

Huh. That's really interesting - can you direct me to some sources on that? I'm really curious about where those sparks of energy would come from.

>>2977918

I'm not a physicist by any means, but I was under the impression that space is curved by mass though - would that still happen if there were no objects in it that had mass?

I suppose a vacuum can be considered an event if it comes into being and is later filled out, but if there isn't time without objects I'm not sure how that would work.

>> No.2978520

OP please what's the sauce on that image?! gives me the creeps and I can't stop thinking about what world/setting it would be if one tried to write some narrative inspired by this...

>> No.2978561

>>2977995
>It doesn't exist merely in the human mind. It exists.

Lawl. Citation needed, nigger.

(Also, protip: we have absolutely no way of differentiating 'things that exist' from 'things that exist merely in the human mind'. Them's the breaks.)

>> No.2978571

>>2978397
From the Uncertainty Principle basically. Search for vacuum fluctuations or quantum fluctuations.

Spacetime is "curved" by mass/energy. What I think the anon means about inherent curvature is this: if you look at spacetime globally and look at the at the average density, then this average density will give you the curvature of the universe.

>> No.2978925

>>2978397
>Huh. That's really interesting
It's not that interesting. I mean, yes, it is, but only as a side-effect of mathematics + physics, it isn't something that has any practical effect on the world (or rather, something we can use).

>> No.2978946

>>2978397

They are called virtual particles,

They come from nothing. Literally nothing. Yes. Fucking nothing. A particle and it's corresponding anti-particle pops into existance and then annihilates each others.

This happens all the time, constantly.

Shit popping into existance and then ceasing to exist.

Don't argue with this. It's quantum mechanics, it shits on your idea that you can't create something from nothing and says it happens all the time in all places of the universe.

>> No.2979077

>>2977371
This. While I don't know Heidegger particularly well, I do agree with him (and with Husserl) that time is not just Objective (physical, 'real'[reel]) time. For Heidegger (I think, in his lectures on 'Time and Being'), Time is the very condition of the possibility of events as such. And for Husserl, internal time-consciousness, which is non-uniform, non-rigid, etc., is the condition of events being events as such.

>> No.2979101

>>2978946
"Don't argue, it's science!" Here goes: how can something come from nothing?

>> No.2979110

>>2979101
"Uh, w-well, i-it's n-not ~NOTHING~ nothing, uh, no, I mean.."

>> No.2979151

>>2978946
I don't think they come from nothing. I read an interesting article by the physicist Roger Penrose, who says they aren't subjected to the shackles of time and dimensional planes.

So one that pops into existence hasn't come from nowhere, it had an origin in another place or time. He also expanded upon Stephen Hawkings controversial 'spontaneous creation/gravity' theory, and said a virtual particle from a newly formed expanding universe could travel back past the point of its creation, to ultimately create the universe it once inhabited (something to do with the lack of any other objects with mass would have such a significant effect on gravity, that it would cause a singularity), but he can't work around the paradox that would cause.

>> No.2979152

>>2979101
They don't come from "Nothing", they come from spacetime.

>> No.2979156

Events cannot be separated without change. Change, of course, implies time.

>> No.2979177

>>2979151
Interesting. Could you perchance recall the article? I've read Penrose before, on the philosophy of the mind, but not in physics proper.