RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
April 30, 2017 at 11:38 am
(This post was last modified: April 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
@ Grandizer.
Yes I am using the standard dictionary definitions of the word.
I am happy to bite that bullet: let's say science uses a different definition of "exist" which can also mean "existed" and "will exist" (although more accurately it would be better to say they use a different model of the concept because it makes it easier to understand Einsteinian Relativity)) .
Well, why am I happy to bite that bullet? Because science isn't actually addressing time it's addressing how we experience it and it's simply a more useful model to speak that way for the purposes of science... but it is an entirely different question because one question presupposes the existence of conscious observers and the other doesn't. One question is regarding phenomena and scientific models and how we experience time and the other question is regarding noumena and definitions and the question of what time itself is with or without people to experience it. Two completely different questions. The former is falsifiable by observers doing science and the latter is tautologically entailed by recognition that the opposite is logically contradictory (and it simply won't suffice to change the subject without realizing you're doing it...)
The Eternalists are like the Compatabilists that change the subject in the free will debate (although less annoying simply because unlike the subject of free will the mistake is not a morally important one).
To re-use Sam Harris' Atlantis analogy only use it for this subject of time instead of the subject of free will:
Eternalism is like Sicily answering questions about Atlantis just as Compatabilism is like Sicily answering questions about Atlantis.
There are some people who believe in Atlantis as in an actual underwater kingdom. And there are some people who fail to understand that Presentism using the definitions it uses is tautologically true and the opposite belief (i.e. eternalism) is as illogical as Atlantis. But Eternalism goes further... it says "Oh but Eternalism can explain the way Science addresses the experience of time". Well that's just changing the subject. That's as illogical as saying "Oh well Sicily is similar to Atlantis in many of the ways people talk about Atlantis." Well, sure, many of them... but it's still something different altogether. There is no underwater kingdom and there is no time present besides present time. Science addresses the phenomenological experience of time by experimentation which is something different altogether to the question of what time itself is philosophically with or without anyone there to experience it passing. Just as Sicily is something different altogether to Atlantis (see the above video).
Eternalists are correct in what they say but irrelevant and changing the subject when it comes to Time Itself ™ just as Compatabilists are correct in what they say but irrelevant and changing the subject over Free Will ™. But, unlike Eternalists and Compatabilists, Presentists and Incompatabilists are both correct in what they say AND actually addressing the relevant questions that are asked regarding those respective subjects.
Maybe there is no Time Itself ™ or Free Will ™ and all there is is the experience of time and the experience of free will and those things don't exist objectively, (not 'really')? Well, maybe so but once again that's a different question entirely than addressing a question that is already beginning with those things at the very premise of the respective question at hand. And... in all honesty.... you can't have an experience of something that doesn't exist at all. It would at least have to exist as experiences. It's possible for something to exist without anywhere there to experience it... but it's not possible for there to be anyone to experience something if nothing at all exists. Experience necessarily presupposes existence but existence doesn't necessarily presuppose experience.
Scientific truths require observers but logical truths don't. Scientific truths have to be discovered by scientists but logical truths are truths in and of themselves even if there were never any logicians or philosophers there to recognize them. Why? Because all science has to presuppose is the world of phenomena because that's the world that science tests... but philosophy and logic also deal with noumenal concepts and questions outside of that.
ETA: I just realized the subject of time may be even closer to the subject of free will than I I realized. Once the illusion of the illusion of free will is gone and you realize there is no illusion... it's very easy to live in the present and be mindful and see your thoughts just as things that come and go and it's ultimately a mystery... and the same with your actions. That present thoughts and behavior and experience is all there is. The intution is to say that we truly experience libertarian free will even if it doesn't exist... but once the delusion of the illusion goes we realize all that we experienced was in fact a delusion only, not an illusion and there was no illusion: just confusion.
In the same way as our intuitions may exclaim "Of course free will exists!" without actually thinking it through fully they may also exclaim "Of course the past and future exists! We talk about them all the time!". We fail to realize that we talk about our own memories of things that we think existed or beliefs about things that we think will exist. We don't talk about things that actually exist in the past or actually exist in the future. Such concepts of past and future are never present to talk about.
And this is similar to how we fail to realize that we talk about our own thoughts and actions as being identical to our experience of them...but we don't actually talk about our selves separate from our experience authoring those experiences of those selves. Such a self isn't there to talk about.
Yes I am using the standard dictionary definitions of the word.
I am happy to bite that bullet: let's say science uses a different definition of "exist" which can also mean "existed" and "will exist" (although more accurately it would be better to say they use a different model of the concept because it makes it easier to understand Einsteinian Relativity)) .
Well, why am I happy to bite that bullet? Because science isn't actually addressing time it's addressing how we experience it and it's simply a more useful model to speak that way for the purposes of science... but it is an entirely different question because one question presupposes the existence of conscious observers and the other doesn't. One question is regarding phenomena and scientific models and how we experience time and the other question is regarding noumena and definitions and the question of what time itself is with or without people to experience it. Two completely different questions. The former is falsifiable by observers doing science and the latter is tautologically entailed by recognition that the opposite is logically contradictory (and it simply won't suffice to change the subject without realizing you're doing it...)
The Eternalists are like the Compatabilists that change the subject in the free will debate (although less annoying simply because unlike the subject of free will the mistake is not a morally important one).
To re-use Sam Harris' Atlantis analogy only use it for this subject of time instead of the subject of free will:
Eternalism is like Sicily answering questions about Atlantis just as Compatabilism is like Sicily answering questions about Atlantis.
There are some people who believe in Atlantis as in an actual underwater kingdom. And there are some people who fail to understand that Presentism using the definitions it uses is tautologically true and the opposite belief (i.e. eternalism) is as illogical as Atlantis. But Eternalism goes further... it says "Oh but Eternalism can explain the way Science addresses the experience of time". Well that's just changing the subject. That's as illogical as saying "Oh well Sicily is similar to Atlantis in many of the ways people talk about Atlantis." Well, sure, many of them... but it's still something different altogether. There is no underwater kingdom and there is no time present besides present time. Science addresses the phenomenological experience of time by experimentation which is something different altogether to the question of what time itself is philosophically with or without anyone there to experience it passing. Just as Sicily is something different altogether to Atlantis (see the above video).
Eternalists are correct in what they say but irrelevant and changing the subject when it comes to Time Itself ™ just as Compatabilists are correct in what they say but irrelevant and changing the subject over Free Will ™. But, unlike Eternalists and Compatabilists, Presentists and Incompatabilists are both correct in what they say AND actually addressing the relevant questions that are asked regarding those respective subjects.
Maybe there is no Time Itself ™ or Free Will ™ and all there is is the experience of time and the experience of free will and those things don't exist objectively, (not 'really')? Well, maybe so but once again that's a different question entirely than addressing a question that is already beginning with those things at the very premise of the respective question at hand. And... in all honesty.... you can't have an experience of something that doesn't exist at all. It would at least have to exist as experiences. It's possible for something to exist without anywhere there to experience it... but it's not possible for there to be anyone to experience something if nothing at all exists. Experience necessarily presupposes existence but existence doesn't necessarily presuppose experience.
Scientific truths require observers but logical truths don't. Scientific truths have to be discovered by scientists but logical truths are truths in and of themselves even if there were never any logicians or philosophers there to recognize them. Why? Because all science has to presuppose is the world of phenomena because that's the world that science tests... but philosophy and logic also deal with noumenal concepts and questions outside of that.
ETA: I just realized the subject of time may be even closer to the subject of free will than I I realized. Once the illusion of the illusion of free will is gone and you realize there is no illusion... it's very easy to live in the present and be mindful and see your thoughts just as things that come and go and it's ultimately a mystery... and the same with your actions. That present thoughts and behavior and experience is all there is. The intution is to say that we truly experience libertarian free will even if it doesn't exist... but once the delusion of the illusion goes we realize all that we experienced was in fact a delusion only, not an illusion and there was no illusion: just confusion.
In the same way as our intuitions may exclaim "Of course free will exists!" without actually thinking it through fully they may also exclaim "Of course the past and future exists! We talk about them all the time!". We fail to realize that we talk about our own memories of things that we think existed or beliefs about things that we think will exist. We don't talk about things that actually exist in the past or actually exist in the future. Such concepts of past and future are never present to talk about.
And this is similar to how we fail to realize that we talk about our own thoughts and actions as being identical to our experience of them...but we don't actually talk about our selves separate from our experience authoring those experiences of those selves. Such a self isn't there to talk about.
