oldsalt Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Metaphysically, entities are space; epistemologically, entities are spacial. Time is a measurement of the spacial realtionship between entities in reality. You cannot say that an entity is in space. This is the same as saying that space is defined as the absense of an existent; i.e., saying that space is the absence of an entity (a something), is the same as saying that it is nothing, and therefore, does not exist. Time is an abstract (i.e., conceptual) expression of one kind of relationship (motion) between entities. Spacial relationships determine temporal ones. Both are epistemological, not metaphysical, in nature because both are abstract concepts defining relationships (and their measurements) between entities in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Ok, going back and reading the last ten posts, I agree. Time/space are only relationships between objects... Considering this, I still have one gripe: Both are epistemological, not metaphysical, in nature because both are abstract concepts defining relationships (and their measurements) between entities in reality Relationships between objects are metaphysical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Young - "and not the fullness of their metaphysical existence" Careful. That's sounding [fill in any philosopher's name]-ian: things-in-themselves; phenomenal; forms. Richard_Halley - Entities only exist as they are. "Now" is the only form in which they exist, in which they have identity. "Past" is your memory; "future" is your conceptualized projection; neither exists as a metaphysical absolute. Time and space are not metaphysical existents, but epistemological abstractions based on the identity of anything and everything existing. To say "all or some of space" is to name not an entity but a class of possible relationships - to name a concept; a similar principle pertains to "all or some of time". Relationships between objects, you are correct in saying, are metaphysical. Distance-in-space and distance-in-time are relationships, and they are metaphysical existents. "Ten feet apart" is a metaphysical existent; "here" is an epistemological tool. oldsalt - "Spacial relationships determine temporal ones." That's incorrect; spatial relationshps and temporal ones do not depend on each other. In fact, spatial and temporal relationships are merely the two aspects of a single more fundamental relationship, the spacetime interval (that's what all the Relativity texts call it). Interval means distance between - but here, it's neither spatial distance nor temporal distance but both at once. Just as extent in any one direction is not an existent, but all three directions of extent taken together are, so all three are not, but all three plus time are. If you hop in a spaceship and zoom out of here at half the speed of light you'll see (perceive) what I mean; until then, you'll have to conceptualize it. Perhaps you recall the distance-formula: s^2 = (x^2 + y^2 + z^2). In spacetime, the distance-formula is: s^2 = (-t^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2). The spacetime interval between to entities is a metaphysical absolute; taking the time interval independently is like taking the width independently: a handy conceptual trick somewhat similar to separating attributes from entities, but not a metaphysical existent. To sign off - to say "something must exist there" is to say "nothing; ergo something." It's not true, and you all know the reason why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Relationships between objects, you are correct in saying, are metaphysical. Distance-in-space and distance-in-time are relationships, and they are metaphysical existents. "Ten feet apart" is a metaphysical existent; "here" is an epistemological tool. This was exacly my point in my last post... that and the two paragraphs before it were unnecessary as I have already stated agreement with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 True, although I was posting that both to you and to oldsalt. My intention was to affirm your point, provide the basis for it, to buttress it to oldsalt, and to put a new angle into words. You are perfectly correct in what you said and I wasn't contradicting it; I was fleshing it out to both of you, stating what is metaphysical and what is epistemological and what the difference between them is. I guess I'm sooooo argumentative that it's hard to tell when I'm not . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Feldblum: I find that you often state agreement without being clear that you intend to state agreement... so you sound like you think you disagree but don't state anything which actually disagrees. From now on, if you forget to say "I agree" at the beginning of a post and I don't see any contradiction, I will just assume you know you are agreeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Well I'm glad we're all in agreement, next topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Richard_Halley - I agree with the principle. Often, though, I get into all sorts of contortions about the details. I'll try to remember to specify which - principle or details - I am disputing. I do admit, I'm not a novelist/philosopher and my writing style isn't of the highest quality, but only crude and argumentative beyond reason. Much of the time, when I sound like I'm disagreeing but it's hard to see how, I'm disagreeing with some fine point, not the principles. I suppose the appropriate analogy is white-coated laboratory types with their microscopes at the highest magnification setting. If I say "Correct, but," that's your clue. But then again, much of the time I'm reaffirming, stressing, reformulating, or otherwise agreeing. Also, on this forum, nothing I say (unless it's the one-word sentence "Troll." or anything like it) is meant as an offense to anyone. Please don't take it as though it is. The preceding sentence was in general and not necessarily in response to anything actual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondigitalia Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 dondigitalia - Time, as all features of a geometry, signifies only relationships between existents. It is not an independent entity in its own right. Perhaps I should have siad "the passage of time would occur" rather than "time would exist." Is there any problem with this statement? Thanks for helping to carify my thoughts, btw. You seem to be getting @ what I was thinking. I have trouble putting my thought into words sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 8, 2004 Report Share Posted April 8, 2004 "Time passes" - that's fine. (The passage of time is one of the rules of the world which are implicit in the concept "to exist". It's not an entity that exists independently.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.