Objectivistic Cosmology

[Shading Inc.]

Ayn Rand was obviously inspired and influenced by Aristotle's work, but for some reasons I can't imagine her view (if any) on cosmology to be like his, so - what is the Randian cosmos like? As in, where do man and the universe come from; what is time; etc.? Did Rand adopt the popular scientific theories, or what? I'm interested in the metaphysical implications, especially those concerning the difference between Aristotle's identification of the prime mover and Rand's.

Thanks,

Jan.

[LaszloWalrus]

Ayn Rand said explicitly (in the Question-and-Answer session after her West Point talk) that she disagrees with Aristotle's cosmology.

Isn't the question of the origin of man a scientific one, not a philosophical one?

The universe has no origin; it simply is. One explains things in terms of the universe.

Time is the change in the relationship of entities.

[Shading Inc.]

Ayn Rand said explicitly (in the Question-and-Answer session after her West Point talk) that she disagrees with Aristotle's cosmology.

I bet she did.

Isn't the question of the origin of man a scientific one, not a philosophical one?

Then what are the philosophical grounds of Rand's disagreeing with Aristotle on cosmology?

The universe has no origin; it simply is. One explains things in terms of the universe.

How am I to interpret this? Are you saying that the universe (= being?) is eternal (that is, temporal, but without beginning and/or end), or that it is timeless? Or are you saying that whether it is eternal, timeless or whatever is besides the question? Or what..?

Time is the change in the relationship of entities.

That seems more like a vague paraphrase than an explicating definition.

[LaszloWalrus]

The universe is eternal; the universe does not exist in time, rather time exists in the universe.

Time is merely the relative change of various entities relationships to one another. What do you find vague about that?

[Shading Inc.]

The universe is eternal; the universe does not exist in time, rather time exists in the universe.

Is that your view or the common objectivistic view? And either way, why is it as you say it is? Where's the argument?

Time is merely the relative change of various entities relationships to one another. What do you find vague about that?

I can't make sense of time as "the relative change of various entities relationships to one another" if I don't have an idea of time already. Your explanans seems to presuppose the explanandum. Might as well say "time is time". Not saying that that's not correct, but it's not like it has a lot of explanatory value.

[DavidOdden]

Is that your view or the common objectivistic view? And either way, why is it as you say it is?

Start with the concept "universe", and a couple of quotes to establish the Objectivist position (not "objectivistic" in English). So: ‘Because the concept "existence," at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept "universe"—all that which exists.’ (ITOE 241) and ‘The universe is really the sum of everything that exists.’ (ITOE 273). Axiomatically, time exist. Therefore it is part of the universe.

I can't make sense of time as "the relative change of various entities relationships to one another" if I don't have an idea of time already. Your explanans seems to presuppose the explanandum.

But can you understand the notion of location in space, if you don't have the notion of location in space? See ITOE p. 256, for the "Time" discussion of axiomatic concepts, especially p. 259.

[Shading Inc.]

Start with the concept "universe", and a couple of quotes to establish the Objectivist position (not "objectivistic" in English). So: ‘Because the concept "existence," at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept "universe"—all that which exists.’ (ITOE 241) and ‘The universe is really the sum of everything that exists.’ (ITOE 273). Axiomatically, time exist. Therefore it is part of the universe.

Basically, you're saying that time presupposes existence, right?

But how about the other way around? Can you imagine Existence without time?

But can you understand the notion of location in space, if you don't have the notion of location in space? See ITOE p. 256, for the "Time" discussion of axiomatic concepts, especially p. 259.

I'll try to look that up some time.

[DavidOdden]

But how about the other way around? Can you imagine Existence without time?

Imaginarily-imagine, I suppose, but it would be boring. Nothing would be happening, so it would be a totally different kind of existence. No movement, so why go on living (oh, right, "go on" presupposes time)? Another way to look at is is, "No, I can't", because it would be about as different as if I were to imagine that there is no existence, or that everything is two-dimensional.

[Shading Inc.]

Imaginarily-imagine, I suppose, but it would be boring. Nothing would be happening, so it would be a totally different kind of existence. No movement, so why go on living (oh, right, "go on" presupposes time)? Another way to look at is is, "No, I can't", because it would be about as different as if I were to imagine that there is no existence, or that everything is two-dimensional.

One's imagining takes time as well, so any imagination of existence without time would not really be an image of existence without time. The only correct image of timeless existence then, would be to imagine 'nothing', but imagining is always about 'something'. My conclusion'd be that time is just as basic a given as is existence.

But wait, I'm not here to say what I think: I wanted to know some objectivistic points of view. I'll not hold it against you if you don't try to refute me. Not even mentioning that I don't want to bore you.

[DavidOdden]

One's imagining takes time as well, so any imagination of existence without time would not really be an image of existence without time. The only correct image of timeless existence then, would be to imagine 'nothing', but imagining is always about 'something'.

Right, I don't mean to imply that any imagining would exist if there were no time, so I'm taking advantage of existence as it actually is, by imagining what it would mean for there to be existence but no time. A solid block of everythingness, or something along those lines. I'm not opposed to the idea that "time" is implicit in the concept "existence", I just am not certain that it is.

[Shading Inc.]

Right, I don't mean to imply that any imagining would exist if there were no time, so I'm taking advantage of existence as it actually is, by imagining what it would mean for there to be existence but no time. A solid block of everythingness, or something along those lines. I'm not opposed to the idea that "time" is implicit in the concept "existence", I just am not certain that it is.

Well take a look at like this: 'Being' and 'existing' are verbs. Verbs are words that describe what the thing they predicate of does. When there's no time, there's nothing one can do, really. Not even just being or existing, I'd say. I think this is of fundamental importance. I am not at all being controversial when I claim that to say what something is, is to describe its function and to describe how it functions - that is, to describe what it does, and how it works. It's important that I'm talking about functions and functions here, because that stresses that teleology is at work here. Fits the Aristotelian picture, and the objectivistic one too, I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Cogito]

Fits the Aristotelian picture, and the objectivistic one too, I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not commenting on whether or not you are wrong in saying that this conception fits the viewpoints you say it does, but I do know that there is no such thing as an "objectivistic" picture. Properly, it is the Objectivist picture.

[MisterSwig]

Well take a look at like this: 'Being' and 'existing' are verbs. Verbs are words that describe what the thing they predicate of does. When there's no time, there's nothing one can do, really. Not even just being or existing, I'd say. I think this is of fundamental importance.

Time is a measurement of motion. Without something that moves, there can be no measurement of motion--no time. If the earth did not rotate on its axis, there would be no such thing as a day, nor hours, nor minutes, nor seconds, which are all based on the motion of the earth upon its axis. And if the earth did not revolve around the sun, there would be no such thing as a year, nor a decade, nor a century, nor a millennium.

[RationalBiker]

Time is a measurement of motion.

Or as I like to say (not sure the origin), "Time keeps everything from happening all at once."

[aleph_0]

One's imagining takes time as well, so any imagination of existence without time would not really be an image of existence without time. The only correct image of timeless existence then, would be to imagine 'nothing', but imagining is always about 'something'. My conclusion'd be that time is just as basic a given as is existence.

But wait, I'm not here to say what I think: I wanted to know some objectivistic points of view. I'll not hold it against you if you don't try to refute me. Not even mentioning that I don't want to bore you.

That's not entirely true. The image would exist in time, but the [edit:intesional object] of the image would not.

As another example, imagine there were in existence only three unconscious spheres. Would there be three things? Certainly we want to say "yes", no? Yet if there are no conscious entities, there would be nothing to count the spheres and so what would be left in the meaning of saying that there are three things?

The meaning would be this: I just told you there are three unconscious spheres, so ex hypothesi there are three spheres, and while I am a conscious entity counting the spheres contained in my own hypothetical situation, I am real and not included in my hypothetical situation. That I count them does not mean that the counting or the consciousness has somehow "reached into" and become a part of the ontology of my hypothetical situation.

In the same way, while I may think of a timeless existence and then stop, this in no way "injects" a time into the hypothetical situation.

Even granting the above point, though, we should still admit that time is axiomatic since it is nothing more than change (not motion, since a thing could change color while in place, and it is only through very complex and distinctly non-axiomatic science--in the sense that the science taken as a whole is not itself an axiom--that we believe some kind of locomotion occurs in any change of color), and vis-a-vis memory we know that at least one moment from the past is distinct from the present moment.

Edited January 24, 2007 by aleph_0

[Shading Inc.]

Time is a measurement of motion. Without something that moves, there can be no measurement of motion--no time. If the earth did not rotate on its axis, there would be no such thing as a day, nor hours, nor minutes, nor seconds, which are all based on the motion of the earth upon its axis. And if the earth did not revolve around the sun, there would be no such thing as a year, nor a decade, nor a century, nor a millennium.

Who needs the Earth rotating on its axis or revolving around the sun nowadays? We got watches right? But I get your point, time is measured by reference to a (preferably) stable and continuous motion: Time depends on motion. But then again, the exact opposite holds as well: Motion depends on time.

Or as I like to say (not sure the origin), "Time keeps everything from happening all at once."

"Things happening" presupposes time. I think it'd be more correct to say that time keeps things from not happening at all.

That's not entirely true. The image would exist in time, but the [edit:intesional object] of the image would not.

As another example, imagine there were in existence only three unconscious spheres. Would there be three things? Certainly we want to say "yes", no? Yet if there are no conscious entities, there would be nothing to count the spheres and so what would be left in the meaning of saying that there are three things?

Are you saying that esse est percipi? Because I won't buy into that. And what's the intensional object of something that doesn't exist, by my reckoning couldn't even exist, in the first place?

The meaning would be this: I just told you there are three unconscious spheres, so ex hypothesi there are three spheres, and while I am a conscious entity counting the spheres contained in my own hypothetical situation, I am real and not included in my hypothetical situation. That I count them does not mean that the counting or the consciousness has somehow "reached into" and become a part of the ontology of my hypothetical situation.

In the same way, while I may think of a timeless existence and then stop, this in no way "injects" a time into the hypothetical situation.

But that's not what I was thinking. If I imagine a universe and then delete time from it, my first intuition would be to say that everything in this universe freezes, but does this really mean that in this universe there's no time anymore? I don't think so. It is merely the case that because everything has frozen still, it has become impossible to measure time - but if something can't be measured, does that necessarily mean it doesn't exist? You'll have to agree with me on grounds of simple logic that that's not a sound inference.

Even granting the above point, though, we should still admit that time is axiomatic since it is nothing more than change (not motion, since a thing could change color while in place, and it is only through very complex and distinctly non-axiomatic science--in the sense that the science taken as a whole is not itself an axiom--that we believe some kind of locomotion occurs in any change of color), and vis-a-vis memory we know that at least one moment from the past is distinct from the present moment.

Change is the only evidence we have of this thing we refer to as time, but I think we shouldn't mistake our perceptions with the thing these perceptions are about.

[DavidV]

Time depends on motion. But then again, the exact opposite holds as well: Motion depends on time.

No it doesn't. Consider another dimension - length. The concept of length requires two entities of different lengths - the entity to measure by and the entity being measured. You can't measure anything without something to be measured, something to be measured by, and someone doing the measurement. Before there were people around, the four dimensions still existed, but the concepts describing their various properties did not.

[Shading Inc.]

No it doesn't. Consider another dimension - length. The concept of length requires two entities of different lengths - the entity to measure by and the entity being measured. You can't measure anything without something to be measured, something to be measured by, and someone doing the measurement. Before there were people around, the four dimensions still existed, but the concepts describing their various properties did not.

Compairing time with lenght might not be a good idea, length being spatial, time not. There's a huge difference there. I have access to all the six basic directions of the universe: I can climb up, or jump down, and take steps forward, backward, to the right and to the left. I can turn my senses to any of these directions as well. But I can't move around in time, nor can I turn my senses towards the future or the past. (Yes, I have memories and I have expectations about what's going to happen next, but this is not something I do by turning my eyes or any other of my senses towards this or that direction.) In contrast to my freedom within the three spatial dimensions, I seem to be locked up within some sort of eternal now. As such, time isn't much of a dimension, taking dimension to mean a being (= verb) extended in two opposite directions. As I said, compairing time with length may be kind of confusing.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Shading Inc.

[aequalsa]

Compairing time with lenght might not be a good idea, length being spatial, time not. There's a huge difference there. I have access to all the six basic directions of the universe: I can climb up, or jump down, and take steps forward, backward, to the right and to the left. I can turn my senses to any of these directions as well. But I can't move around in time, nor can I turn my senses towards the future or the past. (Yes, I have memories and I have expectations about what's going to happen next, but this is not something I do by turning my eyes or any other of my senses towards this or that direction.) In contrast to my freedom within the three spatial dimensions, I seem to be locked up within some sort of eternal now. As such, time isn't much of a dimension, taking dimension to mean a being (= verb) extended in two opposite directions. As I said, compairing time with length may be kind of confusing.

A circumstance where visualizing time is especially helpful for me is during a chess game. When looking at the board, I find it a great deal more understandable if I see the pieces in terms of their potential movements. So a Bishop is an X on the board intersecting 4 pieces or edges. A Rook is a +, and so forth. Time is broken down into "turns" of course, but the principle is the same. I can effectively see the object exist through time as a number of positions relative to other pertinent objects. Incidentally, on a broader scale, this works with martial arts, as well. That is how I "access" the concept mentally.

[MisterSwig]

Who needs the Earth rotating on its axis or revolving around the sun nowadays? We got watches right?

A watch is only accurate if its movement is in accord (proportionally) with the movement of the earth on its axis. A watch can be fast or slow, or it can stop--in relation to the earth's rotation. Your watch might be fast, but that doesn't mean it is tomorrow. It might be slow, but that doesn't mean it is yesterday. And your watch might even stop, like mine did last week, but that doesn't mean the universe has ceased functioning.

But I get your point, time is measured by reference to a (preferably) stable and continuous motion: Time depends on motion.

That's not my point exactly. Time is not measured. It is, itself, a measurement--a measurement of motion.

It might be helpful to compare the concept of time with the concept of weight, which is a measurement of mass (given a specific gravitational context). Hopefully, it is clear that without a body of matter, there could be no such thing as weight. What would it mean to speak of weight if there was no matter to be weighed? Likewise, there could be no such thing as time without a body of matter in motion. What would it mean to speak of time if there was no moving matter to be timed?

I can't think of any better way to explain time. So I'll duck out of this thread now and leave you with a quote from Leonard Peikoff on the subject:

Time is a measurement of motion; as such, it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe, when you define a standard--such as the motion of the earth around the sun. If you take that as a unit, you can say: "This person has a certain relationship to that motion; he has existed for three revolutions; he is three years old." But when you get to the universe as a whole, obviously no standard is applicable. You cannot get outside the universe. The universe is eternal in the literal sense: non-temporal, out of time.

[aleph_0]

Are you saying that esse est percipi? Because I won't buy into that. And what's the intensional object of something that doesn't exist, by my reckoning couldn't even exist, in the first place?

No, the later sentence of the quote, which I assume is what misled you to believe I am claiming esse est percipi, was a numerical analogue to your statement about time. I was arguing against it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the intensional object of something that doesn't exist". The intensional object is three hypothetical unconscious spheres. That which carries the intension is consciousness (the "image", as you called it), which certainly exists.

But that's not what I was thinking. If I imagine a universe and then delete time from it, my first intuition would be to say that everything in this universe freezes, but does this really mean that in this universe there's no time anymore? I don't think so. It is merely the case that because everything has frozen still, it has become impossible to measure time - but if something can't be measured, does that necessarily mean it doesn't exist? You'll have to agree with me on grounds of simple logic that that's not a sound inference.

Absolutely, simply because you cannot measure a thing does not imply its lack of existence--though it makes it arbitrary to talk about its existence unless you have some other non-commensurable method of investigation, but I'm not sure how that would even work or if such a notion is sensible.

Yet that's not what we're dealing with. You are talking about imagining a world, and then you are stipulating "this world has no time". Such a consideration precludes any worlds with time. Measurability doesn't apply because you are only considering possibilities which are incompatible with the further supposition of there being time. As an analogue back to the situation in which there are three unconscious spheres, it would be as if to say, "Imagine a world with only three unconscious spheres. How do we know there are not four? Just because we cannot count the fourth one? That's surely an invalid inference!" But we know there cannot be four, because in constructing the situation, you stipulated that there are only three! If you're familiar with Kripke, he would say that you are taking the picture of "possible worlds" a little far. When you say, "Imagine a world in which Nixon has undergone such extensive surgery that he looks like Einsenhower, and every observer takes him to be Eisenhower" it is then not a legitimate question to ask, "Well then how do you know it's Nixon?" That it is Nixon was part of the set up, so it is undeniably Nixon of whom we speak. In logic, it would be tantamount to saying, "Provisionally assume P. Now provisionally assume not-P. In this case, both P and not-P--contradiction!"

Change is the only evidence we have of this thing we refer to as time, but I think we shouldn't mistake our perceptions with the thing these perceptions are about.

I beg to differ. Imagine a passage of time with literally, fundamentally, and absolutely no change. What would it mean, here, to say, "Time has passed"? In what way would this situation differ from a world in which there is no time at all? There would be no difference in any possible way, and "two" things which share all of the same properties are the same thing.

Compairing time with lenght might not be a good idea, length being spatial, time not. There's a huge difference there. I have access to all the six basic directions of the universe: I can climb up, or jump down, and take steps forward, backward, to the right and to the left. I can turn my senses to any of these directions as well. But I can't move around in time, nor can I turn my senses towards the future or the past. (Yes, I have memories and I have expectations about what's going to happen next, but this is not something I do by turning my eyes or any other of my senses towards this or that direction.) In contrast to my freedom within the three spatial dimensions, I seem to be locked up within some sort of eternal now. As such, time isn't much of a dimension, taking dimension to mean a being (= verb) extended in two opposite directions. As I said, compairing time with length may be kind of confusing.

I'm not sure there is such a huge difference. Then again, I'm not sure there is not such a huge difference. One might say, "Consider the comparison of length and height--you can't! One is essentially a separate dimension from the other, and you cannot commensurate distinct dimensions. If you measure length by anything it must be by measures of length--not height." On the other hand, time might have some unique property which makes it incommensurable in this regard. Perhaps the reversibility you mention would be relevant. I don't know, and it's not obvious.

[Matt Miklautsch]

http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/U...nded_Finite.htm

Perhaps this will answer some of your questions. It is quite well written. It is written by Alex.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Matt Miklautsch

[aleph_0]

In that link, I don't understand why the infinite is impossible.

[Shading Inc.]

A circumstance where visualizing time is especially helpful for me is during a chess game. When looking at the board, I find it a great deal more understandable if I see the pieces in terms of their potential movements. So a Bishop is an X on the board intersecting 4 pieces or edges. A Rook is a +, and so forth. Time is broken down into "turns" of course, but the principle is the same. I can effectively see the object exist through time as a number of positions relative to other pertinent objects. Incidentally, on a broader scale, this works with martial arts, as well. That is how I "access" the concept mentally.

I think that this is how any sane person would access the concept mentally, when giving the matter some serious thought, but still - it explains nothing. Knowing what time looks like (as in, somehow having perceptions of it) isn't the same as knowing what it is.

[Shading Inc.]

A watch is only accurate if its movement is in accord (proportionally) with the movement of the earth on its axis. A watch can be fast or slow, or it can stop--in relation to the earth's rotation. Your watch might be fast, but that doesn't mean it is tomorrow. It might be slow, but that doesn't mean it is yesterday. And your watch might even stop, like mine did last week, but that doesn't mean the universe has ceased functioning.

You 're juggling with concepts. It's not very helpful.

That's not my point exactly. Time is not measured. It is, itself, a measurement--a measurement of motion.

It really makes no difference. Either time is a measurement of motion, or motion is a measurement of time. Which is more basic? Motion, or time? Whatever be the case, it still leaves us with at least one incomprehensible factor.

It might be helpful to compare the concept of time with the concept of weight, which is a measurement of mass (given a specific gravitational context). Hopefully, it is clear that without a body of matter, there could be no such thing as weight. What would it mean to speak of weight if there was no matter to be weighed? Likewise, there could be no such thing as time without a body of matter in motion. What would it mean to speak of time if there was no moving matter to be timed?

I've said this before: Things moving presuppose time.