Time as Two-Fold

Today's rather verbose discussion led me to a large variety of insights about the nature of Time... though I'm not certain that they necessarily equated to any kind of coherent whole, as the discourse over past weeks had. Nonetheless, I was left intrigued, and perhaps more curious toward the subject I'd admittedly given very little thought to in the past.

Despite the elusive, back-and-forth nature of our conversations--all of the random tangents, anecdotes, and arbitrarily examples seemed somehow to push toward the same direction. I've come to recognize Time as a duality of sorts; simultaneously absolute and relative. How can it carry both connotations in a singular, consistent definition? Perhaps it embodies more than one.

Therefore, we ought to sort out what we mean when we seek to describe or characterize Time--considering the context, intention, and semantics that will correlate to the discussion. If we separate Actual Time (or Space-Time; that is, the absolute, unyielding, immeasurable processes of time) with Perceived Time (Time as we colloquially know it--practically measurable in terms of minutes, days, months, years, etc), it renders an indescribably more sensible means of discourse.

To elaborate, I would go on to suggest that Actual Time embodies the absoluteness of the Universe--it refers to the unending, perpetual processes that constitute all that reality is, even outside of our ability to measure it. It does not relate to specific integers, nor is it subject to our manipulation... it simply refers to the natural change that is incurred in objects or energies simply by existing.

Perceived Time, on the other hand, holds a more obvious and approachable connotation. In a contemporary sense, it corresponds largely to the lunar calender and rotation of the earth as we have observed it--though past civilizations have offered countless alternatives. It is highly critical to the functioning of modern societies, so much so that it's coordinated at an international level. In addition to daily/weekly measurements (that behave cyclicly), larger-scale increments likewise exist to map occurrences into chronology--and these are easily portrayed as being subject to a 'Time-line' or (mathematically speaking), a line segment.

"If we assume that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed, and there has passed away in that world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world-series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence."

~Immanuel Kant

Reply: Meaning of Life for Animals

In her recent post, Becky wrote a quick summary of her opinion regarding general animal treatment, and I had been interested in responding to it. Here is a quick excerpt for whomever hadn't had the chance to read through it:

"Animals don't have complex goals like us so I feel like that reason alone justifies humans eating them. All cows do is eat grass all day... that's the sad truth. So what is the meaning of their lives? They cannot create a new invention, they cannot think complex thoughts, they cannot benefit society in anyway except for feeding us, so why don't we just accept their contribution to the world and to us?"

Taken line-by-line, I find immense fault in this variation of thought. Much defense of animal slaughter or mistreatment comes from an inherently subjective standpoint, in the sense that we see their lives through a sort of "lens" of human perception. We access their behaviors by our standards, impose our own morality or immorality upon them, and patronize them for their incompleteness. Ultimately, this logic is fallacy. Their competency cannot be compared to our own; all creatures have evolved with respectively distinct characteristics, and each is uniquely suited for its surroundings.

Many also cite man's dominance as a natural necessity, claiming the mistreatment (and/or consumption) of animals as our "obligation" for essentially dominating the food chain. While it may be true that humanity is born with the potential to claim dominion over less intellectually capable creatures, most societies have long since surpassed this--and needlessly so. From my perspective, the superfluous harvesting of animals, and the unquestionably horrific conditions in which we do so can render no morally sensible defense.

"...the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."

Henry Beston

--Aaron

Reply: What is Real/True?

I found Emily's post interesting in the sense that she effectively grounded it with academic subjects we've all had at least minimal experience with--I think they're workable examples in terms of that discussion. As a precursor, I want to note that all of this, of course, comes from my own experience and intuition--I'm not claiming that any of it is necessarily true or without logistical flaw.

That said, I'm no mathematician, or even actually very good at mathematics, but I strongly feel that their interpretation and reception in mainstream society has come to be considerably skewed. As Emily noted, "Despite my skeptical nature, I never questioned math and science. I really believed (and I still do, so far) that math had always existed; it was simply discovered by humans- not created." This may in some form be true--the nature of the world almost entirely adheres to a uniform collection of Physics and Mathematical properties that we can easily quantify, measure, or sometimes, exploit. The laws of physics are absolute, never wavering from their linearity. They have existed long before our ability to perceive them, and probably always shall.

However, I believe that although these properties certainly defy and outlast human existence indefinitely, I also firmly take the stance that we as intelligent creatures impose our own essence upon them--we measure and manipulate an endless spectrum of variables into a simplified, comprehensible language. (That is colloquially known as 'Mathematics.') While many elements of this language are entirely sensible, I view others... simpler components, even--to be quite arbitrary. Why, for example, did early Mathematicians dictate that 1,2,3(etc.) were the intervals in which we were to measure? Why is 1.4883289 not its own (whole) number, maintaining its own equal and effectively highlighted significance as more common integers do? As it exists between two conceptual amounts, when taken to a real-world setting, does it even truly exist? It depends on the context.

My ability to articulate is likely hindered by my extremely limited Mathematical knowledge, but I suppose the core of my assertion suggests that Math is, as we know it, a language. It is a language that measures quantitative reasoning in the same sense that English is a language that dictates linguistics in the sounds of our speech. (I do not believe Math to actually be the physical/logistical laws we utilize, any more than English as the literal ability of human beings to communicate--that is essentially the reason there are hundreds of thousands of languages we can never begin to fathom.) Neither is more arbitrary than the other, they are simply separate concepts.

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

Albert Einstein

--Aaron

The truth about truth.

I'll be upfront in admitting that my immediate and intuitive reaction was to promptly dismiss the merits of the coherence theory altogether--that it seemed somehow illegitimate simply by its open-ended and largely theoretical nature. How could we, with any actual certainty, place faith in a seemingly contrived system of semantics... allowing a rather loosely-defined language of 'logic' to be our only assurance? To me this seemed like little more than a spectrum of agreeableness that had arisen among philosophers, serving its purpose as far as discourse was concerned, but lacking any practical or particularly meaningful application otherwise. I was pretty skeptical!

But, you know, with some contemplation, I think my standpoint shifted a little. It occurred to me that the Coherence Theory of Truth hadn't necessarily come about because the Correspondence Theory was flawed, but rather our inherently limited capacity to observe the world may have been. We are all creatures that strive toward truth--making observations, decisions, and judgments in relation to all of our individual experiences... convinced, perhaps, that the conclusions we discover are without error or fault. (They aren't!) Ultimately, in spite of whatever we know to be objective, we all perceive the world with bias, however slight or negligible we may train it to be.

With the above said, Coherence becomes all the more understandable to me--that if taken as a supplement to Correspondence, and not necessarily a rigid replacement, we may attempt to manipulate systems of logic to enhance and supplement all that we experience... more simply, to make sense of what we see. Although noticeably distinct in their measures, both theories are devices that seek the same end, and from what I understand, I strongly advocate their use in harmony with one-another. If 'ultimate truth' is to genuinely exist--it is likely that we may more effectively try finding it through the interplay of these theories.

"We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart."

Blaise Pascal

--Aaron