foundations of reason

Originally posted by Nemesio
I have thought about it, and I think they are real. Do you care to elaborate as to why concepts
are not real?

Nemesio

It depends what catagory you are using for "real" or "exist".

Did you read the bit about reification? If you had you would see that basically it's about catagory errors.

A concept is not in the same catagory of reality as a substance. A substance can be put into a test tube , a concept cannot.

A concept exists in our mental states as a series of electrical impulses. But is the concept more real than the electrical impulse?

I'm not saying that concepts don't exist per se I am saying that a concept like time is often reified so that it's talked about as if it were a physical "force" rather than a concept.

Please read the extract beofre we continue further.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ooooooh you can be so playful at times! Of course it's a paradox for me as well but it's not one I have to face because I don't believe in the model of existence that gives rise to the paradox.

I'm bringing it up because those who believe that time has a beginning have to ask themselves how this came about when there was no time in which this coul ...[text shortened]... state because there was no pre-existing time in which the beginning of time could begin in.

So, if you don't believe in the model that gives rise to a paradox, then you cannot use that model to make the claim that the time dimension is eternal. Using someones false model to prove that your reality is a certain way? Cant you see the flaw in such a method?

You may not of course believe that time actually began and that time is beginningless.
I am not sure what you are on about there. Can you explain it a bit better?

That would make time eternal in my book , but of course you don't like this idea any more than you like the paradox so you come up with some non-committal stuff and postulate about circles and such like where time has a beginning but doesn't really.
I am non-committal about whether or not the time dimension is finite. Can you give me a good reason why I should commit to something I have no evidence for - not even a whisper from God? Why do you keep going with the non-committal claim? I have explained it before quite adequately.

You seem to have found a way of slipping between the cracks on this one so that you don't have to think about eternity but you can also escape those nasty paradoxes too.
I was never faced with either problem. It is you that fears those outcomes. I am quite happy with either a finite time (that I do not now nor never have considered a paradox), or an infinite (eternal) time.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It depends what catagory you are using for "real" or "exist".

Did you read the bit about reification? If you had you would see that basically it's about catagory errors.

A concept is not in the same catagory of reality as a substance. A substance can be put into a test tube , a concept cannot.

A concept exists in our mental states as a seri "force" rather than a concept.

Please read the extract beofre we continue further.

I cannot begin to explain to you the magnitude of irony embedded in your citing the 'fallacy of
ambiguity!' I genuinely wouldn't know where to begin. And, the fact that you have the gall to be
patronizing ('if you had read this you would have understood better'😉 is just that much more
astonishing.

I know that a concept has a different sort of reality than a substance. So does twhitehead. So
does just about everybody. That doesn't mean that a concept isn't real, just different than a
substance.

So, you are equivocating. You said you didn't think time really existed. That's a BS claim. Now,
you're merely saying that it doesn't exist in the same way as an ice cream cone exists. Well,
you've moved the goalposts from saying something that makes no sense to something that
everyone agrees on. But you're still acting like people disagree. If you said what you meant
the first time, then we could continue the conversation from a point of agreement rather than
foolishness.

When you said 'I don't believe time exists in reality,' what you meant was 'Time is not a substance,
but only exists as a concept.'

You need to learn to articulate yourself accurately the first time or, in those cases where you
fail to articulate yourself clearly, admit that you were vague, equivocal, or ambiguous, and
amend it.

Nemesio

KM, you said you don't believe time exists in reality! And you don't believe that distance exists either! Great!

I put aside the fact that you desperately want to separate Time from Space, which blows up your whole argument at this threat. Just a question: how do you explain Motion if Time/Space does not exist?

Originally posted by black beetle
KM, you said you don't believe time exists in reality! And you don't believe that distance exists either! Great!

I put aside the fact that you desperately want to separate Time from Space, which blows up your whole argument at this threat. Just a question: how do you explain Motion if Time/Space does not exist?

...or you believe that Motion does not exist too??

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes , don't know

No

Yes , Yes

It's interesting that you believe God's love has substance but man's love does not.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It's interesting that you believe God's love has substance but man's love does not.

YOU need to read the wiki article on reification. YOU obviously don't know anything about logic.
YOU even think contradictions exist!

What a maroon! Your foolishness is rivaled only by your unwillingness to learn!

Originally posted by Nemesio
YOU need to read the wiki article on reification. YOU obviously don't know anything about logic.
YOU even think contradictions exist!

What a maroon! Your foolishness is rivaled only by your unwillingness to learn!

Until you can demonstrate that my foolishness is made of something, I will persist in believing that it doesn't exist.

What is reification even made of?