Submitted by owlthatissuperb t3_10do9y0 in philosophy
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j63oh02 wrote
Reply to comment by WrongAspects in Physicist Max Planck on Idealism and the Role of Faith in Science by owlthatissuperb
This is a really common thing in philosophy though--we need rigorous technical definitions in order to make sure we're discussing the same thing.
There is a lot of discussion in the philosophy of time about the nature of eternity and infinity. You might find this article interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time
WrongAspects t1_j63vcd8 wrote
But this is not ash attempt at rigorous definition. It’s an attempt at special pleading for God.
For example what does it mean for something to exist outside of time? There is no definition of exist which doesn’t depend on time. If I have a billion dollars for zero seconds or if my billion dollars is outside of time can you claim it exists?
This is people who believe in God trying to redefine words so that their absurd belief seems a little less absurd.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j65pddu wrote
This is something a LOT of philosophers think about, not just theists. E.g. Plato would say that mathematical truths are eternal--they exist independent of time. Physicist Roger Penrose, an Agnostic, would likely agree.
Penrose has some really out-there conceptions of time if you're interested in philosophy of time, especially with an angle towards physics. He's been doing some great interviews on IAI.
WrongAspects t1_j65sut5 wrote
You didn’t address my points. The word exists doesn’t make sense outside of time.
What you are doing is conflating different people saying different things about time and then concluding that God not only exists but is outside of time and this doesn’t mean he is infinitely old.
You cite Penrose. Penrose says time is fundamental and that there is no such thing as outside of time. He thinks that universes come into existence in time and then die off and get recreated again. Of course most physicists disagree with him, they think time began with the universe.
Finally Penrose doesn’t believe a God exists and created the universe. Most physicists also believe this so maybe it’s not best to try and cite science when trying to claim a God exists.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j65wjo2 wrote
Just to be clear--I'm not arguing that God exists, or even that eternal things exist. I'm only arguing that these concepts are sensible, and have been widely studied, by people far smarter than a couple of redditors :P
WrongAspects t1_j66p6kn wrote
I just pointed out that they are not sensible. It literally makes no sense for something to exist for no time or outside of time.
I also told you what some of those people you are talking about say. You cited Penrose I told you his views on time. He says nothing exists outside of time and there is no such thing as outside of time.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j66ya8x wrote
Curious if you can provide any quotes/etc that back up your claims about Penrose saying "nothing exists outside of time and there is no such thing as outside of time."
Penrose is frequently described as a Platonist [1] [2] [3] [4]. The opening paragraph on Platonism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [5] says:
> Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental.
I find this diagram really useful for thinking about Penrose's picture of reality.
[1] https://www.cantorsparadise.com/is-roger-penrose-a-platonist-or-a-pythagorean-f98ee8e70d9c
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument
WrongAspects t1_j67nd9l wrote
His views of time and the cyclic universe are well documented and he himself has described them numerous times in interviews found on the web.
I have never heard him describe himself as a platonist and even he was it doesn’t mean he accepts as a religion which demands strict obedience to some written dogma. He obviously believes in abstract mathematics and obviously believes mathematics can accurately reflect and describe reality. Some people may call that Platonism. Having said that I get the feeling platonists want to claim he is because it will afford their theory some prestige to be accepted by a famous scientist.
Penrose is first and foremost a scientist. He has a bedrock belief in empiricism and the importance of strict observation conducted using the scientific method.
owlthatissuperb OP t1_j692kn4 wrote
Agreed on all points!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments