Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gödel and the unreality of time

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 132 posts

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

#111

Post by komali2 »

Koshkin wrote: post #80
taeric wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that implicit, though? By virtue of being able to state that at some point you were not born, you were necessarily at some point born.

Non-existence is complicated. In an obvious (and trivial) sense future itself does not exist, so one cannot tell whether someone in particular (e.g. another Einstein) is not born "yet" or "ever". On the other hand, one might argue that (for example) wasted sperm and eggs should count as "not born". But even that can be seen as too limiting, because - perhaps, somewhat paradoxically - to be completely objective one sh…

Re sperm and eggs, this is my go-to argument against anti-womans-choicers: functionally there is no difference between plan A (condoms and birth control), plan B (the morning after pill), and plan C (abortion) - all three result in a baby not being born. If one is going to argue that it's a crime that a fertilized egg is terminated, one must also lament the loss of billions of lives to periods.

Unfortunately this argument doesn't hold water when someone tries to say that their god intervenes and decides to overcome man-made barriers to fertilization, because that particular special snowflake baby needs to be born. Unsure why the soul assigned to that fertilized egg doesn't just find another but that just goes to show how messy the whole damn debate is.

Incidentally, this is also my argument against me having babies - knowing that regardless of the number of babies I have, I will feel unconditional love and gratitude at each and every one's existence, and because I can't possibly compare my comfort or economic well being against the value of a human life, the only logical conclusion I can come to is I should have as many babies as I physically can. Or, I should have none.

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

#112

Post by komali2 »

taeric wrote: post #94
Koshkin wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like saying that the future is exactly like the past. (Which is true when applied to the question of non-existence, because what did not exist will cease to exist or continue to be non-existent.)

But that is only true of things which do not come into existence, no? I can safely say I did not exist a thousand years ago, nor will I exist in a thousand years. Further, I can say that from my point of death on, I am non-existent. Similarly, before my birth, I was non-existent. However, my state of non-existence ended at my birth. Just as my state of existence will end at my death. In this regard, the future is not…

>I can safely say I did not exist a thousand years ago...

I'm not sure of that, yet. We haven't managed to pin down what "I" is or even what "existence" is. I'm thinking in the "we virtualized a copy of your brain" sense - just what is consciousness?

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

#114

Post by Koshkin »

komali2 wrote: post #111
Koshkin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-existence is complicated. In an obvious (and trivial) sense future itself does not exist, so one cannot tell whether someone in particular (e.g. another Einstein) is not born "yet" or "ever". On the other hand, one might argue that (for example) wasted sperm and eggs should count as "not born". But even that can be seen as too limiting, because - perhaps, somewhat paradoxically - to be completely objective one sh…

Re sperm and eggs, this is my go-to argument against anti-womans-choicers: functionally there is no difference between plan A (condoms and birth control), plan B (the morning after pill), and plan C (abortion) - all three result in a baby not being born. If one is going to argue that it's a crime that a fertilized egg is terminated, one must also lament the loss of billions of lives to periods. Unfortunately this arg…

> I should have as many babies as I physically can

Consider quantity vs. quality, though. Quoting Lenin, "We must follow the rule: Better fewer, but better. We must follow the rule: Better get good human material in two or even three years than work in haste without hope of getting any at all." 'None' would be the best choice here: you could, instead, adopt a child and by doing so save a life and contribute to keeping the human population within reasonable bounds at the same time!

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

#115

Post by Koshkin »

gowld wrote: post #100
Koshkin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-existence is complicated. In an obvious (and trivial) sense future itself does not exist, so one cannot tell whether someone in particular (e.g. another Einstein) is not born "yet" or "ever". On the other hand, one might argue that (for example) wasted sperm and eggs should count as "not born". But even that can be seen as too limiting, because - perhaps, somewhat paradoxically - to be completely objective one sh…

> Non-existence is complicated. Doesn't look like anything to me.

It does exist, though.

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

#116

Post by Koshkin »

komali2 wrote: post #112
taeric wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is only true of things which do not come into existence, no? I can safely say I did not exist a thousand years ago, nor will I exist in a thousand years. Further, I can say that from my point of death on, I am non-existent. Similarly, before my birth, I was non-existent. However, my state of non-existence ended at my birth. Just as my state of existence will end at my death. In this regard, the future is not…

>I can safely say I did not exist a thousand years ago... I'm not sure of that, yet. We haven't managed to pin down what "I" is or even what "existence" is. I'm thinking in the "we virtualized a copy of your brain" sense - just what is consciousness ?

> what "existence" is

Indeed, the very existence (and non-existence) could be relative - just like time and space. For example, in one frame of reference there may exist a magnetic field while in the other there may be none.

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

#117

Post by svieira »

komali2 wrote: post #111
Koshkin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-existence is complicated. In an obvious (and trivial) sense future itself does not exist, so one cannot tell whether someone in particular (e.g. another Einstein) is not born "yet" or "ever". On the other hand, one might argue that (for example) wasted sperm and eggs should count as "not born". But even that can be seen as too limiting, because - perhaps, somewhat paradoxically - to be completely objective one sh…

Re sperm and eggs, this is my go-to argument against anti-womans-choicers: functionally there is no difference between plan A (condoms and birth control), plan B (the morning after pill), and plan C (abortion) - all three result in a baby not being born. If one is going to argue that it's a crime that a fertilized egg is terminated, one must also lament the loss of billions of lives to periods. Unfortunately this arg…

> Unsure why the soul assigned to that fertilized egg doesn't just find another

That's the thing with free will - if it's free, then it can choose things that will prevent (for example) the woman who will discover a general cure for cancer from being born. Just as a random guy with a knife can prevent that same woman from publishing the cure she figured out last night when he stabs her to death in an alley in Queens. "Free will without consequences" is as nonsensical as "rights without duties".

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

#118

Post by hndamien »

zdkl wrote: post #63
jerry40 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is real in the simulation, I believe.

That's a different point than the one you were making! And I didn't mean illusory in opposition to real. Is the pleasure I derive from an illusory steak in the Matrix not real?

The pleasure is in fact real and cannot be made illusory.

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

#119

Post by hoosieree »

komali2 wrote: post #101
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A subjective observer can never be ‘dead’ from their own perspective. As a former boxer who has been "knocked out", I have always speculated that feeling is akin to what death would "feel like" (that is, nothing at all). When you are knocked out (as aside from asleep) you have no experience. You don't dream, you don't feel has though time has passed - you don't feel anything. One second you are awake and aware and t…

This may not be everyone's experience, but I have been "lucky" enough to be choked out accidentally during some sparring sessions. It doesn't always happen this way, but when it does it's insightful: I first get a very strong sense of "Wrong," as my understanding of the laws of physics vanish. If the choke has finished and I'm left standing but still going to black out, I'll probably topple at this point as I misunde…

I wonder how much this aligns with the parts of the physical brain associated with those different parts of the consciousness (ego, understanding, fear, sensory, autonomous nervous system), and when they start to be deprived of oxygen. From the way you described it, it very much has the feel of going back in time from "civilized person" to "lizard brain".

Re: Gödel and the unreality of time

#120

Post by taeric »

Koshkin wrote: post #96
taeric wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I'll agree that my not existing after death would be similar to my not existing before death. In that, it helps make this a cute saying. However, that still says nothing of the difference between dying and not being born. Just because things have a large similarity does not mean they are equal, after all. Your odd argument that "wasted" sperm and such should somehow count towards "born/not born" just seems a n…

Well, clearly, non-existence after death is different from both types of non-existence mentioned above. (Incidentally, there are many more types of non-existence than just these.)

Isn't that inline with what I was saying?
Post reply on HN