Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk
By "logical" I'm assuming Boxcar to mean "metaphysical"-the aspects of reality that are not captured by quantifying them.
It would be incoherent to say that "11:00 P.M. on March 16th, 2019 precedes 11:00 P.M. on March 15th, 2019.
I understand Boxcar to be stating that since "Tomorrow becomes Today (Tomorrow undergoing the changing, actively proceeding backwards), ergo the future precedes the past" captures metaphysical reality.
It seems to me if he were metaphysically consistent, in his scheme "Tomorrow" has the potential to become "Today". Potentials can only become actualized by something else already actual. So "Today" is actual, i.e., the efficient cause of tomorrow, therefore precedes tomorrow, congruent with chronological time.
I think it's bad metaphysics, for reasons I mentioned responding to his post to me. I've accumulated many significant sources/references in metaphysics, and I've never seen this, but maybe I missed something.
|
It may be an attempt to discuss the metaphysics of time, but there is no logical reason to have the "metaphysical" OPPOSE the "practical". I find truth in most cases to use all "aspects" in coordination. If you want to rail against scientism, the sometimes convenient diving up of reality into separate factions may be the problem. Your adage of scratching an atheist to uncover a fundamentalist, may be apropos. Literal minded fundamentalism divides a greater set of meanings.
I find it illogical to
not quantify time. Modern thought has time as a dimension. A fourth. The 3 spatial dimensions are....
Three-dimensional space (also: 3-space or, rarely, tri-dimensional space) is a geometric setting in which three values (called parameters) are required to determine the position of an element (i.e., point). This is the informal meaning of the term dimension.
In mathematics, analytic geometry (also called Cartesian geometry) describes every point in three-dimensional space by means of three coordinates.
.................................................. ..........................
Yes we can limit our discussion to
"aspects", but it is a an example of thinking that only describes a
frame of reference without the fuller understanding of what
where is about. Of course we can talk about the relationship of the separate dimensions, i.e, they are at right angles to each other, but it is not logical or illogical to omit vital information, and as I said, but there is no logical reason to have the "metaphysical" OPPOSES the "practical". In fact they should be additive to our understanding not subtractive.
Logical versus chronological is a
major stretch. Once the
details of this
stretch, are scrutinized, the devil in the midst of those details traps boxcar's theory.
At some point I will tell you a story about trying for years to design a perpetual motion machine. Of course I was well aware of the underlying principles ruling out any possibility of success, but I would propose thought experiments of all sorts of mechanical
"Kludges", and tracking down how
exactly one cannot evade the laws of the universe in detail and in all sorts of creative and varying arrangements, is quite enlightening and enhanced my understanding of mechanics
I guess the
"devil in the details" is more than just a religious pearl
