i had an urge to type some words into my computer late last night. here is the result. tell me if it makes any sense:
time seems to create valuation itself. if man were unrestricted temporally, there would be no need to create values to live by. in this sense, valuation is a prioritization... we are limited with time, and to this respect, we have to act now and in doing so create valuation. time then seems to simply be the ultimate moral tool of man. however, relating it to space as a fourth dimension, there are two restrictions in which we are limited. time and space give us constraints on how we may act. because we can only act here and now, we create a space and time for us to exist, and this gives our actions value.
if time were endless, there would be no valuation. this is because everything would at one point be done by each individual, all would be the same. but because i exist here and now, and i act here and now, i value here and now. this is what gives my life meaning. here and now i experience anguish precisely because i am limited by the here and now, and because my possibilities of action are endless.
time seems to create valuation itself. if man were unrestricted temporally, there would be no need to create values to live by. in this sense, valuation is a prioritization... we are limited with time, and to this respect, we have to act now and in doing so create valuation. time then seems to simply be the ultimate moral tool of man. however, relating it to space as a fourth dimension, there are two restrictions in which we are limited. time and space give us constraints on how we may act. because we can only act here and now, we create a space and time for us to exist, and this gives our actions value.
if time were endless, there would be no valuation. this is because everything would at one point be done by each individual, all would be the same. but because i exist here and now, and i act here and now, i value here and now. this is what gives my life meaning. here and now i experience anguish precisely because i am limited by the here and now, and because my possibilities of action are endless.
I follow everything except for the segment about how we create space or time for us to exist.
For "if time were endless [...] " I think it would be more clear if you wrote something that expresses man as a temporally finite being, instead of more generally referring to time being endless. Reading contextually you would arrive at the prior, but the way you wrote it makes it a vicarious solution.
Assuming man being infinite with respect to time, I would disagree that all would be the same and no value would exist. This is a highly speculative hypothetical example though, since one would have to develop an entire philosophy for this sort of man.
Here goes: Assumptions: starting right now man [who are alive now] will exist infinitely. Babies would grow to be adults and basically stay in suspended adulthood without drastic deterioration.
Brief consequence list: People would have to deal with other people being irrational. Morality would not deal with the concept of mortality so most of our [finite man's] presumptions about morality would cease to be an issue. Law would change and other orders of values would succeed. Morality though would be a drastically different game, as the concepts of good would inevietably be determined on other basis than mortality. So I do think that man being infinite would have values, just a very different kind than is naturally possible for us as we exist.
If time were static and one snapshot of time was not contextually referrable to any other piece of time though, all would be the same. It seems like this is what you are referring to in your second paragraph, first half.
The paragon of all situations is that with a weighted priority of time and space the value that is most relevant to man is emphasized most in the situation in which we are existential.
For "if time were endless [...] " I think it would be more clear if you wrote something that expresses man as a temporally finite being, instead of more generally referring to time being endless. Reading contextually you would arrive at the prior, but the way you wrote it makes it a vicarious solution.
Assuming man being infinite with respect to time, I would disagree that all would be the same and no value would exist. This is a highly speculative hypothetical example though, since one would have to develop an entire philosophy for this sort of man.
Here goes: Assumptions: starting right now man [who are alive now] will exist infinitely. Babies would grow to be adults and basically stay in suspended adulthood without drastic deterioration.
Brief consequence list: People would have to deal with other people being irrational. Morality would not deal with the concept of mortality so most of our [finite man's] presumptions about morality would cease to be an issue. Law would change and other orders of values would succeed. Morality though would be a drastically different game, as the concepts of good would inevietably be determined on other basis than mortality. So I do think that man being infinite would have values, just a very different kind than is naturally possible for us as we exist.
If time were static and one snapshot of time was not contextually referrable to any other piece of time though, all would be the same. It seems like this is what you are referring to in your second paragraph, first half.
The paragon of all situations is that with a weighted priority of time and space the value that is most relevant to man is emphasized most in the situation in which we are existential.
> If time were static and one snapshot of time was not contextually referrable to any other piece of time though, all would be the same.
can you explain this, please?
can you explain this, please?
> if time were endless, there would be no valuation. this is because everything would at one point be done by each individual, all would be the same.
As I said earlier about your sentence with time being 'endless' it doesn't seem to be the most fitting term for me in that situation.
This is the only way I would see that there is _no_ valuation: In an absurd universe where time is static, and a single snapshot of this universe is taken. In this universe there would be a fixed set of all of the objects in the universe infinitely. Everything being done would have no meaning or value, no being will live any longer or shorter for any reason. There is no option for anything, every being would be frozen in action and all moral or value based things would be defenestrated. So without time or space to weigh the values against, nothing would have valuation.
As I said earlier about your sentence with time being 'endless' it doesn't seem to be the most fitting term for me in that situation.
This is the only way I would see that there is _no_ valuation: In an absurd universe where time is static, and a single snapshot of this universe is taken. In this universe there would be a fixed set of all of the objects in the universe infinitely. Everything being done would have no meaning or value, no being will live any longer or shorter for any reason. There is no option for anything, every being would be frozen in action and all moral or value based things would be defenestrated. So without time or space to weigh the values against, nothing would have valuation.
> In an absurd universe where time is static, and a single snapshot of this universe is taken.
yeah, and i still need you to explain this. what do you mean, "time is static." do you mean that time doesn't exist? that there is no temporal distinction? if there is no time, then there is no time to think, so naturally it follows that there is no valuation. is this what you mean? if not, please explain your argument instead of saying the same thing again.
yeah, and i still need you to explain this. what do you mean, "time is static." do you mean that time doesn't exist? that there is no temporal distinction? if there is no time, then there is no time to think, so naturally it follows that there is no valuation. is this what you mean? if not, please explain your argument instead of saying the same thing again.
If I said the same thing again I would have not typed anything.
What I collected from what you were saying about time being endless was that you were meaning that it was static, and not creating valuation. But calling time endless is pretty strange, and so is calling it static but at least there isn't the ambiguation of time not being infinite in our universe.
I am reiterating a lot of this because it's obvious that there is some gap in what you understand from what I'm saying to you. Hopefully you'll find where the inconsistency is.
How do I know what you didn't understand? I expanded my explination to try to encompass what you didn't get. How do I suppose what you understand if you just ask me to explain it. It seems self explanatory. You seem to be on the right track with your 'natural following'.
> do you mean that time doesn't exist?
It's not that time doesn't exist, just not as we know it to. You could argue that it doesn't exist but conceptually it's the only way I can see that there is no valuation. Your statement indicates that in a finite mortal world, that's when valuation is created, if on the other hand we were not finite, and 'time was endless' no valuation would be created. In which case I provided an example of us as infinite/immortal. I also showed the only case I could come up with where no valuation is possible, and that would be one where we are neither mortal or immortal.
> that there is no temporal distinction?
It is also obvious that I indicated that there is no temporal distinction, "time was not contextually referrable to any other piece of time " in this situation.
Argument: You say that time is endless = no valuation. Reading that containing sentence alone will be considered false with common knowledge since time is endless/infinite and people can see that there is valuation even though that time is endless. The context is such that it is not false but it is pretty backwards to get to.
Claim: If you said something more directly about time as it relates to humans and not creating valuation it would be more sensical.
If you explained what you weren't clear on except for the things I already stated maybe we would be in better understanding. I said most of this stuff before, that's true but that's because it's already in there.
What I collected from what you were saying about time being endless was that you were meaning that it was static, and not creating valuation. But calling time endless is pretty strange, and so is calling it static but at least there isn't the ambiguation of time not being infinite in our universe.
I am reiterating a lot of this because it's obvious that there is some gap in what you understand from what I'm saying to you. Hopefully you'll find where the inconsistency is.
How do I know what you didn't understand? I expanded my explination to try to encompass what you didn't get. How do I suppose what you understand if you just ask me to explain it. It seems self explanatory. You seem to be on the right track with your 'natural following'.
> do you mean that time doesn't exist?
It's not that time doesn't exist, just not as we know it to. You could argue that it doesn't exist but conceptually it's the only way I can see that there is no valuation. Your statement indicates that in a finite mortal world, that's when valuation is created, if on the other hand we were not finite, and 'time was endless' no valuation would be created. In which case I provided an example of us as infinite/immortal. I also showed the only case I could come up with where no valuation is possible, and that would be one where we are neither mortal or immortal.
> that there is no temporal distinction?
It is also obvious that I indicated that there is no temporal distinction, "time was not contextually referrable to any other piece of time " in this situation.
Argument: You say that time is endless = no valuation. Reading that containing sentence alone will be considered false with common knowledge since time is endless/infinite and people can see that there is valuation even though that time is endless. The context is such that it is not false but it is pretty backwards to get to.
Claim: If you said something more directly about time as it relates to humans and not creating valuation it would be more sensical.
If you explained what you weren't clear on except for the things I already stated maybe we would be in better understanding. I said most of this stuff before, that's true but that's because it's already in there.
> What I collected from what you were saying about time being endless was that you were meaning that it was static, and not creating valuation.
i don't know what you mean by "static," here.
what i mean is that if time is endless for a person, then time continues forever (no beginning or end, a continuum) and the person experiences all of this time. so, maybe the person is a god.
one thing to recognize here, however, is that the human is limited biologically. if one could simply exist for one year, that could be an infinite amount of time in the sense that it contained an infinite number of "moments." this is true mathematically. however, we are limited biologically in that we cannot recognize all of these moments. moreover, we can only thing so fast, react so fast, and recognize beauty so quickly.
now i am claiming that if we experienced time on an endless continuum, then we will have at some point acted in every possible way. this can essentially be proven mathematically/logically. if we exist forever, we will have existed in every state possible. this means that we will have been everywhere, moved from everywhere to everywhere, and chosen all there is to choose.
i claim that valuation is created through constraints. if i could always do anything i want forever, i will have at some point exhausted all of my options. however, if i am in a particular situation with particular options with particular people and my particular past, my choice willl create and demonstrate my value. existing forever removes such constraints and thus removes valuation.
> It is also obvious that I indicated that there is no temporal distinction, "time was not contextually referrable to any other piece of time " in this situation.
i don't know what this means.
i don't know what you mean by "static," here.
what i mean is that if time is endless for a person, then time continues forever (no beginning or end, a continuum) and the person experiences all of this time. so, maybe the person is a god.
one thing to recognize here, however, is that the human is limited biologically. if one could simply exist for one year, that could be an infinite amount of time in the sense that it contained an infinite number of "moments." this is true mathematically. however, we are limited biologically in that we cannot recognize all of these moments. moreover, we can only thing so fast, react so fast, and recognize beauty so quickly.
now i am claiming that if we experienced time on an endless continuum, then we will have at some point acted in every possible way. this can essentially be proven mathematically/logically. if we exist forever, we will have existed in every state possible. this means that we will have been everywhere, moved from everywhere to everywhere, and chosen all there is to choose.
i claim that valuation is created through constraints. if i could always do anything i want forever, i will have at some point exhausted all of my options. however, if i am in a particular situation with particular options with particular people and my particular past, my choice willl create and demonstrate my value. existing forever removes such constraints and thus removes valuation.
> It is also obvious that I indicated that there is no temporal distinction, "time was not contextually referrable to any other piece of time " in this situation.
i don't know what this means.
ok maybe im not understanding but it seems to me that even if time were infinite you would still have priorative, you would still have to live in the here and now because you would only live that instance once, it will most likely not be repeated. now you say that if time were infinite then there are no contraints and removes valuation. i disagree because you will still remember particular people, your particular past, and a majority of the time will demonstrate your value. the only reason i say majority is because if for one instant you encounter the same problem and the last choice you made based on your values was the wrong one, you will change it to try something else.
> i claim that valuation is created through constraints. if i could always do anything i want forever, i will have at some point exhausted all of my options. however, if i am in a particular situation with particular options with particular people and my particular past, my choice willl create and demonstrate my value. existing forever removes such constraints and thus removes valuation.
So, in this rehashing of ideas you come to the same conclusions but don't recognize the contradictory nature of the sentence I keep referring to. It's not that I disagree that valuation is a dependant on constraints, I agree. It's that you say time is endless = no valuation.
What you're really saying is man's temporality conditional allows for valuation, or if man's constraints of being finite were lifted, no valuation would exist. I'm sure there are many more ways to say that but both of those are less obfuscated than when you use language like 'if time is endless (true) then there is no valuation (false, there is possibly valuation but it does not depend on the concept of time being endless, the dependent claim is based on mortality and as you said, the constraints.)'
I've given a shit ton of examples and I fail to see how it's unclear:
> 'static' can you explain this, please?
> yeah, and i still need you to explain this. what do you mean, "time is static."
> i don't know what you mean by "static," here.
> 'time was not contextually referrable to any other piece of time' i don't know what this means
me: The only possible way I can come up with to conceive that there is no valuation in the universe, is to consider time to be static, in other words to be one fixed event that encompasses all actions by every being in the universe, which cannot be referred to contextually to other pieces of time because they do not exist[other pieces of time since there is only one forever, hence snapshot, static].
"In this universe there would be a fixed set of all of the objects in the universe infinitely. Everything being done would have no meaning or value, no being will live any longer or shorter for any reason. There is no option for anything, every being would be frozen in action and all moral or value based things would be defenestrated. So without time or space to weigh the values against, nothing would have valuation."
Explain in detail what doesn't make sense please because I feel like I've gone over everything plenty.
lr: How do we create space or time for us to exist?
So, in this rehashing of ideas you come to the same conclusions but don't recognize the contradictory nature of the sentence I keep referring to. It's not that I disagree that valuation is a dependant on constraints, I agree. It's that you say time is endless = no valuation.
What you're really saying is man's temporality conditional allows for valuation, or if man's constraints of being finite were lifted, no valuation would exist. I'm sure there are many more ways to say that but both of those are less obfuscated than when you use language like 'if time is endless (true) then there is no valuation (false, there is possibly valuation but it does not depend on the concept of time being endless, the dependent claim is based on mortality and as you said, the constraints.)'
I've given a shit ton of examples and I fail to see how it's unclear:
> 'static' can you explain this, please?
> yeah, and i still need you to explain this. what do you mean, "time is static."
> i don't know what you mean by "static," here.
> 'time was not contextually referrable to any other piece of time' i don't know what this means
me: The only possible way I can come up with to conceive that there is no valuation in the universe, is to consider time to be static, in other words to be one fixed event that encompasses all actions by every being in the universe, which cannot be referred to contextually to other pieces of time because they do not exist[other pieces of time since there is only one forever, hence snapshot, static].
"In this universe there would be a fixed set of all of the objects in the universe infinitely. Everything being done would have no meaning or value, no being will live any longer or shorter for any reason. There is no option for anything, every being would be frozen in action and all moral or value based things would be defenestrated. So without time or space to weigh the values against, nothing would have valuation."
Explain in detail what doesn't make sense please because I feel like I've gone over everything plenty.
lr: How do we create space or time for us to exist?
> It's that you say time is endless = no valuation.
no, i say time is endless for man => no valuation for man.
okay, first i think your logic is flawed as to your use of your example. here is how our argument is flowing:
lr: if time were endless, then there would be no valuation. so temporal restraints on man are a necessary condition for valuation.
dp: (gives an example of how there would be no valuation)
please notice that your example is not a valid counter example unless you prove it is the only way in which a lack of valuation can be arrived at.
here is what i interpret your example to be:
you think that time does not exist. you think everything that has ever happened occurs independently of time.
your entire example begs the question. you say that time does not exist and all time is static or a snapshot or one instant, then you go on to talk about time! how can you talk about time if there is no time?!
technically, your example can be true through quantum physics and still leave open the possibility for options, choices, and time for the individual.
did i ever claim that man creates space or time?
no, i say time is endless for man => no valuation for man.
okay, first i think your logic is flawed as to your use of your example. here is how our argument is flowing:
lr: if time were endless, then there would be no valuation. so temporal restraints on man are a necessary condition for valuation.
dp: (gives an example of how there would be no valuation)
please notice that your example is not a valid counter example unless you prove it is the only way in which a lack of valuation can be arrived at.
here is what i interpret your example to be:
you think that time does not exist. you think everything that has ever happened occurs independently of time.
your entire example begs the question. you say that time does not exist and all time is static or a snapshot or one instant, then you go on to talk about time! how can you talk about time if there is no time?!
technically, your example can be true through quantum physics and still leave open the possibility for options, choices, and time for the individual.
did i ever claim that man creates space or time?
> no, i say time is endless for man => no valuation for man.
"if time were endless, there would be no valuation." - where does it say in relation to man? the sentence standing on its own is false.
> okay, first i think your logic is flawed as to your use of your example.
or a fair view that is more complete:
lr: if time were endless, no valuation. man's temporal restraints necessitate valuation.
dp: but regardless of man, the concept of time is endless/infinite, and this does not make it true that no valuation exists. I understand the truth of what you're saying however, that the constraints make valuation a condition.
ex 1. Then I propose how it is possible for there to be value if man were immortal/infinite.
ex 2. Then I agree that while being mortal/fininte/time constrained that there is valuation.
ex 3. Then I propose how it is possible for no valuation to exist, and it is not resulting from 'time being endless => no valuation (ex 1)'.
lr: what's this business about ex 3, what does static mean?
dp: it's the no valuation ex
lr: what's static?
dp: time that doesn't exist as we know it, no valuation.
lr: our argument is stupid, you think time doesn't exist. I made a claim and your example showing the falsity of my claim is not valid because 'no valuation' can be arrived at in other ways, namely by man with respect to time being endless.
dp: really? I proposed how it doesn't necessarily arrive at that in ex 1, and ex 3.
> your example is not a valid counter example unless you prove it is the only way in which a lack of valuation can be arrived at.
It wasn't intentionally a counter-example. I took your idea and followed the consequentiality in the cases that your statement as if it were true - In the hypothetical that you should also consider; the infinite man one [ex 1].
> you say that time does not exist and all time is static or a snapshot or one instant,
I talked about different instances where cases you stated would be true. The static example was the only way I can fathom that there is no valuation. That was only one type of example that you were stuck on, not the only thing.
>then you go on to talk about time! how can you talk about time if there is no time?!
In a completely separate example: if time were infinite, there would be valuation of a different sort, but still valuation.
I talked about multiple scenarios. Mortal beings in finite, immortal beings in infinite, and nonmortal/static. So yes I did talk about time as if it existed, but in different modes and the subsequent valuation derived from each.
> here is what i interpret your example to be: you think that time does not exist. [...]
In the fixed/timeless hypothetical situation trying to figure out how no valuation occurs: time does not exist as usual, but it describes no valuation.
> [...] you think everything that has ever happened occurs independently of time.
No, I'm saying in the static time example that there is an ultimate time that is all one gigantic event and it cannot be defined in a context. Every being is doing a specific action when this snapshot universe is taken. When evaluating everything in this universe by itself, it is apparent that there is no valuation because every being will not live longer or shorter, the time does not exist outside of this one super event of static fixatedness, no actions would be held of greater value than others. To understand this universe, snapshot one piece of time and eliminate all other contexts of time as if they did not exist and this is the only singular fixed event. This is where no valuation lies and I can't see that any other example exists that could create a no valuation event. Because, in agreement with what you say, with the constraints of time on man valuation does exist.
> technically, your example can be true through quantum physics and still leave open the possibility for options, choices, and time for the individual.
How? There are no options, choices, in the static example. Or if there were it would be ambiguous in that universe and have no value because no being in it would ever change out of that action, consequentiality is dropped, and determinism has no forebearing.
> did i ever claim that man creates space or time?
"because we can only act here and now, we create a space and time for us to exist, and this gives our actions value."
"if time were endless, there would be no valuation." - where does it say in relation to man? the sentence standing on its own is false.
> okay, first i think your logic is flawed as to your use of your example.
or a fair view that is more complete:
lr: if time were endless, no valuation. man's temporal restraints necessitate valuation.
dp: but regardless of man, the concept of time is endless/infinite, and this does not make it true that no valuation exists. I understand the truth of what you're saying however, that the constraints make valuation a condition.
ex 1. Then I propose how it is possible for there to be value if man were immortal/infinite.
ex 2. Then I agree that while being mortal/fininte/time constrained that there is valuation.
ex 3. Then I propose how it is possible for no valuation to exist, and it is not resulting from 'time being endless => no valuation (ex 1)'.
lr: what's this business about ex 3, what does static mean?
dp: it's the no valuation ex
lr: what's static?
dp: time that doesn't exist as we know it, no valuation.
lr: our argument is stupid, you think time doesn't exist. I made a claim and your example showing the falsity of my claim is not valid because 'no valuation' can be arrived at in other ways, namely by man with respect to time being endless.
dp: really? I proposed how it doesn't necessarily arrive at that in ex 1, and ex 3.
> your example is not a valid counter example unless you prove it is the only way in which a lack of valuation can be arrived at.
It wasn't intentionally a counter-example. I took your idea and followed the consequentiality in the cases that your statement as if it were true - In the hypothetical that you should also consider; the infinite man one [ex 1].
> you say that time does not exist and all time is static or a snapshot or one instant,
I talked about different instances where cases you stated would be true. The static example was the only way I can fathom that there is no valuation. That was only one type of example that you were stuck on, not the only thing.
>then you go on to talk about time! how can you talk about time if there is no time?!
In a completely separate example: if time were infinite, there would be valuation of a different sort, but still valuation.
I talked about multiple scenarios. Mortal beings in finite, immortal beings in infinite, and nonmortal/static. So yes I did talk about time as if it existed, but in different modes and the subsequent valuation derived from each.
> here is what i interpret your example to be: you think that time does not exist. [...]
In the fixed/timeless hypothetical situation trying to figure out how no valuation occurs: time does not exist as usual, but it describes no valuation.
> [...] you think everything that has ever happened occurs independently of time.
No, I'm saying in the static time example that there is an ultimate time that is all one gigantic event and it cannot be defined in a context. Every being is doing a specific action when this snapshot universe is taken. When evaluating everything in this universe by itself, it is apparent that there is no valuation because every being will not live longer or shorter, the time does not exist outside of this one super event of static fixatedness, no actions would be held of greater value than others. To understand this universe, snapshot one piece of time and eliminate all other contexts of time as if they did not exist and this is the only singular fixed event. This is where no valuation lies and I can't see that any other example exists that could create a no valuation event. Because, in agreement with what you say, with the constraints of time on man valuation does exist.
> technically, your example can be true through quantum physics and still leave open the possibility for options, choices, and time for the individual.
How? There are no options, choices, in the static example. Or if there were it would be ambiguous in that universe and have no value because no being in it would ever change out of that action, consequentiality is dropped, and determinism has no forebearing.
> did i ever claim that man creates space or time?
"because we can only act here and now, we create a space and time for us to exist, and this gives our actions value."