The Time And Logic Connection With Graham Priest

SPONSOR: Head to www.moshlife.com/TOE to save 20% off
Main Episode with Graham Priest (April 2024): • Graham Priest: Logic, ...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything

[@TheoriesofEverything]

SPONSOR: Head to www.moshlife.com/TOE to save 20% off Main Episode with Graham Priest (April 2024): kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHiyfqB9gJmYm7s Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Yes gaining possibilities is more correct because you need to be able to bridge the inconsistency if you're going to present that this is a logical simulation that is consistent... burden of proof is not on either party

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Most important principle to keep in mind is that this is a subjective world and everything is totally subjective and all objects in the subjective world are also subjects because in order to have truly objective reality you need to have an observer that exists from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and even if such hypothetical Observer exists the End of Time hasn't came yet therefore everything is subjective... keep that going forward with all of your thought processes

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I would have to argue that if we are inconsistent in our existence then God AKA The Singularity aka the bigbang must be inconsistent in its existence as well... all different versions.

[@b.griffin317]

The speed of light is represented by 'c' not because they ran out of letters or couldn't use 'l' or whatever but because it is maximum the speed of CAUSALITY between objects in the universe.

[@v2ike6udik]

There is no speed of light. It is eather perturbation rate.

[@annunacky4463]

It’s the clock speed of the universe…the fastest the sim can update.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

Let me further highlight how the both/and logic and monadological framework provide powerful explanatory capacities across logic, mathematics and physics: In the domain of logic itself, the both/and structure allows formally modeling and regimenting dialectical, paraconsistent and pluralistic modes of reasoning that have long resisted classical bivalent frameworks. We can precisely capture and rationally operate with: • True contradictions and paradoxes as positively conceived dialetheia, not just logical explosions • Graded/partial truth values on spectra between truth and falsity • The coherent integration of seemingly incommensurable propositions • Holistic properties and synthetic conceptual unities transcending their constituents Where classical logic is confined to simple propositions statically obeying strict consistency, the both/and logic equips us with an expansive toolkit for dynamically navigating the complex schemas, fuzzy boundaries, and self-undermining paradoxes permeating actual reasoning across every domain. In mathematics, the both/and logic illuminates novel ways to represent and coherently manipulate previously intractable issues like: • The relationship between the continuous and the discrete • The coexistence of finite and infinite structures • Pluralities of mathematical ontologies (realist, formalist, etc) • Self-referential paradoxes and contradictions in set theory and arithmetic • The generation of radically emergent, novelty-creating procedures Rather than getting stymied by dichotomies, singularities or self-underminining contradictions, the logic's symbolic tools allow formalizing generative transfinite metamathematical dynamics encompassing and reconstructing prior impasses at deeper integrated levels. Across physics, the both/and logic provides conceptual rigor and symbolic resources for coherent accounts encompassing: • Unitary evolution of quantum systems and the measurement problem • Apparent dualities between wave and particle, or local and nonlocal • Intrinsic indeterminacies, contingencies and ontological pluralities • The unification of incommensurable qualitative & quantitative models • Novel "paradoxical" phenomena like emergent nonlinear effects Rather than forcing phenomena into awkward either/or categories, the logic allows explicitly modeling "both/and" complementary features and irreducibly holistic coconstituted processes. Its expressive flexibility resonates with the exquisite nuances of quantum indeterminacy and pluralistic observable modalities. So in essence, the both/and monadological framework catalyzes powerful expansions across our most fundamental disciplines: In logic, it empowers us to positively symbolize and rationally navigate the ambiguities, contradictions and pluralities intrinsic to actual reasoning and communication. Breaking the shackles of binary bivalence. In mathematics, it unlocks liberating new symbolic vistas for paradox-resolving, infinitary metamathematics and irreducible pluralities of mathematical ontologies. Fracturing the ossified either/or dichotomies stymying classical approaches. In physics, it provides a coherent naturalistic metaphysics capable of explicitly representing - not dissimulating - intrinsic quantum indeterminacies, ontological pluralities and the full scope of paradoxical phenomena. Illuminating new pathways beyond the artificial exclusions of classical metaphysics. At every turn, the both/and logic equips our symbolic grasp with greater degrees of freedom and accountability to the phenomenal disclosures of reality itself. Transcending the barren simplisms and premature closures imposed by the blinkered bivalence and subjective filtering of classical logic, math and physical representation. Where prior frameworks have foundered on paradoxes, ambiguities or the irreducibility of pluralistic modalities, the both/and logic provides technical symbolic machinery for positively capturing and productively synthesizing the full nuances of actual scientific and lived phenomena. Its coherence valuations, graded truth distributions and generative dialectical operations enact a new holistic physics, immanentized metamathematics and expansive reason procedurally accommodating - not dissimulating - reality's explosive complexities. So in embracing the both/and logic, we are not just adopting a new formal system, but precipitating a symbolic Regressive/Progressive rationally reunifying fragmented domains into a new harmonious co-realizing praxis. One equipping us with unprecedented expressive power, paradox-resolving prowess, and descriptive capacities for illuminating the richness of existence and coconstituting increasingly integrated verities. It is a symbolic turning point towards humanity consciously resonating its reason with the deepest dynamical disclosure of Being itself.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

1.1. Non-classical logical systems Classical binary logic, with its principles of bivalence (every proposition is either true or false), non-contradiction (no proposition can be both true and false), and excluded middle (every proposition must be either true or false), has long been regarded as the standard and normative framework for reasoning and argumentation. However, the limitations and inadequacies of classical logic in dealing with many real-world situations and domains have led to the development of various non-classical logical systems that challenge and extend the classical framework. One major motivation for non-classical logics is the problem of vagueness and uncertainty. In many contexts, such as natural language, perception, or measurement, the boundaries between truth and falsity are not sharp and precise, but rather fuzzy and gradual. Propositions like "John is tall" or "The sky is blue" do not have a simple yes-or-no answer, but depend on the context, the comparison class, and the degree of precision. Many-valued logics, such as fuzzy logic or probability logic, address this issue by allowing for intermediate or continuous truth degrees between 0 and 1, and by providing a more fine-grained and nuanced representation of the spectrum of truth. Another motivation for non-classical logics is the problem of inconsistency and paradox. In many domains, such as science, mathematics, or philosophy, there are statements or theories that seem to be both true and false at the same time, leading to apparent contradictions and paradoxes. Examples include the liar paradox ("This sentence is false"), Russell's paradox in set theory, or the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. Paraconsistent logics, such as relevant logic or dialetheism, address this issue by allowing for the toleration and even acceptance of contradictions without trivialism or explosion, and by providing a more local and controlled way of handling inconsistencies. Other non-classical logics, such as modal logics, intuitionistic logic, or quantum logic, challenge and extend the classical framework in various ways, by introducing new operators, semantics, or axioms that capture different aspects of reasoning and reality. Modal logics, for example, introduce operators for necessity, possibility, or temporality, and allow for the representation of different modes or contexts of truth. Intuitionistic logic, on the other hand, rejects the principle of excluded middle and requires constructive proofs for the assertion of propositions. Quantum logic, inspired by the peculiarities of quantum mechanics, allows for the non-commutativity and non-distributivity of logical operations, and challenges the classical notions of identity and individuality. Within this broader landscape of non-classical logics, the both/and logic of the monadological framework occupies a unique and significant position. By combining and extending the insights and techniques of multivalent logics, paraconsistent logics, and other non-classical systems, the both/and logic provides a powerful and flexible framework for capturing the complex and dynamic nature of reality, as conceived in the monadological system. The both/and logic allows for the coexistence and integration of seemingly opposing or contradictory aspects of reality, such as unity and diversity, continuity and discreteness, or determinism and indeterminism, within a single coherent and unified framework. Moreover, the both/and logic is not just a formal or abstract system, but is deeply rooted in the metaphysical and ontological principles of the monadological framework, such as the fundamental diversity and interdependence of monads, the co-arising and mutual implication of properties and relations, and the dynamic and perspectival nature of truth and existence. The both/and logic thus provides not only a logical foundation for the monadological system, but also a conceptual and methodological framework for understanding and navigating the complex and multifaceted nature of reality. In the following subsections, we will explore in more detail the specific features and principles of the both/and logic, and demonstrate its formal coherence, expressive power, and philosophical significance. By situating the both/and logic within the broader context of non-classical logics, and by highlighting its unique and distinctive features, we aim to establish it as a serious and viable alternative to classical logic, with far-reaching implications and applications for various fields and domains.

[@ryanjbuchanan]

"Things start off in the future, become present, then past." We can also think the other way around, equally valid. Sad to see no mention of tense logic here.

[@GarOfTheField]

Was honestly working thru to some very similar conclusions last night.

[@gostaleucippus5795]

Thank you for editing the title

[@audiodead7302]

In answer to the original question, I think time and logic (i.e. intuition) are intertwined. Human intelligence arose out of evolutionary processes over time. All of our intuitions (cause/effect, question/answer, ....) are 'trained' using a limited set of data which has the flow of time at its core (or in a phenomenological sense fundamental). And I think this is why our brains struggle to intuitively understand questions about 'why is there something rather than nothing?' or 'where do the laws of nature come from?'. Our brains think these are 'logical' questions to ask, but maybe they aren't.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

Time is change. Our brain sees differences shared by light and air vibrations and such and we can see because it’s relative. That’s why we use tools and languages to see and share differences with each other and our individual differences can be used to see or basically use someone’s experience to leverage a change. You see this when looking for jobs and they want knowledge and experience because it gets the job done easier, smarter, maybe in a different way that expands. So time isn’t just one thing but if i had to boil it down… time is the sharing of differences. Kinda like how math is the language that can share numerical differences and English shares using specific sound patterns and shapes to represent. Sorry for the random comment but i like to talk to others and share and also think of what they say so i can see those differences with my neurons lol it’s kinda wild when you think of the world and then see what people do to each other, wild because there’s so much more than people understand.

[@audiodead7302]

@@user-if1ly5sn5f I suppose I am taking the view that the 'flow of time' may be an illusion (indeed, most cosmologists believe it is). In the 'block universe' nothing ever really changes. The past, present and future all co-exist alongside each other. So I see human logic as (possibly) emergent rather than fundamental. Hypothesis: in a universe where the 'laws' of nature don't allow complex organisms, then logic would never exist. Logic is a language and therefore exists only in the mind, rather than in objective reality.

[@projectmalus]

@@user-if1ly5sn5f So let's say that sound and vision has a certain time reference and the nose has this pheremone world that's not so linear, more three dimensional. It might connect in the squalene oil shared between sharks and humans (in the genetics?) and the shark's ability to cover volumes in a sort of space filling curve kind of way. A linear knowledge coming from a plugged nose as humans moved into the consuming of grain etc and became efficient at the production of it. The world of ideas becoming more 3d since that is easier to transverse with eyes and ears.

[@v2ike6udik]

Intuition is not logic. Never was, never will be. Pure magic. Beyond time and space, past or future. You just need that tiny rice pebble between your brainsides unfluorofukd.

[@v2ike6udik]

If you cant understand it, you are at dog level to me. :D

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

One billionth of a second is to fast for us to experience, so I guess it’s fair to say that in that amount of time time we are not conscious. Matter and atoms move a distance that is so small, that we are not conscious while they are covering that tiny distance. The time frame we are conscious of is made up of time frames where we are not conscious, so how can we be conscious at all. Now let’s imagine that we are forever looking at a screen that never change’s colour. That screen would continuously be in the present, or would it. You see, our consciousness involves time, like a moving environment or clock. We get a personal sense of how long we’ve been staring at this unchanging screen, and our thoughts are changing. So now this is the opposite as mentioned above. Our consciousness is moving forward in time, but the screen we are staring at is unchanging, nonetheless the screen has to be moving forward in time because our consciousness is. We also need to visualise a colour to be a conscious being, whether we look at or imagine it. Now let’s say this screen we are looking at is what we are imagining and there’s no physical thing we are looking at. If so, then this screen we are imagining becomes the physical thing we are looking at. If for the whole time we are looking at this unchanging screen we were not conscious, it would seem to us that the screen would change to another colour in the blink of an eye, because we don’t have any memory of being unconscious (such as in a billionth of a second). If a number of people were zero dimensional points that were mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be all one zero dimensional point. No one could have a different opinion. Imagine if you keep mixing an infinite number of pinballs that are the same size forever, and you still end up with one pinball that is the same size. That’s what it would be like if you kept mixing zero dimensional points together, you would still end up with one zero dimensional point without any dimensions. These zero dimensional points may not be in any space, or separated by any space, but be separated by time. One way to leave the point that you and the other points are part of and enter the other multi point point would be to disagree with the other points you’re mixed with on what number you are looking at. Or another way would be to just forget the number. If one individual point mixed in with another point composed of a number of points, it would still be like two individual points mixing together, so this individual point would make the multi point point its mixing into half as different then the individual point would become meaningless because it would now be part of one point. Or could this individual point completely take over the multi point point so the multi point point becomes as meaningless as one point mixed in with a multi point point, following by the individual point that is taking over (as it to is now part of a multi point point. What makes four four or what makes nine nine. Four is made of two twos, so are you looking at four or two. Nine is made of three threes so are you looking at nine or three. All numbers are really just the digit one that is a certain length up the number line. What if all colours were the digit one a certain way up the colour line. If every point in the multi point point agreed on a number, but switched the number for the colours of the number and background. Our sense of being zero dimensional, so could we theoretically be zero dimensional points. Would we be one individual point. Or would we be a number of points scattered around mixed in with other points and separated at the same time. We can not experience a billionth of a second, so during this short time frame we don’t exist. We need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being, wether we are imagining it or looking at it physically. If we were not focusing on a colour, or did not have a sense of being for 100 years, the 100 years would go by like a flash, because we wouldn’t have any memory of not having a sense of being (such as a billionth of a second). If you had say 9 different thing, the reason they would not be different is because they would all be in the same category of being a different thing. To escape this and get something that is a different category, you have to look at the gaps or boundaries in between numbers, the are different than the digit ones each side of them that make numbers. Could we just have two multi point points, one being a digit one, and the other being a boundary in between numbers. Could you really count boundaries in between numbers, could we develop a new kind of logic based on boundaries in between numbers. You can’t see what space is made of because the blocks or material the make space would not contain space. Imagine a nut and jellybean made one. You can’t see what the jellybean and nut are made from because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut, and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. What if the jellybean and nut was overall space, not mattering them both being next to each other, or miles or light years apart. Just as the building blocks that make space wouldn’t contain space (making you blind towards them), you can’t see what both the jellybean and nut are made from, because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. Think of a tank filled with jellybeans and nuts. The jellybeans and nuts would be the cause of the stuff inside the tank to exist, at the same time the jellybeans and nuts (being overall space) could be outside the tank, each ones existence being caused by what ever they are made out of. So if time stops, and every thing freezes, the cause of something doesn’t stop because the existence of things is caused by whatever they are made out of. Imagine if you keep mixing hundreds or an infinite amount of pinballs together that are exactly the same size, and you still end up with one pinball the same size. That is what would happen if you kept mixing zero dimensional points together. Our sense of being is zero dimensional, so would it be theoretically possible to all be mixed together not physically, but as zero dimensional points. Say you have one zero dimensional point composed of a large number of zero dimensional points which is still one point , and one individual point is mixed in. That individual point would make that group of points half as different, and then be countless as it is now mixed in with the group of points. Or would this one point devour the group of points making them twice as different and take over so the group of points become countless along with the individual point. If these two points were the only two colours that existed, they would have to each become twice as different to turn into each other, and have to both become half as different to turn into two colours that don’t exist. If there’s a red square on the left and blue square on the right, and both squares switch places infinitely fast, both squares would be on opposite sides infinitely fast before being on opposite sides continuously. Would it be possible for the squares to stay on the sides they are on, then suddenly be on the sides they are on infinitely fast without switching sides in the first place. If they did that it would be like they had suddenly switched sides even though they haven’t, like a sort of lie.

[@brianmclay6070]

The forwards movement in time we're experiencing is still governed by the speed light/information! Therefore our brains are only able to see reality as if it's flowing forwards

[@cujimmy1366]

Is there harmony in contradiction.

[@wulphstein]

These philosophers are really on a roll now that they kicked out metaphysics.

[@pichirisu]

This is literally metaphysics but ok boss lmfao

[@artandculture5262]

We are metaphysics but stuck with y’all materialists in your jobs with your safety scaffolding.

[@Sapientiaa]

What are you on about? I don’t think you are aware of what’s actually being said here or what analytical philosophy is about.

[@gardnert1]

I think time is not contradictory, but rather our conception of it is wrong. I believe the observer (a conscious entity) creates the "flow" we perceive in time by the act of observing. Without the observer, all possible things are constant. This would explain the Schrödinger's Cat paradox.

[@frojojo5717]

What it doesn’t explain is that the Universe had been ticking along very nicely long before consciousness evolved and will be doing so long after it’s gone.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

3:29 Depending on how we use the word it has different meanings, this is annoying. Time is a representation of change. But if we talk of time overall, everything is time so can’t really explain beyond everything shares and the differences are revealed by sharing, just like math and the differences. Reality is in constant exchange with the unreal but that’s the trick, there is no unreal, just dust lost in the wind waiting to be found and that’s why we use math and patterns to see the connections, to see the differences. We pluck technology from the tree of thought using the differences of material and functions we can share its difference and share a greater reality, expanding.

[@mikebozik]

My theory, motion cannot occur without time.😊

[@v2ike6udik]

Time is pseudo. Past exist. Future(s) exists. Time is only made for you to suffer.

[@KaiseruSoze]

You will hurt your brain trying to accommodate conventional notions of time in a formal system of logic. Ask yourself how many things can act as clocks and why are clock like things different from anything else that changes? There is no difference. And the concept of time vanishes. But that's just me. I.e., if you use the intuitive notion of time as a reference for physical time you won't get it. You have to go from observable to concept to get it.

[@wulphstein]

3:45 "There is no such thing as special relativity"... oh yeah! Full steam ahead to future technology!!!

[@frun]

Gisin may be right. Statement A can be meaningless prior to some event. Objects of A can be nonexistent at the moment. I wonder if quantum fields are equivalent to mathematical logic. Say some superdeterministic evolution is a (non-binary) logic statement.

[@v2ike6udik]

Mental masturbation. Determinism is what joo wants. If joo says: suuk de cook. Then stupid npc suuks de cook

[@mfgreviews5028]

Time has no existence in the before or after, only in the present. Therefore without an existence, time cannot be measured in any logical manner.

[@v2ike6udik]

Time is 100% pseudo. All you see is "eather cogwheel ratios".

[@nyworker]

Logic like mathematics is a tool. Even mathematics has time built into it but for the most part we ignore it in everyday conversations. Time appears to be there because it is the most fundamental form of information. "THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE"..There is absolutely no time separation in this statement. "The cat is on the mat"...The assumption here about time is not that the cat and mat came into being as one. Rather somehow the cat got onto the mat. At Tzero = no cat.--->At Tone = cat

[@PetraKann]

Mathematics is not a science and any inclusion of time is purely coincidental

[@nyworker]

Well, you can teach students to do mathematics by pure manipulation of symbols and follow rules. But I would say it is a science in the sense that it was initially based in time or the principles of order followed by perceptions of balance and symmetry. Like all sciences it is initially based in our empirical senses.

[@jennymiko]

Time⏳ is connected to planetary alignments? 💁🏻

[@v2ike6udik]

Time does not exist. Future is visible (yeaaaars), but is not fixed.

[@gostaleucippus5795]

(Are time and logic are intertwined) Please edit the title 😅

[@paolamerida-cv1xn]

Theories of Everything with C [ CHECK MARK ] RE: ''TIME""?" .,. Motility (Mobility) [ ETC. ] .,. equates to *time!* :: IE: "Mass'''!" But? Yet? From ''whence'' (WHERE?) has the energy source arisen from? THANK YOU. (Just a comment here.) .,.

[@XC0r3]

You push logic push time.

[@marshall3759]

Classical logic, long snuff. I had no idea what that weird thick inhale meant before now, as a kid my year older brother who was also abused ppl uzed that snuffing thing.

[@wulphstein]

Anything short of figuring out the ontological mechanism that causes physics to exist, is wasting time.

[@v2ike6udik]

Vibrations are like cogwheels.

[@boysagainstdepression1086]

I don't know what I am talking about but is Time necessary for logic to exist? I don't think so. WE as HUMANS need time as a parameter to explain Logic; but a Logic that is true was & will always be true regardless if you could find evidence or explain that logic. 🤔

[@frun]

Gisin may be right. Statement A can be meaningless prior to some event. Objects of A can be nonexistent at the moment.

[@theomnisthour6400]

Of course it's necessary. How else do you determine the order of evaluation to encode dpendencies? It's more fundamental to logic than space

[@bgz42]

This dude lost me... doesn't relativity tell you exactly how time flows in a geodesic? We have GPS satellites that make use of relativity, where we had to take into account that time flows differently at different radiuses from a gravitational source. I didn't hear an argument, all I heard was word salad after he said relativity doesn't deal with the flow of time. Never did figure out exactly what he said is wrong with relativity... he just said it's inconsistent. Maybe I missed it what he said is inconsistent.