The notion of 'absolute time' that accompanies Meillassoux's acausal ontology is a time that seems endowed with only one dimension – the instant. It may well be that 'only the time that harbours the capacity to destroy every determinate reality, while obeying no determinate law – the time capable of destroying, without reason or law, both worlds and things – can be thought as an absolute.' The sense in which such an absolute can be thought as distinctively temporal is less obvious. Rather than any sort of articulation of past, present and future, Meillassoux's time is a matter of spontaneous and immediate irruption ex nihilo. Time is reduced, here, to a succession of 'gratuitous sequences'.
What does it mean to say that something did exist, but no longer does? This concept seems to require the further existence of an actual dimension of "Time".
But applying Meillassoux's principle of facticity: why should there be an actual time dimension? Why should things necessarily exist "in time"?
It seems more likely to me that time is just an aspect of subjective experience. In reality, all events exist simultaneously, eternally, and without order. Time only *seems* to flow in an ordered succession of moments, from past to future.
The actual ordering of events is irrelevant, because our experience imposes it's own ordering "from within".
6 comments:
He had it right until the use of the word "sequences" I think.
I took Meillassoux on the time issue this way: our local ordered universe has a time dimension -- but this is contingent and not a feature of absolute reality.
The time of hyperchaos is absolutely disordered - if something doesn't exist now, we can't say that it either did in the past or will in the future - that is indeterminate.
This might also imply that it is only within ordered regions that experience exists.
The time of hyperchaos is absolutely disordered - if something doesn't exist now, we can't say that it either did in the past or will in the future - that is indeterminate.
If hyperchaos is absolutely disordered, what does it mean to say that something doesn't exist "now"?
I would tend to think that "hyperchaos" is like your "space of possibilities". But all *discrete* things that exist in this possibility space do so timelessly. There is no way to relate them to each other chronologically, except to say that they all exist in an eternal "now".
In other words, the space of possibilities doesn't have a time dimension.
Note, however, that *IF* physicalism is true (for our universe at least), then you and I don't exist separately from our universe...we exist within it, as part of it. You and I are not discrete entities, but rather parts of a greater whole. And so you and I can be related with respect to our universe's local time. We exist "in time". In our universe's local time (which I still take a four-dimensionalist view of).
Our universe may "end" tomorrow, suddenly and for no reason, but the events of *today* will exist eternally in the hyperchaotic "space of possibilities". The universe wasn't so much destroyed, as it just stopped. Like a piece of string stops at a certain location. The string wasn't destroyed...it just ended.
This might also imply that it is only within ordered regions that experience exists.
I tend to think that any external ordering (or lack there of) is irrelevant to conscious experience.
I would say that instances of consciousness are like pieces from a picture puzzle. But not a jigsaw picture puzzle...instead let's say that each puzzle piece is a square, and that these identically sized square pieces can be arranged to make the full picture.
In this case, how would you know where each piece fits into the overall picture? By the contents of the image fragment that is on each puzzle piece.
Each puzzle piece has, contained within it, the information that indicates it's position in the larger framework. And I think the same is true of instances of consciousness.
Based on how well the edges of their "images" line up, you can get some idea about the relationship between two instances of consciousness.
But it isn't necessary to actually have the instances of consciousness be physically or temporally adjacent, because we aren't viewing the picture from a third person perspective. Rather, our first-person subjective experience takes place *within* the individual pieces.
A further point on my previous comment:
I would say that each (metaphorical) puzzle piece is a distinct entity in the space of possibilities. And therefore cannot be related to the other pieces chronologically, spatially, or in any other "externally" measured way.
The only relationship between the puzzle pieces (i.e. instants of consciousness) is their internal similarities, which can only be perceived from the first person subjective perspective.
I would tend to think that "hyperchaos" is like your "space of possibilities". But all *discrete* things that exist in this possibility space do so timelessly. There is no way to relate them to each other chronologically, except to say that they all exist in an eternal "now".
In other words, the space of possibilities doesn't have a time dimension.
I agree with that.
Note, however, that *IF* physicalism is true (for our universe at least), then you and I don't exist separately from our universe...we exist within it, as part of it. You and I are not discrete entities, but rather parts of a greater whole. And so you and I can be related with respect to our universe's local time. We exist "in time". In our universe's local time (which I still take a four-dimensionalist view of).
While I'm not a physicalist per se, I agree with this. I think we're embedded in a universe - which is an ordered region of reality - and there is a time dimension governing our relations in this environment.
Your puzzle analogy seems pretty static. Is each piece of some minimum duration? I think conscious experience is a process of evolving relations within our local universe, and time is the dimension of this process. It may be that we can say each instant is also timeless in a some bigger picture sense - but our normal conscious experience seems to be an extended process.
Your puzzle analogy seems pretty static. Is each piece of some minimum duration? I think conscious experience is a process of evolving relations within our local universe, and time is the dimension of this process. It may be that we can say each instant is also timeless in a some bigger picture sense - but our normal conscious experience seems to be an extended process.
Right...it *seems* to be an extended process. But how can we determine if it actually is an extended process? We only have access to how things "seem" from the inside...we have no direct access to how the world really is, do we?
Even assuming that physicalism is true, I would say that we only know our internal representation of the external world. In this view, time perception, just like vision, is a construction of the brain. The feeling of duration is one aspect of how we represent the external world. Color being another aspect of our representation. But neither gives any direct insight into how the world "really" is...at best they provide clues that allow us to make speculative inferences as to reality's true nature.
Clearly my experience of time doesn't track with the clock on the wall. When I'm interested in something, an hour can feel like 10 minutes. When I'm bored, 10 minutes can seem like an hour. Because I have no direct awareness of time...only my subjective experience of it.
If the "real" passage of time causes my experience of duration, what explains the real passage of time? And since it is obvious that my experience of time doesn't map directly onto "real" time, what rule or law explains the distortion? How can the two aspects of time be different?
Again, by invoking "real" time to explain "experiential" time, you've just introduced a new unexplained brute concept about which the same questions can be asked, and also introduced *new* questions about how the underlying "real" concept gives rise to the qualitatively different "experiential" concept.
A final point: I don't find it very difficult to imagine a single instant of my conscious experience existing for eternity - complete with a feeling of having been preceded by previous experiences, as well as an anticipation of transition to the next instant, and with all of the usual sensory aspects. Like a single frame from an experiential movie.
Post a Comment