[Dubayoo]

I've been reading a couple of books on this overlap lately, and it's a serious idea that deserves merit: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-ethic ... 474299169/
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9781402013126

The point ultimately is morality comes from our consideration towards potential events beyond what's actualized. If we deny this, then we deny the value of the future, how the past exists despite how we don't know everything about it, and the capacity for alternate feasible timelines.

After all, just because we live in a timeline doesn't mean we live in the timeline. There's a difference between singular and unified thought.

The problem in discussing this is not the truth of the matter but rather the social politics of the matter. People compromise on understanding the entirety of time because they exploit sufficient understandings of it before complete understandings of it. After all, time takes attention to understand, and the less you can understand it while grasping greater yields, the better.

This isn't a thought process that only exploiters of understanding utilize either. Those genuinely curious apply it too because they know there's always more to understand out there, so they want to investigate the most valuable branches and roots of time's nature.

The difference between exploiters and investigators is exploiters accuse others of being utopian to disguise their own utopianism while putting the accused on the defensive and exposing them to false convictions which they have to defend about.

Investigators, on the other hand, are genuinely committed towards understanding the reality of how time flows in order to figure out how to use it. They have real applications in mind, but know that to execute those application, ideas must be grasped to execute them.

When we understand these ideas, we call this understanding morality due to the unpredictable chaos of reality. That chaos must be ordered or else our efforts go splat in vain...

...but exploiters don't care about this. They're motivated by drama. They love the uncertainty and how it harms real people.

Until we admit that morality is real via philosophy of time, this exploitation will continue.

[One Degree]

I am not sure I followed you at all. Are you saying by agreeing to a morality we make the future predictable?
I would agree this is true, but I don’t know what it accomplishes.

[Dubayoo]

This isn't about agreement or predictability.

It's about how understanding morality is fundamentally grounded in our sense of time.

Time is real, so morality is real.

Even if we don't understand time, morality will still exist in reality. It's up to us to decide whether to admit to it or not just as much as we admit time exists in physics.

The difference is how with people, there are many possible timelines which can follow from our behavior. We call this free will. Yes, there are limits to free will given our constraints (humans don't have wings so we can't fly, we don't have gills so we can't breathe underwater, etc.) but our capacity to see many possible outcomes allows us to choose which potential timeline to actualize.

This becomes more complex when dealing with interactions among people in anticipating each other's behavior and becoming concerned about defection versus cooperation. Still, these complexities exist. We shouldn't jump to conclusions in presuming people will defect or cooperate (or that just because people behave a certain way right now means their intent is to defect or cooperate into the future).

The problem is we seem to live in a world where many people choose to be cynical fatalists, so they create a vicious cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies of defection. They refuse to appreciate the potential of time, so the result is the sabotage of potential just to actualize what's sufficient to function. The pursuit of excellence gets destroyed by others who want to live in the moment.

We see this both among egalitarians and anti-elitists who refuse to leave other people alone when they're reflecting before experimenting on how to make things happen.

The result is a boring society that decays over time from being predictable instead of adaptable.

[One Degree]

Ah, I can understand this I believe. I too think our problems are due to being short sighted and not thinking about where the paths lead to in the future. I never thought of it as morality, but I guess that fits.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Time is real, so morality is real.

How do you mean time is real?

That seems like a presumptuous claim in itself without some definition.

It's about how understanding morality is fundamentally grounded in our sense of time.

Assuming time to be "real" (whatever that means); this would only imply that our moral sentiments assume this reality of time; however, that does not make morality real. That is a non-sequitur. Technically the chimeras of my imaginations presume the reality of time (succession of events), but that does not make the chimeras real just because they are "grounded" (dependent) on the reality of time as a precondition of their intelligibility.

Hence, the fallacy in this claim is obvious.

Even if we don't understand time, morality will still exist in reality.

Nonsense.

The problem is we seem to live in a world where many people choose to be cynical fatalists, so they create a vicious cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies of defection. They refuse to appreciate the potential of time, so the result is the sabotage of potential just to actualize what's sufficient to function. The pursuit of excellence gets destroyed by others who want to live in the moment.

Here comes the "motive" for the arguments made thus far; you see fatalism; likely born of the nihilistic fruits of darwinian determinism in anthropology, as creating a scenario where cynicism has replaced aspiration.

However noble this motive is, this argument does not solve the problem you perceive. All you are saying is that contingency is evidence of time and contingency presumes choices made in the present by agents for the actualization of the future events, thus if choices are morality, and choices are inseparable from time, and time is nothing but the evident fact of experienced contingency, then time is real; therefore morality is real.

If I am not understanding something please explain, because from what I can see this is all a bunch of drivel. It makes morality so nebulous as to be nigh worthless anyway and it does not in any way give merit to an argument against "living in the moment" as itself being a "choice" (moral act) dependent on time (the fact of contingency).

[Dubayoo]

Bro, if you don't acknowledge time, you're just out of touch with reality.

Reality isn't some stagnant painting that just stays still. It involves constant maintenance and transformation.

Choice is just humanity's participation within time. Even if we all died tomorrow, time would keep ticking.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Bro, if you don't acknowledge time, you're just out of touch with reality.

I said no such thing, I asked you to explain to me what you meant by the claim that time is real and to justify it; especially as your argument rests on the claim.

Choice is just humanity's participation within time. Even if we all died tomorrow, time would keep ticking.

Yes, this was your claim, but as I critiqued it, identifying morality with choice which you define as an agent's participation in contingency (which seems to be what you mean by time) is too broad to have any real meaning and it does not support either your aims or your conclusions anyway.

Hence, your argument blows even if we assume what your mean by your undefined terms, which we have no reason to do so, as gracious as that might be on our parts.

We aren't here to do your philosophical work for you, so if you aren't competent to defend your claims, we have no reason to find them compelling.

You assume an undefined notion of time as real and identify our dependence on this mere contingency (personal choice) as morality; and then infer from this shitty argument that the reality of time proves the reality of morality.

A freshman in philosophy could tell you this argument is garbage.

[Dubayoo]

Most academics are idiots or are taught by idiots, so their opinion is irrelevant.

After all, half of graduates are under or unemployed. There's no reason to take their opinions seriously. For all they claim to know how the world works, they don't work...

...and then, they claim to be socialists when they have no idea what the ideology really stands for. They just want to be the center of attention for nothing.

Anyway, I already explained things. You're just ignoring what I said while nitpicking at the other parts. You can't talk with someone who reads what they want and says you didn't explain things when you actually did but they just didn't pay attention.

The defense is there. You're just not acknowledging it. I try to accommodate by watering the argument down, but then, you say the argument's weak for my accommodation.

Go away.

[ingliz]

Time is real

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Albert Einstein

[One Degree]

If (linear) time is real then how is it possible for us to do things before we know we want to do them? This has been demonstrated by science.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Most academics are idiots or are taught by idiots, so their opinion is irrelevant.

Agreed, I never said otherwise.

After all, half of graduates are under or unemployed. There's no reason to take their opinions seriously. For all they claim to know how the world works, they don't work...

Technically a fallacy (abusing ad-hominem); however, I understand your point and don't disagree.

and then, they claim to be socialists when they have no idea what the ideology really stands for. They just want to be the center of attention for nothing.

I agree with this as well.

Anyway, I already explained things. You're just ignoring what I said while nitpicking at the other parts.

What did you explain? Your previous post to me only said that; "If you don't believe in the reality of time you are a doo-doo head" or something to that effect. That is not an argument or an explanation.

The defense is there. You're just not acknowledging it.

If I am missing something crucial, please state it.

I try to accommodate by watering the argument down, but then, you say the argument's weak for my accommodation.

Ok then, skip the accommodation and provide the original if you think that will help your argument. I'm a big boy, I can handle it.

Go away.

No.

[Dubayoo]

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Albert Einstein

OK... but the fact is time is involved in plenty of physics equations. Without acknowledging it, physics literally doesn't make sense.

Gravity as a force accelerates objects towards each other over time. Without time, there is no gravity.

[Dubayoo]

If (linear) time is real then how is it possible for us to do things before we know we want to do them? This has been demonstrated by science.

First, time isn't linear. Time's a web. Having a flow of time doesn't mean you have the flow of time.

The very fact that reiteration exists in experimental design proves this as well. You can have the same set of parameters in an experiment and end up with different results.

Second, people often come up with ideas to do, but don't act upon them. I'd agree that many people lack self-control, but we shouldn't generalize humanity based on those people.

[Victoribus Spolia]

OK... but the fact is time is involved in plenty of physics equations. Without acknowledging it, physics literally doesn't make sense.

Gravity as a force accelerates objects towards each other over time. Without time, there is no gravity.

Why should anything in quantum physics be accepted? I don't think Newtonian or Post-Newtonian Physics should be accepted.

You have a habit of smuggling in assumptions to your arguments without giving definitions. You assume the reality of time, without defining what you mean by "real" and "time," and now you proceed to "implicitly" relate these undefined notions to something in contemporary physics?

I deny all such as a Phenomenal Idealist and believe it or not, I do believe in "time," but I have a very specific definition that can be easily assessed. I have seen no such thing from you.

First, time isn't linear. Time's a web.

Prove it.

The very fact that reiteration exists in experimental design proves this as well. You can have the same set of parameters in an experiment and end up with different results.

That doesn't prove anything that we didn't know from logic already; namely, that you cannot infer any future result X from past event P without committing a fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) or the inductive fallacy (inferring from part to whole).