TPF : Ineffable Mystery of Time

[Gnomon]

What's the big mystery about time?

GLEN willows
These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno — GLEN willows

Empirical Science studies the effable & phenomenal (physical) aspects of the world. So, it's left to Philosophy to dabble in the ineffable & mental (metaphysical) features of reality. Whenever a scientist makes a generalized inference about her object of study, she's doing philosophy or metaphysics, not physics. The art of philosophy is to describe abstractions, such as space & time, in metaphors that allow us to imagine concepts that are not physical things, but "psychologically real" metaphysical meanings. Metaphors & analogies are intended to express ineffable ideas in meaningful comparisons.

Ironically, the best scientists are not just data-loggers, but philosophers who extract general meaning from the specific data. "Rational explanation" is not a phenomenal observation, but a logical (philosophical) inference. Nobel-prize-winning scientists are usually the ones who make the ineffable effable. For example, Einstein replaced the notion of Space as a vacuum lacking contents & properties, with the metaphor of space as a flexible fabric and a pool of potential (virtual ; unreal) energy.

phenomenon : noun. any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.

Ineffable :
There are two slightly different flavors to 'ineffable', let's call them 1) things impenetrable to our understanding and 2) things that defy description. For the latter we need not venture beyond our imaginations to find the limitations of language...
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... es-it-impo

The illusion of time :
Why is time controversial? It feels real, always there, inexorably moving forward. Time has flow, runs like a river. Time has direction, always advances. Time has order, one thing after another. Time has duration, a quantifiable period between events. Time has a privileged present, only now is real. Time seems to be the universal background through which all events proceed, such that order can be sequenced and durations measured. . . .
To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality.
https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html

↪Banno

[Gnomon]

And the physical and the mental are separable aspects? — Joshs

Of course! Don't you distinguish between those categories? Physical is real & tangible, while Mental is an imaginary intangible model of Reality. One is matter-based, and the other is meaning-based. One is here & now, while the other is anywhere & any-when.

Animals, who don't make such "trivial" irrelevant distinctions, live in a material world of the 5 senses, while humans live in a cultural world modified by the mind. For example, turkeys feel blessed to be currently living high-on-the-hog, with no mental concept of Thanksgiving in their future.

[Gnomon]

It's not easy to talk about something that can't be expressed in words. Good luck. — jgill

That doesn't seem to inhibit scientists & philosophers from inventing new words to express formerly ineffable concepts. For example, C.S. Pierce coined the term "pragmaticism" to distinguish his personal philosophy from what he considered to be a corrupted sense of "pragmatism". Creation of Neologisms is a form of terminological innovation. Ineffable concepts are usually expressed indirectly by metaphors & analogies.

Neologism :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

Ineffability and its Metaphysics: The Unspeakable in Art, Religion, and Philosophy :
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/ineffabilit ... hilosophy/

[Gnomon]

Thus, not only our experience of the imaginary, but also our experience of the actual is a synthetic construction of the real. The real is a production and not a passive observation , something we enact as much as discover. — Joshs

Yes. Some posters on this forum naively assume that they know Reality, when what they know is an imaginary construct inferred from a variety of sensory inputs. Those mental models tend to be based on limited experience with reality, and include some emotional evaluations that are specific to the observer. These limitations & filters are what make philosophical Epistemology necessary for weeding out the irrelevant or erroneous elements of our worldviews. It's a never-ending struggle, that has a modern nemesis in the ease-of-access to fringe opinions, viral memes and assorted misinformation & disinformation. Fortunately, by exchanging opinions with opinionated people (in real or virtual forums), we can learn where our models of reality overlap, to reinforce or weaken our prior opinions.

Back to the OP : the "mystery" about Time involves the philosophical problem : that we can legitimately question whether it is a property of Reality, or of human Imagination or both.

The illusion of time :
According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7

Epistemology :
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

[Gnomon]

Ineffable concepts are usually expressed indirectly by metaphors & analogies. — Gnomon

Yes, but doing so has the drawback of inferring false information while attempting to make an arcane subject accessible to the average person. Here are two examples of existing realities that are difficult to convey with words, hence a bit ineffable, where popularization by science writers is misleading. However, no harm is done. — jgill

Yes. Ideally, Science is supposed to be objective and dispassionate. But scientists are human beings, whose reasoning may sometimes be used in service to emotions, including comfortable prior beliefs & paradigms. So they can't help having feelings about their facts. And it's those ineffable Feelings that cannot be encapsulated in objective language.

That's why the pioneers of Quantum Theory so often resorted to metaphors, analogies, and Eastern religious concepts in their struggle to make sense of counter-intuitive and non-classical behaviors of sub-atomic reality. Presumably, it was the potential for watering-down of truth-values due to the fuzziness of feelings, that motivated frustrated Feynman to argue that physicists should not play the role of feckless philosophers ; instead, just "shut up and calculate".

David Hume on Reason :
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readin ... encing.pdf

Shut up and calculate :
does a disservice to quantum mechanics
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calc ... -mechanics
Note -- By focusing solely on abstract Mathematical Values, purely objective Science loses the concrete and humanizing touch of Philosophy, which takes into account Moral Values & Personal Meanings : seeking to average individual emotions into universal motives, such as Love, Curiosity, etc..

Feelings :
"a feeling is an idea that hasn't been articulated yet" ___Timothy Morton, Object Oriented Ontology
Note -- Poetry & Philosophy are different ways of articulating ineffable feelings & hunches. No harm, no foul.

↪Banno

[Gnomon]

I thought it was Feynman, also, but it wasn't: David Mermin — jgill

Apparently, Feynman was quoting Mermin. But it was Feyman who made the quip famous as a viral meme. Quotes are usually attributed to the popularizer, not the originator, of catchy ideas.

It's tough being a leading edge physicist these days. At least mathematicians get to create their weirdnesses and don't have to attempt to interpret what nature throws at them — jgill

Yes, but even uber-logical mathematicians work on the basis of a metaphysical worldview, implicitly assuming the existence (being qua being) of non-physical mathematical objects, that they mentally manipulate as-if real things. Time is just another non-physical notion that has practical applications. Subjective Metaphysics is usually about generalities & causal processes, not specific inert lumps of Objective Matter.

Mathematical Metaphysics :
A third option immediately presents itself, which is a metaphysical account
that admits the existence of mathematical objects but not of physical objects.
Because it is intuitively obvious that physical objects exist, this appears absurd,
and so it should not be surprising that few philosophers have considered it
http://shelf1.library.cmu.edu/HSS/2015/a1626190.pdf

Metaphysical Mathematical Objects :
Unlike physical objects and properties, mathematical objects do not exist in space and time, and mathematical concepts are not instantiated in space or time. Our mathematical intuition provides intrinsic evidence for mathematical principles.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phil ... thematics/
7 minutes ago

[Gnomon]

I've long considered mathematics a metaphysical realm with varying degrees of reality. Rates of change, derivatives, are close to physical reality, whereas infinitesimals are out there towards the other end of the spectrum. — jgill

Yes. All of those mathematical concepts are related to physical reality, but not detectable by the 5 senses. The connections are logical, not material. That's why I call the logical structure of the world, Meta-Physical. We "know' such things only by the 6th sense of Reason, which "sees" invisible relationships between things, and even between non-things (e.g. ideas). Even Infinity is conceivable relative to physical Finity. It's merely Space that is more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts, as indicated by unending ellipsis . . . . . . .

The "meta-physical realm" is not super-natural though, but simply mental (and meta-animal). It's an imaginary world parallel to (not above) the sensory world. Even gods & ghosts are imagined with evanescent bodies analogous to physical human bodies. Mystics who are especially tuned-in to the metaphysical world, seem to take their fantasies as more-real than reality. I've never had a mystical experience, but I have had, what you might call a "mathematical experience"*1 : when a logical interrelationship pattern suddenly becomes apparent. Some of those numerical epiphanies may sound like woo woo*2 to hard core materialists.

*1. Mathematical Experiences :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mathe ... Experience

*2. My mathematical talents & skills are very ordinary, but in a Calculus class, I (me??) was surprised to be asked by a straight-A math major to explain the holistic concept of "Integrals". I guess the notion of wholes as more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts was more instinctive to little ole me, than to an either/or analytical/reductive thinker. On this forum, the taboo term "holism" will often bring-out the woo-boo-birds. But the concept of a composite whole is not super-natural, merely meta-physical : a rational concept, not a physical percept.

[Gnomon]

The ineffable
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/756927

Indeed, I've much sympathy with that. The further question might be what it is that they ought be quite about, and that, if anything, is the topic of this thread: delineating, so far as it is possible to do so, what it is that is ineffable. — Banno

Even for voluble verbose philosophers, the concept of Holism seems to be inherently ineffable, in the sense that a complex whole system cannot be understood when "delineated" in terms of its parts, without losing the integrated wholeness. An old high school biology example says that "if you dissect a frog, you lose the interrelating & binding effect of Life, which defines the essence of a frog. A dissected frog is no longer a functioning organism : it's "-ology" without the "bio-". So you learn about organs apart from the organism. Hence, you can't have your frog, and cut it too.

Naturalists typically define general essential frogginess in terms of how it differs from other aquatic animals. A specific specie can be described in terms of what it does, and how it fits a niche, instead of what it is. The "-ness" suffix is an indicator of essential qualities, that are difficult to describe or define, apart from enumerating its parts. Green is a physical property, but It isn't easy being green.

Ineffable :
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.” ― Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

EFFING GREENESS
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com ... 8,441_.png

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
A dead frog is not a frog? That is, not sure about your notion of essence. Nowadays a property is considered essential if and only if it belongs to the individual in question in every possible world.You seem to be using some other notion... — Banno

My notion of "essence" (e.g. of frogginess) is based on Aristotle's definition of "substance". Biologists may think of substance as material properties (the frog's physical body), but naturalists & philosophers tend to include such qualities as behavior, to define "frogginess" : definitive features that frogs have in common with each other. So the essence of Frog is more than physiology. It includes instincts & mental factors that differentiate a frog from a lizard. "Properties" are known via the physical senses. But "qualities" are known via rational inference. Pragmatic scientists necessarily focus on effable Properties, But theoretical Philosophers are more concerned with ineffable Qualities.

Essence or Substance :
In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form. The essence is what makes the thing be what it is. The essence of a thing or substance is able to be known and so defined accordingly. It is through the definition that we come to know essences.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Essence

Qualia :
Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/en

[Gnomon]

Perhaps, there's your problem. There have been a few developments since then. — Banno

That may be a problem for you, but not for me. Aristotle may be outdated in Science, but in Philosophy his concise categories are still applicable. Scientific facts may have changed, but the Philosophical problem of effability remains in our time. Scientists confronted with ineffable Qualia and Essences may chose to "shut-up and calculate". But undaunted philosophers continue to eff away with metaphors & analogies. Why else do you think the topic of effability keeps coming up on this forum?


The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/c ... head-plato

Answers for Aristotle :
Pigliucci is a singular bridge-builder, one who connects science as the investigation of what is with philosophy as reflection on what should be. Pigliucci acknowledges that Aristotle constructed such bridges long ago, but he laments that many modern thinkers, irrationally suspicious of science, have now abandoned half of Aristotle’s enterprise. Bravely renewing the entire Aristotelian project, Pigliucci surveys the latest scientific research in primatology, psychology, and neurobiology, always integrating the researchers’ empirical findings into a meaningful philosophical perspective. This scientific-philosophical (or “sci-phi”) perspective
https://www.amazon.com/Answers-Aristotl ... 0465021387

Ideas of Plato and Aristotle in the 21st century :
The goal of the stream is to demonstrate influence of philosophy of Plato and Aristotle on the contemporary society, science, technology, mathematics, philosophy and general culture reflecting new advances in understanding and development of their vision and ideas.
https://www.atiner.gr/humpla

Aristotle in the 21st Century :
Aristotle's essentialist metaphysics can assist in clarifying contemporary issues in (ii) value theory and (iii) economics as ethics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... st_Century

The ineffable now in physics :
While physicists know how to use quantum mechanics, there is no consensus on what
quantum mechanics is a mechanics of. The aim of this paper is to introduce the beginning of what
might turn out to be an interpretation of quantum mechanics—one that leaves all calculated
probabilities intact. The basic idea is that quantum mechanics describes the objective world, but there
must be added to it ineffable variables, one of which is the temporal 'now'. Ineffable variables are not
'hidden variables'.
https://philarchive.org/archive/MERTIN-4

Aristotle on Einstein's Block Time :
Aristotle’s argument may or may not be a good one, but even if it is unsound, many people will feel, purely on intuitive grounds, that the idea of time having a beginning (or an end) just does not make sense.