A Pratchett definition of Time

So I know we have passed our discussion of time, but I have been doing some personal reading (which normally doesn't result in good outcomes), and one book I read was Terry Pratchett's book Thief of Time. This fantasy book takes place on the Discworld, which is a world that floats on the back of 4 elephants which rest on the back of a giant turtle. The plot revolves around a few monks and the granddaughter of the anthropomorphic personification of death who try and stop these beings who are trying to stop time in order to make the universe more orderly. The plot was delightfully comic and absurd, and laced with philosophical points, such as the idea that wisdom can be found in any situation, and one should never challenge an seemingly innocent old man to a fight unless you want to risk your life.

However, when they discussed the nature of time, Pratchett created a whole philosophical theory of how time works. Pratchett argues that time the force that makes the smallest of particles move from one position, to the next position. In order to do this, the novel claims that the world is destroyed every exact moment, and then recreated in order to create the next. To try to make this more comprehensible, in order to progress from one instant to the next, the world must be destroyed then recreated with the particles in a different position which reflects the movement. Pratchett displays this idea in a humorous and engaging manner, which makes me want to share this fictional construction of time.

The Re-construction of Religion

So, I have stumbled upon a website titled Open Source Religion. This is a social media website subscribing to the belief that religions are no longer viewed as strict belief systems, where one draws their beliefs solely from that source. Instead, people can take their beliefs from multiple sources and different religions. 

According to the statement of a founder of the site,  Sidian Jones:

"in this day and age there is a massive movement of people who are “modularizing” beliefs. What this means is that religions no longer have a strict homogeneity of beliefs, but rather are being treated as sources from which to draw ones beliefs, even across multiple religions.

Imagine 100 years ago someone saying that they are “Christian with Buddhist leanings.”; practically unheard of. There was strict boxing of what beliefs belong with what group. These days you are only a stones throw from anyone mixing beliefs like “Salvation Through Jesus” and “Karma”.

Having established this philosophy, I wanted to provide a platform for the Open Source Religion community to digitally interact with, and document all these beliefs and their relationships." (Quote found from this source)

I am sympathetic to this belief, for in an era of post-modernism, and relativity, viewing any one religion as completely objective and whole could be considered an outdated concept. However, at the same time, I am unsure of how much I like the idea rifling through various religions and picking and choosing what they want to believe. It seems to go against the very idea of a religion, in the sense that you need to either completely accept it as truth, or not at all. It seems to me to be a kind of religious relativism. I wonder what this will imply for how religion will be treated in the future.

Determinism and ethics

I might have been mislead, but it seems that when we discussed the differences between determinism and free will, we seemed to come out primarily in favor of determinism. We also discussed how determinism impacts ethical theory by completely negating any kind of morality. Morality implies choice, and determinism does not. So how exactly can we discuss morality under any circumstances if we can not get by this first problem? It seems to me that the construction of morality is just that if we can't get past determinism: A construction. If there is no such thing as morality, then it must be an illusion that we construct ourselves. I really do not like this conclusion, but unless I figure something else out, I must stay behind it.

Does 'Is' influence 'ought?'

So, I have been thinking about our class conversations, and I believe that our views on what 'is' can at least influence us to what 'ought' to be. My reasoning behind it is till a bit fuzzy, but I can at least provide a hazy example of how we use what is to influence our ethical decisions and beliefs.
For example, ancient civilizations used to sacrifice humans to the gods in order to live a good life, and to keep the gods appeased and content. Back then, it was a 'fact' that the gods demanded these sacrifices and that they existed. Now, because we know these deities do not exist, we ought not to do that, for it is pointless to do so.
In addition, we know that other people feel pain, and that influences how we treat others, our knowledge of death influences our moral actions and decisions, our belief on whether god exists influences our moral actions as well. There must be some relationship, but I fail to see the exact relationship.

Understanding.

Something I am interested in contemplating: is the question of whether the concept of 'understanding' is an emotion, or if it a mental tool we construct in order to comprehend a situation. Understanding at its basic core is something we use for comprehension of events and experiences. We use understanding to explain the actions of friends and enemies, we use it to get a grasp on the significance of events, and we use it to get a grasp on knowledge that is presented to us. Understanding then, is the way we contemplate thngs we experience, infer the meaning behind the experience, and apply it to our life. In addition to this, understanding must be something that has the capability of comparing the experience to all previous experiences, in order to find similarities and differences between them.  If understanding is an emotion, then it is something that we can only feel when in a certain state of mind, then based off of psychological evidence, that means that when one is experiencing understanding, one is incapable of feeling certain other emotions when feeling it. For example, one cannot feel happy when feeling scared. So that means one is incapable of feeling understanding when feeling other incompatible emotions. However, if understanding was a cognitive tool that one can apply to a situation, then that implies that it can be used in any emotional state, and by any person who has basic cognitive functioning.
There also seems to be a scale of understanding. There is a greater and a lesser understanding. Some people can only understand parts of a theory, while others understand much more. If it is on a continuum, then it seems to line up more with an emotion, for one can fluctuate from mild to extreme anger or happiness. However, understanding seems to be used for different purposes than other emotions, so it would be a unique one. I am on the side that would claim understanding to be an emotion, rather than a tool we use to understand and construct our perceptions. What do others think?

Prediction Versus Causation.

A year ago, I read a fascinating article on the role of determinism and free will in neuroscience that talked about how just because something is caused, does not always mean it can be predicted.
The author makes the important distinction that in order for an action to actually be free, it needs to be caused. When neuroscientists say that they can predict our actions, they are simply saying that they can show that our choices were caused, not that we were determined to do so. What do you all think about the article?

Time as an hourglass

So, here is an idea I have been mulling about in my head: Time, in regards to the past, present, and future, cannot be on a continuum because if this were true, a single moment can be in the past and present at the same time, or the present and the future as well. Let me explain through an analogy of an hourglass.

If we imagine the continuum version of time as an hourglass, the sand at the top is the future, a single grain of sand that goes through the  absolute middle of the bottleneck as the present, and the sand that is on the bottom half as the past, it shows how incompatible this view is.  The sand on the top as it passes from the top to the bottom must flow through the top into the bottleneck, and since the motion is continual, there must be an instant where the sand enters the bottleneck from the top, and in that brief instant, part of it will be in the top, while part of the sand will be in the bottleneck, before fully occupying the bottleneck. The same can be said with the sand passing from the bottleneck to the bottom. In other words, if time ‘flowed,’ there would have to be instants where an event was both in the future and the present, and  in the present and the past. And as we know, an event cannot be perceived to be in two states of time at the same time. It cannot be in the past and the present, nor can it be both future and present. Therefore, time must move in increments or steps, where one moment is either in one ‘spot’or not. It cannot partially be in one temporal location and another one at the same time, for that implies contradictions. This in turn provides an idea that time, instead of flowing, sort of ‘leaps’ from one instant to the next, where each moment is sharp, distinct, and separated from all other moments