A clock shows 2pm and then the clock shows 3pm. There is a physical change in what the clock shows.

You say that physical change requires subjective time, and subjective time is caused by the Mind.

In what sense is the physical change in the clock first showing 2pm and then showing 3pm caused by the Mind? — RussellA

The mind not only causes subjective time but also causes the physical (this is discussed in my other thread here), so it is no surprise that there is synchrony between the passage of subjective time and changes in physical.

Objective time and psychological time are sufficient. Subjective time is a redundant concept. — RussellA

As I mentioned in the OP, any change requires time, whether it is physical or mental. In the first case, we need subjective time, and in the second case, we need psychological time. Subjective time is caused by the Mind (capital M), whereas psychological time is caused by the mind.

The mental time (subject-object) contains a past, present, and future, due to our experience and memory. The essence of physical time (object-object) is succession; therefore earlier and later. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Thanks for the elaboration. I distinguish between psychological/mental time and subjective/physical time, but I think that both have the same features. Although psychological time is caused by the mind, subjective time is caused by the Mind.

For example, there is no "now" unless someone is experiencing it, and there is no "past" unless someone is remembering it. It's kind of hard to articulate, but do you get the gist of it? — Down The Rabbit Hole

As I mentioned in the OP, the subjective time is experienced by the Mind.

So why do they pull at the same time? — frank

Each individual experiences his or her psychological time only. The passage of psychological time is the same for all of them. That is why they can sync and pull at the same time.

It is of the utmost importance not to confuse time-relations of subject and object with time-relations of object and object; — Down The Rabbit Hole

What does he mean by this? Do you mind elaborating?

It will be seen that past, present, and future arise from time-relations of subject and object, while earlier and later arise from time-relations of object and object. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't understand what he means by this. Do you mind explaining?

In a world in which there was no experience there would be no past, present, or future, but there might well be earlier and later — Down The Rabbit Hole

I am sorry, but I don't understand how this follows.

Time cannot be an emergent thing. I discuss this in this post.

You seem to have smuggled in the concept of substance here. Does substance describe a thing, something that has objective existence? — Punshhh

Yes.

Or is substance a substance of mind, or intellect, or something immaterial? — Punshhh

I believe in substance pluralism in which the mind is an immaterial substance, whereas the physical is material substance.

Does something exist if it is an invention of thought? — Punshhh

All our experiences are due to existence of a substance that I call object for the sake of discussion. This is discussed in my other thread that you can find it here.

The infinite regress argument about subjective time requiring itself to change is intriguing, though it leans heavily on a metaphysical notion of the mind as a primary mover. I’d challenge the assumption that time must be a substance at all. Many physicists and philosophers argue that time might emerge from relationships between events rather than existing as an independent entity. — Areeb Salim

I discussed the problem with time being as an emergent thing elsewhere, so I just repeat myself: Three main theories of quantum gravity are widely accepted: 1) String theory, 2) Loop quantum theory, and 3) AdS/CFT, each has its own problems. This article nicely discusses these theories in simple words and explains the problems with the string theory and AdS/CFT theory. This wiki page discusses the problem of loop quantum theory.

Your thought experiment is clever for illustrating our inability to perceive subjective time directly. I think this would be a fascinating topic to expand with perspectives from process philosophy or modern physics. — Areeb Salim

Thank you very much for your understanding. That is not the only argument for our inability to perceive subjective time. We don't have any sensory system for it either.

Quite oppositely, time is needed for no change. — unenlightened

I have an argument for it. Please read it and tell me what you think about it.

Perhaps the only reason we recognize time as a separate entity is because it has a direction - past to present to future. — T Clark

We experience psychological time occasionally when our conscious mind is not busy. We live in the present. The past is part of our memory, and we await the future.

In general, the laws of physics do not require or specify this directionality. — T Clark

The time that is involved in the laws of nature is subjective time.

As I understand it, the explanation for this lack of symmetry is the second law of thermodynamics. Closed systems tend to develop from conditions of lower entropy to higher. — T Clark

The laws of nature are time-reversal. When it comes to a system with many parts, as you mentioned, the system changes toward a state with higher entropy.

Thank you very much for the reference. I will read it when I have time. I am very busy with many things right now. Could you please tell me what he is trying to discuss briefly?

Yet everyone on the team anticipates the same moment in time. — frank

Each person in the team has access only to his or her psychological time. As I argued in the OP, we cannot experience subjective time since we don't have any sensory system for it.

Time is a unit of measurement. Pretty much it. — DifferentiatingEgg

What does that ever mean, a unit of measurement?

As you prepare for the next pull, which kind of time are you experiencing? Subject or objective? — frank

Neither. I experience psychological time only.

Time is ordered succession. — unenlightened

That is a definition of a process, not time.

If everything changes, there is nothing to tie one moment to another; time would fall apart if it was just one damn thing after another. Everything is tied together by order, and kept distinct by change, and this is the nature of space-time. — unenlightened

Quite oppositely, time is needed for any change, as I argued in the OP.

Interesting post and well explained. — Martijn

Thank you very much for your interest and understanding.

Maybe we, as humans, are simply overcomplicating something very fundamental. Time is inherent to reality, like space. We call it 'spacetime' for a reason. Time can be viewed as a 'dimension' but it is not a dimension like height, depth, or width. For example, we know that time slows down when you travel at extremely high speeds, or when the gravitational pull becomes supermassive. — Martijn

Correct, time slows down when we are close to a supermassive object. However, time does not slow down from your perspective, no matter how fast you move. Other clocks that move relative to you slow down depending on their speed.

You are spot-on with your dissections of subjective and psychological time. — Martijn

Correct. That source of confusion for many philosophers and scientists. The confusion is how we could experience time if we don't have any sensory system for it!

We still do have a 'sense' in this regard, we know how long we've slept (generally), but while asleep, we are not conscious, so we do not experience time. Yet, time always is. Time is just like space and life: it just is. — Martijn

I have to say that I don't understand the unconscious state now. How could a mind become unconscious and not experience anything at all? That is the subject of my current investigation.

Sometimes, there is truth in simplicity. — Martijn

Very correct. I think that the truth is plain and simple.

How can you be certain of that kind of existence when you have no access to an objective viewpoint? — noAxioms

I have an argument for the existence of my mind, which is based on the fact that experience exists and is coherent. You can find it here.

There are even some interpretations of our universe (as opposed to objective) that say that 'you' are in superposition of being and not being, but mostly the latter. — noAxioms

I think the interpretation of Bohmian quantum mechanics is correct since it is anomaly-free.

Same thing essentially. — noAxioms

Correct.

Well those things exist by some definitions/interpretations of 'exists' and of 'I' and not by others. — noAxioms

By exist, I mean having objective reality or being. I already defined what I mean by "I".

Your comment suggests a flirting with solipsism or BiV given the expressed questioning of 'other people'. — noAxioms

Yes, I can be a brain in a vat, or what I experience could be caused by a Demon. There is no argument to tell whether other people exist.

I can for sure tell that I exist, by "I" I mean a mind with the ability to experience and cause (I have an argument for substance dualism). I can for sure tell that change exists. Some changes are due to me, and others are not. What causes other changes is subject to discussion; it could be a Demon or it could be real people. So, for sure, we can say that something exists beside me, but I think we cannot tell for sure what that thing is beside me!

The argument is simple and emotionally powerful: if God is all-powerful and all-good, then why does He allow terrible suffering? — Wayfarer

Accepting that God exists, He could not be Good considering the existence of Evil in the world. Good and Evil are fundamental features of reality, and both are necessary. To my understanding, God must be neutral regarding Good and Evil, so all problems are resolved.

I said that given an infinite world, whatever the laws of nature, life is possible in this world, so no design is involved.

We need to take care to seperate logically possible worlds form physically possible worlds. — Banno

Correct. I am talking about physical worlds.

There are finite possible worlds, logically speaking, if there is no contradiction in supposing a finite world. — Banno

Physical worlds could be finite or infinite.

There seems no reason to supose that a finite world could not sustain life, and no logical contradiction in
a finite world that contains life. — Banno

Correct. The finite world could sustain life.

Since the laws of nature are not tautologies, they do not exist necessarily, and therefore do not exist in all possible worlds. — A Christian Philosophy

So what?

That's fine. The conclusion is not based on the previous statement alone but from the discussion as a whole. — A Christian Philosophy

I am afraid that does not follow.

Why? There are possible worlds in which there is no life. Why not possible worlds in which life is not possible? — Banno

I assume that all possible worlds are infinite in size. Of course, if a possible world is finite in size, then life may not be possible within the world.

Even if that is true, it is also true that not all laws of nature exist in all possible worlds. — A Christian Philosophy

How do you know?

So the laws of nature for a given possible world are designed. — A Christian Philosophy

That does not follow from the previous statement.

Define, please. I believe you are tangled up in various meanings of this word. — tim wood

By experience, I mean a conscious event that contains information, such as percepts, feelings, thoughts, etc.

but claim physics doesn't "experience" time... and does nto "know" time. what does that mean? — Banno

By experience, I mean a conscious event that contains information. By know, I mean being aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. Generally, the physical does not have the capacity to know. Even if we grant this capacity for the sake of argument, it cannot know the correct time that the causation is due to, since it does not experience time.

And there is an odd jump from "the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2" to "physical cannot be the cause of its own change". I don't understand what that phrase is trying to do. — Banno

Most people have difficulty seeing how P3 follows from P2. C follows from P3. By "physical cannot be the cause of its own change" I mean that the change in physical assuming that it is due to cause and effect cannot occur.

As humans do.... Things that are not human are generally not expected to "experience" the way humans do. — tim wood

So you agree that the physical, a cup of tea for example, does not have subjective experience at all, including experiencing time.

Are you suggesting that things are not, then, subject to the passage of time? — tim wood

I think that anything that is changing is subject to the passage of time.

As to your thought experiment, you can believe what you like, but you have proved/demonstrated nothing. And that is the important point. You seem to think you have, and that's why I wonder if you can tell the difference between belief and fact. — tim wood

My thought experiment in fact is very demonstrative. Philosophers use examples all the time to demonstrate something that is difficult to grasp.

By relational, I mean that information depends on engagement with the substance, otherwise the substance is not a vehicle of informing. — NotAristotle

We have two things here, information and getting informed. The object is a vehicle of information. Getting informed, however, requires an agent to conceive the information through perceiving the object.

Unsupported claims, assumptions, hypothetical conditionals, false conclusions. — tim wood

The physical neither has a sensory system to experience time nor has a memory to estimate the passage of time through the accumulation of memory, as humans do. In fact, saying that the physical can experience time is absurd since the physical including us exists within each instant of time only and each instant of time is similar (please consider my thought experiment).

What do you mean?

Your arguments are predicated on beliefs and assumptions and thus have no more force than your beliefs and assumptions provide. This a fatal flaw for proofs. — tim wood

I don't think that my argument is based on beliefs and assumptions. Here is my argument in syllogism form for further consideration:

D1) Consider two states of a physical (consider an electron as an example of a physical), S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the causal power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct time, t2, to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2
C) So, physical cannot be the cause of its own change

Sure I know the difference between facts and beliefs. What does this have to do with my argument?

An invalid argument is an argument that its premises are false. Could you point to a premise in my argument which is false?

The beauty of sculpture is its intrinsic property. We are however informed about its beauty by looking at it and having a subjective experience of beautiful sculpture.

Like the form of a sculpture.

Hi and welcome to the forum! What is your OP?

For I understand information not as a substance but as the relationship. — JuanZu

I didn't say that information is a substance but information is a form of a substance.

MoK, you want to say the information just is the form, right? That's fine, but if you go that route then you seem to be implying that the information just is the form and is contained therein. But if this is the case, information would not appear to be an act that requires engagement between interpreter and interpreted, as JuanZu has suggested it is. — NotAristotle

Yes, to me the information is a specific form of the object. We become aware of it only when we perceive the object.

For JuanZu, information is relational, not intrinsic to any substantial form. You might respond that the creation of the sculpture is relational, and I think that is correct, but without the audience there would appear to be something, let's say "incomplete," about the information. — NotAristotle

What do you mean by relational here?

Okay, now I think your trichotomy of object, audience, and artist is spot on and I also agree that the audience is the interpreter. Contrary to my initial thoughts, it is the interpreted who transcribes the substance into an informational content, that is, into a substantial form through which information can be had, that is, what I have called the communicative act. — NotAristotle

Do you mean interpreter (bold part)? If yes I agree with what you said.

And since the communicative act of informing is a two way street, we may add that just as the artist communicates to the audience (but where such communication is itself obscure to the artist because he knows not what his art means to the audience), so does the audience communicate to the artist and leave an impression on him -- "what a beautiful sculpture" or "I don't really get it." — NotAristotle

Communication in the case of a work of art is a one-way street. The artist creates his work with his intention, what he wants to communicate. The audience perceives the work and gets the message that the artist wanted to communicate.

In this context, what is directly designed are the laws of nature. — A Christian Philosophy

But life is possible whatever the laws of nature are! So my objection about the design is valid.