Movement presupposes time. Movement is being at one place at one time, and another place at another time. The claim that movement does not involve time involves a misunderstanding of movement. — Banno

So how did rocks fall down from the hill to the river before invention of time?

So what. If there is a past, then time has passed, and therefore time exists. — Banno

Can you access the past? Is the word "passed" useful for time value?

You seem to know quite a bit about time. Odd, if it doesn't exist. — Banno

Time is a concept. Later is a word to mean future. It is not time itself. It is a word. Your misunderstanding seems to be coming from mistaking a word as time. They are not the same. Anyhow, you say it exists. Please demonstrate and prove it exists.

What I have done here is show that saying time does not exist leads to quite a few inconsistencies. Specifically, today, I have shown that movement, force and energy all involve time.

If you think my answers are wrong, it might be becasue you are asking the wrong questions. — Banno

As said, the original point I was talking about was why the objects move. But you came up with the whole loads of strawman wasting much time talking about the irrelevant details coming from misunderstanding the words as time.

Going back to the OP, this:
Time doesn't exist.
— Corvus
has been shown to lead to inconsistency. — Banno

It wasn't inconsistency. It was an assumption of the OP.
Demonstrate and prove time exists.

What has any of this to do with the definition of movement? An object moves if it is at a different place at a different time. Hence movement involves time. Talking of "care" here is a category error. — Banno

It wasn't about definition of movement. It was a statement that movement happens without time. Mover doesn't care about time, but still moves.

Presumably if you have a value for the time passed, then you have made a measurement. But that does not imply that without a measurement there is no time. Time may pass, unmeasured. — Banno

But you didn't get any accurate useable time value apart from "passed". What's the point?

So you understood my "Later". It seems you do know something about time, despite your protestations to the contrary. — Banno

Time is a concept. "Later" means some future, which is an element of the set of time. I never protested about anything.

I just said you seem to be talking wrong things not even reading or understanding the posts that you were supposed to reply to, and keep giving out wrong answers, and then in deep illusion that I was protesting about something. I was just answering to your questions, because you seem to be curious about the topic of time.

A category error. Caring is not the sort of thing that movement does. Movement does require time. — Banno

If movement was from human or animals, then the mover don't care about time for movement. Mover still moves. Movement still happens. Caring was a bit of metaphor, but you don't seem to understand it.

Yes. You seem to think this implies that time only occurs when measured. That does not follow. — Banno

How else do you get the time value without measuring? You seem to be now stepping into mysticism.

Later. — Banno

Ok

No. If an object has moved, then it is in a different location at a different time. That's what "movement" is. — Banno

Movement doesn't care about time, but it still happens. You get the time value when you measure it with the stop watch.

We do know things about time. Quite a bit. Including that, contrary to your OP, it exists. — Banno

What do you know about time? Please tell us.

This shows a deep misunderstanding of both movement, and knowledge.

Movement involves an object being in one location at a given time, and at another location at another time. Hence movement involves time. — Banno

If you only measure it.

And some things are true, even if they are not known. — Banno

We are talking about time here. What is something?

You might not know anything about time, but the rest of us have quite a good understanding. — Banno

Wrong answer. Not talking about me here. The question was if you don't know anything about time, does time exist?

Rubbish. Moving the book will take time, whether you know it or not. — Banno

If we don't know anything about time, does time exist?

I don't know - indeed, the question may well be useless. We don't need to know where time comes form in order to understand that force and energy involve time. What we might seek is consistency. — Banno

Time is an extra variable to calculate the value of energy, but for the movement of the object, it doesn't get involved at all. The object moves quite happily without knowing anything about time.

Only that there is time. — Banno

That sounds unclear, and meaningless.

And that claiming that there is force and energy but no time involves a contradiction. — Banno

I can push my book here on the desk without knowing anything about time, and it moves. If I measured time it took to move from one side to the other end, I know the time. But otherwise, time is not involved in the movement at all.

No. — Banno

Where did time come from then?

Nothing moves but that a period of time is involved. If it moves in zero time, the force is infinite. — Banno

It sounds like a claim of appeal to the equation in high school physics.

Not at all. The notion of "time being invented" is a nonsense. — Banno

Do you claim that time was given down by God to humanity?

Force and energy are both physical constructs. Time is part of the construction. — frank

Please read above.

I'm pointing out that if you have force and energy, then you must thereby also have time. — Banno

Think this way. Do you mean that before time was invented, the stones never fell from the high cliff down the river?

I'm pointing out that if you have force and energy, then you must thereby also have time. — Banno

But whether you bring in time or not, the object still moves by the force.

Indeed, and your explanation was that they move because of force and energy; yet force and energy are defined in terms of time. Hence, on your own account, they move because of time.

The stuff you claim does not exist. — Banno

Are you saying that if you don't measure time, the force and energy doesn't exist?

You seem to be talking about some high school physics stuff. But here we were talking about why the objects move. Not how long it takes to move.

Force is defined as mass times acceleration, and acceleration is change in velocity over time. Energy is force times displacement. So both are inversely proportional to the square of the time taken - less time, more force, more energy.

So you again are exactly wrong. — Banno

Do you even read the posts when you reply to them?

And it will take that long, measured or not. — Banno

We were talking about why the object move. Not how long it takes to move.
Again, you are talking about wrong things here.

Put another way: What if you abandoned the notions of space and time as metaphysical containers, and thought only of objects and their relative arrangements and motions. What would you thereby lose? — hypericin

The universe will keep on working as it has been, but human civilization would be much different from now. Once upon a time, long time ago, the cavemen must have lived without language and concepts of time or space.

Why does the object move? — Christoffer

If you drop a stone from the top floor of 10m high building, the stone will fall onto the ground even if no one measured how long it took for the stone to hit the ground. The reason stone fell to the ground was the gravity force pulling the stone from the earth. It has nothing to do with time.

Time only emerges into the equation, because it is measured by someone, and says it took 3 seconds for the stone to hit the ground. But it was totally unnecessary for the movement.

Objects move because of energy or force, not because of time.

A kind of concept. An eminently useful mental tool we use to engage with the world. We ideate it as having an essential reality of it's own that we can't clearly articulate. But it does not. — hypericin

We are close on our view of time here. My reasoning was telling me that time is a general concept or set which contains (placeholder) for all the temporal objects and events and gives us the tool to describe them.

I wouldn't call space an entity, and I don't think you perceive it any more or less than time. When you think you perceive space, you are only perceiving objects and their arrangements. — hypericin

When you pour coffee into a cup, is it cup or space in the cup which holds coffee? If there were no space in the cup, coffee won't be contained in the cup.

Space is also perceptible too. We don't sit on a chair if someone else is already sitting and taking up the space on the chair with her body. We make sure to sit on an empty chair.

We only drive when space is available on the stretch of the road. When space is not available due to the car in front is stationery or road is blocked by work, we stop the car until the road gets cleared and space is available for the car to keep driving.

Likewise even dogs and cats seem to be able to perceive space. They don't try walk through a wall or closed door. They only walk and run when space is available for them.

So, space does things for us (contains and holds), and is perceptible, and also is a precondition for all the objects existing in the universe.

But I see your point. Space is an odd object or entity if we could describe it as entity. I was not sure if it is correct to say space exists. Because it is perceptible, but invisible at the same time.
It exists, if and only if when no physical objects exist in it or on it.

Like time, it seems problematic to say it exists. Space is available. Time passes. But can they exist? In Meinong, only physical beings exist. The abstract beings like time and space absist, rather than exist.

It seems too naive and simple, and even obtuse to say they exist, just because we use them, and can talk about them.

:ok: Interesting. Need to read some Meinong for me to be able to further comment on the point. Many thanks for your replies.

Therefore, in the absence of objects there will still be properties. — RussellA

I agree with this idea. So, is existence a property of object, or entity with mass? Or both?

If we agree that existence implies the both, then in the case of EPP, could we say, X doesn't exist, could mean it doesn't exist in entity with mass, but it still exists as an EPP with the property of nonexistence.

IOW, when you say X doesn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists as an EPP with the property of nonexistence. Would appreciate your comment if you see any inconsistency or fallacy in this.

Meinong rejects this principle, allowing properties to be assigned to nonexistent things such as Santa. My topic concerns two things: Arguments for/against this position, and implications of it. — noAxioms

Haven't read Meinong, but if it is his idea, then I agree. Properties can be assigned to nonexistent objects such as Santa, God and time.

If it is philosophical derailing with good arguments, then fair enough.

In the absence of properties there must be an absence of an object. In the absence of an object there must be an absence of properties. Therefore, in the absence of properties there must be the absence of any property — RussellA

Can there be existence of properties where there is absence of object? For instance, time?

A good article on Temporal Logic on Wiki.

SEP Article on Temporal Logic by Valentine Goranko.

. In that sense there is a need for the past in order to understand and explain the possibility of the present. — JuanZu

Was there always past? Does it mean without past there is no present? Or is it rather without present, there is no past? Was there ever the first present without past in the universe? If there was, where is the first present from?

I don't care I'm not a mod any more. I thought Banno tagged me for chitchat reasons. — fdrake

I see. Totally forgot about your recent resignation.

Why not say the same about the past? Something proper to the past is that it was once present. In that sense there is a need for the past in order to understand and explain the possibility of the present. That the present passes but does not disappear completely (becomes past) is necessary for the existence of the present as something caused. — JuanZu

Problem with past is that it is in our memory and archives. Events in the past are no longer accessible at present, unless they are the objects with continuing existence such as cups, chairs, documents and films.

In Temporal logic, time can be modeled in two different types, namely Model of instances, and Model of Intervals. The fact that time can be modeled implies that it can capture past present future and instances too. You are correct in saying that the passing present doesn't disappear completely but it becomes part of the past. Hence time can be viewed as instances or intervals depending on what events or situations we are talking about. It is flexible.

Oh I thought this was the shoutbox, my bad. — fdrake

Apologies for all the off-topic postings here. Never an intention of mine, but the two folks with emotional problems. As soon as they appeared, I kinda suspected where it might head. :D

Will try again just to stay on the topic and philosophical pursuits :)

Cool. If you have a problem with my posts, tell the mods. — Banno

OK, will do. cheers.

Cool. If you have a problem with my posts, tell the mods. — Banno

I was just giving you advice not to go that path, that you often wandered into. But you two have taken the advice in emotional way.

..will accept and learn from criticism. — Banno

Many other people here noticed and suffered from your antics, and the OP derailing attempts and complained about them many times too.

You two are just here to derail the OP keep posting off-topic rubbish as usual. Not good.

Read your own postings too. You are not just unfair, but also dangerous and harmful in making up and spreading emotionally fueled disinformation to the genuine philosophic students who are pursuing their studies.

Read your postings. It's a fact. You are still in delusion. It is not me who is sinking.

Well that's your twisted and deluded view. No one will take your postings seriously apart from Banno, and anyone would have guessed why by now.

But you don't even know what assumption by contradiction in the introduction to Logic textbook means. Plus you don't even know how OPs usually starts. What you have been saying don't seem to quite add up or be reflecting the truth.

:roll: Well you're wrong. What I write on here are not "emotional writings", not emotional apart from impatience and annoyance when people distort what I have written or do not respond to reasoned critiques reasonably but deflect and wriggle just as you do. — Janus

Well, if you care to read Banno's postings, he just proved himself as the official fool. I was right.

Sadly, what you say here is true. — Janus

And as predicted you are just his spokesman, as he was yours.