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.

I've several years of graduate logic to call on.

You are a fool. — Banno

You kept attacking the OP because it started with an assumption by contradiction.
Moreover, you don't even know in what form OPs usually start either.
Who is the real fool here?

Disappointed at your level of knowledge on logic. You don't even understand what proof and assumption via contradiction in logical reasonings mean. That is so basic stuff in logic.

You do not have anything more than a superficial grasp of logic. You were not presenting a reductio. You are a bit of a twit. — Banno

I take that as your self-confession. :rofl:

You wriggle and squirm. — Banno

I am just trying to help you understand the points.

...unfounded...
— Corvus
You blatantly contradicted yourself, at least twice. — Banno

If you did read a good basic logic textbook, then you would have known that contradiction is necessary in some cases of logical reasonings.

If I contradicted myself, then it would have been for proving something using Reductio ad absurdum. Why do you find it unacceptable that contradiction was adopted in the process of proof or assumption?

Yet
I never claimed time doesn't exist.
— Corvus

Not so unfounded... — Banno

You seem to have problem of understanding under what form OP comes in general. They come in the form of suggestion and assumption for further discussions. OPs don't start with conclusions.
Also "existence" can mean many different things. "doesn't exist" implies it exists in other forms. Obviously your understanding of existence is 1-dimension only.

My suggestion it that it is a fictiticious placeholder, an abstraction of derived from physical process. — hypericin

That sounds not far from my idea on time too. But a fictitious placeholder sounds a bit unclear. Why "fictitious"? What do you mean by "fictitious"?

When you say "a placeholder", would it be in the form of concept? Or would it be some other form or nature?

But if there is such a thing, it is the same sort of thing as space. Space is the medium of arrangement, as time is the medium of sequence. — hypericin

I understand space as physical entity. Do you mean the placeholder could be in space somewhere?
Could it be in the form of property of space or principle of motion?

Corvus is incapable of shouldering critique. Been that way for years. Hence his response here is to attack you and I, to do anything but reconsider. — Banno

You don't hold back your unfounded critiques to others, but you are not prepared to accept others' critiques on you. That is an irrational attitude.

So blatant. Oh, well. There's nought queer as folk. — Banno

My point was to get over it, and just concentrate on philosophy.

The case of the high calibre politicians involved in accepting bribes seems to be viewed differently from country to country. For example in countries like China, or South Korea, it would be regarded as serious failing of the politician's moral integrity, and be judged as highly serious crime, which will get the politician sacked, or even jailed.

But in UK, the public and the law seem to regard them as just usual perks of the job. Would it be the case?

Aren't the perceptual functions and imaginative functions pretty much the same though? — Metaphysician Undercover

Perceptions require external objects, and the state of consciousness. Imaginations can happen with no external objects in the real world. When imagination happens from past memories or subconsious desires with no consciousness (while asleep), they are dreams.

That is incoherent. — MoK

I think I said it before, but will say again. It is difficult to understand from physics or math point of view. All they have is numbers and measurements of the movement, motions and change of the objects. That is not time itself. You need to rise above from the physical plain, and think in metaphysical plain.

I don't understand how that could be a proper response to our discussion. — MoK

Well, I have been trying to help you understand, but the progress seems to be slow and challenging.

Therefore there is a car that is moving. Therefore, changes in physical are real. — MoK

Change is from the original state to a new state. You don't say car moving is change. Car moving is driving or travelling.

I am discussing logic here. Could you have a change in a simultaneous process? — MoK

Change happens in a contradictory moment. The contradictory moment where forward driving force or energy on the mass (the stone or steel pipe), and the object (the glass) comes into the physical contact with each other. The force and the object being in contact with the mass with the force is in the contradictory moment. That contradiction is the instance of the change.

When the change had happened, it is no longer change. Before the change happened, there was no change. Change is the instance. It is not process. It is not continuity.