P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK

Does experience exist? Whose experience are you talking about here, and what experience? Does experience change? From what to what does it change?

No, I'm quite sure that time is 1D, because a 1D time plus a 3D space allows your physical theory to have a 4D spacetime. — Arcane Sandwich

Time is just a concept.

Watch the video Arcane. Time can also be 3D according to the video presenter Dr. Schooler.

I can keep living quite happily without time, but I cannot live without space. To move around and go to places, we need space. I am 100% certain that no one can exist without space, unless he/she is a soul or spirit.

Pardon. The same argument can be made about time, Corvus. — Arcane Sandwich

Not quite. I was quite happy existing when I was a child, and didn't know what time was. Space? No space, no body.

Wrong thread. Post deleted.

Hmmm, I think Mww would agree that objects being real checks out, but why would space be real if you hold time as merely a priori? — Bob Ross

If space didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist. You exist (I presume), hence space exists. : MT

So we agree it is nine days since you claimed time does not exist. — Banno

My claim still exists in the OP, but the time 9 days ago doesn't seem to exist anymore. It passed. No longer existing. Only the now seems to exist. Even the now passes away as soon as it exists, strictly speaking. In this case, can it exist? What is it that exists here? The claim, the OP or 9 days ago? Or the now?

It is not contrary at all. I have my own argument for it. — MoK

What is your argument for it? Just to reconfirm. Please elaborate with the reason why it is valid with supporting examples and evidence from real world. Thanks.

You refer me to the battle realism VS idealism. For me there is always a delay of everything existing that prevents its presence from being absolutely or absolutely identical to itself, but it is still constitutive. This delay is given by the relational being of things. And this is impossible to be given without time and space. This is applicable to consciousness which in turn is referred to an outside that constitutes it. Therefore time and space are conditions of consciousness. Therefore, time is something real and existent. — JuanZu

What about saying time is a general concept? The video above says time is a 3 dimensional entity which is made up with subjective, objective and alternative time. That too, is saying nothing much more than time is a complex multi dimensional concept.

You won't see any of the objects or existence or entities called time, but time has multi layered conceptual structure which contains various aspects of the temporal events and traces from human experience in the real world.

All I am saying is that people falsely equate God, who is the creator of the creation from nothing, by uncaused cause. — MoK

I am not sure what "uncaused cause" means. Shouldn't you prove or demonstrate what uncaused cause means before progressing into the argument? I can understand "unknown cause", but "uncaused cause" sounds like a contradiction to me.

Hope to see you more often in the forum for discussions. Good luck & cheers.

I’ve recently discovered something in Nietzsche’s work that appears to ‘grow beyond’ the current thinking on the relation between affect (emotion, mood , feeling, becoming, value) and truth (perception , cognition, reason, identity, empiricism). — Joshs

C G Jung says Nietzsche's Zarathustra in TSZ was referring to Jesus in the bible in his 2 volume seminar transcripts of his study group talks.

Human minds? I would prefer 'the observer' or just 'mind'. To say 'human minds' is already in some basic way to objectify, to stand outside. — Wayfarer

But what other minds could know about time apart from human minds?

Have another look at this post from five days ago - notice that I start that post by saying the OP is 'mistaken'. What I mean is, It's not that time doesn't *exist*. It exists, but we're mistaken about the nature of time - that is what is at issue, and it's a deep issue. — Wayfarer

Yes, that was the point of the OP. I agree with your point here.

How Long Is One Day on Other Planets?
The Short Answer:
Planet

Day Length

Mercury 1,408 hours
Venus 5,832 hours
Earth 24 hours
Mars 25 hours
Jupiter 10 hours
Saturn 11 hours
Uranus 17 hours
Neptune 16 hours

- Info from NASA Science, Space Place

It's now eight days since the OP. Does time still not exist? — Banno

It just means the earth has rotated itself 8 times since the start of the OP. Now 9 times. Is there anything more to it? And of course, you counted it, and noticed it.

That's an interesting way of conceptualizing what Logic is. — Arcane Sandwich

Symbolic logic from the textbooks are the engines in the model cars for the model tracks.
In the real word, no one says P, P^Q, P->Q.

Applying logic to the real world for finding the objective truths in the world are the engines in the real cars for us getting A to B for commuting daily, carrying the loads, delivering the goods, and the real racing cars in the real racing tracks. :smile:

Here, I am trying to establish that the uncaused cause and God are different. — MoK

Metaphysical theories can be established only via the refutations and arguments against their critics, not by avoidance of the critics. Keep arguing rationally and logically until the sound conclusions are reached is the way of the establishment.

The moon is dusty and full of craters; that's what happens when you leave cheese out! — PoeticUniverse

"If the moon is made of cheese" is a nonsense premise, hence it was rejected outright with whatever follows from it. :)

I need to see an argument before I can tell you whether or not I think it follows. — Janus

It was a simple statement with no complexities in its point. But you pointed out something doesn't follow in the statement, which indicates you have an argument why it doesn't follow. You couldn't have said it doesn't follow without your argument why it doesn't follow. :)

Wow, many posts on this topic. Will get back to the points in due course when time permits here. Time exists for sure, but in the form of general concept from the probable assumption, which could be refuted.

Meanwhile here is an interesting video about time for quick reference from a psychologist and brain scientist, Jonathan Schooler Ph.D.

Further, we commonly claim to experience it, but in no way do we sense it. The reality of time remains a deep mystery. — Metaphysician Undercover

It looks like time is a concept to me. It is like a general concept "human". We say "human" often in the arguments and daily conversations. But actually when you try find out who human is, there is no one called human in the world.

There are Johns, Marys, Janes, Peters, and Pauls, and a Metaphysician Undercover who also has his own real name. But there is no one called human. But all of the folks living in the world are humans. Isn't it the case with time?

There are intervals, durations, instances, moments, pasts, presents, futures, years, months, days, and seconds and light years ...etc. But there is no time in reality. And yet all those concepts are the subconcepts of time.

As I said, you are not interested in discussing the OP. That is all right to me. — MoK

I never said that. As you confirmed you said it, and it sounds too hasty judgements based on your feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests again. :roll: :smile:

to discuss that the idea of uncaused cause and God are not one, — MoK

The idea of uncaused cause? Isn't it a contradiction? It sounds like timeless time or unmoved movement.

Philosophy is to point out contradictions and clarify them whether they are acceptable for the arguments and contexts. You seem to be happy to accept the contradictions disguised as significant contribution (whatever that means) without philosophical clarification. :wink:

However, it's very interesting to note that we study the flow of time from its effects, and we do not directly experience the flow of time through sense observation. We infer logically, that the flow of time is real and independent, from the evidence of sense observation. We see evidence that things were changing prior to our presence. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not sure if time flows is logically correct way of saying it. Because if something flows, then it must be stoppable, and it must be visible or detectable directly. Time doesn't have the qualities which flowing normally gives. All there are in time are intervals, durations, instances, moments, years, months, hours and seconds. Hence could time be just a general concept calling all these temporal elements?

We know that time 'flows' absent of human awareness, because we see evidence of it. We see evidence that things were changing (therefore time was flowing) before we were here, and this allows us to extrapolate, and talk about the flow of time, without the human mind being there, at that time, to perceive the resulting changes. — Metaphysician Undercover

But seeing things were changing is not time itself, is it? You are just seeing changes of things. Where is time, if you didn't measure the duration or intervals of time taken for the changes?

That's what I mean. — Wayfarer

There will be changes, motions and movements for sure as always have been since the beginning of the universe with the weather, nights, mornings and days, explosions and comets flying. But time? It needs human mind to exist. Are we being extreme idealists here?

I am just a learner of Logic. I believe that Logic is very important subject in philosophy, although some argue logic is not philosophy. Logic is the engine of all philosophical arguments.

Getting back to the empiricists, Hume is known to have denied idea of self, because he couldn't find the impression of self. He said, there is no corresponding impression or idea of self, and when tries to find the idea of self, he can only find a bundle of perception. Therefore the idea of self doesn't exist. Due to the point, he is branded as a sceptic as well as empiricist.
What does it tell you? Empirical thoughts can easily lead to extreme skepticism. Sometimes reason need to intervene to empirical way of thinking.

Yes, that could well be the case. Everyone has different interest on the different subjects in philosophy. Also you are an excellent logician.

:pray: :blush: No, Arcane. You are too modest. I am just a casual reader of philosophy. You are a professional metaphysician. We just see things from different perspectives sometimes.

Don't empiricists believe that knowledge comes from experience rather than reason alone? Hence even if there were no observable qualities of the objects movements were perceived, if it came from experience, then it would still be perception and knowledge. Hume didn't deny the movement of the billiard balls and existence force when expounding his cause and effect theory.

It doesn't mean empiricists are wrong. It means that some qualities of the objects are outside of human sense such as radio waves and magnetic force itself.

That's what I mean. — Wayfarer

:ok: :up:

So yeah, it's worth pondering - but don't expect to land on a "proven" paradigm. — Relativist

Arguments are as important as the conclusion in philosophy. Paradigm can change anytime when better proofs and arguments come along.

That doesn't seem to follow. Do you have an argument for why and how the fact that imagining is a function of mind precludes the possibility of imagining that the world is independent of mind? — Janus

Tell us first why it doesn't seem to follow.

It would - but by what measure? In the absence of awareness of past-present-future then what is time? — Wayfarer

How would it flow? If time is a general concept which covers all the temporality in general, how would time flow without human mind perceiving, measuring, asking, and telling?

It's the national poem of Argentina. It's part of my identity. — Arcane Sandwich

:ok: :cool:

These are examples..I don't know the exact nature of this intrinsic sense of "time", but only noting that there must be something.

I suggest that the best explanation for this vague sense of time, is that it is consistent with reality: there's something ontological; it's not just a figment of the imagination.

It's a secondary matter as to how we account for time, and how we analyze it. We first need to accept that there is SOMETHING ontological to it. — Relativist

I had this idea that Time could be a general concept for all the durations, intervals in hours, minutes and seconds, days, months, years, even the light years. It even includes past present future. When you are looking for the ontological status of time, what you get is just your past memories, present perceptions, and future ideas, which are fleeting in your mind.

I agree, and I think it's worthwhile to construct a framework that helps us analyze time. A framework that makes successful predictions is better than one that doesn't. Would you agree? — Relativist

I need to think about the point. Will get back to you if and when I get some ideas on it. But for now, what I think is this. It is a reiteration of above my point. It could be wrong, or reasonable. I need to keep thinking on it. If you let me know what you think, that would be great too.

Time is a general concept which contains all of the particular events of durations, intervals, moments, and personal perceptions from the memories of past, future ideas and present perception with consciousness.

Great poem on Time too. Gracias. :pray:

T. S. Eliot PoemsThe Four QuartetsBurnt Norton

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
But to what purpose
Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves
I do not know

I thought you were interested in discussing the OP. It seems you are not. So the end of the discussion. — MoK

I was discussing about the logical problems in the argument of the OP, but you seem to think it is not related to the OP.

Philosophical discussion is all about clarification and verification with reasoning and logical inference on the given arguments. It is not about blindly accepting premises, assumption and definitions randomly made up.

What do you think of the argument in OP? Here is the final form of the argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes — MoK

The argument has many premises, but each premises need to be debated and verified for its coherence and soundness in order to proceed to the next premise and then to the conclusion. I am not sure if some folks just blindly accept any premises laid out as valid premise, and go crazy if the premise was denied, or assert that premises must be accepted without checking them out. But to me that is not logic.

Each premises must be checked out and verified for its validity and soundness. If you don't agree, then the argument cannot be reasoned between us. You need to discuss it with someone who insist all premises must be accepted as truth no matter what the premises say such as the Moon is made of cheese, or The King of France has 50 fingers.

This is a super large topic, because we must start with the first premise "God exists". This proposition has been in discussion for hundreds of years in history of philosophy.