You clearly have an intuitive understanding of past present and future - because you refer to.them . Those are "imaginings", but they're primary - innate. No one has to train you to distingish events in this way. You just learn words to apply to your innate sense.

That distinguishes it from your other imaginings about past present and future. — Relativist

Time itself doesn't have past present future. It is us who divide time into those categories depending on what point, and what part of time we want to focus on.

It does not follow that they are one. The "becoming" needs to be accounted for, and can be - in a way consistent with your intuitive basis. — Relativist

Again, time itself doesn't become anything. We see them different way. There are no labels on time.

God is a substance. By change, I mean a change in the substance. — MoK

What is substance? Would it be some sort of mass or matter? Mass or matter would be perceivable i.e. sensible i.e. tangible, visible and locatable. Is this what you mean by substance?

Now that I've joined this thread, I will say something about this statement, namely, that I think it's fallacious. — Wayfarer

I have missed this post. Apologies. Belated welcome to the thread.

But this emphatically doesn't mean that 'time doesn't exist', simpliciter. Try holding your breath for a minute while you say that. — Wayfarer

I think I said it in some other replies the same answer. "time doesn't exist" doesn't mean it is denying the reality of time or our daily uses and reliance of time. But it is asking rather if time is the objective entity or property of the world, or it is rather internal perception of human mind.

If it is the former, it might exist in some form of physical entity. If it is the latter then it is psychological state of mind. In that case would it be correct to say time exists? We are not talking about the use or reliance of time in our daily life here, but we are (as the traditional philosophers have done) trying to find the arche of time.

If it didn't exist, it doesn't mean it is nothing. Because nonexistence is also a type of existence. It could be defined as a pure form of existence. If you are an idealist, then it is a perfectly acceptable definition.

FC) Therefore, God changes — MoK

What does "God changes" mean here? Is it physical change or metaphysical change? Changes can happen in different levels i.e. physical, logical, metaphysical, biological, syntactic or semantical ... etc.
Of course physical changes require space and time for its precondition. Biological changes can be the same changes as physical or chemical changes.

You came to the conclusion, but the conclusion need to clarify himself what he means by "changes". I would guess that it would be tricky to clarify the nature of change without first knowing what God means.

The OP seems to assert he doesn't want to talk about God. But the conclusion you arrived seems to be forcing for revelation under the logical necessity here between "changes" and "God". Without the clarification, the conclusion would sound empty and blind.

I think we first must distinguish between subjective time and objective time. We perceive subjective time rather than objective one. The subjective time is created in the brain, and it is subject to change, depending on the mood, emotion, substance usage, diseases, etc. This article discusses the subjective time. Objective time is a part of the spacetime manifold and it is the subject of physics though. — MoK

If you posit time into two different types, then which one is the real time? Are the two different times synchronisable in any way? Would it not create confusion trying to find out which time you must accept as the real time?

If one is the real, then is the other illusion? Or are they both real, or both illusion?

That's why I said it. We can't speak too much in Spanish, in this Forum, even though this Thread is called Ontology of Time.

Think of it like this: Heidegger said "remanens capax mutationem". That's Latin. And Spanish, unlike English, evolved from Latin. — Arcane Sandwich

remanens capax mutationem ? - I need to go and think about it for a while to see what it actually means.

Being seems to be another vast topic in Philosophy, similar to Time, hence why I tried to read Heidegger, because he wrote about Being and Time extensively. But his language in the original texts is highly abstruse, and uses the Greek words extensively in his sentences, which I found difficult to penetrate.
I put them down, and decided to return when I learned some Greek, which hasn't happened yet.

I didn't know Latin and Spanish had the same root. But Latin is another language which would be very useful in reading philosophy I would imagine. I had tried to learn Spanish long time ago, when I had a friend from Chile. But I realised it is impossible to learn so many different languages within the limited time we each have in life.

Talking about languages, I believe that a large part of Time is also embedded in our languages.
Always, eventually, gradually, at the end, in the beginning, at the same time, instantly, .... all seem to describe Time. But then is it the case they describe Time? Or would it be the case that they describe motions, movements and changes rather?

Indeed, comrade. Indeed. — Arcane Sandwich

Comrade sounds more spiritualistic.

I’ve never researched the question from the perspective of Buddhism. — Wayfarer

From my understanding, Buddhists claim there is no eternity and no self. Time is known to be eternal. Could it mean Buddhists deny time too? Would be interesting to find out.

Mine is an intuitive understanding but I believe it can be justified philosophically. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by "it can be justified philosophically"? I agree time is a wide topic, but at the end of the day, the OP is asking if time exists. When it asks if it exists, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means in what form it exists. Actually t may be found that time may not exist. But isn't nonexistence a pure form of existence?

It would be silly to ask if water or air exists. But it is a valid question to ask in what form time exists.

What's Buddhism's account of time? Is your view of time from Buddhism?

So reflecting on past and future doesn't have bearing on their having actually been a past, nor in there eventually being a future. Right? — Relativist

Yes, you are correct here.

The ordered relation: past-present-future refers to the actual, not to the order we choose to contemplate them. — Relativist

In theory, the ordered relation is true, but in reality they are one. If you think about it, future continuously becomes present, and present becomes past. In this case, is the division actually valid?

I do address that problem in The Mind Created World, although if you would like to discuss it further, that would probably a better thread for it. — Wayfarer

Do you believe mind also creates time? or is time a part of the world? Were there postings regarding time in the thread?

Imagine a world independent of the mind in which time does not pass, our experiences would not be able to perceive the movement of things either, don't you think? — JuanZu

It sounds illogical to be able to imagine a world independent of mind, when imagining is a function mind.

Human mind must have the common objective capability for perception and judgement such as reasoning and sympathy. Wouldn't time perception be some sort of perceptive mechanism from the shared capability of mind?

Without watches or clocks, no one can tell the exact time anyway. If you lock yourself in an empty room with no windows, and stay in there for days or even hours, would you be able to tell what time it is when you trying to tell time?

I would not say because of time. Time is not the cause of movement, but time is part of movement. For a dog it is obvious that time passes, but it has no concept of time. The important thing here is to understand that movement does not occur without time, because any movement can only be explained in a before and an after. But they are not the same thing: without movement we do not perceive time; but time passes even for a hypothetical motionless object, we call it persistence or duration. — JuanZu

That seems to suggest even motions and movement has nothing to do with time. Motions and movements are result of energy or force applying to mass or object. Time is measurement of the start and end of motion or movement, not motion or movement themselves.

You need motions and movement first before they tell you how long it took to end the process. At the end of the day, you have measured the intervals, not time itself. Would you agree?

I assume you agree that our imaginings of future and past are not the same as the future and the past. — Relativist

But you can only access all the past and future from present. Past has gone and not accessible from present unless from the memory and experience. Future is only accessible from imagination. I could only tell about the future of the world economy from at this moment and it is totally based on my imagination.

If I can access the future in reality, then I can win the lottery jackpot tomorrow. But I can only imagine it, which is surely inaccurate. Why inaccurate 99.99%? Because it is based on my imagination. All can only be accessible from present using my memory of the past, consciousness of the now, and imagination for the future. That was my idea. You may disagree on that.

Aun mejor es Carlos Astrada, buen hombre. — Arcane Sandwich

Es bueno saber que hay muchos grandes filósofos en los países de habla hispana. Leer y estudiar sus obras nos brindará perspectivas interesantes y alternativas sobre muchos temas filosóficos difíciles.

No hay de qué, caballero. Lea José Ortega y Gasset. — Arcane Sandwich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ortega_y_Gasset
Es un nombre nuevo para mí en filosofía, pero parece ser un gran filósofo, especialmente para los estudios de Heidegger. Gracias de nuevo mi amigo.

What did you mean by "future" when you said:

I was imagining and meaning some present moment in the future,
— Corvus
? — Relativist

"future" is the moment which will become present soon and in inevitable consequence, and it can be imagined at present.

No, he could not. God has being, as does everything else. Think of it like this: all animals have life, but there is no animal called "Life". All entities have being, but there is no entity called "Being". — Arcane Sandwich

Fair enough. Good explanation, gracias. I also feel that Time is closely related to Being.

The way I see it, Being is historical. Existence is not. Both them (Being and existence) are temporal, but not in the same way. Existence has no history. — Arcane Sandwich

:ok: :up:

It means that not even God could grant you access to Being. — Arcane Sandwich

Could God be Being himself? From my memory of flicking SUZ, man is Dasein i.e. Being at now and here. What would Being as God be?

Being is never entirely present. Even when it reveals itself, something remains hidden. We will never access Being. Not even through divine revelation. — Arcane Sandwich

Time doesn't reveal itself either. Moreover isn't all Being temporal? Therefore time is a part of Being. That idea just passed by me. It could be wrong. I need to get back to Heidegger. But fair enough on your idea. I am not sure also what divine revelation means. Does he say something about it? As you indicated, I am sure Heidegger says a lot about Time, hence Sein Und Zeit.

To discuss Time is to discuss Being. — Arcane Sandwich

Could it imply that Time is Being or a part of Being in Heidegger?

Well, do so. I am not stopping you mate.

What does this mean? Have you lost your mind? You are so far out of touch with the English language that we literally cannot have a rational conversation. — flannel jesus

That is a simple plain English. It means what it says.

I didn't say it's made of a bunch of paradoxes, I said you produced an apparent paradox, trivially, by just making false statements and claiming they're true by definition. — flannel jesus

I thought your point was the argument is from the paradoxes made up randomly with the false statements or something like that. So if contradiction is introduced for the steps of logical proof, then you claim it is a paradox, because false statement is made up and added. To my understanding, that was not a claim from someone who knew anything about logic.

Reductio ad absurdum is the most used method of logical proof from the ancient times. You call it making up false statement from paradox didn't make sense to me at all.

If I allow myself false statements, then voila, I can produce a paradox at will." — flannel jesus

That is not false statements in the rule of logical proof. If I could recall it correctly, you can make up the molecular statements from atomic statements using the connectives for assumption under the rule of addition, elimination, MP and MT etc. These steps are needed to come to the required proof of conclusion.

We were talking about the Morning star and evening star. Which part is false statement in the argument?

You acknowledge a future, and I assume you also acknowledge a past. This suggests a ordered relation: past->present->future.
We can label this ordered relation, "time". It's not a complete account, but it's a beginning. — Relativist

But when you are reflecting the events in past, present and future, they don't need to always in the order of the past -> present -> future. You could think about the future on what will happen to your project or the world in next year, and then you could go back to the past, when you have started the project, and then think about the present state of the world economy.

There is no law saying you must always perceive the events in your mind in the order, is there?

OK, FJ, going to back to your initial point, you claimed my argument is made up of a bunch of paradoxes. If you could point out exactly which part of my argument are paradox and explain the reasons why they are paradoxes, then I will try to clarify them with you, if you would like me to.

Thank you for your kind comment, Arcane Sandwich. As you rightly pointed out, I am not a logician at all. I have read only a book or two on Elementary Logic books a long time ago. So I don't talk much about logic usually unless the topic requires logical explanation by its nature for clarification.

I tend to try to rely on my own reasoning rather than the formal methods on my logical reasoning in most cases. However when the topic is about something I read from the textbook, I also try to utilize them accordingly. They are all basic elementary level, of course.

If you bring in irrational premises to the conclusion in the argument, then it doesn't get accepted in higher standard of logic. That's nothing to do with denying antecedent. You are quoting something you saw on the internet, and making your slogan for logic.

Obviously you forgot everything about it.

No, you are wrong. I recall everything. You were just shouting out riding on the crowds of folks supporting you whatever you said.

Mr denying the antecedent, I think I agree. — flannel jesus

Nothing to do with that. It was about pointing out your premise was irrelevant to the conclusion.

The best track record? Well, when 100s of blind men were shouting out the elephant must look like a rubber pipe standing up after feeling one of its legs accusing one normal sighted man's description of it, what could the sighted man could have done apart from saying - well good luck to youz mate? :)

Nah, I am not going to talk about logic with you again. You need to learn it yourself. I think I said enough on the tautology and contradiction. Nothing more to add to it.

I don't think anything yous aid is clear at this point. — flannel jesus

If you read about the rules of logical proof, then maybe you would understand them? It is elementary basic rules viz. rules of elimination, assumption and addition in the textbooks. I don't think explanations on the details of the rules are the scope of the OP.

My genes preceded me and formed the foundation of my existence and nature. I didn't choose my genes and I don't have direct control over them. The same goes for my early environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

No one has chosen their genes. But people don't blame their genes for the choices they have made. Free will is your mental state, which has nothing to do with your genes, environments and nutrients.

Making a choice is your mental event based on your reasoning and thinking on the various options. Nothing else is involved in making choices.

If you read the posts carefully, it is clear why it is a contradiction and why it is a tautology. All the steps of the inferences are based on the rules of logical proof.

But blatantly asserting they are a bunch of paradoxes, doesn't make sense.

For Kant time is a pure intuition, i.e. it is an a priori structure that allows us to organize events. — JuanZu

Sure. I agree.

The movement is as it is represented in physics, for example as a trajectory through time. Motion as we see it is the same, we see a before and an after of the thing moving, otherwise we would not notice the motion. — JuanZu

Do dogs perceive time? When you throw a ball in the air, the dogs could jump and catch it before it falls on the ground. Surely they notice the motion of the ball. Is the motion noticeable to the dog, because of time? Or time has no relation to the motion, because dogs are not able to perceive time?

Time is already acting on the motion. A thing that moves is a thing that passes from one state to another, but then the difference we see between one state and another is different from the thing [cause we apply it to different things] , we call it temporal difference, a now with respect to a before. — JuanZu

One night in my dream, I was fighting with an unknown bloke. He hit me first, so I hit him back. I could see my punch moving towards his face, and hit him hard vividly in the dream. Does it mean that time was involved in seeing the motion in the dream? Can time be acting on the motions in dreams? What is the difference between time in reality and time in dreams?

Is time a kind of perception of mental beings, or some concrete property of objects and motions in space?

How is it a strawman? You literally said "The morning star and evening star both refer to Venus." — flannel jesus

I only highlighted it for you to let you know about the strawman. Venus was not the main point in the argument. It is mentioned to explain why the statement is a tautology i.e. they all point to the same reference viz. Venus.

Because the argument offered an explanation, calling it "making up paradoxes" was strawman. The argument didn't have to mention it, but it was just trying to be more informative.

Time doesn't exist either. It's not a relation between things that exist. Rather, it's a relation between events. — Relativist

Yes, this sounds very close to the OP's perspective in the implication.