I see nothing of substance in this philosophical discussion of time. — jgill

If you find nothing of substance in this philosophical discussion of time, then maybe you are not interested in philosophical topics? Almost all major philosophers in history of philosophy had something to say about the nature and existence of time from the era of Aristotle or even before that time.

But, if something can be physically manipulated and scientifically measured, I wager it exists. — jgill

I am not sure if being able to measure X, is a proof of the existence of X. Anyhow we are not denying time is real. We are trying to explore on the nature and existence of time.

Time dilation does just that. — jgill

The problem with Time dilation is that it is another hypotheses i.e. possibility if you could fly in the speed of light. Could you fly in the speed of light? Could anyone? Even if you did, the result is not confirmed. It is a hypotheses.

"in due course"?

At a later time? — wonderer1

It just means, "future". We have three perception of temporality. Past, present, future. Past comes from our memories, present comes from the state of consciousness for the now, and future from imagination.

I was imagining and meaning some present moment in the future, when said "in due course". Not "at a later time". But of course at times (often) I also say lunch time and dinner time by habit with the knowledge that time itself doesn't exist.

In my view, like Einstein realized the better conception of time and space is as one space-time, I think the better view is space-time-matter. — Fire Ologist

In my view, time in space-time should have been "space-perception", not time. Time doesn't exist. Space does. Einstein must have meant to say "space-perception" instead of "space-time". Would you agree?

To say X is relative implies, X doesn't exist. But X could be real in the sense that we talk and ask about it, and use it in daily life.

Does physical matter exists?
That's a better starting point because it's more basic than a concept of time. — Mark Nyquist

When you say "matter", it is not clear what you are exactly referring to. Could you be more specific? Of course physical objects exist i.e. chairs, desks, cups, trees, folks and cars .... I see them. I can interact with them. They have the concrete existence. Time? I don't see, or sense it. I can hear people talking about it, and asking it. So what is the nature of time?

Therefore, yes since the sun rises there are a lot of things that happened. — javi2541997

But what had been happening are not time itself. They are events, changes and motions.

We can flip it and see the coin of the reverse side: — javi2541997

Can we flip time, and see the other side of time?

dogs bark yet we don't understand bark language. Does the message in the dog's bark exist even though we can't understand it? — javi2541997

Dog barking has no grammar, syntax or semantics, hence it cannot be understood in meaningful way.
They could be cleaver in some ways, but they are not rational.

No, as I mentioned, the persons of the Trinity are different from God's essence. — MoK

Do you agree Jesus doesn't have God's essence from the OP's implication?

I already cited an article on the topic if you are interested in reading more, as I cannot summarize the discussion on this topic shortly. — MoK

If you are looking at the issue from general logic, then you could. You don't want to dip into the water of theology, because there is no general logic in there. If you want to bring in the traditional theology into the discussion, then we need to discuss in the domain of faith then, which transcends general logic, needn't we?

The point is you kill a human being even though you think it is objectively wrong. Call it self-defense or whatever. That does not resolve the issue. — MoK

I disagree. The real point is that if you acted in the situation of self defence, then the case is in the domain of legal matter of the society you live in. Morality doesn't apply to it.

It is alright to change your mind. Let's say that we disagree on the topic. — MoK

It has nothing to do with changing mind. The point is that practical reasoning is guiding you that,

1) No one but himself has right to decide what to do with his own life if he is an adult.
2) From the maxim, it is wrong to kill life even if one's own life, hence life must go on even if it is challenging.

Please bear in mind that all case involving death is legal matter. But still practical reasoning can direct you to the best advice on the situation.

I don't know a lot about Kant and much of what I do know I don't like, but I do like his discussion of space and time. Here's some of what he says about time, from Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 5 of the Critique of Pure Reason. — T Clark

From my memory of reading their texts, Hume and Kant both seem to be saying time has no independent existence i.e. time is an internal perception emanated from the motions and movements of objects in space. In some sense, this point would negate Hume's system i.e. some perceptions don't have the matching impressions from the external world objects such as time. In Kant, there is no problem, as mind has a priori concepts which are not derived from experience of the empirical world.

Space and objects co-exist momentarily; they are co-present. However, for us, the present time is shaped by the current virtual time horizons of the past and future. — Number2018

What do you mean by "the current virtual time horizon"?

how can any contingent empirical proposition, say "the cat is presently on the mat", be true when said now but false when said in the past or in the future? — sime

Time reflects the state of changes in reality. Our perception can tell the state of the changes, and judge the propositions as true or false according to the state of perceived reality. Hence time is built in our perception?

So, spatiality and temporality are vicariously just as material, and therefore just as real, as the properties of the material objects that generate them; only, they have no independent existence. — Bunge (2006: 245)

Bunge's writing is reflecting the point. We are not saying that time is not real, but saying that time has no independent existence. So, a question arises, how something which is so real has no independent existence?

I agree. I cannot perceive anything or any object which is time itself either. I have never seen a being called time itself. But we often hear people talking about time, and asking about time.

When you get hungry in the mid afternoon, isn't it your stomach telling you the time? It is the lunch time. You need to go and grab some sandwich. It is just telling it is time to have something to eat, but it is not saying anything about time itself.

This presumes an ontology where events are sorted into past, present, and future. Fine and dandy, but sans an empirical difference, I don't see the point. — noAxioms

There are only three types of time perceptions we have. Past, Present and Future.

Past come from the memory i.e. remembering the events in the past. Present comes from our live perception happening now with consciousness for the now. Future comes from our imagination.

If you lost all your memories, then you don't have the past. If you can't imagine, then you don't have any ideas about the future. If you are not conscious, you don't have the present, past or future.

You can only make choices for now. You could also plan to make choices for your future using your imagination and thoughts.

Please bear in mind that the OP is not denying the fact that we use time in our daily living. However, it is trying to explore the existence, entity and nature of time i.e. is it something which exists as a concrete being somewhere in the universe, or as a part of the universe? Or is it a product of human mind?

Any arguments summarizing anything we know are formed in mysterious ways. Yet it continues to be easy to allow ourselves to draw such concrete conclusion about OTHER things, such as what "Trinity" is (be it valid or sound, or conceivable, or not), while remaining utterly inconclusive about what it means to KNOW anything. — Fire Ologist

Knowledge comes from the empirical observation and internal reasoning. The laws of thought tells us what is truth and falsity on the contents of our perceptions.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Past cannot be changed, so you couldn't have made different choices for the past. But you are free to make choices for now and future.

You don't wait for legal authority to allow you to kill the psychopath. Do you? You said you would kill him as a matter of self-defense. — MoK

Another reason why the acts of self defence are not in the domain of morality. Usually acts of self defence happens without contemplation or premeditation for the end. In other words, the only purpose for the acts of self dense is saving one's own life.

Therefore there is no ground for moral judgements on the acts committed under self dense.

Are you a Christian? — MoK

I was just commenting from the general religious point of view including Christianity, Buddhism and Hindus etc.

There is no cure available for it. It is interesting to see that at one point you say that it is his life and he has the right to decide about it. Now, you are saying that assisting him to terminate his life is not allowed — MoK

Reason tends to go back to the points, and reflect on them coming out with better judgements and solutions.

"in due course"?

At a later time? — wonderer1

They are not the same meaning. Time doesn't exist as an entity in reality. It is a product of your mind. It is an extra perception generated from motions and movements.

I've been reading Aquinas's treatise on the Trinity today and it resonates with how my mind interacts with itself. It seems the left hemisphere is Father, right is Son, and center "eye" is that which is spirated (love). I easily can be confused about who i am *by* this of course, or *inspite* of this. — Gregory

Maybe the doctrine transcends human language and logic? If it resonates with you, then I would guess that your consciousness operates in different domain.

Thanks for all your posts. Will come back with more of my replies on the rest of your posts in due course. G'day~

This is a very difficult topic, so I'll just quote the opinion of someone who is a better philosopher than me: — Arcane Sandwich

I have not come across Mario Bunge before, but he seems to be a great thinker. Will have readings on the quotes you provided in the post, as they seem to be much relevant on the topic. Gracias.

The experience of any thing is the consciousness of time. When we think or perceive an object , we are synthesizing the ‘now’ of its existence for us as a three-part structure of retention (immediate past), present and protention (anticipation). Without awareness of time there is no awareness of the continuity of the flow of experience. It would be impossible to understand music, for instance, or the spacing of space. — Joshs

Isn't time then some sort of mental states or awareness? Time is not external existence. We just postulate time from the events, motions and movements. I am not sure if Music is time based, because some dogs and wolves seem to be able to sing without knowing anything about time.

I agree, and I understand that time, as an entity, is complex to understand. Why does this happen? Why does something intangible, such as time, exist? — javi2541997

Isn't it a product of human mind? You see the sun rise in the morning, and impose an idea that time has passed. Nothing has passed. It was the earth which rotated itself by 1 turn since yesterday morning.

I bet my dog is not aware of time, but I do, and when my dog was just months old, I called her a "puppy," but now that she is 6 years old, I consider her nearly "senior," yet she doesn't care about these facts. — javi2541997

Dogs don't care about time or numbers. Maybe they would do, if they had the concept of time and numbers. But we cannot teach dogs to be ready go for walk at 6pm today, or bark 7 times if she wants the biscuits or 8 times if he wants salami..

MoK and John have the same essence by this I mean they both are made of matter. They however have different properties so they are different. — MoK

So we can conclude that Jesus and God is not one.

From the discussions so far, it seems to be safe to conclude that,
1) Jesus was not God. He doesn't appear to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If he was, then he could not be in the situation he was, and would not have said what the OP noted.
2) Jesus was not one with God. Therefore Trinity doctrine is unsound and invalid.

You can read about locked-in syndrome here. It is a term that refer to cases in which people with this syndrome are locked-in within their body and cannot move any parts of their body but eyes. You can google yourself about those cases who wanted to terminate their lives but they were not allowed. — MoK

Well, it seems like a tough situation. But still practical reason tells me that killing is bad, and life must go on. Everyone has a cross to bear in the path of life. In some sense all life could be seen as suffering, and persevering and hoping for the best would be the meaning of life from religious point of view.

Keep going, and hoping for the miracle cure seeking the medical care in your example case with perseverance would be best for him, and doing so is moral good for sure.

It is a moral issue if you accept that killing a human is wrong. By the way, how come torturing a terrorist who put a bomb in a location is wrong considering the fact that we can save lives of many but the act of killing a psychopath is permissible knowing the fact that you can only save one life, yours. — MoK

All killings and torturing are in the domain of the legal matter. They are not morality.
I am not sure what part of the world you are living, but in where I have lived and am living, any
and all death must be reported to the authority for investigation and the certification of the nature of death.

If any death was caused by killing no matter what circumstance it was, and if there were any suspicion of any form of torturing on others, then the case must be reported to the criminal investigation authorities for the legal proceedings with the courts.

Hence, they are not moral matter at all.

Great analysis on the points. Will go over on them again when time permits, and will get back to you if there are any points to clarify. Many thanks !!

Time is an integral part of motion and movement. The coin takes time of what, one second plus, to hit the floor. Now, if it would take 0,1 seconds it would be a lot faster, likely then to be thrown to the ground, not just fall with gravity. — ssu

Isn't it the other way around? Without movement and changes, there would be no time.
With the objects moving in space, time was deduced from the interval of the movement.
Time is an illusion, which has no entity or existence.

And seeing? Do you see gravity? Mass? Weight? And when light hits your eye's retina, that already is motion. So without motion and time, no "seeing". — ssu

Same with gravity. There are only motions. When mass or objects are released from the height in space, they constantly fall onto the ground. Hence, an imaginary force called gravity is invented.
Gravity itself doesn't exist.

You need time for movement, for past, present and future. Notice the word on the graph below. — ssu

As described in the OP, past, present and future are products of our minds. The graph seems to be depicting imaginary map of space and time, but time doesn't exist in the real world.

Of course there are changes, motions and movements. But they are not bound by time, or time is not a precondition for them. Rather, changes, motions and movements give rise to time in human minds as a form of perception.

Can you prove that movement doesn't exist?

If there's any kind of motion, there has to be time. — ssu

Movements exist for sure. I drop a coin, and it falls onto the floor.
But still I cannot see time. I only see the movement.

Space and objects are affected by the flow of time, for instance. — javi2541997

Sure, but this doesn't tell what the existence of time is.

Yes, a good point. However, being beneficial is not also evidences for something to exist. Here we are concerned on the nature of time and its existence. Time as an entity evades our perception i.e. it cannot be seen, heard or touched. Only the events took place and motions in process can be perceived.

We use them, and is important in science and daily life, but it is invisible and unperceivable. Is it something else we have been calling as time? Or there are entities and existences which cannot be perceived, but exist?

If we agree that something that is unperceivable do exist, then surely there must be a lot more things which we deny existence, but affect us should be existing?

We are not trying get rid of time here. We are trying to investigate the nature of the existence of time.

Yet another proof that there are many things we say exist, but don't. :nerd:

Can you prove temperature exists? or color exists? or charge exists? etc . — 180 Proof

A proof that there are many things we say exist, but don't.

as I understand it, is a proposition that is true, and necessarily so. A contradiction is a proposition which is necessarily false, and a contingent proposition is one that can be true or false. — Arcane Sandwich

The evening star is the morning star. Isn't it a tautology and also contradiction, but a true statement?

Isn't Geometry an object of thought rather than a way of thought?

It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: — MoK

To reiterate the point, it is not the case that I am not happy with the example. It is the case that the example doesn't demonstrate a logical necessity that the premise guarantees the conclusion i.e. torturing doesn't necessarily save life.

It is an empirical case, where all possible and various causes and effects might be involved. The result is uncertain and unpredictable. Under that situation, torturing cannot be a justified ground for saving lives. With the knowledge and understanding of the situation via practical reasoning, if one went ahead with torturing believing that it would save lives, it would be a moral wrong itself.

It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: You face a psychopath who is willing to kill you with a knife. You however have a gun. Would you kill him or let him kill you miserably? — MoK

You have to understand that not every action is moral action. Moral action means that it was reasoned, premeditated and contemplated before the action for moral good or duty.

Killing a psychopath before he kills me would be an act of self defense, which has nothing to do with morality. The action may be subject to legal probes in the society later, but it is not a moral issue.