We don't deny past, but we are saying the events in the past existed in the past not now. — Corvus

But your claim, in the OP, is that time does not exist.

So are you now saying that there is a past, but no time?

Socrates did exist in the past. — Corvus

Hence there is a past.

You have been talking about the OP. Not about time, or time. — Corvus

The OP was posted in the past. Therefore there is a past.

None of what you have been saying is about time itself. — Corvus

It's about time. What is time itself?

Socrates existed. But does he exist now? — Corvus

Socrates exists in the past. On you account, there is no past for Socrates to be in, because time does not exist.

Take a look at this from the Lowy Institute. It shows trade in terms of US vs China, from 2001 to the year before last.

Watch Mexico and Canada.

Take a look at this from the Lowy Institute. It shows trade in terms of US vs China, from 2001 to the year before last.


(The bit about Chinese wisdom. The US didn't notice it was in a war until China had already won.)

Canada and Mexico are the only places left that have more trade with the US than China.

So who do they impose a tariffs on?

So far as I am aware the only thing we buy from Argentina is "flathead".

@Wayfarer - you probably saw this.

Elon Musk's DOGE agency is at the centre of controversy in the US. So what is it?

It suggests the main game might be setting up "Government by AI"... Not at all concerning, that. All good.

The 20% tariff has to be passed on to the purchaser. So US goods go up in price relative to imports to AU from other countries. So we buy less from the US, more from China and Korea.

If there was no forum, and you lost all your memory, then you wouldn't know the OP existed. — Corvus

Yep. None of which implies that you never made the OP.

Not nine days ago as you claimed. But ten days ago now. — Corvus

...so you were right to say, yesterday, that it was nine days ago, and now it is ten days, but you are wrong to say it exists.

It was ten days ago, therefore something was ten days ago.

Or, if you prefer, my browser says it was nine days ago, yours, that it was ten. Which it correct? On your account, neither.

The OP is in the forum, not in the past. — Corvus

Well, make up your mind:

It belongs in the past. — Corvus

Which is it? Does it belong in the past or is it not in the past?

It depends what you mean by "exist". Past is just in your memory. It doesn't need to exist. You are saying it exist, because you remember it. — Corvus

The past is remembered, sure. But that does not mean that the past is just memory.

If the past were just memory, there could be no misremembering. One misremembers when what one remembers of the past is not what happened in the past.

If the claim is that the past does not exist, then the OP cannot belong in the past.

But

It belongs in the past. — Corvus

If we are good regulators then thats trivially what they are. — Apustimelogist

How?

It belongs in the past. — Corvus

Yep. Exactly. Therefore something belongs in the past. Therefore there is a past.

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist?

1) No bumps allowed. If you want to attract replies, think of a better way.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines-note-use-of-ai-rules-have-tightened

What does that question mean?

The OP was nine days ago. Therefore something was nine days ago.

In memory…. — Wayfarer

of whom?

Does it make sense to ask if your memory is accurate - is it true that the OP was made nine days ago? If so, then by existential introduction isn't there a time that was nine days ago?

The OP was nine days ago
Therefore something was nine days ago.

Is it possible that you could go back to 9 days ago? — Corvus

You seem to think this relevant. It is not clear how. But it is not at all clear how you are intending to use "exists".


Added: Worth pointing out yet again that Wayfarer has muddled his memory with what is the case. Again, muddled his beliefs with how things are. Again, mistaken epistemology for ontology.

I don't see how that addresses my question. It is not clear that conceptual schemes correspond in any helpful way with "models" in cybernetics

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? — Corvus

It is true that you made your OP nine days ago. Therefor nine days ago exists.

Sure, it's in the past. Some events are in the past. Therefore there is a past.

I've read that thrice and still have little idea of what your thesis is.

In particular, it is not clear that conceptual schemes correspond in any helpful way with "models" in cybernetics, whatever they are.

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

Righto.

Philosophy does not consist in knowing and is not inspired by truth. Rather, it is categories like Interesting, Remarkable, or Important that determine success or failure.

Curious that this is the New Emperor's approach in a nutshell.

But I'll agree with your rejection of the idea of a "correct interpretation".

Be very specific here. You claimed that "absent mind, they are not worlds". Now you link this to the “thing in itself”, which cannot be known: it "marks the limits of what we can know". Even taking Kant seriously, you can know nothing... not that without mind, the worlds are there, and not that they are not their, either.

That's the step too far.


Added: You might claim that "absent mind, we cannot know that they are not worlds". That's as generous as is allowed.

You can know stuff about the stuff about which nothing can be known?

...Deductively... — Wayfarer

Then set out the deduction - the one that concludes "absent mind, they are not worlds".

But for a being from a world that rotates once a century and orbits every millenium, the human concept of time would be meaningless. — Wayfarer

They might use different units, but you cannot conclude that our two approaches would be incommensurate. The very fact that you used our units to set out the mooted possibility demonstrates this.

...but to the extent that it is independent, it’s also unknowable — Wayfarer

...and yet we use clocks. We know what an hour is, and that eight days have passed since the OP. We agree on this. We know this is independent of which of us measures it.

...absent mind, they are not worlds. — Wayfarer

Again, how could you know this? The very most you can say is that it might be unknown. You step too far, again.

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

Yep.

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

In some possibly world there are no minds.

What's the problem?

The clock was built by an observer to make a measurement which both you and the maker of it will be able to understand. — Wayfarer

And the manufacture and you and I understand that becasue we share the world in which time passes, and hence each have much the same understanding of time. We have that shared understanding because there is a way that time is not dependent on the perspective of any individual. Waffle about implicit perspectives is a misunderstanding of the independence of the world from our beliefs.

If time only passes from a perspective, then clocks would be pointless. Clocks have a use becasue time also passes independently of perspective.

Ontological, the world is independent of our beliefs about it, and time passes without regard to a perspective. Epistemological, having beliefs involves having a perspective. What you sugest confuses ontology and epistemology.

That clock will keep ticking even if you are not there to watch it.

That's kinda the point, really. Look away and it keeps going.

The US is about 1% of our aluminium and steel exports, around $1 billion a year.

But a decline in US manufacturing - becasue they will be paying more for raw materials - might lead to a reduction in global demand for iron ore, our main export.

About 11% of our imports are from the US. These will be more expensive, so we will buy elsewhere.

The silly buggers are making things easier for their competitors. But this aspect of the present madness in the US will not have much of an impact on us.

China and India will happily take our aluminium and steel.

(Although I will add, a great deal of what I say is also expressed in different ways in Continental philosophy.) — Wayfarer

...so you might say the same thing, but badly? :wink:

Your posts are a beacon of light in a sea of waffle. But that does not make them right.

Speculative physics. None of this psychologising and appeal to authority legitimises the move to mythicism you want to make.

it remains that we don't know. But you must leap to your conclusion. Sure there are good reasons to disregard the bifurcation of subject and object. That doesn't mean time ceases to be or that the universe consists in consciousness.

Love your work, but can't agree with it.

And so far as the thesis of the OP, eight days later it is... outdated.

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

He’s saying in plain English, the passage of time always depends on there being a change in one physical system relative to another. — Wayfarer

That'd be the measure of the passage of time. Do you have reason to suppose that time could not pass without change? Not that we could not measure time without change, but that time could for some reason not pass without change.

Folks are never hesitant to appeal to the implications of science when it seems to support realism. But when anti-realism enters the picture, woo betide them. — Wayfarer

But you are not advocating antirealism, you are advocating mysticism.

Straight to quantum strangeness, 'eh... Davies' view is speculative at best.

It forgets the Page-Wootters mechanism, loop quantum gravity, Bohmian mechanics, many-worlds, and so on. It conflates "observer" with "consciousness".

It's an illegitimate leap.

Measuring is what is significant. — Wayfarer

significant - to do with signs, hence mind.

It cannot be concluded that time does not exist without minds. It's an illegitimate leap.

The same problem that infects all your ontology.

But again all you have argued is that in order to know, believe, doubt, or measure time there needs to be a knower, a believer, a doubter or a measurer.

That tells us nothing about time. Only about believing, doubting, and measuring.

Are we being extreme idealists here? — Corvus

Yep.

Thanks. Geology was a big interest many years ago - I should do some reading thereabouts.

The OP appears to be playing on a misguided understanding of "perceive". I'm not seeing much by way of significant argument.

presumably geologists - read instruments, the readings being perceived. — tim wood

And to a surprisingly high resolution...



Towering structures in Earth’s depths may be billions of years old
and



The mysterious, massive structures in Earth’s deep mantle