• MoK
    1.5k
    The infinite regress argument about subjective time requiring itself to change is intriguing, though it leans heavily on a metaphysical notion of the mind as a primary mover. I’d challenge the assumption that time must be a substance at all. Many physicists and philosophers argue that time might emerge from relationships between events rather than existing as an independent entity.Areeb Salim
    I discussed the problem with time being as an emergent thing elsewhere, so I just repeat myself: Three main theories of quantum gravity are widely accepted: 1) String theory, 2) Loop quantum theory, and 3) AdS/CFT, each has its own problems. This article nicely discusses these theories in simple words and explains the problems with the string theory and AdS/CFT theory. This wiki page discusses the problem of loop quantum theory.

    Your thought experiment is clever for illustrating our inability to perceive subjective time directly. I think this would be a fascinating topic to expand with perspectives from process philosophy or modern physics.Areeb Salim
    Thank you very much for your understanding. That is not the only argument for our inability to perceive subjective time. We don't have any sensory system for it either.
  • MoK
    1.5k
    You seem to have smuggled in the concept of substance here. Does substance describe a thing, something that has objective existence?Punshhh
    Yes.

    Or is substance a substance of mind, or intellect, or something immaterial?Punshhh
    I believe in substance pluralism in which the mind is an immaterial substance, whereas the physical is material substance.

    Does something exist if it is an invention of thought?Punshhh
    All our experiences are due to existence of a substance that I call object for the sake of discussion. This is discussed in my other thread that you can find it here.
  • MoK
    1.5k

    Time cannot be an emergent thing. I discuss this in this post.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    562


    You're welcome. I know what you mean about being pressed for time, but I had to share the article.

    He says:

    "It is of the utmost importance not to confuse time-relations of subject and object with time-relations of object and object; in fact, many of the worst difficulties in the psychology and metaphysics of time have arisen from this confusion. It will be seen that past, present, and future arise from time-relations of subject and object, while earlier and later arise from time-relations of object and object. In a world in which there was no experience there would be no past, present, or future, but there might well be earlier and later".

    He then defines his terms and goes into more detail on each of the two.
  • frank
    17.6k
    Yet everyone on the team anticipates the same moment in time.
    — frank
    Each person in the team has access only to his or her psychological time. As I argued in the OP, we cannot experience subjective time since we don't have any sensory system for it.
    MoK

    So why do they pull at the same time?
  • unenlightened
    9.7k
    I have an argument for it. Please read it and tell me what you think about it.MoK

    I have read it. I think I will leave you to it.
  • Manuel
    4.2k


    Sure but you are assuming we have a final theory of physics. We don't.
  • MoK
    1.5k
    It is of the utmost importance not to confuse time-relations of subject and object with time-relations of object and object;Down The Rabbit Hole
    What does he mean by this? Do you mind elaborating?

    It will be seen that past, present, and future arise from time-relations of subject and object, while earlier and later arise from time-relations of object and object.Down The Rabbit Hole
    I don't understand what he means by this. Do you mind explaining?

    In a world in which there was no experience there would be no past, present, or future, but there might well be earlier and laterDown The Rabbit Hole
    I am sorry, but I don't understand how this follows.
  • MoK
    1.5k
    So why do they pull at the same time?frank
    Each individual experiences his or her psychological time only. The passage of psychological time is the same for all of them. That is why they can sync and pull at the same time.
  • frank
    17.6k
    The passage of psychological time is the same for all of them.MoK

    They sync because they're listening to the same music. They're experiencing time.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    562


    The mental time (subject-object) contains a past, present, and future, due to our experience and memory. The essence of physical time (object-object) is succession; therefore earlier and later.

    For example, there is no "now" unless someone is experiencing it, and there is no "past" unless someone is remembering it. It's kind of hard to articulate, but do you get the gist of it?

    While it's not mentioned in the article, I think by this point he was aware of Relativity - so succession is not necessarily fixed - and can be relative to the observer.
  • Areeb Salim
    10


    Your point about there being no “now” without a conscious observer ties into what’s sometimes called the “specious present” in philosophy. And yes, relativity further complicates things, since simultaneity isn’t absolute, the sequence of events can vary between observers.

    So even the “succession” of object-object time isn’t as fixed as it seems. It raises fascinating questions about whether time is a fundamental feature of the universe or a mental construct tied to consciousness
  • RussellA
    2.3k
    There are three types of time, namely subjective time, objective time, and psychological time.MoK

    Useful post. I can agree that there is objective time and psychological time, but I am unsure that there is subjective time.

    P1 - Objective time is inferred to exist in the world.
    P2 - Psychological time exists in the conscious mind, in that we are conscious that at one time we were driving in the city and at another time we were walking through a forest. As you say, "We, however, experience the passage of psychological time".
    P3 - The conscious mind is a physical substance that changes with objective time.

    P4 - If there was a subjective time, it would exist in the conscious mind.
    P5 - At one moment in objective time, subjective time cannot change.
    P6 - Between two different objective times, subjective time would change.
    C1 - But as you say "We, however, cannot experience the subjective time since we exist within each instant of it"
    C2 - We can experience psychological time and we can infer objective time, but as we cannot experience subjective time, then the concept of subjective time becomes redundant.

    Objective time and psychological time are sufficient. Subjective time is a redundant concept. This avoids your problem of infinite regress with subjective time.
  • frank
    17.6k
    So even the “succession” of object-object time isn’t as fixed as it seems. It raises fascinating questions about whether time is a fundamental feature of the universe or a mental construct tied to consciousnessAreeb Salim

    Again, how do we sync our actions if time is a product of consciousness? Maybe we're telepathic?
  • Number2018
    613
    Subjective time is a substance:

    P1) Subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in a physical#1 (please see the Argument below)
    P2) Any change requires subjective time (please see the Argument below)
    C1) Therefore, we are dealing with an infinite regress since subjective time is required to allow a change in subjective time (from P1 and P2)
    C2) If so, then there must exist the Mind that is a substance#2 with the ability to experience and cause subjective time
    C3) So, subjective time is a substance
    MoK

    Subjective time is a redundant concept.RussellA

    Kant's transcendental philosophy includes a well-known perspective on subjective time and its mode of existence. Kant argues that time (and space) are not properties of the external world that we can empirically discover. Instead, they are a priori forms of intuition—innate to the very structure of human cognition and perception. It means that time and space are conditions for the possibility of experience, fundamental to how we reason and perceive the world. Through his transcendental inquiry, Kant concluded that we could not have any organized experience without time. He writes: "Time is not something that exists in itself, nor is it a concept derived from experience. Rather, it is an a priori intuition, which serves as the condition for the possibility of experience" (CPR, pg.32). Thus, time is subjective in a sense that it is the mental framework through which we make sense of our involvement in the world. It does not require a substance (the mind) to "experience" or "cause" it. Therefore, subjective time does not exist as though it is a separate, independently existing entity.
  • RussellA
    2.3k
    Kant's transcendental philosophy includes a well-known perspective on subjective time and its mode of existence.Number2018

    Yes, Kant in the "Transcendental Aesthetic" in his CPR argues that time and space are not properties of the external world, but are a priori forms of intuition that allow for the possibility of experience.

    @MoK refers to subjective time, objective time and psychological time.

    The question is, is @MoK's subjective time and Kant's time as an a priori form of intuition referring to the same thing. I don't think that they are.

    @MoK writes that subjective time exists and changes when there is a change in the physical
    P1) Subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in a physical (Consider an electron as an example of a physical)

    However, on the one hand, Kant's time is not something that exists, but is something that allows for the possibility of experience, and on the other hand, is not something that changes as the physical changes.
    Kant's time as an a priori intuition is neither psychological time not objective time, but is something that allows for the possibility of experiencing psychological time.
  • Number2018
    613
    I can agree that there is objective time and psychological time, but I am unsure that there is subjective time.

    P1 - Objective time is inferred to exist in the world.
    P2 - Psychological time exists in the conscious mind, in that we are conscious that at one time we were driving in the city and at another time we were walking through a forest. As you say, "We, however, experience the passage of psychological time".
    P3 - The conscious mind is a physical substance that changes with objective time.

    P4 - If there was a subjective time, it would exist in the conscious mind.
    P5 - At one moment in objective time, subjective time cannot change.
    P6 - Between two different objective times, subjective time would change.
    C1 - But as you say "We, however, cannot experience the subjective time since we exist within each instant of it"
    C2 - We can experience psychological time and we can infer objective time, but as we cannot experience subjective time, then the concept of subjective time becomes redundant.
    RussellA
    Let me consider your argument in P4. It implies that if subjective time exists, it would be contained within the conscious mind, as though it’s something that is "added on" or superfluous. However, subjective time is likely inseparable from the experience of being conscious. In fact, Kant demonstrated that without subjective time there could be no coherent experience of existence or consciousness. This is because consciousness involves an organized and complex awareness of change—whether that be the passage of moments, thoughts, sensory experiences, or even changes in internal states (such as emotions). If time did not flow subjectively in some form, there would be no way for a conscious being to differentiate between one moment and the next or to form a continuous narrative of self. Therefore, your argument in P1 could be problematic since it is not clear what stands for ‘is inferred’. Evan Thompson points out Bergson’s position regarding a relation between subjective and objective times: “Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time… measurement presupposes duration, but duration ultimately eludes measurement.” This position challenges the premises of your argument P1 as well as P5 and P6. While objective time refers to a measurable and external progression of events (e.g., seconds, minutes, hours), subjective time is about our inherent experience of that progression. Our internal experience of "flow" and "duration" is directly related to the notion of subjective time. It is not something that can be reduced to a mental state or an objective process, but constitutes a fundamental dimension of the conscious experience of continuity, memory, and change.
  • Wayfarer
    24.7k
    Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time… measurement presupposes duration, but duration ultimately eludes measurement ~ Evan Thompson, Who Really Won when Bergson Debated EinsteinNumber2018

    :up: I've quoted that exact passage a number of times recently, because it makes a crucial point: that subjective awareness cannot be eliminated from any meaningful concept of time. Also agree that Kant makes a similar point in the Transcendental Aesthetic. In other words, there is no 'objective time' per se - time itself is inextricably linked to the subjective awareness of it. This is true even though we can obviously measure time as if in the absence of any observer, and knowing that there were aoeons prior to the advent of conscious beings. Yet outside conscious awareness, there is nothing that provides the relational perspective that any measure of time must assume. (Hence the expression 'the land before time' to refer to ancient or primeval landscapes. See also Schopenhauer: How Time Began with the First Eye Opening.)
  • RussellA
    2.3k
    Let me consider your argument in P4. It implies that if subjective time exists, it would be contained within the conscious mind, as though it’s something that is "added on" or superfluous. However, subjective time is likely inseparable from the experience of being conscious.Number2018

    It is a problem of terminology.

    In my P4, I was thinking about @MoK's use of the terms "subjective time", "psychological time" and "objective time". My thought was that @MoK's use of the term "subjective time" was redundant, as "psychological time" and "objective time" should be sufficient as concepts.

    However, it seems that your use of the term "subjective time" is the same as @MoK's use of the term "psychological time".

    The question is, do we call our conscious experience of time "subjective time" or "psychological time"?
  • RussellA
    2.3k
    In fact, Kant demonstrated that without subjective time there could be no coherent experience of existence or consciousness.Number2018

    I'm not sure that this is exactly what Kant was proposing.

    He writes about time and space in The Transcendental Aesthetic, B46 of the CPR.

    Space and time are pure forms of intuition that enable the possibility of our being able to have experiences. But what kind of experiences is he referring to? He must be referring to experiences involving space and time.

    As you say "It means that time and space are conditions for the possibility of experience, fundamental to how we reason and perceive the world"

    In other words, space and time are pure forms of intuition that enable the possibility of our being able to have experiences involving space and time.

    I can only conclude that different things are being referred to here. There is "time as a pure form of intuition" and there is "the experience of time". "Time" in ""time as a pure form of intuition" cannot be the same thing as "time" as in "the experience of time".

    I don't think that Kant is demonstrating that without subjective time there could be no coherent experiences, but rather that without the a priori conditions that enable us to experience time, we would not be able to experience time.
  • RussellA
    2.3k
    Our internal experience of "flow" and "duration" is directly related to the notion of subjective time. It is not something that can be reduced to a mental state or an objective process, but constitutes a fundamental dimension of the conscious experience of continuity, memory, and change.Number2018

    There is the question as to how "subjective time" relates to time.

    We have a memory of driving through the city and we are aware of presently walking through the forest. But even our awareness of presently walking through the forest is a memory, because the transfer of information from the forest to our mind is limited by the speed of light.

    Therefore, the conscious mind is always comparing two memories, the memory of driving in the city and the memory of walking through the forest. The conscious mind is aware that these two memories are different, and the conscious mind understands that memories that are different have different "times".

    Yet, as the clock only exists in the "now", the conscious mind can only exist in the "now". As you wrote about the clock “Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct". Exactly the same applies to the mind, such that “Each successive ‘now’ of the conscious mind contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct".

    The conscious mind, which only exists in the "now", can compare two memories, which also only exist in the "now". The conscious mind can be aware that these memories are different, and this difference is labelled as "time".

    For the conscious mind, "time" is something that can only exist in the "now" as a difference in memories, which also can only exist in the "now".

    In effect, a difference in memories that are both in the "now" can be labelled "a change in time".

    Subjective time in the conscious mind is something that can only exist in the "now".
  • EnPassant
    699
    Change is not a strong definition of time. Change is about how information reaches a certain point in space (our senses, as far as our experience is concerned). A better definition of time is given by Einstein's 'spacetime', which is a mathematical description of HOW change happens in physical space. In other words, the mathematics that describe change, is time (spacetime as far as physical time is concerned).

    Some mathematicians see geometry as space and mathematics as time. Time is simply the mathematics/logic according to which change happens.

    In this sense there can be different kinds of time: physical time, mental time, logic, mathematics, eternal 'time' etc.

    So time is mathematics. It doesn't require change or our experience of it to exist. It is the 'way' of things.
  • Wayfarer
    24.7k
    Space and time are pure forms of intuition that enable the possibility of our being able to have experiences. But what kind of experiences is he referring to?RussellA

    Any!
  • RussellA
    2.3k
    In other words, the mathematics that describe change, is time (spacetime as far as physical time is concerned).EnPassant

    Does mathematics describe change or does it in fact describe difference?

    The conscious mind as well as the clock can only exist in the "now". As @Number2018 wrote about the clock, the same argument can apply to the conscious mind as a physical mechanism.
    “Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct.

    We can only infer that there is an objective time, in that not only is there a "now" but there was also a "past."

    In the "now", I have memory P that the clock shows 10 minutes, and I have memory Q that the clock shows 30 minutes. Mathematics describes the difference between 10 minutes and 30 minutes, which equals 20 minutes. We name this difference "a change in time". As mathematics is part of the conscious mind, mathematics can also only exist in the "now". Therefore, the difference that mathematics is describing also only exists in the "now". The concept of objective time, as something that exists between different "nows", is redundant as far as the mathematical equation that (30-10) = 10 is concerned.

    When we talk about "a change in time", this is a figure of speech. It is no different to when we talk about "the wind whistling through the trees" or "she is like a star in the sky". "A change in time" is a figure of speech for this difference of 20 minutes, as it exists in the "now". It is not about any inferred objective time.

    Mathematics describes difference. Only when "change" is used as a figure of speech does mathematics describe change
  • Malcolm Parry
    304
    Sometimes, there is truth in simplicity.Martijn

    It also means you don't miss your bus.
  • MoK
    1.5k
    The mental time (subject-object) contains a past, present, and future, due to our experience and memory. The essence of physical time (object-object) is succession; therefore earlier and later.Down The Rabbit Hole
    Thanks for the elaboration. I distinguish between psychological/mental time and subjective/physical time, but I think that both have the same features. Although psychological time is caused by the mind, subjective time is caused by the Mind.

    For example, there is no "now" unless someone is experiencing it, and there is no "past" unless someone is remembering it. It's kind of hard to articulate, but do you get the gist of it?Down The Rabbit Hole
    As I mentioned in the OP, the subjective time is experienced by the Mind.
  • MoK
    1.5k
    Objective time and psychological time are sufficient. Subjective time is a redundant concept.RussellA
    As I mentioned in the OP, any change requires time, whether it is physical or mental. In the first case, we need subjective time, and in the second case, we need psychological time. Subjective time is caused by the Mind (capital M), whereas psychological time is caused by the mind.
  • RussellA
    2.3k
    As I mentioned in the OP, any change requires time, whether it is physical or mental. In the first case, we need subjective time, and in the second case, we need psychological time. Subjective time is caused by the Mind (capital M), whereas psychological time is caused by the mind.MoK

    A clock shows 2pm and then the clock shows 3pm. There is a physical change in what the clock shows.

    You say that physical change requires subjective time, and subjective time is caused by the Mind.

    In what sense is the physical change in the clock first showing 2pm and then showing 3pm caused by the Mind?
  • EnPassant
    699
    If 'now' is defined as the moment information reaches our senses (say light beams from various sources coincide with your position in space) we can define now in terms of information being at a certain point in space. But what if nobody is there to know the information (light beams) is reaching that point in space? The light beams still arrive so do they constitute a 'now'?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.