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.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
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.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
Yes.You seem to have smuggled in the concept of substance here. Does substance describe a thing, something that has objective existence? — Punshhh
I believe in substance pluralism in which the mind is an immaterial substance, whereas the physical is material substance.Or is substance a substance of mind, or intellect, or something immaterial? — 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.Does something exist if it is an invention of thought? — Punshhh
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
I have an argument for it. Please read it and tell me what you think about it. — MoK
What does he mean by this? Do you mind elaborating?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
I don't understand what he means by this. Do you mind explaining?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 am sorry, but I don't understand how this follows.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 — Down The Rabbit Hole
There are three types of time, namely subjective time, objective time, and psychological time. — MoK
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 — Areeb Salim
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. — Number2018
P1) Subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in a physical (Consider an electron as an example of a physical)
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.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
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 Einstein — Number2018
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
In fact, Kant demonstrated that without subjective time there could be no coherent experience of existence or consciousness. — Number2018
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
In other words, the mathematics that describe change, is time (spacetime as far as physical time is concerned). — EnPassant
“Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct.
Sometimes, there is truth in simplicity. — Martijn
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.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
As I mentioned in the OP, the subjective time is experienced 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, 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.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. — MoK
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.