What 'thing' is being discussed? TIme is not 'a thing'. — Wayfarer

Time is the fact of change. When you say time doesn't exist prior to consciousness, you state change didn't happen prior to consciousness. Thus, I understand why you say time starts with consciousness, as change would start with consciousness. The primacy of consciousness. But there is no evidence that change doesn't happen prior to consciousness by your points presented. Only that we are observing and measuring change. Change happens whether we observe it or label it 'time'.

My claim is that time as succession or duration does not exist independently of the awareness of it. — Wayfarer

I understand this. The problem is you have no evidence of this. You haven't presented what it would be like if time did not have succession or duration. I'm not trying to put ideas into your head as I wanted to see what you came up with first. Since you haven't, the only state I could see reality being in prior to consciousness is a state of nothingness. The logical step would be that there was a state of existence in which no change happened, then suddenly consciousness came along and changed it. Basically the God theory of universal creation. Only in this case, the "God" is consciousness as a general point.

The problem of course is that this doesn't answer Ludwig's point, it presents an alternative view point without evidence.

Presuming anything is the act of a conscious being, so it is certain that presumption of the physical world presupposes a conscious being. But we know that the physical world existed long before any conscious beings existed (at least on this planet) and, since we know of no conscious beings that exist without a physical substrate, we can be sure that the physical world can exist without any conscious beings in it. — Ludwig V

You haven't presented evidence that the world did not exist prior to consciousness. The only thing you've observed is that humans have measured change with units we call time, and you think that if there isn't a consciousness measuring change that change cannot happen. That's a big claim with nothing backed behind it.

My claim is that time as succession or duration does not exist independently of the awareness of it. What can exist without observers are physical processes and relations between states. — Wayfarer

Ok, but what would that look like coherently without the idea that change happens as succession and over duration? What does a universe without duration mean or look like? What does an idea of change without succession look like? We use succession and duration in measuring time, because these are proven concepts. I'm willing to entertain a world that does not have succession or duration, but it needs to be coherent. What does that look like to you? Again, if you accept change existing prior to humanity observing it, then 'time' exists. If you're simply stating the 'measurement of time' doesn't exist, no argument there. But the lack of an observer measuring change does not mean change does not occur apart from observation.

It’s also worth noting that contemporary physics itself no longer treats space and time as fully observer-independent in the classical sense. — Wayfarer

Yes because that is how time is measured. You need an origin, because time is the measure of relative change between two states. Again, just because someone isn't there to measure relative change between two states, doesn't mean that it does not happen.

My point is not to deny physical reality, but to note that the naive realist picture of time as an observer-free container is no longer supported — even by physics. — Wayfarer

And again, all you've demonstrated is that "The naive realist picture of measuring time as an observer-free container is no longer supported." You have that 100%. Its the leap of you removing an observer's measurement to removing change prior to the observer that is missing a logical step.

The relation we create is the thing we invent measurement for, given some difference we observe. — Mww

The relation we observe, not create. The creation of a relation is something independent of observation. I can create a related measurement of zorbools, which relates the existence of magical fluctations to farts in the wind. Does it mean I can observe zorbools? No. Magic cannot be observed, so neither can zorbools.

I will argue that time itself is inextricably bound up with observation, and that this is the seat of a genuine paradox  -  one that an appeal to the geological or evolutionary facts, taken on their own, does not resolve. — Wayfarer

This will be an interesting thread, but I doubt that it will lead to a true or false conclusion. That's because human language is intrinsically materialistic*1. I suspect that ancient philosophers, especially Plato & Aristotle, understood that physicalist prejudice, and tried to develop a special metaphorical language for exchanging knowledge obtained by inferential Reason instead of by sensory Observation. Aristotle's both/and hybrid term Hylomorph --- real material (hyle) and ideal form (morph) --- may have been intended to overcome the linguistic bias toward public objective denotation over private subjective connotation*2. Some TPF posters seem to assume that literal (physical) definitions are necessarily true, but metaphorical (metaphysical) meanings are, if not absolutely false, then somewhat ambiguous, equivocal, and vague.

Even Time's Arrow*3 is an interpretation, not an observation. We see multiple instances and infer post hoc, ergo propter hoc. From observations of Quantum Physics, scientists have found that mental & mathematical measurements of time are ambiguous, even though our human stories of Time & Change tend to be unidirectional. For example, I have no personal experience of time prior to my birth, but society views birth as the first step toward death. And modern science typically portrays cosmic time as a near-infinite thermodynamic downhill run from low Entropy (order) to high Entropy (disorder) in terms of Energy digression. On the other hand, traditional historians have usually described the passage of time in terms of Hegelian dialectic, with an overall direction of progression. Even our word for ongoing Change, Time, is typically defined as irreversible succession of events from past to future.

For most practical scientific applications, the conventional progressive meaning of Time is useful. But for theoretical philosophical purposes, the meaning of Change is debatable. :nerd:



*1. The phrase "language is materialistic" suggests language isn't just abstract but deeply tied to physical reality, social structures, and material practices, moving beyond simple representation to actively shaping and being shaped by the world, seen in how words become physical (writing) and how language use reflects/reinforces economic systems, bodies, and cultural values. It's a concept explored in theories like new materialism, viewing language as an embodied activity embedded in concrete social situations, not an isolated system
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=language+is+materialistic

*2. Denotation : the literal or primary meaning of a word, in contrast to the feelings or ideas that the word suggests.
Connotation : an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

*3. The arrow of time in physics refers to the unidirectional flow of time from past to future, a concept coined by Arthur Eddington. While fundamental physical laws are time-symmetric, our experience shows time's irreversible march, primarily explained by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases, defining the thermodynamic arrow of time (e.g., an egg breaking, not unbreaking). Other arrows include the cosmological arrow (universe expansion) and quantum arrow (wave function collapse).

Time is the fact of change. When you say time doesn't exist prior to consciousness, you state change didn't happen prior to consciousness. Thus, I understand why you say time starts with consciousness, as change would start with consciousness. The primacy of consciousness. But there is no evidence that change doesn't happen prior to consciousness by your points presented. — Philosophim

Change — understood as physical variation or state transition — can perfectly well occur without observers. I explicitly acknowledge that in the original post:

I am entirely confident that the broad outlines of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution developed by current science are correct, even if many of the details remain open to revision. — Wayfarer

If you think that is being denied, then you’re not engaging the point of the argument.

What I am questioning is whether physical change, by itself, amounts to time in the absence of an observer. Time provides the framework within which facts are ordered and rendered intelligible as a sequence — as earlier, later, before, after, duration. As soon as one considers those facts, that temporal ordering is already being brought to bear by a standpoint capable of making sense of them. That is what the observer brings to the picture. But the observer is never a part of the picture.

The period prior to the evolution of h.sapiens can indeed be estimated and stated, but that estimation is performed by an observer using conceptual units of time that are meaningful to human cognition.

It’s therefore important to see that this is not an empirical argument about what we observe, and hence not a question of empirical evidence as such. A useful parallel is the long-standing problem of interpretations of quantum mechanics: all interpretations start from the same empirical evidence, yet they diverge radically in what that evidence is taken to mean. The disagreement is not evidential, but conceptual. None of your objections really come to terms with this if you continue to see it as an empirical argument.

Ultimately, the passage of time ought to be considered as an immaterial activity, which all material activities may be compared with (measured by). However, this presents us with the problem of determining exactly what this immaterial activity is, so that we might figure out a way to measure it. We actually already have a good idea about what it is, it is a wave activity, the vibration of the cosmos. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nothing like that is required. What appears mysterious is not some hidden feature of the world, but the fact that the conditions which make the world intelligible are not themselves part of what appears, but are provided by the observer. That is exactly what “transcendental” means: essential to experience, but not visible within it.

Change — understood as physical variation or state transition — can perfectly well occur without observers.

If you think that is being denied, then you’re not engaging the point of the argument. — Wayfarer

I did note that you claimed you weren't denying science, and it seemed to me that you weren't denying change. My point as been that this means you also cannot deny succession and duration, at least with how I've understood your argument so far. Change implies an origin state then a successive state. Duration is the note that one thing remains in a particular state while other things around it change. We can measure this quantitatively with time, but the qualitative concepts still exist without our measurement or observation.

What I am questioning is whether physical change, by itself, amounts to time in the absence of an observer. — Wayfarer

If you are talking about the underlying qualitative concepts of what we are measuring with 'time', then yes. Succession and duration as unmeasured concepts would continue. I'll ask again, what would the world look like without succession and duration prior to consciousness existing?

The period prior to the evolution of h.sapiens can indeed be estimated and stated, but that estimation is performed by an observer using conceptual units of time that are meaningful to human cognition. — Wayfarer

They are more than meaningful to cognition, they produce accurate predicted results about the past and present. Again, time isn't just an invented concept, its applied with success. Just like length still exists if we don't use an inch to measure it.

The quantitative count of time could not exist without consciousness, true, and it shouldn't just apply to people. Bugs and animals have consciousness to an extent as well. They observe the world without a measure of their existence. I'm going even beyond this and removing consciousness entirely. Rocks in space still had change relative to themselves and other rocks in space. Its just unmeasured and unobserved.

It’s therefore important to see that this is not an empirical argument about what we observe, and hence not a question of empirical evidence as such. — Wayfarer

But it does require us to consider the empirical if we are going to include science. When you say, "Time does not exist without observers," you are making a claim about existence. So at the least, it can't contradict what we know about existence now without a good argument. My point is that our measurement of time, and the underlying concepts of succession and duration are proven in the very measurement tools we use. 1 second is both a sustained amount of measured change, and succession is the start of the second vs the end. There is no reason that if we simply stopped measuring or 'observing' time, that the qualitative concepts would suddenly stopped. You keep avoiding this portion, so I'll ask again. If succession and duration do not exist, how does change work intelligibly? This is conceptual, and not empirical.

A useful parallel is the long-standing problem of interpretations of quantum mechanics: all interpretations start from the same empirical evidence, yet they diverge radically in what that evidence is taken to mean. The disagreement is not evidential, but conceptual. — Wayfarer

The differences in concepts only has value in its clarity of understanding the evidence as is, and helpful in discovering new evidence going forward. There is a concept of quantum mechanics that our literal eyeballs looking at something change the outcome of what we're observing. This is factually incorrect. A misconception holds no value. My point is that your viewpoint seems to hold the misconception that the absence of an observer means the absence of the qualitative aspect of time. At most, it just means the absence of someone measuring it.

I did note that you claimed you weren't denying science, and it seemed to me that you weren't denying change. My point as been that this means you also cannot deny succession and duration, at least with how I've understood your argument so far. — Philosophim

But I respectfully suggest that you haven't. You will invariably view it through the frame of scientific realism, and the only kind of arguments you would consider, would be scientific arguments. Let's leave it at that, and thanks for your comments.

Excellent job on the OP, as usual.

I think your critique of the “pre-history” objection is largely successful. In particular, I agree that appeals to cosmology often assume, without argument, that temporal succession is simply given as a fully determinate framework, independently of the conditions under which “before” and “after” have any sense. Your insistence that physics presupposes, rather than explains, temporal passage seems exactly right.

That said, I wonder whether the antinomy you describe really forces us to treat temporal succession as dependent on an actual standpoint or observer. There may be a middle position here, one that avoids both brute temporal realism and observer-dependence.

In a broadly Aristotelian tradition, the world is understood to be intrinsically intelligible. That is, it need not be thought of as intelligible because it is taken up by a mind; rather, minds are possible because the world is already ordered and determinate. On that view, structure and sequence are not imposed by understanding, but are what make understanding possible in the first place. This does not reduce order to mere physics, but neither does it make order depend on experience.

If something like this is right, then it seems important to distinguish physical change, lived temporality, and temporal order as such. Your argument shows convincingly that lived duration - in the Bergsonian sense - cannot be reduced to physical change, and that clocks and equations do not by themselves yield passage or continuity. But I would argue that it does not follow that temporal order itself requires an experienced point of view in order to be real.

One might say instead that the world prior to observers was not timeless, but unexperienced. The sequence of events was ordered and determinate, even though that order was not taken up or reflected upon by any subject. What emerges with consciousness is not temporal order itself, but the explicit presence of that order as order.

Framed this way, the tension you identify remains genuine, but it may not mark a final antinomy. Scientific accounts of a long pre-history and phenomenological accounts of temporality would then be addressing different aspects of the same reality: one describing ordered succession, the other describing how that succession comes to be experienced as passage.

Nothing like that is required. What appears mysterious is not some hidden feature of the world, but the fact that the conditions which make the world intelligible are not themselves part of what appears, but are provided by the observer. That is exactly what “transcendental” means: essential to experience, but not visible within it. — Wayfarer

That is exactly what I am disagreeing with. That feature of the world, which we know and measure as the passing of time, is a real, independent, and very mysterious feature of the world. We know that the passage of time is independent from observers from the evidence derived from studies like geology and geomorphology. We know there is activity independent from the observer, and any activity requires the passage of time. Therefore we can conclude deductively that this mysterious aspect of reality, which we know as the passing of time, is independent from the observer.

The passage of time turns out to be "transcendental" in a much more significant and absolute way. Not only does time transcend all experience, but it also transcends all physical existence. This is why modern cosmological theories break down at the so-called "Big Bang". They have not been able to separate the immaterial, nonphysical passage of time from the physical existence of the universe. The former is necessary for, and demonstrably prior to, the latter.

Hey, thanks! Most appreciated. There’s nothing I really differ with there. Again, I’m not saying that ‘nothing exists’ sans observers. What this, and most of my arguments, are against, is the elimination of the observer - the pretence that through the perspective of science, we see the world as it truly is. And the almost invariable implication, we’re a ‘mere blip’ in the vastness of cosmic space and time. That is viewing ourselves “from the outside”, so to speak - treating the observer as another phenomenon. When in reality the observer is that to whom or to which phenomena appear. That, I take to be the lesson of phenomenology and its forbears.

Again, I’ve also been most impressed with a book I’ve mentioned before Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter (Routledge 2021.) Pinter was a maths professor emeritus whose last book (and swansong) was about the intersection of philosophy and cognitive science. It was not much noticed in the philosophy profession as he had been a maths professor - which is a shame, because it’s a genuinely insightful book. His big idea is the way cognition (not only human cognition) organises experience by way of meaningful gestalts.

I’m also influenced by Aristotle - not by having studied him at length, because I wasn’t educated in ‘the Classics’. But I’ve absorbed it by cultural osmosis, so to speak, and also through my pursuit of comparative religion and philosophy. In the time I’ve been posting to forums, since around 2010, I’ve developed respect for Aristotelian Thomism, although without necessarily buying into the devotional commitments. But I’m very much in the overall mold of Platonism, again I think through cultural osmosis.

We know there is activity independent from the observer, and any activity requires the passage of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

“The observer knows there is activity independent from the observer”. He does indeed.

But I respectfully suggest that you haven't. You will invariably view it through the frame of scientific realism, and the only kind of arguments you would consider, would be scientific arguments. Let's leave it at that, and thanks for your comments. — Wayfarer

All good, appreciate the discussion Wayfarer!

The observer knows there is activity independent from the observer”. He does indeed. — Wayfarer

So the passage of time itself is independent. Right? Therefore before and after are also independent.

What is subjective (dependent on an observer) is the measurement of the passage of time. Therefore any specific unit, or period of time is subjective (dependent on an observer). Examples of these are a specific minute, a specific hour, today, yesterday, 2021, 1940, etc.

The problem is that most people do not distinguish between the measurement of the passing of time, and the passing of time itself. Then the measurement, which is subjective, is taken to be "time". And so most do not distinguish between physical change (the common means of measuring time), and the thing measured, the non-physical passage of time.

If you take a ruler and measure a blade of grass at one foot long, one foot long is the measurement, it is not the thing measured, being the blade of grass. Likewise, if we measure that it has been 24 hours since this time yesterday, 24 hours is the measurement. It is not the thing measured, which is the passage of time itself. The passage of time is that mysterious immaterial aspect of the independent world, which we do not understand.

Then the measurement, which is subjective, is taken to be "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't the measurement objective? The feel, knowing and perception of time is subjective, but any measurements are objective i.e. by watch or clock, isn't it? Your 1 hour must be same as my 1 hour, and for the folks in the down under, and the folks in the whole world.

The distinction made between a realm of becoming and the realm of eternity in early Greek thought is an interesting frame to consider.

Change becomes the most difficult thing to talk about.

Isn't the measurement objective? The feel, knowing and perception of time is subjective, but any measurements are objective i.e. by watch or clock, isn't it? Your 1 hour must be same as my 1 hour, and for the folks in the down under, and the folks in the whole world. — Corvus

Well, "objective" has many meanings. Here, you imply that if two people agree, then it is "objective". That would imply a meaning of "objective" which is based in intersubjectivity. So, when I said the measurement is "subjective", this is not inconsistent, or contrary to your use of "objective" here.

Look at it this way. Let's say that ideas and concepts are property of the subject. These things are dependent on the minds of subjects, therefore in a sense, "subjective". Also, we assume physical objects, like the cups I mentioned earlier, which are supposed to be independent. When we talk about these things, their properties etc., we are talking about the objects, hence what is said may be "objective", in the sense of 'of the object'.

Measurement is a very difficult concept because we take ideas and concepts, which are subjective, in the sense described above, completely universal and removed from the objects, and attempt to apply them to objects. The measurement is never objective, because it is always entirely conceptual, property of the subject. Nor is the measurement something we say about the object itself, because measurement is applied to a specific parameter (property) of the object. Notice, a property is said to be "of the object", objective in the sense of something we say about the object. But the measurement is not something we say about the object itself, it is something we say about the specific property. So measurement is twice removed from the object. It is not a property of the object, but a property of the property. It is an idea applied to an idea, therefore subjective.

The measurement is never objective, because it is always entirely conceptual, property of the subject. Nor is the measurement something we say about the object itself, because measurement is applied to a specific parameter (property) of the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Measurement is agreed way of setting and counting the figures of objects, be it size, weight or time. If it is not objective, then everyone will have different way of measurement on days, hours, minutes, distance, size, weight etc, which will make Science and daily life chaotic?

Isn't the measurement (of time) objective? — Corvus

It is. If you read the OP as saying it isn’t, then you’re not reading it right.

Measurement is agreed way of setting and counting the figures of objects, be it size, weight or time. — Corvus

You ignored the point I made. "Size", "weight", etc., are not "the object", those terms refer to a specific feature, a property of the supposed object, and strictly speaking it is that specific property which is measured, not the object.

If it is not objective, then everyone will have different way of measurement on days, hours, minutes, distance, size, weight etc, which will make Science and daily life chaotic? — Corvus

That is the definition of "objective" which I tried to steer you away from, so that you could understand the point I wanted to make. If you just want to claim that this definition of "objective" (based in an agreement between subjects) is the only meaningful definition of that term, then I can't make the point, and discussion is useless.

But let me ask you one question. If we define "objective" in the way that you propose, how would you differentiate between "justified" and "true"?

It is. If you read the OP as saying it isn’t, then you’re not reading it right. — Wayfarer

The point I made is that if we adhere to a strict definition of "objective", meaning of the object, then measurement is not objective. This is because measurement assigns a value to a specified property, it does not say anything about the object itself. Assigning the property to the object says something about the object, but assigning a value to the property says something about the property.

The problem with the loose definition of "objective" (agreement amongst subjects) which Corvus is proposing, is that it blurs the distinction between justified and true. If we maintain that objective knowledge requires both, justified and true, and "true" requires correspondence with the object, then simple agreement amongst subjects does not meet the criteria for "objective knowledge".

Isn't the measurement objective? — Corvus

Try this explanation.

To claim that the measurement of time is objective requires that we have an object to refer to, to meet the criteria for "true", by correspondence. "True" is a common condition for "objective" knowledge. Without this object, which would be pointed to as the one with the property of "time" which is being measured, there is no possibility of truth by correspondence. Then all we are left with is agreement amongst subjects, and this only means that the measurement has been justified. But there is no way to determine truth without the required object. Therefore such a measurement cannot be "objective".

This is a consequence of special and general relativity. Since the measurement of time is made to be reference frame dependent, there is no single object which the passage of time is a property of. Therefore it is impossible that the measurement of time could be objective.