(An odd but seldom noticed consequence of McTaggart's characterization of the A series and the B series is that, on that characterization, the A series is identical to the B series. For the items that make up the B series (namely, moments of time) are the same items that make up the A series, and the order of the items in the B series is the same as the order of the items in the A series; but there is nothing more to a series than some specific items in a particular order.) — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTArg
Time is the fire in which we burn. — Delmore Schwartz, Calmly We Walk Through This April’s Day (1938)
They say time is the fire in which we burn. — Tolian Soran, Star Trek: Generations (1994)
It seems to me that for there to be no change the universe would have to be completely empty - always and everywhere, so no quantum particles popping in and out of existence. If it contains even one photon or particle then there is change, since matter is energy is waves, and waves involve vibration, which is change. — andrewk
On eternalism, or the block universe, there “is” still time (— by the way, notice the present tense “is” here — it’s misleading due to our language). — jorndoe
Claiming that the past exists now is incoherent. — jorndoe
Jorn, what is your opinion of Shoemaker's claim that time without change is possible? — andrewk
Yet there must be something intermediary to account for the difference between Y and Z. This intermediary is time itself. Therefore it is not only possible that time passes without physical change, but it is a necessary conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover
But it might also be possible that the intermediary to account for the difference in time is the change from Y to Z so is this a valid argument? — Madman
A lifetime studying quantum mechanics has convinced Bernard d'Espagnat that the world we perceive is merely a shadow of the ultimate reality — vesko
This is not necessary. Time could be discrete, like the integers, or like popes.from one state to the next, from Y to Z, time passes.
Ya, it seems that time, at least to me, is logically impossible without change. — Sam26
This is not necessary. Time could be discrete, like the integers, or like popes. — andrewk
Do we though? How do we know we don't experience time like a movie, at 24 frames per second (or perhaps, 24,000). I don't think I could tell the difference.we experience a continuous time
Do we though? How do we know we don't experience time like a movie, at 24 frames per second (or perhaps, 24,000). I don't think I could tell the difference. — andrewk
What I'm saying is that the meaning of the concept of the predicate is included in the concept of the subject. For example, "All bachelors are unmarried," or "All bodies are extended in space," which are instances of the meaning of the predicate being a function of the meaning of the subject. You can't have one without the other. — Sam26
Whatever time may be, it seems to involve duration and simultaneity, neither of which are arbitrary ramblings, but would have to be accounted for by (or included in) any theory of time:
duration: it takes time to get to work in the morning
simultaneity: we get to work about the same time in the morning, as agreed prior — jorndoe
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.