Time does not lie on a point. It is a psychological feeling imbued in the mind. We feel time pass we do not see it pass and we associate this passage of time with changes in memory.

Time does not lie on a point. — Rich

I didn't say so.

It is a psychological feeling imbued in the mind. We feel time pass we do not see it pass and we associate this passage of time with changes in memory. — Rich

I was not talking about psychological time.

Time does not lie on a point. It is a psychological feeling imbued in the mind. We feel time pass we do not see it pass and we associate this passage of time with changes in memory. — Rich

I can watch things change right now. Time at the very least is empirical.

can watch things change right now. Time at the very least is empirical. — Marchesk

I don't think that's the case. You watch things change, and you deduce that time has passed. In that case time isn't strictly empirical, it's theoretical, "if things change then time has passed".

"I don't think that's the case. You watch things change, and you deduce that time has passed. In that case time isn't strictly empirical, it's theoretical, "if things change then time has passed"."
- Metaphysician Undercover

So time is an expression of change, an error of language perhaps but not ignorance. It is evident that change occurs in the world and this we call time. We should define 'time' similarly to our definition of 'observation of change', rather than saying that two halves of the same walnut came from different trees. Time is not a separate thing we have deduced from empiricism, it is the description we have attached to our observation.

This means that we need a variable to allow this to happen. — bahman

I think that's confusing the map with the territory. Time, whatever it is, just is. The modeling of time via mathematics requires a variable often labelled 't'. Time existed long before the letter t. Variables are a historically contingent abstract idea of humans. In fact letters of the alphabet used as symbolic variables in mathematical expressions didn't come about till relatively recently, in the 13th or 14th centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_algebra

Time does not lie on a point.
— Rich

I didn't say so — bahman

.

Actually you did. Read your presentation. You are defining duration as lying between two points. Exactly b what lies between two points?

It is a psychological feeling imbued in the mind. We feel time pass we do not see it pass and we associate this passage of time with changes in memory.
— Rich

I was not talking about psychological time.

Real time is psychological time. Duration is a feeling. There is nothing physical or v spatial about it.

Time does not lie on a point. It is a psychological feeling imbued in the mind. We feel time pass we do not see it pass and we associate this passage of time with changes in memory.
— Rich

I can watch things change right now. Time at the very least is empirical. — Marchesk

You can observe things change but that is not real time, duration. We feel time passing even if we are not observing anything but we still feel it passing - except when we are asleep, which is actually pretty remarkable and science had no explanation for the mind changing into this rather interesting state.

I think that's confusing the map with the territory. Time, whatever it is, just is. The modeling of time via mathematics requires a variable often labelled 't'. Time existed long before the letter t. Variables are a historically contingent abstract idea of humans. In fact letters of the alphabet used as symbolic variables in mathematical expressions didn't come about till relatively recently, in the 13th or 14th centuries. — fishfry

If time just is what it is, then why does it move at different speeds at different places? Or are we not allowed to enquire why, because it just is?

If time just is what it is, then why does it move at different speeds at different places? Or are we not allowed to enquire why, because it just is? — tom

You're taking my remark completely out of context. @bahaman said

This means that we need a variable to allow this to happen. — bahman

and I merely pointed out that variables are human constructs, and relatively recent ones at that. Whereas time has been going on a long ... well, time. Therefore time does not require variables. Rather, variables are what we use to model time.

You are taking exception to my statement that "time is just what it is?" Are you denying the law of identity?

I think that's confusing the map with the territory. Time, whatever it is, just is. The modeling of time via mathematics requires a variable often labelled 't'. Time existed long before the letter t. Variables are a historically contingent abstract idea of humans. In fact letters of the alphabet used as symbolic variables in mathematical expressions didn't come about till relatively recently, in the 13th or 14th centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_algebra — fishfry

By Variable I meant something which is subject to change.

Time does not lie on a point.
— Rich

I didn't say so.
— bahman

Actually you did. Read your presentation. You are defining duration as lying between two points. Exactly b what lies between two points? — Rich

I said two state of system lie on two different points.

It is a psychological feeling imbued in the mind. We feel time pass we do not see it pass and we associate this passage of time with changes in memory.
— Rich

I was not talking about psychological time.
-bahman

Real time is psychological time. Duration is a feeling. There is nothing physical or v spatial about it. — Rich

Duration is not a feeling. It is time elapsed between two events without that we could not physically reach from one event to another one.

Consider a change in state of a system, X->Y. Two states cannot lay on each other since the state of affair becomes ill-defined. This means that two states must lay on different points. This means that we need a variable to allow this to happen. There must however be a duration between two points otherwise the change will never takes place. The variable is therefore time.

If "two states must lay on different points", then why is the concept of time needed in the first place. If any body can be expressed as a set of points in space, then any change can be expressed as a change in the arrangement of those points in space...spacetime.

Fine but less than satisfying psychologically because it lacks an ego, which, I think is why we think time flows.

If "two states must lay on different points", then why is the concept of time needed in the first place. If any body can be expressed as a set of points in space, then any change can be expressed as a change in the arrangement of those points in space...spacetime. — Cavacava

Because you need to reach from one point to another one and this should take a while otherwise everything elapses in an instant.

Fine but less than satisfying psychologically because it lacks an ego, which, I think is why we think time flows. — Cavacava

What do you mean?

Because you need to reach from one point to another one and this should take a while otherwise everything elapses in an instant.

The trajectory of a ball can be described mathematically, all other components can similarly be described using math...and in higher math time (t) drops out of the equations altogether, my understanding is that it becomes a frequency function.

What do you mean?

Time would not flow if there were no constant to observe it flow.

Duration is not a feeling. — bahman

I don't know anyone who cannot close their eyes and feel time passing.

By Variable I meant something which is subject to change. — bahman

So then your argument is circular. "Things that change require a variable. Why? Because a variable is something subject to change." Circular, right?

Besides, aren't constants variables? The function f(x) = 3 is constant, yet x is the independent variable. You are using a technical term with a different meaning than normal but not fully defining your new meaning.

Time is not a separate thing we have deduced from empiricism, it is the description we have attached to our observation. — The Curiorist

But that is not at all the case. We describe things. We describe things changing. We do not describe time. And from those descriptions we make deductions about time.

It is evident that change occurs in the world and this we call time. — The Curiorist

Change is not what we call time Change is change, and time is time, these are two different things. Take for instance a case when you would use "time" and try replacing it with "change". What time is it? How much time until we leave? Take your time. Etc.. To replace "time" with "change" is nonsense, and so it is nonsense to say that change is what we call time.

Duration is not a feeling.
— bahman

I don't know anyone who cannot close their eyes and feel time passing. — Rich

We can experience psychological duration but that is different from duration/real duration which takes place independent of us.

By Variable I meant something which is subject to change.
— bahman

So then your argument is circular. "Things that change require a variable. Why? — fishfry

It is not circular. Things which change require a variable so we could distinguish different state of them. Without the variable the change cannot manifest itself.

Because a variable is something subject to change." Circular, right? — fishfry

No it is not circular.

Besides, aren't constants variables? The function f(x) = 3 is constant, yet x is the independent variable. You are using a technical term with a different meaning than normal but not fully defining your new meaning. — fishfry

Constant are not variable but you can have a function which is constant.

Only the mind can experience duration, unless you have communicated with a rock who told you otherwise.

Only the mind can experience duration, unless you have communicated with a rock who told you otherwise. — Rich

Why would you have to be able to communicate to experience duration?

Why would you have to be able to communicate to experience duration? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't have to communicate but that is because In am Mind, however, if I'm claiming that it is possible to n experience duration without a Mind then I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth. On the other hand, one could claim that a rock is also Mind and can experience duration as Mind, but that is a different story.

No, I mean why wouldn't you think that a rock could experience duration but not be able to tell you about that experience? We would think that other animals experience duration but can't tell you about it. Probably even plants experience duration, and can't tell you about it. So why not a rock?

There is an apparent difference between living and not living. But if one wishes to argue that there is no difference in the ability to experience duration between living and not living, I'm all ears.

Only the mind can experience duration, unless you have communicated with a rock who told you otherwise. — Rich

I think I was talking about another issue.

If two different things experience time in two different ways, this does not mean that one of them does not experience time at all. If we know that different types of living things experience time in different ways, why not allow that inanimate things also experience time in a different way? It comes down to a question of what do you mean by "experience"? If you mean "to observe and remember", then I don't think that rocks experience duration. But if you mean "to be affected by", then I think that rocks experience duration.

Notice that if you are hard determinist then "observe and remember" is reducible to "to be affect by" and then there is no real separation between the way a rock experiences duration and the way that a human being experiences duration.

If two different things experience time in two different ways, this does not mean that one of them does not experience time at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

Personally, I would not want to speculate on how rocks may experience time. However, from direct experience, I understand how I experience time. Admittedly this state changes in nature all the time which is definitely of some interest. When I understand this better, it may be appropriate to understand if it is possible that duration, an experience of mind, can be extended to living plants or non-living rocks.