I think Kant and Leibnitz were both correct. Because Kants notion of time and space being absolute (controlled for/assumed constant) gives access to the formulation of Newtonian physical equations. — Benj96
As it has been stated before several times, that is true...but only If we take all perception out of the equation. Once perception is introduced, then change only has meaning in the context of time, e.g. it takes time for my eyes to scan the image and process changes in the patterns. — Watchmaker
As has pointed out, this is just incorrect. The scare quotes probably indicate that Benj is aware of this, but thinks of pointing to some alternative use of "energy" and "time". But then, why the pretence of talking about physics?Change requires the "energy" to do it, and the "time" for it to get done. — Benj96
...quoted in a paragraph of it's own as if it said something useful.Henri Bergson argued: “duration is a principle of qualitative differentiation in a heterogeneous multiplicity. — Joshs
The only positive one might take from these appalling posts is the reminder that there are folk hereabouts who are not interested in clarity, in explanation, but have instead an active preference for the cryptic and esoteric. These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno
Changes may happen unperceived. We just do not know about them. — Banno
Is it possible to explain it simply? — Watchmaker
:up: :lol:These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. — Banno
Henri Bergson argued: “duration is a principle of qualitative differentiation in a heterogeneous multiplicity.
— Joshs
...quoted in a paragraph of it's own as if it said something useful.
The only positive one might take from these appalling posts is the reminder that there are folk hereabouts who are not interested in clarity, in explanation, but have instead an active preference for the cryptic and esoteric. These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno
If you allow your eyes to move from left to right there is an element of time change involved. But if you simply move back a bit and look at the entire screen what you see is yellow changing to red as an entity of its own, not requiring a period of time. — jgill
As ↪jgill has pointed out, this is just incorrect. The scare quotes probably indicate that Benj is aware of this, but thinks of pointing to some alternative use of "energy" and "time". But then, why the pretence of talking about physics? — Banno
But then, why the pretence of talking about physics? — Banno
Kant’s notion of time is a critique of Newton’s. Time is neither an absolute quatitative constant for Kant, not a relationship between material objects. It is the passive exposure of subjective intuition to an outside, to something existing. We generate time in apprehending, and must have something outward if there is to be apprehension. Time is the activity of pure self-affecting. — Joshs
This seems overly simplistic. Banno can do better. — jgill
Maybe. Suppose you are looking at the computer screen before you. It is devoid of imagery, but is a continuously changing color from yellow on the left to red on the right. If you allow your eyes to move from left to right there is an element of time change involved. But if you simply move back a bit and look at the entire screen what you see is yellow changing to red as an entity of its own, not requiring a period of time. — jgill
Your thought experiment read simply, but the instructions were not that clear to me — Watchmaker
(Canales)Most important, then began the period when the relevance of philosophy declined in the face of the rising influence of science.
(Bergson)Instead, let us imagine an infinitely small piece of elastic, contracted, if that were possible, to a mathematical point. Let us draw it out gradually in such a way as to bring out of the point a line which will grow progressively longer. Let us fix our attention not on the line as line, but on the action which traces it. Let us consider that this action, in spite of its duration, is indivisible if one supposes that it goes on without stopping; that, if we intercalate a stop in it, we make two actions of it instead of one and that each of these actions will then be the indivisible of which we speak; that it is not the moving act itself which is never indivisible, but the motionless line it lays down beneath it like a track in space. Let us take our mind off the space subtending the movement and concentrate solely on the movement itself, on the act of tension or extension, in short, on pure mobility. This time we shall have a more exact image of our development in duration.
In physics time is what the clock says. — Mark Nyquist
Instead, let us imagine an infinitely small piece of elastic, contracted, if that were possible, to a mathematical point. Let us draw it out gradually in such a way as to bring out of the point a line which will grow progressively longer. Let us fix our attention not on the line as line, but on the action which traces it. Let us consider that this action, in spite of its duration, is indivisible if one supposes that it goes on without stopping; that, if we intercalate a stop in it, we make two actions of it instead of one and that each of these actions will then be the indivisible of which we speak; that it is not the moving act itself which is never indivisible, but the motionless line it lays down beneath it like a track in space. Let us take our mind off the space subtending the movement and concentrate solely on the movement itself, on the act of tension or extension, in short, on pure mobility. This time we shall have a more exact image of our development in duration.
As for psychology, there can be endless models of time and there are. So what is time physically? I see continuity of physical matter. Continuity of time could be just a psychological add on. In physics time is what the clock says. — Mark Nyquist
Progression of physical matter.
Clocks are physical matter that can delivery a number.
The idea of duration of time can exist in your mind and it's very useful but duration ( time initial to time final ) can't exist in the physical present. All we are doing with the idea of time is piggybacking on the progression of physical matter. — Mark Nyquist
These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno
Actually, "Time" is like Energy. Intuitively,everybody knows what it does, but the mystery arises when you ask what it is. — Gnomon
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.