Are you saying the past is imminent in the present through influence — Ø implies everything
Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel
Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel
If time measures change, or gives change substance, it is a bit strange that the metrics in special relativity allow for a change of spacetime when there is no change of position in space. — jgill
Everything in the universe has a "temporal dimension" in the sense that all things change*1. That's what Einstein referred to as the "Fourth Dimension". We visualize that ongoing change as a river of water flowing downhill. But it's really the flow of invisible Energy/Causation flowing from hot to cold states, and causing physical changes along the way, that we can see, and attribute to the passing of ghostly Causation.So, does consciousness have a temporal dimension, or does it merely move through time?
Is the present (as a "percept") actually a duration? Looking at a river, one might think/feel so. But I am able to bring doubt to this. What would it even mean? — Ø implies everything
I'm not so clear on your concept of object versus motion temporal extension. — Pantagruel
Everything in the universe has a "temporal dimension" in the sense that all things change — Gnomon
If it does, it would mean that some of our "memories" are actually the past contained within the manifold of consciousness, and thus, are as real and direct as other percepts. This would mean such memories are not representational, and thus not subject to the skepticism regarding any potential representational corruption. — Ø implies everything
Yes. Time is just one way to measure the world. Spatial extension (3D) is timeless & static. But dynamic Motion extension brings in a new vector of time. Motion is a change in Spatial position that requires a fourth arrow for measurement.Yes, agreed. But that is merely motion-temporal-extension (MSE). The question is, does consciousness have object-temporal-extension (OSE). In the above comment, I explained the difference. Here I will add another point to differentiate them: — Ø implies everything
To the extent that nothing is every truly at rest, the distinction between OSE and MSE breaks down. — Pantagruel
I'm just not seeing the utility of the distinction. — Pantagruel
That the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel
... then why even ask that question (in your O.P., i.e., "Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time?")? For, in that case, it's obvious that what we designate by "time" refers only to "the awareness of time," since, by your own admission, it can't even be considered & designated in any other way than that (& so you've answered your own question [from the O.P.]). — ItIsWhatItIs
For, in that case, it's obvious that what we designate by "time" refers only to "the awareness of time," since, by your own admission, it can't even be considered & designated in any other way than that (& so you've answered your own question)." — ItIsWhatItIs
I believe this generally true. The same thing was believed by Heraclitus 2,500 years ago! :smile:Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. — Pantagruel
I believe that in way this is also true. Time does not actually exist. It is a concept and something we have created to help us explain, describe and measure change and movement.Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel
to help us explain, describe and measure change and movement. — Alkis Piskas
It seems to me, that any notion of a personal 'awareness of time,' must be perceived with a description of expansion/inflation/ relative reference frames, such as Victors in mind. 'It's all relative.' — universeness
Time does not actually exist. — Alkis Piskas
First of all, "duration of time" is a pleonasm or a self-referential expresssion (however you want to look at it), since duration already refers to a length of time. The same applies to "a period of tme" or "interval of time". They are all self-referential expressions. I know these expressions are commonly used. But better avoid this, at least in this place, isn't that right?To exist possibly means to persist through a duration of time. — jgill
Yes, if you set a length for that "instant", however small it may be. E.g. a soap bubble pops up after a few of seconds. It does exist for that length of time.Can something exist in only an instant of time? — jgill
Right. This is why I mentioned Heractlitus. :smile: ("Everything flows")TIme is certainly flux — Pantagruel
Quantum fluctuations?To exist possibly means to persist through a duration of time. Can something exist in only an instant of time? The blink of an eye, then gone? Could we detect such an occurrence? — jgill
So, we have to set a length for an instant, however small that may be. Which makes "present" a relative thing. — Alkis Piskas
Are you suggesting that a dimension does not have a physical existence?Does that "distance" --or any distance for that matter-- actually exist? Of course not. Both time and distance are dimensions. They aer both used for description and measurement purposes. They do not actually exist. — Alkis Piskas
Hi! Long time no see!In physics, Planck time is posited as the smallest duration possible — universeness
Isn't it quite evident I do? :smile:Are you suggesting that a dimension does not have a physical existence? — universeness
This is exacely what I'm saying: "a reference to".Any reference to a space dimension has direction and extent, does it not? — universeness
A concept refers to something that exists or not. Itself does not exist. (In the strict sense, of course. Because the verb "exist" can be used figuratively in all sorts of ways.) — Alkis Piskas
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.