You see the sun rise in the morning, and impose an idea that time has passed. Nothing has passed. It was the earth which rotated itself by 1 turn since yesterday morning. — Corvus

Well, I think something has happened. The sunrise is like an alarm, and it tells me that the day just started and I have a lot of things to do: take a shower, have breakfast, go to work, pay things, take care of my relatives, and a lot of things that I can't experience when I am in the night. When night comes, I feel the day is ended, and I have to wait until tomorrow to do new or the same trifling things. Therefore, yes since the sun rises there are a lot of things that happened.

Dogs don't care about time or numbers. Maybe they would do, if they had the concept of time and numbers. — Corvus

True, good point. But the fact that dogs don't have the concept of time doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can flip it and see the coin of the reverse side: dogs bark yet we don't understand bark language. Does the message in the dog's bark exist even though we can't understand it?

Does physical matter exists?
That's a better starting point because it's more basic than a concept of time.

So,
Start with matter exists to build a model of time.
Physical matter exists as we observe it...
And only in the present.
Information exists as Instantiated mental content.
Or,
Brains composed of matter that process mental content.
So time exists as mental content.
Brain; ( perception of time ).

That means nothing can physically exist outside the present moment.

But like some have mentioned, the concept of time is useful.
Understanding it seems a basic task of philosophy.

We should expect to see different time models in different applications.

Brain; (time model #1)
Brain; (time model #2)
Brain; (time model #3)

And so on.

I have not come across Mario Bunge before, but he seems to be a great thinker. Will have readings on the quotes you provided in the post, as they seem to be much relevant on the topic. Gracias. — Corvus

He's the philosopher that has inspired my own philosophy the most.

Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist. — Corvus

If you are going to say time doesn't exist, but space and objects do, then you should go further and realize that if time is a construct, so is space, and therefore only objects exist.

But that denies motion, which doesn't seem right.

In my view, like Einstein realized the better conception of time and space is as one space-time, I think the better view is space-time-matter.

The existence of the object is as much a demonstration of matter, as it is a demonstration of motion, which is measured in space-time. It's all one thing.

There are objects.
We are objects that perceive objects (human beings).
When we perceive an object, we take measure of matter-space-time (or if you are a post-modernist, we construct matter-space-time).

Motion means: objects, through space, over time.

Take any object, say, an apple.

It is at once matter, taking up space, now..., and now again...and now again...over time. With matter, once perceived, comes space-time-matter. Space and time are the mental act of measuring, or perceiving. They look objective, but they are the act of objectifying.

Without awareness of time there is no awareness of the continuity of the flow of experience. — Joshs

I can experience a gradual change of pitch played on a violin (portamento), but I cannot make empirical sense of a flow of "experience" unless the word "experience" is substituted for a given phenomenon, such as the portamento.

Hypothetically, I think that if I were to fully attend to the portamento, I would no longer have the impression that the portamento consisted of a sequence of particular notes. Conversely, if I were to pay full attention to the notes played, I think that I would no longer hear a portamento but a glissando consisting of a broken sequence of tones.

The intuition that a phenomenon flows is in conflict with the intuition that the phenomenon is comprised of a sequence of states, as per Zeno's Paradox. So if talk about experience deflates to talk about phenomena, and if the nature of phenomena is relative to how it is attended and phenomena doesn't always flow, then must the existence of phenomena necessitate the a priori existence of a psychological time series?

Thanks for all your posts. Will come back with more of my replies on the rest of your posts in due course. — Corvus

"in due course"?

At a later time?

We string together samplings of NOW and construct of these TIME as the string is said to refer to PAST and NOW as if however it is that NOW might exist, the string including PAST with NOW might exist.

When we recall yesterday, we don’t look into the past - we actively, now, construct a recollection - we re-collect, or collect impressions.

It’s all, always, only NOW. The construct of time helps us see NOW as bigger then it ever is.

"in due course"? — wonderer1

:rofl:


Yes!


There is something profoundly absurd about a thread arguing that time doesn't exist.

The intuition that a phenomenon flows is in conflict with the intuition that the phenomenon is comprised of a sequence of states, as per Zeno's Paradox. So if talk about experience deflates to talk about phenomena, and if the nature of phenomena is relative to how it is attended and phenomena doesn't always flow, then must the existence of phenomena necessitate the a priori existence of a psychological time series? — sime

It isn’t necessary to use a notion of flow to address the necessity of the inclusion of past in the experience of the punctual now. Regardless of whether we attend to a discrete ‘state’ vs a flowing continuum, in either case the ‘now’ we experience includes within it the just past.

Emergent properties exist. If time were an emergent property, then it would follow that time exists.

"in due course"?

At a later time? — wonderer1

They are not the same meaning. Time doesn't exist as an entity in reality. It is a product of your mind. It is an extra perception generated from motions and movements.

Please bear in mind that the OP is not denying the fact that we use time in our daily living. However, it is trying to explore the existence, entity and nature of time i.e. is it something which exists as a concrete being somewhere in the universe, or as a part of the universe? Or is it a product of human mind?

Well, I can't perceive it. Where is it? If I look at a clock, that's not time itself, that's just an instrument that we use to measure this "thing" that we call "time". What I perceive is limited to my five senses. I don't have an extra sense, a sixth sense, that perceives times. All I perceive are colors, sounds, aromas, tastes, and tactile feelings. I don't know what time "feels like", I don't have an organ that gives me that information.

It isn’t necessary to use a notion of flow to address the necessity of the inclusion of past in the experience of the punctual now. Regardless of whether we attend to a discrete ‘state’ vs a flowing continuum, in either case the ‘now’ we experience includes within it the just past. — Joshs

Sure, but if the psychological past is part of a mutable mental state, then you presumably mean the "just past" in a manner of speaking, in the same way that we might say that a copy of yesterday's newspaper is about the past and Old Moore's Almanac is about the future. In both cases, we are at liberty to provide a definition as to what it means to treat an object as a 'past-referring' record or as a 'future-referring' prediction, that in the final analysis makes no mention of a B series and that reduces to observations and actions that as a matter of tautology can be said to be only of the present.

I agree. I cannot perceive anything or any object which is time itself either. I have never seen a being called time itself. But we often hear people talking about time, and asking about time.

When you get hungry in the mid afternoon, isn't it your stomach telling you the time? It is the lunch time. You need to go and grab some sandwich. It is just telling it is time to have something to eat, but it is not saying anything about time itself.

It's a weird thing, isn't it? We take time for granted in our everyday lives, yet when we think about it, it doesn't make sense.

So, spatiality and temporality are vicariously just as material, and therefore just as real, as the properties of the material objects that generate them; only, they have no independent existence. — Bunge (2006: 245)

Bunge's writing is reflecting the point. We are not saying that time is not real, but saying that time has no independent existence. So, a question arises, how something which is so real has no independent existence?

how can any contingent empirical proposition, say "the cat is presently on the mat", be true when said now but false when said in the past or in the future? — sime

Time reflects the state of changes in reality. Our perception can tell the state of the changes, and judge the propositions as true or false according to the state of perceived reality. Hence time is built in our perception?

Space and objects co-exist momentarily; they are co-present. However, for us, the present time is shaped by the current virtual time horizons of the past and future. — Number2018

What do you mean by "the current virtual time horizon"?

I don't know a lot about Kant and much of what I do know I don't like, but I do like his discussion of space and time. Here's some of what he says about time, from Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 5 of the Critique of Pure Reason. — T Clark

From my memory of reading their texts, Hume and Kant both seem to be saying time has no independent existence i.e. time is an internal perception emanated from the motions and movements of objects in space. In some sense, this point would negate Hume's system i.e. some perceptions don't have the matching impressions from the external world objects such as time. In Kant, there is no problem, as mind has a priori concepts which are not derived from experience of the empirical world.

I think we first must distinguish between subjective time and objective time. We perceive subjective time rather than objective one. The subjective time is created in the brain, and it is subject to change, depending on the mood, emotion, substance usage, diseases, etc. This article discusses the subjective time. Objective time is a part of the spacetime manifold and it is the subject of physics though.

So, a question arises, how something which is so real has no independent existence? — Corvus

Good question. I'm not sure what the answer is.

Therefore, yes since the sun rises there are a lot of things that happened. — javi2541997

But what had been happening are not time itself. They are events, changes and motions.

We can flip it and see the coin of the reverse side: — javi2541997

Can we flip time, and see the other side of time?

dogs bark yet we don't understand bark language. Does the message in the dog's bark exist even though we can't understand it? — javi2541997

Dog barking has no grammar, syntax or semantics, hence it cannot be understood in meaningful way.
They could be cleaver in some ways, but they are not rational.

Does physical matter exists?
That's a better starting point because it's more basic than a concept of time. — Mark Nyquist

When you say "matter", it is not clear what you are exactly referring to. Could you be more specific? Of course physical objects exist i.e. chairs, desks, cups, trees, folks and cars .... I see them. I can interact with them. They have the concrete existence. Time? I don't see, or sense it. I can hear people talking about it, and asking it. So what is the nature of time?

In my view, like Einstein realized the better conception of time and space is as one space-time, I think the better view is space-time-matter. — Fire Ologist

In my view, time in space-time should have been "space-perception", not time. Time doesn't exist. Space does. Einstein must have meant to say "space-perception" instead of "space-time". Would you agree?

To say X is relative implies, X doesn't exist. But X could be real in the sense that we talk and ask about it, and use it in daily life.

"in due course"?

At a later time? — wonderer1

It just means, "future". We have three perception of temporality. Past, present, future. Past comes from our memories, present comes from the state of consciousness for the now, and future from imagination.

I was imagining and meaning some present moment in the future, when said "in due course". Not "at a later time". But of course at times (often) I also say lunch time and dinner time by habit with the knowledge that time itself doesn't exist.

In Kant, there is no problem, as mind has a priori concepts which are not derived from experience of the empirical world. — Corvus

If Kant is right and time and space are not something we learn through experience but rather know from our natures, doesn't that mean they are not illusions?

For Kant time is a pure intuition, i.e. it is an a priori structure that allows us to organize events.

The movement is as it is represented in physics, for example as a trajectory through time. Motion as we see it is the same, we see a before and an after of the thing moving, otherwise we would not notice the motion.

Time is already acting on the motion. A thing that moves is a thing that passes from one state to another, but then the difference we see between one state and another is different from the thing [cause we apply it to different things] , we call it temporal difference, a now with respect to a before.

I think you are saying we should question if time exists. I might agree that it does not in a physical sense.
Physical matter is just something I see as more fundamental and a better starting point than our perseption of time...that reduces to mental content

And our perseption of time isn't just one thing.
We use clocks, calendars, and physical models in different ways. An engineer might have practical reasons to use time in his math equations but a theoretical physicist might not.

So mind emerges from matter.
Mind is secondary so start the problem with physical matter as primary. That identifies the constraints of everything operating in the physical present.