Time itself doesn't have past present future. It is us who divide time into those categories depending on what point, and what part of time we want to focus on. — Corvus

Do you deny there's some innate sense of past, present, and future? If you agree that there is, WHY do you suppose we have this?

time itself doesn't become anything. — Corvus

Of course not: time isn't a thing. But the present has just come into being

Now there’s an oxymoronic phrase! I’m forming the view that ‘the world independent of mind’ is precisely and exactly what the ‘in itself’ refers to. — Wayfarer

Well, you know what I said. The other is very close to me and invades me - even in my imagination.

What necessitates the "co-arising"? How could subjectivity co-arises with the objectivity? — Corvus

You asked about Buddhism before. The 'co-arising of self and world' is not foreign to Buddhism. In many of the early Buddhist texts (known as the 'Pali Canon') you will encounter the expression 'self-and-world' which designates the nature of lived experience. This is because the normal human state is always characterised by the sense of self and world. Being conscious is being conscious of.

Buddhist philosophical psychology is a subject known as abhidharma. It comprises a psychological theory about how perceptions and conceptions give rise to the various states of being. It is a very detailed and complex set of texts, indicating the depth and complexity of the subject matter:

In summary, the Abhidhamma describes how 28 physical phenomena co-arise with 52 mental factors, manifesting as 89 types of consciousness, which unfold in series of 17 mind moments, governed by 24 types of causal relation. — Source

But the point about abhidharma is, that it experiential in nature - dealing with the causal factors of experience. That is where it is somewhat different from Western metaphysics which always dealt with highly abstract concepts such as 'being' or 'essence' or 'substance'. The keynote of abhidharma is self-awareness (hence the connection with 'mindfulness'). That is the context in which the co-arising of self and other is meaningful. It shows how the mind identifies with or attaches to what it identifies with as 'me and mine'. The idea in Buddhism is to learn to detach from or disidentify with that. Not that we're here to discuss Buddhism in particular, but there has been a recent upsurge of interest in the resonances between Buddhism and modern philosophical schools like phenomenology.

When they co-arisen, are they then one? Or still two? — Corvus

Very interesting question. The meaning of 'advaya' (which is Buddhist non-dualism) is 'not divided' or 'not two' ('a-' meaning 'not', and 'dva' meaning 'divided'). That highlights the sense in which the goal of Buddhist practice is to lessen or overcome that sense of division or 'otherness' to existence or the sense of being 'outside' of existence. You will find expressions in Buddhist philosophy such as realising the 'undivided heart' as the consummation of practice.

That is also problematic. You say that an Unrelated thing is a thing to which time does not pass nor does it occupy space?

Wouldn't time perception be some sort of perceptive mechanism from the shared capability of mind? — Corvus

Well, yes. We have an internal time according to Kant with which we perceive time both in things that move and those that do not move.

At the end of the day, you have measured the intervals, not time itself. Would you agree? — Corvus

For me we do have time in itself, but time has different ways of appearing. one of them is measurable and discontinuous time. What we see in a watch are differences of times or differences of movements, different rhythms, proper of each thing. The time of a watch is the time of the mechanism that composes it, but we can change the mechanism and we have another time and rhythm, as when we go from seconds to thousandths.

Time itself doesn't have past present future. It is us who divide time into those categories depending on what point, and what part of time we want to focus on. — Corvus

It is also us who invented the clock, and it is the clock that doesn’t have past, present and future. It sounds like you’re getting your notion of time from that human invention and then applying it back onto the concept of time, in the process concealing the basis of time in past-present-future. Physics made that same mistake for years, claiming that the phases of time were mere human constructs, and that past, present and future were not intrinsic to physical processes, which could be understood backwards as well as forwards without any effect on the fundamental nature of those processes.

…some scientists and philosophers have proposed that there is no ever-changing now. Instead, all change is illusory. In this way, they use theoretical tools from Einstein's relativity theory to echo pre-Socratic philosophers like Parmenides and Zeno. Going by the name of eternalism, the core notion is that just as the diagrams that display the whole of space-time seem to reflect a timeless reality of being, it is our narrow three-dimensional view of reality that brings forth notions of past and future. In the full glory of four dimensions, there is no time flow. This view is often called the block universe theory: all of space-time is an unchanging four-dimensional block.

Accordingly, all cosmic history and the entirety of the future constitute a single block in four-dimensional space-time, and our experience of time's flow is illusory. In the words of mathematical physicist and philosopher Hermann Weyl, “The objective world simply is, it does not happen.

In Bergson's words: “By adding a dimension [time] to the space in which we happen to exist, we can undoubtedly picture a process or a becoming, noted in the old space, as a thing in this new space. But as we have substituted the completely made for what we perceive being made, we have . . . eliminated the becoming inherent in time.”46 The block universe theory confuses a mathematical picture with what is being pictured; it confuses the map with the territory.

Time's flow is palpable, even if relativity theory shows us that the rate of our flow of time is not universal but rather local to us as observers. Thus, if our goal is to offer a map of reality, we have two options: offer a map that invokes an abstraction to discard the flow of time, or one where the flow of time is an inherent part of our experience and of an unbifurcated nature. What would be the purpose of a map that discards the flow of time? Where does it lead us? Does it help us understand time any better or lead to intractable conundrums? One of the lessons from our discussion of Bergson and Einstein is that there cannot be a temporal bird's-eye view of the universe, one that flies outside and above the disparate paths through space-time and the different rhythms of duration. The block universe theory renounces this insight, pushes physics back into a blind-spot worldview, and remains stuck with the intractable conundrum of being unable to account for the temporality of time —time's passage, its flow, and its irreversible directionality. For these reasons, the block universe theory is essentially regressive. It reinstates the Blind Spot instead of helping us get beyond it.(The Blind Spot)

Why do you think that Heidegger's phrase "remanens capax mutationem" is important? Can you explain that? Because it has to do with both the concept of Being as well as the concept of time. I would more or less translate it like this, focusing on its meaning:

"It (Being) remains capable of changing".

That sounds like a materialist thesis, from where I'm standing. You probably disagree.

↪Joshs Why do you think that Heidegger's phrase "remanens capax mutationis" is important? Can you explain that? Because it has to do with both the concept of Being as well as the concept of time. I would more or less translate it like this, focusing on its meaning:

"It (Being) remains capable of changing" — Arcane Sandwich

I understand it to mean "something that persists identically in time". Heidegger is defining what he calls the ‘present-at-hand’ (Vorhandenheit), which he contrast with the ready-to-hand’, our comportment toward things in terms of how we use them and what we use them for rather than in terms of their properties and appearance.

I understand it to mean "something that persists identically in time". — Joshs

But mutationem means that it can change, that it can mutate. It has the potential (as in, capax) to do so. It is capable (capax) of it. What is that, if not the Aristotelian concept of potency as matter-in-motion? And this very capacity necessarily entails the reality of time itself. For how could something have the capacity to change, without ever changing?

But mutationem means that it can change, that it can mutate. It has the potential (as in, capax) to do so. It is capable (capax) of it. What is that, if not the Aristotelian concept of potency as matter-in-motion? And this very capacity necessarily entails the reality of time itself. For how could something have the capacity to change, without ever changing? — Arcane Sandwich

What does motion imply if not spatial displacement of a self-identical object over time?

What does motion imply if not spatial displacement of a self-identical object? — Joshs

It's definitely a possibility, Einstein for example can be described as vouching for a sort of Parmenidean "Block Universe", where the temporal series of any process is more like a collection of cinematographic photograms. There is no movement there, there is only the illusion of movement.

But I'm not convinced of this. I do recognize it as a live option, though.

Heidegger shows how the common notion of time dates back to Aristotle's derivation of time from motion.

“The thoughts of motion, continuity, extension—and in the case of change of place, place—are interwoven with the experience of time.”(basic problems of phenomenology) “ So far as time is kineseos ti, something connected with motion, this means that in thinking time, motion or rest is always thought along with it. In Aristotelian language, time follows, is in succession to, motion.” “Because the now is transition it always measures a from-to, it measures a how-long, a duration.”

Time is making present according to Aristotle, (the present at hand) and in so doing is a counting of time as now, now, now.

“And thus time shows itself for the vulgar understanding as a succession of constantly "objectively present" nows that pass away and arrive at the same time. Time is understood as a sequence, as the "flux" of nows, as the "course of time.”

“The succession of nows is interpreted as something somehow objectively present; for it itself moves "in time." We say that in every now it is now, in every now it already disappears. The now is now in every now, thus constantly present as the same, even if in every now another may be disappearing as it arrives. Yet it does show at the same time the constant presence of itself as this changing thing.”

:fire:

That is also problematic. You say that an Unrelated thing is a thing to which time does not pass nor does it occupy space? — JuanZu

I didn't say anything about an "Unrelated thing". I find that idea incomprehensible.

Let us know about it when you come to the Eureka moment. — Corvus

Sure.

Do you deny there's some innate sense of past, present, and future? If you agree that there is, WHY do you suppose we have this? — Relativist

When you say something is innate, what does that mean? I would say innate means we have them without experience of the external world, or we have it from birth.

Is past present future innate? We need our sense perception to rely on what we are perceiving to tell what part of time we are experiencing. Time doesn't tell you what time it is. It is you who knows what time it is. How would you be able to do that without the sense perception of what is happening outside of yourself?

A strange fact about Now is that it seems to be subjective but at the same time objective. Because my Now must be your Now, and the whole folks living on earth must be facing the same Now. However, my past, your past, the other folks pasts are all unique. Same goes with future. So past future must be different from Now, although they all seem to in the same category of the concept called Time.

Let's think about your future and past. How would you be able to tell about your future or past with no lived life or experience? Your future will be something that is deriving from your present and past. Your past is the life you have lived with your own experience. They are all empirical, a posteriori mental states. They are not innate.

Of course not: time isn't a thing. But the present has just come into being — Relativist

Could "present" be being? Being is a concept which needs some explanation too, my friend. Would you agree?

You asked about Buddhism before. The 'co-arising of self and world' is not foreign to Buddhism. In many of the early Buddhist texts (known as the 'Pali Canon') you will encounter the expression 'self-and-world' which designates the nature of lived experience. This is because the normal human state is always characterised by the sense of self and world. Being conscious is being conscious of. — Wayfarer

:fire: Great post. I will read it over taking time to digest fully before coming back to your points. cheers.

For me we do have time in itself, but time has different ways of appearing. one of them is measurable and discontinuous time. What we see in a watch are differences of times or differences of movements, — JuanZu

Time is known to be eternal and non stoppable. It keeps flowing even all your watches and clocks stopped. Even when someone died, time keeps flowing. Maybe not for the dead. If there were no life on earth, would time still keep flowing?

It sounds like you’re getting your notion of time from that human invention and then applying it back onto the concept of time, in the process concealing the basis of time in past-present-future. — Joshs

Time as human invention is what we use in daily life. But I don't believe it is time itself, even if it is also significant part of time. There seem to be far more to it than just daily life version of time. We know time from our perception of the motions, movements and changes in the external world. We also have ideas of past present future in our mind via lived experience.

Should we not look into time as our mental acts of perceiving the temporality from the shared faculty of mind such as reason and sympathy, which are also objectified as means to apply to the real world for the practical purposes?

Time is making present according to Aristotle, (the present at hand) and in so doing is a counting of time as now, now, now. — Joshs

This is the most brilliant combination of Aristotle and Heidegger that I've ever seen. Kudos to you for accomplishing this in just one sentence.

When you say something is innate, what does that mean? I would say innate means we have them without experience of the external world, or we have it from birth. — Corvus

That's exactly what I mean.

Is past present future innate? — Corvus

That's NOT what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we have some intrinsic sense of temporal priority: we don't confuse a past action with a present one, and we anticipate/ hope for/ dread future acts but not past ones.

These are examples..I don't know the exact nature of this intrinsic sense of "time", but only noting that there must be something.

I suggest that the best explanation for this vague sense of time, is that it is consistent with reality: there's something ontological; it's not just a figment of the imagination.

It's a secondary matter as to how we account for time, and how we analyze it. We first need to accept that there is SOMETHING ontological to it.

Could "present" be being? Being is a concept which needs some explanation too, my friend. Would you agree? — Corvus

I agree, and I think it's worthwhile to construct a framework that helps us analyze time. A framework that makes successful predictions is better than one that doesn't. Would you agree?

At this point in this specific conversation (which I've had many times, in the past), I would say the following:

Time is something that, figuratively speaking, we keep track of. When you say "I've lost track of time", it means that you don't remember what time it is (or was) that you've lost track of.

Time flies and so does fruit.
What flies? Fruit flies.
Time flies, in a figurative sense, when you're having a good time.
Time is slow, when you're going through some tough times.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

And yes, I wrote the preceding verse myself. I don't use A.I. tools for generating poetry.

Time flies, in a figurative sense, when you're having a good time.
Time is slow, when you're going through some tough times. — Arcane Sandwich

Now you're a poet, too.

As when Einstein had sat next to a pretty girl and had noted the much quicker passage of time, over the slower passage of his instant of touching a hot stove.

Now you're a poet, too. — PoeticUniverse

:roll:

I already was a poet, and unlike you, I don't use Artificial Intelligence.

As when Einstein had sat next to a pretty girl and had noted the much quicker passage of time, over the slower passage of his instant of touching a hot stove. — PoeticUniverse

Mario Bunge is Einstein's greatest intellectual disciple, philosophically and scientifically. And the greatest poet that has ever existed is José Hernández.

T. S. Eliot PoemsThe Four QuartetsBurnt Norton

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
But to what purpose
Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves
I do not know

EL MORENO
Si responde a esta pregunta
téngasé por vencedor;
doy la derecha al mejor;
y respóndamé al momento:
cuándo formó Dios el tiempo
y por qué lo dividió.

MARTIN FIERRO
Moreno, voy a decir
sigún mi saber alcanza;
el tiempo sólo es tardanza
de lo que está por venir;
no tuvo nunca principio
ni jamás acabará,
porque el tiempo es una rueda,
y rueda es eternidá;
y si el hombre lo divide
sólo lo hace, en mi sentir,
por saber lo que ha vivido
o le resta que vivir. — José Hernández

EDIT: Tagging @javi2541997

Great poem on Time too. Gracias. :pray:

Time flies and so does fruit.
What flies? Fruit flies. — Arcane Sandwich

Time flies like a bird and fruit flies like a banana. (If you believe in 'time-flies' insects.)

Time flies like a bird — PoeticUniverse

Ok. Except that it doesn't.

fruit flies like a banana. — PoeticUniverse

Not all fruit flies like a banana. Some fruit flies like an apple.

(If you believe in 'time-flies' insects.) — PoeticUniverse

You mean fruit flies? As in, biological individuals of the species Drosophila melanogaster. What do they fly like? I'll tell you what they fly like: they fly like fruit flies.

It's the national poem of Argentina. It's part of my identity.

Martín Fierro, also known as El Gaucho Martín Fierro, is a 2,316-line epic poem by the Argentine writer José Hernández. The poem was originally published in two parts, El Gaucho Martín Fierro (1872) and La Vuelta de Martín Fierro (1879). The poem supplied a historical link to the gauchos' contribution to the national development of Argentina, for the gaucho had played a major role in Argentina's independence from Spain. — Wikipedia