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 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
Of course not: time isn't a thing. But the present has just come into beingtime itself doesn't become anything. — Corvus
What necessitates the "co-arising"? How could subjectivity co-arises with the objectivity? — Corvus
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
When they co-arisen, are they then one? Or still two? — Corvus
Wouldn't time perception be some sort of perceptive mechanism from the shared capability of mind? — Corvus
At the end of the day, you have measured the intervals, not time itself. Would you agree? — Corvus
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
…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)
↪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". — 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? — Arcane Sandwich
What does motion imply if not spatial displacement of a self-identical object? — Joshs
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
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.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
Could "present" be being? Being is a concept which needs some explanation too, my friend. Would you agree?Of course not: time isn't a thing. But the present has just come into being — Relativist
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
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
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 is making present according to Aristotle, (the present at hand) and in so doing is a counting of time as now, now, now. — Joshs
That's exactly what I mean.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 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.Is past present future innate? — 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?Could "present" be being? Being is a concept which needs some explanation too, my friend. Would you agree? — Corvus
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. — PoeticUniverse
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
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
Time flies and so does fruit.
What flies? Fruit flies. — Arcane Sandwich
Time flies like a bird — PoeticUniverse
fruit flies like a banana. — PoeticUniverse
(If you believe in 'time-flies' insects.) — PoeticUniverse
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
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.