It's now eight days since the OP. Does time still not exist?

What it is illustrating is the fact that science has had to start taking into account ‘the act of measurement’ instead of only ‘what is being measured’. And what does that mean? It blurs the boundary between objective and subjective. This is the basic issue. And it’s the same issue Rödl is writing about. He has Frege saying, well true propositions are just so, independently of what anyone thinks about them. But Rödl is saying, it’s senseless to talk of them being so, in the absence of one who says so. The whole point about ‘the observer issue’ in quantum physics is also like that. Einstein wants the world to be just as it is irrespective of what the observer does or measures. Penrose likewise. But Bohr et al says what shows up depends on the way you set up your apparatus. It undermines the posit of objectivity. That’s why it seems like ‘mysticism’ because it challenges the boundary between knower and known. I don’t want to trivialise that - it’s a profound and important point, it’s nothing trite nor obvious.

Speculative physics. None of this psychologising and appeal to authority legitimises the move to mythicism you want to make.

it remains that we don't know. But you must leap to your conclusion. Sure there are good reasons to disregard the bifurcation of subject and object. That doesn't mean time ceases to be or that the universe consists in consciousness.

Love your work, but can't agree with it.

And so far as the thesis of the OP, eight days later it is... outdated.

Well that’s cool. It’s said that 9/10 of the law is possession, I sometimes think 9/10 of philosophy is disagreement. (Although I will add, a great deal of what I say is also expressed in different ways in Continental philosophy.)

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? — Corvus

You refer me to the battle realism VS idealism. For me there is always a delay of everything existing that prevents its presence from being absolutely or absolutely identical to itself, but it is still constitutive. This delay is given by the relational being of things. And this is impossible to be given without time and space. This is applicable to consciousness which in turn is referred to an outside that constitutes it. Therefore time and space are conditions of consciousness. Therefore, time is something real and existent.

(Although I will add, a great deal of what I say is also expressed in different ways in Continental philosophy.) — Wayfarer

...so you might say the same thing, but badly? :wink:

Your posts are a beacon of light in a sea of waffle. But that does not make them right.

It's already been demonstrated in this very thread, that there is a scientific argument for the indispensability of the observer in cosmological physics. — Wayfarer

Just a reminder: the observer is not consciousness.

Are you aware of any form of consciousness that is not the attribute of an observer? Is it like something free-floating in the ether?

You’re the master of the back-handed compliment, Banno.

Are you aware of any form of consciousness that is not the attribute of an observer? — Wayfarer

Yes, because observer is not consciousness. it is called a measurement, carried out by a machine or the environment. That is why the cat is not live a dead at the same time. Consciousness belongs to humans not observers.

‘Clocks don’t measure time. We do.’

appeal to authority — Banno

Citing sources in support of argument is perfectly legitimate.

We don't actually measure the time from the clock, the clock does the work automatically, we read that measurement.

appeal to authority — Banno


Citing sources in support of argument is perfectly legitimate. — Wayfarer

Interesting argument.

He’s saying in plain English, the passage of time always depends on there being a change in one physical system relative to another. — Wayfarer

That is the case according to the precepts of relativity theory, as a result of Einstein's principle known as the relativity of simultaneity. If we reject that principle, in preference of "absolute time", by which the passing of time is absolute, and not frame dependent, then for us who do reject that principle, the passage of time does not depend on there being a change in one physical system relative to another. Instead, time is absolute, and relative change of position (motion) is dependent on the passing of time, rather than vise versa.

The observer is intrinsic to that. That is all that is being said, but it’s significant. — Wayfarer

It's significant, as the consequence of special relativity. It's not necessarily true though, as special relativity is not necessarily true. And, it's the sign of an untrue premise, that it produces conclusions which are extremely counterintuitive.

And what does that mean? It blurs the boundary between objective and subjective. This is the basic issue. — Wayfarer

Again, this is the consequence of adhering to relativity theory as if it is truth. Galileo proposed relativity after it was realized that the motions of the sun and planets could be modeled by either the geocentric or the heliocentric model. He realized that in modeling and predicting motions, "truth" was irrelevant, so long as the necessary predictions could be made. So "relativity" is fundamentally a useful disregard for truth. But if we adhere to relativity as if it is itself "the truth", instead of simply a useful way of predicting motions, then we lose the grounds for realism in favour of some sort of model dependent realism or something like that.

As I said in the last post, the boundary between subjective and objective is blurred because of the need to choose a frame of reference. A physicist will designate a rest frame, or inertial frame, but that's a choice, likewise, a cosmologist will choose a world line, or something like that. These principles provide the basis for a "real time" within their models and experiments, but it's chosen based on factors relevant to the project at hand, not on truth.

We don't actually measure the time from the clock, the clock does the work automatically, we read that measurement. — JuanZu

See this post for a rebuttal. ‘ A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do.’

The thing is that for quantum mechanics to measure is not to be conscious but to interact with an isolated system in quantum coherence. It does not matter if we experience a time different from the quantifiable one, it matters however the mechanism that acts in our quantum clock. The clock measures time as its mechanism interacts with an exact minimal motion. We would not measure time because that accuracy is not given by our experience but by the clock mechanism. Hence it is the clock that measure.

We would not measure time because that accuracy is not given by our experience but by the clock mechanism. Hence it is the clock that measure. — JuanZu

I don’t agree. The clock is the instrument by which we measure, but the act of measurement is carried out by the measurer. As that passage I quoted says, ‘ A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession’ - which is what measurement entails.

That clock will keep ticking even if you are not there to watch it.

That's kinda the point, really. Look away and it keeps going.

The clock was built by an observer to make a measurement which both you and the maker of it will be able to understand. Your statements about the 'there anyway' rely on an implicit perspective. Though we know that prior to the evolution of life there must have been a Universe with no intelligent beings in it, or that there are empty rooms with no inhabitants, or objects unseen by any eye — the existence of all such supposedly unseen realities still relies on an implicit perspective. What their existence might be outside of any perspective is meaningless and unintelligible, as a matter of both fact and principle.

Allow me a moment to present a thought experiment for your consideration:

The Infinite Pixel Row Thought Experiment

Imagine an infinite row of pixels extending in one direction. The first pixel is initially "on" (lit), while all others are "off" (unlit). The state of this lit pixel propagates along the row through a series of instantaneous operations:

1. Copy: The state of the current "on" pixel is instantly copied.
2. Turn off: The current pixel is instantly turned off.
3. Paste: The copied "on" state is instantly pasted to the next pixel in the row.

These operations occur in a strict sequence:

• The copy and turn-off (steps 1 and 2) happen together as one instantaneous process.
• The paste (step 3) occurs as a separate instantaneous process immediately after.
• There is no time delay between these processes, yet they cannot occur simultaneously.

How fast will the pixel state travel down the infinite row of pixels?

Despite each operation being instantaneous, the propagation of the "on" state is not infinitely fast. This is because:

• Each pixel requires two sequential instantaneous processes.
• The logical ordering of these processes introduces a concept of progression or "time".
• This progression creates a measurable unit, even if infinitesimally small.

As a result, the "on" state travels down the row at a finite speed of one pixel per two instantaneous operations. This demonstrates how duration can emerge from a series of timeless events, revealing an apparent paradox where instantaneous processes give rise to measurable progression (or what we commonly refer to as "time").

The clock was built by an observer to make a measurement which both you and the maker of it will be able to understand. — Wayfarer

And the manufacture and you and I understand that becasue we share the world in which time passes, and hence each have much the same understanding of time. We have that shared understanding because there is a way that time is not dependent on the perspective of any individual. Waffle about implicit perspectives is a misunderstanding of the independence of the world from our beliefs.

If time only passes from a perspective, then clocks would be pointless. Clocks have a use becasue time also passes independently of perspective.

Ontological, the world is independent of our beliefs about it, and time passes without regard to a perspective. Epistemological, having beliefs involves having a perspective. What you sugest confuses ontology and epistemology.

I need to see an argument before I can tell you whether or not I think it follows.

That is indeed his perennial confusion, which I also have pointed out to no avail many times. perhps it's a diificult point to understand—hopefully one day he'll get it.

I need to see an argument before I can tell you whether or not I think it follows. — Janus

Yep.

It sounds illogical to be able to imagine a world independent of mind, when imagining is a function mind. — Corvus

In some possibly world there are no minds.

What's the problem?

If time only passes from a perspective, then clocks would be pointless. Clocks have a use becasue time also passes independently of perspective — Banno

But we all share a perspective! Time passes independently of a particular perspective, but it is common to all of us, because we live on a planet that rotates daily and orbits yearly. That is the same for everyone. But for a being from a world that rotates once a century and orbits every millenium, the human concept of time would be meaningless.

The world is indeed independent of us, but to the extent that it is independent, it’s also unknowable. The mind-independent nature of the sensory domain is a methodological heuristic, not a metaphysical principle.

In some possible world there are no minds. — Banno

on many planets, no doubt. But, absent mind, they are not worlds.

But for a being from a world that rotates once a century and orbits every millenium, the human concept of time would be meaningless. — Wayfarer

They might use different units, but you cannot conclude that our two approaches would be incommensurate. The very fact that you used our units to set out the mooted possibility demonstrates this.

...but to the extent that it is independent, it’s also unknowable — Wayfarer

...and yet we use clocks. We know what an hour is, and that eight days have passed since the OP. We agree on this. We know this is independent of which of us measures it.

...absent mind, they are not worlds. — Wayfarer

Again, how could you know this? The very most you can say is that it might be unknown. You step too far, again.

Again, how could you know this? — Banno

Deductively, from the nature of knowledge.

You can know stuff about the stuff about which nothing can be known?

...Deductively... — Wayfarer

Then set out the deduction - the one that concludes "absent mind, they are not worlds".

You can know stuff about the stuff about which nothing can be known? — Banno

Kant's introduced the concept of the “thing in itself” to refer to reality as it is independent of our experience of it and unstructured by our cognitive constitution. The concept was harshly criticized in his own time and has been lambasted by generations of critics since. A standard objection to the notion is that Kant has no business positing it given his insistence that we can only know what lies within the limits of possible experience. But a more sympathetic reading is to see the concept of the “thing in itself” as a sort of placeholder in Kant's system; it both marks the limits of what we can know and expresses a sense of mystery that cannot be dissolved, the sense of mystery that underlies our unanswerable questions. Through both of these functions it serves to keep us humble.

Be very specific here. You claimed that "absent mind, they are not worlds". Now you link this to the “thing in itself”, which cannot be known: it "marks the limits of what we can know". Even taking Kant seriously, you can know nothing... not that without mind, the worlds are there, and not that they are not their, either.

That's the step too far.


Added: You might claim that "absent mind, we cannot know that they are not worlds". That's as generous as is allowed.