Philosophy does get outdated! Consider the case of Hume. — MoK

Hume is till being read and studied actively all over the world.

Good for them. You should do the same. — MoK

I have already done so, so why do it again.

Exactly! — MoK

Without doubt !!

Where did you get that from? Why don't you study psychology a little before commenting on the conscious and the subconscious mind? — MoK

It is a common sense knowledge. You don't need to study psychology to know that.

Where does all your knowledge reside when you are asleep? It cannot disappear into oblivion! How are you informed about a specific knowledge when you are awake? You are not aware of all your knowledge at once. Are you? — MoK

The knowledge is kept in memory when asleep. When you awake from sleep, they can be accessed via reasoning. Conscious mind means that you are just awake. Dogs and cats are conscious, and some plants can be conscious, but they don't have knowledge because they are only conscious but nothing more.

I think by perception Hume means the conscious mind. It is a very important part but it is not all things that define a person with the capacity to think rationally. — MoK

No. It sounds like you haven't read Hume. Read above. Thinking rationally requires more than being conscious.

Electrons for example exist and move around the nucleus. They can be found free as well. Quarks exist within protons and neutrons. The conscious and subconscious minds refer to different parts of the brain. — MoK

They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities.

Sure you are wrong. That is the reason that most of the outdated philosophers are wrong. — MoK

Philosophy doesn't get outdated. We still go back to the ancient philosophy and the Renaissance times for referencing on what they said. Science outdates. Did you read Popper?

Philosophers need to read about science if they want to do good philosophy! — MoK

Philosophers read everything not just science.

It is not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to accept his outdated philosophy now. — MoK

Problem with nonsense is that it doesn't know it is nonsense.

They exist so in this sense they are real. — MoK

Where do they exist?

I didn't say they are on the same level! — MoK

You forgot what you said.

Philosophy and science go hand in hand without science you cannot do good philosophy and vice versa. — MoK

The subconscious mind does not sleep at all. That is the conscious mind that sleeps. — MoK

The conscious mind means that you woke from sleep. Subconscious mind means that you have a part of mind which sleep all the time, but you think it doesn't.

Where is your perception when you are asleep? Why does your perception start to work when you are awake? How could you do reasoning if reasoning per se is a form of perception? — MoK

Perception only happens when you are fully awake and alert. All your knowledge on the universe comes via perception. Perception is also backed by reasoning and logic. Without perception, you don't have knowledge.

You cannot do proper philosophy without a good science and vice versa! — MoK

Science needs philosophy. Philosophy doesn't need science. No philosophers will go out in the white gown, and conduct experiments and tests and measurements. They just read, think and speculate for analysis and reasoning pursuing truths on the universe.

Hume was false. He was an intelligent philosopher though. I am sure he would deny his philosophy if he was alive now. — MoK

Hume is one of the most important philosophers in western philosophy. To say Hume is false is like saying, philosophy is false and all knowledge is false. Nonsense.

So do you think that things like electrons, quarks, subconscious minds, conscious minds, etc. are real? — MoK

We know them, and use them. But to say they are real can be problem in logical sense. You need to make clear in what sense "real" is real. Philosophy doesn't deny them. But it is trying to make sure in what sense you are using the concepts, and whether they make sense when used in the arguments.
You seem to be emotionally defending them as if they were denied. No. Nothing is denied.

Philosophy and science go hand in hand without science you cannot do good philosophy and vice versa. — MoK

No. They are not in the same level. Philosophy inspects and analyze the misuses of the concepts and imaginary ideas of science, hence philosophy makes science more robust in logic and theory.
They are not friends or lovers. Philosophy is higher level authority in the ladder if you will.

Yes, they are concepts but these concepts are based on extensive study of the brain. Why do you stick to the idea of perception when I already refute it? Why don't you study a little psychology? It is necessary when it comes to time! — MoK

If your knowledge is based on your conscious and subconscious mind just woke up from sleep, no doubt that you are in full of confusion and illusions. You must rely on your perception and reasoning for your knowledge.

Philosophy goes deeper into the roots of the idea trying to capture the arche of the concept. Psychology and physics only talk about what are visible and obvious, and what is given by the measurement and experiment.

He couldn't possibly say a lot about them since there was no knowledge of them in his time. He was false! Therefore, you are false. — MoK

Because you are mixing psychology and physics in philosophical debates in random and chaotic fashion, it seems to be creating confusion and illusion in your mind. Hume was not false. Hume was intelligible and sensible.

Why don't you study a little bit of psychology so you can back up your thoughts? You deny physics, psychology, and science! All things you know are outdated knowledge which is false. — MoK

It wasn't denying. It was just a clarification saying , that they are irrelevant to philosophical debates.

The point though, is that sense perception is as a continuous movement. So, when Hume represents it as a succession of still frames, he already applies the conceptualized version of motion, across this gap of inconsistency, to represent sense perception in a way which is not true. In doing this, the reality of time is lost to him. — Metaphysician Undercover

But are the continuous movements possible without perception? All movements, motions and objects are only meaningful and possible, when perceived via senses.

I think that Hume did not understand the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. — MoK

Conscious or subconscious mind is actually psychological concepts. They are irrelevant to knowledge or reasoning. So Hume was right not to say a lot about them.

It is based on the collaboration between my conscious and subconscious mind. And it is not blind faith! — MoK

Conscious or subconscious mind means the degree of being awake from sleep. They don't provide you with any knowledge at all.

Things cannot be mere perceptions since there are mental phenomena, thoughts for example, which are consistent. This consistency is because any thought resides on other thoughts, etc. This consistency however requires something that thoughts reside within, what we call the brain, therefore saying that things are mere perception is false! — MoK

But if you don't trust your own perception, then where does your knowledge come from? Is your knowledge based on your imagination and blind faith?

Then the continuity of movement is left out of the representation, as completely unreal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Continuity is another idea which is generated from each single separate impressions and ideas of the movement. It is an idea, which cannot be divided or separated, which is distinct from the actual continuity itself.

Hume has a mistaken premise, that sense perception consists of a "succession" of distinct perceptions. This is not consistent with experience, which demonstrates that we actually perceive continuous motion and change with our senses. This renders the quoted argument from Hume as unsound. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting point.   But think of the old movies shot by 8mm camera with the roll films.  The movement in the film is made of each single still image.  When the single images are run through the projector with the light, it gives us continuous moving motion.  The continuous movement and motion is recreated in our brain by the latent memory.  In actuality, they are just single still images running continuously in fast speed in order to recreate the recorded motions.

Hume is seeing our visual perception in the same way.  His idea of perception is that we have the single impressions and the matching ideas of perceived objects coming into our senses continuously creating the perception just like the old movies made of 8mm films.

At any chance, we can stop the perception, and pick the single impression and ideas to investigate its contents.  In that sense, no ideas and impressions are identical, as they are separate entities to each other.

This false premise also produces the conclusion that time is not real, in a way related to how Zeno proved that motion is not real. — Metaphysician Undercover

In Hume, what is not captured in impressions and ideas are not real. Time has no matching impressions or ideas. The moment you see the time now, it passes into past. It is ineffable, ever evanescent and fleeting illusive part of human mind.

No. It is not correct. Time is required for any change. Consider a change in the state of something, X to Y, where X and Y are two states that define the change. — MoK

But there was no change of the baseball of S1 at t1 (5PM), and S2 at t2(10PM) as seen by the observation. How do you explain that? Time passed, but there is no change.

Baseball was flying to the wall, hit the wall and dropped to the ground. No time was supplied or known. But the baseball moved to different location. Time was not even considered here.

You need the time variable for further calculating the energy value, but you must measure time for that while the ball is moving. This measuring action of time is not required for the ball to move.

Kant's original texts in English seem to have some parts with ambiguous translations dating back 100 years, which can cause ambiguities and difficulties in understanding. But still, they are good classic philosophical texts. I prefer Hume's work, which has no translatory layers.

Well, what Hume seems to be saying is that, some folks, be it philosophers or the vulgars imagine time exists as we see even now. But time is not perceptible. Only objects we see are the objects themselves and durations of the movements. Hence time cannot be objects existing in the world. Simple.
I agree with that idea.

We use time, tell time and measure time thanks to the invention, the solar movements of the earth and the mechanical device called watches and clocks which ticks with regularity and accuracy. But time itself doesn't exist in the universe. If tomorrow the earth stops rotating around the sun, the use of current time system will cease to exist, and the civilization will plunge into chaos.

Hume's expression of the vulgars in his original texts means the ordinary folks who never read any philosophy.

A definition might be too strict for something that mostly does not exist to be defined, it is an extended boundless dynamic field of inter-penetrating proto-substances constantly moving and changing into each other. According to ancient physics, if substances are self-generating and self-moving then they are necessarily imbued with soul and must be alive in some sense. — magritte

It sounds like Chora does things, moves, changes, generates imbued with souls and lives on, like God creates and time flows, but it may not exist in the material world for us to be able to perceive or sense.

If they did they would lose an objective common ground of communication. The lexicon has its own biases as well but where would we be without it? Plato resorted to dramatics, personalities, irony, and metaphors to paint over large gaps with a broad brush where the fine strokes of reason lacked. — magritte

A valid point. We use lexicon and analytic philosophy as a tool for clarification of ambiguous words or sentences in the arguments. But they are just a tool, not the end or goal of philosophy. Many eminent and deep philosophical ideas lie in the realm of chora beyond the words. :)

I need to do the same. Boundless apeiron and fundamental material substances as arche originated with those early physicists and I often wonder what that lost book by Heraclitus would read like. — magritte

I picked up these old books from the 2nd hand book shop for cheap, but they look very interesting books. I also thought that some of Platonic concepts could be coming from his predecessors like Parmenides, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras, but it was just an idea.

Which still leaves the inception of time and space into our subjective constitution….assuming of course there is such a thing to begin with…..for which some pure formal metaphysics is required. — Mww

Some intelligible scientists and philosophers already have been talking about nonexistence of time.

Hume was also saying time doesn't exist. Could then time be the quality of ideas of objects perceived by mind in Hume?

"The idea of time, being deriv'd from the succession of our perceptions of every kind, ideas as well as impressions, and impressions of reflection as well as of sensation, will afford us an instance of an abstract idea, which comprehends a still greater variety than that of space, and yet is represented in the fancy by some particular individual idea of a determinate quantity and quality.

T 1.2.3.7, SBN 35
As 'tis from the disposition of visible and tangible objects we receive the idea of space, so from the succession of ideas and impressions we form the idea of time, nor is it possible for time alone ever to make its appearance, or be taken notice of by the mind. A man in a sound sleep, or strongly occupy'd with one thought, is insensible of time; and according as his perceptions succeed each other with greater or less rapidity, the same duration appears longer or shorter to his imagination. It has been remark'd by a[8] great philosopher, that our perceptions have certain bounds in this particular, which are fix'd by the original nature and constitution of the mind, and beyond which no influence of external objects on the senses is ever able to hasten or retard our thought. If you wheel about a burning coal with rapidity, it will present to the senses an image of a circle of fire; nor will there seem to be any interval of time betwixt its revolutions; meerly because 'tis impossible for our perceptions to succeed each other with the same rapidity, that motion may be communicated to external objects. Wherever we have no successive perceptions, we have no notion of time, even tho' there be a real succession in the objects. From these phænomena, as well as from many others, we may conclude, that time cannot make its appearance to the mind, either alone, or attended with a steady unchangeable object, but is always discover'd by some perceivable succession of changeable objects.

T 1.2.3.8, SBN 35-6
To confirm this we may add the following argument, which to me seems perfectly decisive and convincing. 'Tis evident, that time or duration consists of different parts: For otherwise we cou'd not conceive a longer or shorter duration. 'Tis also evident, that these parts are not co-existent. For that quality of the co-existence of parts belongs to extension, and is what distinguishes it from duration. Now as time is compos'd of parts, that are not co-existent; an unchangeable object, since it produces none but co-existent impressions, produces none that can give us the idea of time; and consequently that idea must be deriv'd from a succession of changeable objects, and time in its first appearance can never be sever'd from such a succession.

T 1.2.3.9, SBN 36
Having therefore found, that time in its first appearance to the mind is always conjoin'd with a succession of changeable objects, and that otherwise it can never fall under our notice, we must now examine whether it can be conceiv'd without our conceiving any succession of objects, and whether it can alone form a distinct idea in the imagination.

T 1.2.3.10, SBN 36-7
In order to know whether any objects, which are join'd in impression, be separable in idea, we need only consider, if they be different from each other; in which case, 'tis plain they may be conceiv'd apart. Every thing, that is different, is distinguishable; and every thing, that is distinguishable, may be separated, according to the maxims above-explain'd. If on the contrary they be not different, they are not distinguishable; and if they be not distinguishable, they cannot be separated. But this is precisely the case with respect to time, compar'd with our successive perceptions. The idea of time is not deriv'd from a particular impression mix'd up with others, and plainly distinguishable from them; but arises altogether from the manner, in which impressions appear to the mind, without making one of the number. Five notes play'd on a flute give us the impression and idea of time; tho' time be not a sixth impression, which presents itself to the hearing or any other of the senses. Nor is it a sixth impression, which the mind by reflection finds in itself. These five sounds making their appearance in this particular manner, excite no emotion in the mind, nor produce an affection of any kind, which being observ'd by it can give rise to a new idea. For that is necessary to produce a new idea of reflection, nor can the mind, by revolving over a thousand times all its ideas of sensation, ever extract from them any new original idea, unless nature has so fram'd its faculties, that it feels some new original impression arise from such a contemplation. But here it only takes notice of the manner, in which the different sounds make their appearance; and that it may afterwards consider without considering these particular sounds, but may conjoin it with any other objects. The ideas of some objects it certainly must have, nor is it possible for it without these ideas ever to arrive at any conception of time; whichsince it appears not as any primary distinct impression, can plainly be nothing but different ideas, or impressions, or objects dispos'd in a certain manner, that is, succeeding each other.

T 1.2.3.11, SBN 37
I know there are some who pretend, that the idea of duration is applicable in a proper sense to objects, which are perfectly unchangeable; and this I take to be the common opinion of philosophers as well as of the vulgar. But to be convinc'd of its falshood we need but reflect on the foregoing conclusion, that the idea of duration is always deriv'd from a succession of changeable objects, and can never be convey'd to the mind by any thing stedfast and unchangeable. For it inevitably follows from thence, that since the idea of duration cannot be deriv'd from such an object, it can never in any propriety or exactness be apply'd to it, nor can any thing unchangeable be ever said to have duration. Ideas always represent the objects or impressions, from which they are deriv'd, and can never without a fiction represent or be apply'd to any other. By what fiction we apply the idea of time, even to what is unchangeable, and suppose, as is common, that duration is a measure of rest as well as of motion, we shall consider[9] afterwards."

ADDENDUM : The bolds are by the OP

I got my baseball out, and put it on the desk at 5 PM. Now 10 PM, 5 hours later, nothing changed. The baseball has not changed at all 5 hours later. No movement, no breaking and no flying anywhere. It sits exactly same spot as it was 5 hours ago. Therefore time cannot cause physical to change. Physical changes only by force or energy.

If I pick up the baseball, and throw it to the wall, it flies to the wall, and hits the wall, and drops to the ground. No time is required. Only energy of throwing the ball is required.

Therefore physical changes only when force or energy was applied to it. No time is required. Time only emerges if and only if I measure it with the stop-watch. Correct?

Can any objects be EPP,
— Corvus
This does not parse. EPP is a principle, and I don't know what it means for an object to be (or not) a principle. — noAxioms

Isn't EPP, Existence Prior to Predication? Hence it is a type of existence such as unicorn or dragon. We can describe how they might look, and they have properties such as has horn, breathes fire, being mythical etc. It is not possible to say they exist, but they exist prior to predication as concepts.
So is it a principle? Principle is the way something works with consistency and coherence mostly in physical objects and movements, and sometimes in the law and logic too. Nothing to do with existence.

You can ask what sort of objects are inapplicable to EPP for instance. My typical example is that 17 has the property of being prime, yet no conclusion of 17's existence follows from that. EPP seems not to apply there. — noAxioms

17 is a number. Numbers don't exist in real world. Numbers are concept. 17 has property being odd number, as well as being prime etc. Therefore it is EPP. Let me know if you don't agree or think not correct. Must admit EPP is a new concept for me.

Investigate someone else’s metaphysical exposé of time, you’ll get a different set of premises for its explanation, right? — Mww

Just ordered a book on time. It is filled with various articles by 30 different academic contributors. It is called "Subjective Time: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Temporality"

What's your view on time?

Fairdos. I am still thinking, and try to perceive time. But time is not perceivable like the other objects around me. I still use time, and tell the time. But that doesn't convince me time exists. Time is a concept or as Kant put it a priori condition for human perception. If time is a priori transcendental condition, then it doesn't exist. We have them in our minds. :)

Yeah, well, you know….no one’s gonna admit to being “done with all this thinking”, but might still judge that everyone else seems to be done with his. — Mww

We should go back to Kant.

"We dispute all claim of time to absolute reality [absolute Realität], namely where it would attach to things absolutely as a condition or property even without regard to the form of our sensible intuition. Such properties, which pertain to things in themselves, can also never be given to us through the senses. Therefore herein lies the transcendental ideality of time, according to which, if one abstracts from the subjective condition of our sensible intuition, it is nothing at all, and can be considered neither as subsisting nor as inhering in the objects in themselves (without their relation to our intuition). " - CPR (A36/B52)

Thoughts exist in the mind. Are thoughts objects? — RussellA

Thoughts appear and disappear in the mind. Thoughts also causes actions to perform.
Thoughts are not visible. but they are the most intimate form of mental events.
In that regard, yes thoughts exist.

Rain exists in the world. Is rain an object? — RussellA

Whatever visible, touchable, perceptible, thinkable and knowable are objects.

You cannot have a photograph of an electron. You can only see its trace that produces some effect in the environment like the screen in the above example or the cloud chamber. — MoK

That's not electron. They are pixels of lights.

Then please consider baseball as an example of a physical and read the argument. — MoK

Fair do's, mate.

How foolish to ask of existence without mind, absent conjoined temporal qualification, when it is from mind the question is asked, in which that very qualification is immediately presupposed. — Mww

:rofl: :naughty:

Please see the section "Interference from individual particles" in this article if you want to see how a single electron can affect the screen producing something visible to our eyes. — MoK

None of that says anything about existence of electron, and what it looks like. They are all manipulated in the laboratories using the measuring instruments. None of them are actual images of electron.
You need to point out where in the world, we can see electron, and how it looks like. Not the photos of the simulations manipulated with electricity, and some equations measuring the currents and voltages of electricity.

Ok, if you are happy with the example of the baseball then please consider it as a physical object and read the argument. — MoK

Baseball could be a physical object. Yes, we can see the baseballs. I used to play baseball. It is a physical object. Electron is not a physical object.

We experience properties in our mind, such as the colour red, but we can never know about the existence of the supposed thing-in-itself that may have caused these experiences. Therefore, the EPP is unknowable. — RussellA

Can any objects be EPP, or only certain category or types of objects can be EPP? What objects belong to the EPP?

The electron, quark, etc. are real. It is through physical investigations that we accumulate such a body of knowledge. Can you break a chair into electrons, quarks, etc. by hammering it? Sure not. — MoK

But if something is real and exists, then it must be visible, touchable and has smells and textures.
I have never seen electrons anywhere in the universe. Have you seen them? Not talking about in the books and videos and drawings of course.

Physics tells you what a chair is made of, irreducible entities such as electrons, quarks, etc. — MoK

I have never seen a chair with electrons and quarks. Chairs exist. I am sitting on it now of course.
But electron is an imagined object. You only have the effects of what electricity does, and they postulated the imaginary substance, and named as electrons. It doesn't exist in reality.
See, this is difference between science and philosophy. Science has many imaginary objects which don't exist, but keep naming them as if they exist. In that sense, science is another form of religion and mysticism. Philosophy corrects them, and tells them no, this is what really exists with truths.

Sure I know, I am a physicist by education and I studied particle physics in good depth. — MoK

I see. I am not saying you are wrong. I was pointing out the OP is not clear.

That is not correct. — MoK

Electron is an imagined concept. Tell us where electron exists, and what shape it is.

An electron is an elementary particle that has a set of properties such as mass, charge, and spin. — MoK

That is just a definition made of the postulation from the workings of electricity.

The electron is a known object. If you are not happy with it I can choose the example of a baseball that is subject to change/motion. — MoK

Yes, please. Demonstrate and prove what electron is, and where it exists. Thank you. :smile:

Sure we need. — MoK

It is no good to use Physics or Math as some sort of authority to push your ideas in the arguments. You will be blinded in the sea of illusion when doing that.

No, looking at a chair just gives you an idea about what it looks like. — MoK

What else do you need to do for knowing what a chair is made of? What can Physics do for more knowledge?

Why don't you answer my question? We cannot go anywhere if you deny its existence? — MoK

Why ask a silly question? It is also relevant question. Computers are not the topic of our discussion.

An electron is just an example of a physical. There are other things that I call physical, such as the chair that you are sitting on now. Such objects are however reducible whereas an electron is not. — MoK

It seems to be clear that you don't know what electron is. Saying electron is physical is not meaningful or intelligible statement at all.

I certainly do not make such a mistake. — MoK

Then tell us what the difference between the two, and what electron is. Does it exist?

That was just an example of physical! — MoK

Unknown objects cannot be used in the premises of arguments. The premise with unknown concepts will not be accepted as worthy of further investigation. Hence you must clarify any unclear and unknown concepts you are using in the premises of your argument before progressing to the next stage.

We cannot ditch physics if we want to know what a physical, such as a chair, is made of. — MoK

We don't need physics to know what chair is made of. It is a commonsense knowledge. You know what it is made of, just by looking at it :)

I didn't talk about electricity but your computer. So again does your computer exist? Yes or no? — MoK

No we are not talking about computers here. We are talking about electron in D1. I only told you electricity, because of your confusion between electron and electricity.

How about the chair that you are sitting on right now? — MoK

No, we are not talking about chair in the OP. Remember? You added electron to D1.

Sure it exists according to contemporary physics. — MoK

You need to ditch physics in order to arrive to real truths. :)

Are you denying objective reality? Are you denying that the computer that you are using now does not exist? — MoK

You are confusing electron and electricity. They are different.

That is just a definition. It is required to define a change, please read D2. — MoK

If you don't know what electron is, then you must first prove what it is, and if it exists before progressing.

Please read D1 in the OP and let me know if you have any questions. — MoK

I read D1, and you now added "electron" for your physical in S1 and S2. Does electron exist? Can you prove electron exist? How do you know electron is in S1 and S2?

D1) Consider two states of a physical (consider an electron as an example of a physical), S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively — MoK

This tension between the objective stance and the role of the knowing subject raises profound questions about the real nature of existence — questions that go beyond the purview of science and into the domain of philosophy. ... — Wayfarer

Subjectivity is the principle which relies on one's own perception and reasoning for the knowledge of the world in understanding. In subjective mind, what appears in perception and sensation are most important things in knowledge.

Objectivity is the principle which relies on their imagination and faith on what other folks supposed to have discovered for their knowledge and understanding of the world. Most of the objective knowledge comes from the books, media and the words of mouths from other folks.

The point is that they need to work together, but subjectivity precedes objectivity.

Describing chora as a place or as an extension is un-Platonic primarily because these are plainer ideas that stray too far from the complexities of text. — magritte

A place or extension didn't quite make sense to me either. I chose the topic to study in order to understand Plato better, but perhaps it was a wrong topic, as it feels an advanced topic rather than basic or common topic. Hence the reason why I bought the Sallis book to read, but it wasn't much help in understanding the concept.

I was thinking on chora in the direction of the substrate of forms. Because forms must come from somewhere too. Forms have hierarchy, hence why not substrate? But then, I couldn't locate further intelligible resources for the information on the point, at which the inferring pursuit was left.

What is your definition, or rather, understanding of chora?

The analytic philosophers of the last century tried to do that and they made amazing progress. But it left many readers wondering whether Plato was somehow lost in the process. — magritte

No surprise. Analytic philosophy cannot cross over the dictionary meanings of words, suppose.

So I figure this thread might be worth reviving. — magritte

Good idea.

What's the difference and does it matter? — magritte

I am not well read on Plato, and even on the other ancient Greek philosophers, so I am not the best one to answer the question. But I like Jowett best for clarity and simplicity.
I bought a few old books on Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Lucretius and Heraclitus recently, so will do some reading on them.

How could time function as a physical constraint on what is possible and what is not, if it didn't exist? — hypericin

Time flows, but it doesn't have to exist. It is like God. God creates, but God doesn't have to exist.

My overall point is, if time falls, so does space. Since they really are the same sorts of things. — hypericin

Time flows. Space doesn't flow. Therefore they are not the same sort of things.