I am considering a single change here for sake of simplicity. — MoK

For example, what single change are you thinking of or talking about?

I think that is the Mind that causes a change in the physical. — MoK

Again, any examples for the mind causing change in the physical?

Sure not. That is what I am arguing against it. — MoK

You need to explain what causes your body get old. It seems the case that your body causes your body itself to get old.

Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2. — MoK

Your physical body itself is the cause for the body change. You are born, you live, and you get old.
Your body caused itself to get old. Correct?

Which is why it is only possible to misread Plato in one direction or another to a lesser or greater extent. — magritte

Wow an old thread, almost forgotten, but nice to see it back. Thank you for your reply.

Plato actively encouraged this diversity by exploring aspects of philosophy from the perspective of other philosophers (deliberately interpreted with a slant). I imagine his Academians were also vociferously divided. — magritte

Interesting point. I used to interpret the classic philosophers original writings from my own subjective point of view. But it often created acute disagreements on the interpretations from other readers.
What is your opinion on the subjectivity and objectivity of interpretations? Is it possible for philosophical interpretations on the original texts totally objective? Would it not be inevitable that all interpretations are somewhat subjective?

↪Janus You continually mistake the limits of your understanding, for those of others. That’s why I stopped interacting with you a few months ago - oh, that, and you telling me I’m full of shit - a policy I will now resume. — Wayfarer

I fully agree and support your point here.
I will be joining the policy, not to waste time talking about anti philosophical nonsenses.

It (i.e. time) needs human mind to exist. Are we being extreme idealists here?
— Corvus

My view is that this is not extreme. — Wayfarer

I agree with the view.

perhaps form misunderstanding Kant...
— Banno

My understanding is not that time doesn't exist, but that it has an ineluctably subjective aspect. Meaning that the reality of time is not solely objective but is in some basic sense subject-dependent. Whereas, as I'm discussing in another thread, we're accustomed to regarding only what is objective as fully real. What is subjective is usually relegated to the personal. — Wayfarer

Again your point is inline with my point here, although not exactly the same ideas as mine, as you pointed out.

I tried hard to help Banno understand the points, but he refuses to see the point. His shallow and wrong ideas seem to be coming from his belief that some words are time, and our uses of the words are time. He points to the word he wrote "Later" must be time, because I said "OK".
But Ok could have meant anything such as "Ok, Banno you obviously ran out of your ideas and doesn't know anything about what you have been saying." But he misinterprets "Ok" as simply to mean "I know what you mean." hence the word "Later" must be time. Nonsense.

He also confuses the archive of postings are time too. I will no longer waste time trying to help him understand the points.

He also cannot see the fact that I am in the position to see the arguments rather than claiming either time exists or not. I have been asking questions, if time exists, and asked for his definition of time and proof for existence time, to which he evaded and avoided giving out any clear answers for the questions.

My stance was not claiming time doesn't exist. The OP was open for debates, not claim. Banno fails to see or remember this point, and makes it as his slogan for attacking the OP.

The duration of time that it took you to respond to my post coincided with the beating of my pulse, in seconds. — L'éléphant

What do you mean by the duration of time? We are talking about time here. Duration of time sounds unclear. What is the relationship between duration and time? Or are they same?

I am trying to see good arguments on the existence of time. I am not saying your description of time is right or wrong at this stage.

Therefore, time exists. — L'éléphant

Prove it. Tell us what time is first.

Rubbish. You know what time is, despite your claims to the contrary. And you know what movement is, despite your claims that it does not require time. — Banno

You confirmed that you don't know anything about time. Remember your own posting?

I did answer, quite directly:
I don't know...
— Banno — Banno

"Past"? Or "Passed"? Either way, you are flummoxing. You know what both of these are. The time for saying otherwise has passed, and your OP is in the past. — Banno

Past what? What has passed? Words themselves don't mean much. They have to be in correct grammar, and must have proper objects they refer to in the real world, to be meaningful.

More rubbish. Movement requires that the object that moves is in one place at one time, and at another place at another time. Therefore it requires time. You haven't addressed this. And it has nothing to do with psychological states or authority. GO ahead and give a different definition, if you can, that does not presuppose time. — Banno

Only if you believe time is needed. Without knowing anything about time. movements still occurs, and movers move.

What twaddle. Again, time was not "invented". Nor does my argument imply any such thing. Present an argument, rather than making tangential assertions, if you can. — Banno

You seem to be denying the official historic facts here. The first record of time was 4241 BC in Egypt or Sumerian region. Are you saying, time was handed down by God or time crashed into the earth from the outer space?

Despite what you say here, you have shown that you understand "past", "passed", "future", "Later" and so on. In that very paragraph you make use of the notion of "never" in a temporal context. We use these words effectively, and understand their use. — Banno

This is what I meant. Your idea of time comes from idea of words. You think words are time. This is not true, and it is a grave misunderstanding of time and even the words.

You will, in due time, reply to this post, and in that very act you will show that you are mistaken that time does not exist. — Banno

More misunderstanding here. You seem to think past archive is time. We have record of postings which we can refer to. The archives are the objects. They are not time. I am not saying time exists or doesn't exist yet, as you seem to be imagining. I am saying there are many aspects to consider in time. It is not a simple and naive topic saying the words are time, and the use of the words are time.

I did answer, quite directly:
I don't know...
— Banno — Banno

Then to say," time exists" and "movement requires time." are groundless claims.

It has a sense, it has a use. You know that. — Banno

Only if you further clarify what you meant by it. A word itself doesn't mean anything, or it can mean many different things.

And i have given you counter arguments that show that movement requires time. The very notion of movement requires a different location at a different time. And I have shown that your conclusion "Time only appears when you measure it", does not follow from your argument. — Banno

It sounds like your counter argument is coming from your psychological state or appeal to authority.
According to your counter arguments, all the cavemen before invention of time couldn't have moved to hunt, and no rocks fell down the river, and no rivers flowed due to no time.

No. — Banno

Yes.

I've no idea what you might mean here by "existence" exists - sure the word "existence" exists... surely you are not suggesting otherwise? In the past I've given you many examples that show what time is. I can give you more, later. I just gave you another. — Banno

"existence" and "exists" are both in the quotation marks meaning they are different words. The former is a noun and the latter is a verb. Wasn't it obvious?
You never said what time is, and why time exists. You never explained what "existence" and "exists" means either. These concepts needs to be defined objectively and agreed for the validity, before you can assert "Time exists."

Pointing to the old postings, and claiming "Time exists" is not a proof or definition of time.

Time wasn't invented. — Banno

I asked you but you never answered. Where did time come from, if not invented?

Yep. I am here replying to your post, made in the past, while you are reading this thread, after I wrote it. — Banno

That is archive of the post, not the past itself.

Most certainly. "Past" even more so. — Banno

It is just a word. It is meaningless on its own. You should know that, if you studied language.

You've said "time is a concept" several times, as if that meant something. You have demonstrated that you understand the concept. Asking for further proof is superfluous. But I might offer more, some time... — Banno

It is my inference so far, but it might change. Hence the OP was launched for debates. The OP is not about consistency or inconsistency, truth or falsity. OPs start with assumptions for further discussions and coming to possible conclusions.

You said
Objects move because of energy or force, not because of time.
— Corvus
And I have shown this to be in error by demonstrating that movement, force and energy all presuppose time. There is no movement, force or energy unless there is time. — Banno

I have explained to you with the examples why movements and movers don't need time, but still move.
Time only appears when you measure it.

Demonstrate and prove time exists.
— Corvus
Already done. — Banno

You seem to think words and numbers are time. Surely your understanding of time is incorrect.
You need to first explain what "existence" "exists" means, and then explain what time is, and why time exists.

Movement presupposes time. Movement is being at one place at one time, and another place at another time. The claim that movement does not involve time involves a misunderstanding of movement. — Banno

So how did rocks fall down from the hill to the river before invention of time?

So what. If there is a past, then time has passed, and therefore time exists. — Banno

Can you access the past? Is the word "passed" useful for time value?

You seem to know quite a bit about time. Odd, if it doesn't exist. — Banno

Time is a concept. Later is a word to mean future. It is not time itself. It is a word. Your misunderstanding seems to be coming from mistaking a word as time. They are not the same. Anyhow, you say it exists. Please demonstrate and prove it exists.

What I have done here is show that saying time does not exist leads to quite a few inconsistencies. Specifically, today, I have shown that movement, force and energy all involve time.

If you think my answers are wrong, it might be becasue you are asking the wrong questions. — Banno

As said, the original point I was talking about was why the objects move. But you came up with the whole loads of strawman wasting much time talking about the irrelevant details coming from misunderstanding the words as time.

Going back to the OP, this:
Time doesn't exist.
— Corvus
has been shown to lead to inconsistency. — Banno

It wasn't inconsistency. It was an assumption of the OP.
Demonstrate and prove time exists.

What has any of this to do with the definition of movement? An object moves if it is at a different place at a different time. Hence movement involves time. Talking of "care" here is a category error. — Banno

It wasn't about definition of movement. It was a statement that movement happens without time. Mover doesn't care about time, but still moves.

Presumably if you have a value for the time passed, then you have made a measurement. But that does not imply that without a measurement there is no time. Time may pass, unmeasured. — Banno

But you didn't get any accurate useable time value apart from "passed". What's the point?

So you understood my "Later". It seems you do know something about time, despite your protestations to the contrary. — Banno

Time is a concept. "Later" means some future, which is an element of the set of time. I never protested about anything.

I just said you seem to be talking wrong things not even reading or understanding the posts that you were supposed to reply to, and keep giving out wrong answers, and then in deep illusion that I was protesting about something. I was just answering to your questions, because you seem to be curious about the topic of time.

A category error. Caring is not the sort of thing that movement does. Movement does require time. — Banno

If movement was from human or animals, then the mover don't care about time for movement. Mover still moves. Movement still happens. Caring was a bit of metaphor, but you don't seem to understand it.

Yes. You seem to think this implies that time only occurs when measured. That does not follow. — Banno

How else do you get the time value without measuring? You seem to be now stepping into mysticism.

Later. — Banno

Ok

No. If an object has moved, then it is in a different location at a different time. That's what "movement" is. — Banno

Movement doesn't care about time, but it still happens. You get the time value when you measure it with the stop watch.

We do know things about time. Quite a bit. Including that, contrary to your OP, it exists. — Banno

What do you know about time? Please tell us.

This shows a deep misunderstanding of both movement, and knowledge.

Movement involves an object being in one location at a given time, and at another location at another time. Hence movement involves time. — Banno

If you only measure it.

And some things are true, even if they are not known. — Banno

We are talking about time here. What is something?

You might not know anything about time, but the rest of us have quite a good understanding. — Banno

Wrong answer. Not talking about me here. The question was if you don't know anything about time, does time exist?

Rubbish. Moving the book will take time, whether you know it or not. — Banno

If we don't know anything about time, does time exist?

I don't know - indeed, the question may well be useless. We don't need to know where time comes form in order to understand that force and energy involve time. What we might seek is consistency. — Banno

Time is an extra variable to calculate the value of energy, but for the movement of the object, it doesn't get involved at all. The object moves quite happily without knowing anything about time.

Only that there is time. — Banno

That sounds unclear, and meaningless.

And that claiming that there is force and energy but no time involves a contradiction. — Banno

I can push my book here on the desk without knowing anything about time, and it moves. If I measured time it took to move from one side to the other end, I know the time. But otherwise, time is not involved in the movement at all.

No. — Banno

Where did time come from then?

Nothing moves but that a period of time is involved. If it moves in zero time, the force is infinite. — Banno

It sounds like a claim of appeal to the equation in high school physics.

Not at all. The notion of "time being invented" is a nonsense. — Banno

Do you claim that time was given down by God to humanity?

Force and energy are both physical constructs. Time is part of the construction. — frank

Please read above.

I'm pointing out that if you have force and energy, then you must thereby also have time. — Banno

Think this way. Do you mean that before time was invented, the stones never fell from the high cliff down the river?

I'm pointing out that if you have force and energy, then you must thereby also have time. — Banno

But whether you bring in time or not, the object still moves by the force.

Indeed, and your explanation was that they move because of force and energy; yet force and energy are defined in terms of time. Hence, on your own account, they move because of time.

The stuff you claim does not exist. — Banno

Are you saying that if you don't measure time, the force and energy doesn't exist?

You seem to be talking about some high school physics stuff. But here we were talking about why the objects move. Not how long it takes to move.

Force is defined as mass times acceleration, and acceleration is change in velocity over time. Energy is force times displacement. So both are inversely proportional to the square of the time taken - less time, more force, more energy.

So you again are exactly wrong. — Banno

Do you even read the posts when you reply to them?

And it will take that long, measured or not. — Banno

We were talking about why the object move. Not how long it takes to move.
Again, you are talking about wrong things here.

Put another way: What if you abandoned the notions of space and time as metaphysical containers, and thought only of objects and their relative arrangements and motions. What would you thereby lose? — hypericin

The universe will keep on working as it has been, but human civilization would be much different from now. Once upon a time, long time ago, the cavemen must have lived without language and concepts of time or space.

Why does the object move? — Christoffer

If you drop a stone from the top floor of 10m high building, the stone will fall onto the ground even if no one measured how long it took for the stone to hit the ground. The reason stone fell to the ground was the gravity force pulling the stone from the earth. It has nothing to do with time.

Time only emerges into the equation, because it is measured by someone, and says it took 3 seconds for the stone to hit the ground. But it was totally unnecessary for the movement.

Objects move because of energy or force, not because of time.

A kind of concept. An eminently useful mental tool we use to engage with the world. We ideate it as having an essential reality of it's own that we can't clearly articulate. But it does not. — hypericin

We are close on our view of time here. My reasoning was telling me that time is a general concept or set which contains (placeholder) for all the temporal objects and events and gives us the tool to describe them.

I wouldn't call space an entity, and I don't think you perceive it any more or less than time. When you think you perceive space, you are only perceiving objects and their arrangements. — hypericin

When you pour coffee into a cup, is it cup or space in the cup which holds coffee? If there were no space in the cup, coffee won't be contained in the cup.

Space is also perceptible too. We don't sit on a chair if someone else is already sitting and taking up the space on the chair with her body. We make sure to sit on an empty chair.

We only drive when space is available on the stretch of the road. When space is not available due to the car in front is stationery or road is blocked by work, we stop the car until the road gets cleared and space is available for the car to keep driving.

Likewise even dogs and cats seem to be able to perceive space. They don't try walk through a wall or closed door. They only walk and run when space is available for them.

So, space does things for us (contains and holds), and is perceptible, and also is a precondition for all the objects existing in the universe.

But I see your point. Space is an odd object or entity if we could describe it as entity. I was not sure if it is correct to say space exists. Because it is perceptible, but invisible at the same time.
It exists, if and only if when no physical objects exist in it or on it.

Like time, it seems problematic to say it exists. Space is available. Time passes. But can they exist? In Meinong, only physical beings exist. The abstract beings like time and space absist, rather than exist.

It seems too naive and simple, and even obtuse to say they exist, just because we use them, and can talk about them.

:ok: Interesting. Need to read some Meinong for me to be able to further comment on the point. Many thanks for your replies.

Therefore, in the absence of objects there will still be properties. — RussellA

I agree with this idea. So, is existence a property of object, or entity with mass? Or both?

If we agree that existence implies the both, then in the case of EPP, could we say, X doesn't exist, could mean it doesn't exist in entity with mass, but it still exists as an EPP with the property of nonexistence.

IOW, when you say X doesn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists as an EPP with the property of nonexistence. Would appreciate your comment if you see any inconsistency or fallacy in this.

Meinong rejects this principle, allowing properties to be assigned to nonexistent things such as Santa. My topic concerns two things: Arguments for/against this position, and implications of it. — noAxioms

Haven't read Meinong, but if it is his idea, then I agree. Properties can be assigned to nonexistent objects such as Santa, God and time.

If it is philosophical derailing with good arguments, then fair enough.

In the absence of properties there must be an absence of an object. In the absence of an object there must be an absence of properties. Therefore, in the absence of properties there must be the absence of any property — RussellA

Can there be existence of properties where there is absence of object? For instance, time?

A good article on Temporal Logic on Wiki.

SEP Article on Temporal Logic by Valentine Goranko.

. In that sense there is a need for the past in order to understand and explain the possibility of the present. — JuanZu

Was there always past? Does it mean without past there is no present? Or is it rather without present, there is no past? Was there ever the first present without past in the universe? If there was, where is the first present from?

I don't care I'm not a mod any more. I thought Banno tagged me for chitchat reasons. — fdrake

I see. Totally forgot about your recent resignation.