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.

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?