It doesn't sound illogical to me, so I wanted to know why you think it sounds illogical. Do you think it just sounds illogical but is not, or do you think it not only sounds illogical but is illogical. I see no logical contradiction in saying that we can imagine that the world is independent of mind or even that we can imagine a world independent of mind. — Janus

A world independent of mind is a world which exists without mind.
Imagination is a function of mind.
Without mind, there is no imagination.
Therefore a world independent of mind cannot be imagined. (or It is impossible to imagine a world independent of mind.)

That was my argument. It seems to be free from logical inconsistency here, but you claim, it doesn't follow. I was asking you why you assert it doesn't follow. What is your ground or reason for claiming that it doesn't follow.

Logic. — Banno

Isn't it Wittgenstein who believed that anything you can express in language, exists. Therefore past facts and events exist. Is it the case? I am not too familiar with Wittgenstein, but just guessing here.

If you cannot see this to be a problem, then there is no point in continuing. — Banno

As I said, your point seems to be coming from the concept of identity in relations rather than identity in properties. Would it be Wittgensteinian or Quinean?

The existence of OP is not main point of topic. You can still keep discussing on the other side of the topic, because it is wide and versatile theme in history of philosophy from various schools, as long as you don't participate or support the gormless strawman posters.

If you don't agree, and still see no point, then fair enough, discussions could be closed with you. No worries.

Time is made of moments but time is continuous. — MoK

OK, think of a movie in the traditional roll films. You have thousands of moments of stills image in each single film in the long continuous roll of films. When you look at the cut of the film of the glass breaking, there will be the single film which contains the glass in contact with the stone.

The stone hit the glass, so it is in contact with the glass, but glass is still unbroken until the stone further pushed into the glass. The moment of the contact is what I am talking about. That moment is the actual breaking. Not before or after.

Changes look continuous because your eyes and brain has something called latent memory when seeing objects in motion. Change itself is not continuous. It is made of slices of many moments.

I explained the change. — MoK

Sure, I think you are seeing the change as unbroken continuity. I am seeing change as continuity composed of slices of moments.

So you will not be putting up your hand? Me neither. — Banno

If you have ran out of what to say on the points due to lack of knowledge or ideas, don't post strawman posts please. That really doesn't help anyone.

Now I see why fdrake retired as moderator. — jgill

Strawman posts will be ignored.

There cannot be any change in the case of a simultaneous process. Change exists. Therefore, the states of physical are not simultaneous. — MoK

Change is composed of momentary continuity. You must be able to see the moment of the actual change, not the pseudo changes you describe (which is the illusion you see when seeing changes).

There is no such thing! — MoK

It sounds like a subjective denialism. :) I can see it perfectly in my reasoning and inferring. The moment of coexistence of the breaking and unbrokenness is the actual breaking in unbrokenness. Physics and math have no ability to see it or describe it.

Hmm. If you cannot see the contradiction in those two sentences, then there is not much that can be done to explain it further. — Banno

No contradictions at all. It is a logical and physical fact.

Mathematics and physics can explain what a continuous change is. — MoK

But obviously they cannot see the moment of coexistence of breaking and unbrokenness of the glass.

There is no moment that glass is broken and unbroken. The change is continuous. — MoK

Time is temporal continuity composed of moments. Not seeing it, means physics and math cannot capture the true nature of time or physical changes.

The OP on my screen may not have the very same properties as the same as the OP on your screen, yet we talk about their being the same OP. — Banno

The point here is that, the OP created on the first day doesn't exist. It exists as OP with different properties. It has not only changed the time stamp, but it also has hundreds of replies. It also changed some of the readers ideas on time too.

I've no idea wha that might mean. — Banno

It means a simple point. When existence stops being nonexistence, it happens in the state of coexistence of existence and nonexistence. There is no time involved in the change. The continued nonexistence is just a concept of the living after Socrates' nonexistence.

That's right. Banno has changed. Who changed? Banno changed. Look at that question with great care. The young man and the codger are the same person - your very utterance assumes that, by referring to the young man and then to the codger with the very same term. — Banno

If being same being means having exactly same properties in every aspect, then they cannot be the same person. There have been too much changes in properties. If Banno +50 year ago is the same Banno after 50+ years, then it means there hasn't been any changes in his properties. But there has been changes in the properties, therefore they are not same Banno.

At this point we could differentiate identity into two different types, if you still want to see identity as a relation from past memories. Identity of properties and identity of relations?

Identity could be a subtopic of existence and time, because they are all related to each other.

The OP is the same OP you wrote, perhaps edited and perhaps with a different time stamp. Which Post has a different time stamp? Which post my have been edited? Why, the OP, of course. Identity persists despite change. — Banno

Above is a contradiction. Banno with the properties (weight, height, looks, knowledge, wisdom) 50+ years ago is not the same Banno with the properties (weight, height, looks, knowledge, wisdom) in 2025.

Is a seed of oak tree same as the oak tree in 100 years after it has grown from the seed?

So existence becomes nonexistence and yet that there is no time. — Banno

Existence stopped becoming existence. Time stopped the moment it ceased to be existence. Nonexistence is in the mind of the living as a concept, not in the existence which ceased to be existence.

No I haven't. I have been saying that the OP you wrote still exists. You can show this by following the links — Banno

When you say X is identical to Y, it is because X and Y have exactly same properties in every aspects. The OP when created, and the OP now has different properties. Hence they are not the same OP. Of course the OP exists now, but with the different property.

Then there is a discontinuity of existence and the end of a mathematical parallel description. — jgill

Yes, exactly. A mathematical description of the existence is not the existence itself. That was my point. Of course, it could be an accurate description. But it is still a description.

Somethings being proven to be the case is very different to something just being the case. One is about how we think things are, the other about how they are. This is a very fundamental difference that seems obscured in the thinking of many folk. — Banno

Perception is not existence itself.  To say perception is existence would be a Berkeleian.  Some folks believe it, but it would be regarded as an extreme case of idealism. 

However, even if one is not an extreme idealist, it is perfectly rational to say that perception is the source of the knowledge of existence.  Of course not all perceived events or objects are true or existence. 

But you have a mental function called reason or rationality to be able to discern truth from falsity, existence from illusion.

If you had no perception, then you would have none of that.  You would just see blankness, and hear silence when facing the world.  There would be no knowledge about the world in you at all without your perception.

The OP created on the very first day has different properties from the OP you are seeing now.  The OP when it was created had a time stamp of the day, but now it has today's time stamp.  The OP also has hundreds of replies now.  When it was first created it had no reply.  Therefore you are seeing a different OP now from the moment when it was created.   

You have been saying that the OP when it was created exists now.  This is an unclear statement.  You clearly see the difference between the different properties of the OP.  

Likewise, Banno, born 50+ years ago, is not the same Banno of now in weight, height and looks, and wisdom and knowledge too.  Hence saying that they are the same Banno would be a wrong statement.
The statement "Time doesn't exist" in the OP was a suggestion to explore and to debate.  It was not a claim or conclusion.   You don't start OP with a conclusion.  You start OP with suggestion and assumption.

Existence has ambiguity in its meaning.  Socrates existed. But he doesn't exist now.   Existence becomes nonexistence.  Is it then existence or nonexistence?   

There are many (practically infinite states if we accept that time is continuous) states before the glass breaks into parts. The glass first is deformed without breaking since the atoms attract each other. As time passes there is a moment that atoms cannot hold on to each other so they separate. That is what we call the crack in the glass. As time passes, the cracks continue to extend and there is a moment when we have parts of glass. It is then that the glass shatters and its pieces move differently. — MoK

It seems physics cannot capture the moment of coexistence of the glass breaking and unbreaking. Math cannot either. Logic can.

Your description of the breaking in detail is the physical steps how breaking happens, but none of that step is the actual breaking. The breaking happens at the moment when the breaking and unbreaking coexists. The rest is not breaking itself or unbreaking itself.

The idea that one could fail to recognize that time is real does not negate nor suggest that it isn't real. — Bob Ross

What do you mean by real?

But the criminal justice system will only work if the criminal laws are moral. — RussellA

Why do you think that is the case? Does morality precede legality? Or vice versa?

Would you accept as a citizen of a country criminal laws that were not moral? — RussellA

If you are a citizen of a country, then would you have choice not to accept the legal system?

Let me ask you, do any of those worlds you invented have that function of explaining the present? — JuanZu

They are kind of possible worlds inferred from present state of consciousness. Many folks believe possible worlds exist. If you have no present, then nothing would be possible, and no possible worlds would be available to you. From present, you could remember past, and imagine future. From present, possible worlds get inferred, emanate, invoke, evoke, appear and reveal as you meditate, reason or imagine them.

I will be a bit slow in my postings due to increased work loads in real life here, but will try to catch up all the posts, as things get a bit quiet and free. Later~

It is also a paradox. The moment glass broke, the glass was unbroken.
The moment glass was unborken, the glass was broken.
Therefore the glass was broken and unbroken at the moment of broken and unbroken.

We are talking about logic here now, not physics. Until the moment the glass broke, the glass was unbroken. Therefore glass breaking is not a process. Glass breaking is a momentary motion.

This a gradual process and that requires time for it to happen. There is nothing paradoxical about it. — MoK

The exact moment of the glass breaking coexists with not breaking. How is it a process?

Let's focus on two states of glass, before breaking and after breaking, let's call them S1 and S2 respectively. It is easy to break a glass by which I mean that the glass goes from the state of S1 to S2. Is it possible that parts of glass come together and form the glass, by which I mean a change from S2 to S1? It is possible but very unlikely. — MoK

Have you come across the concept of sorities paradox?

breaking a glass is a process. — MoK

The glass was not broken until the moment it was broken. The moment of breaking and not breaking is in the state of sorities paradox. How could a paradox be a process?

Are you denying the loss of information during the process of cell division? — MoK

That is a type of change in physical and biological level. It is not a perception of your Aha moment.

I didn't say that the broken glass is a process. I said breaking a glass is a process. — MoK

Breaking glass is a motion. A mass traveled into the glass in speed which increased the focused energy onto the mass. When the mass came into contact with the glass with the force, the force broke the glass. The breaking action should be looked as a motion with energy. Not a process.

If Legal judgment is not founded on moral judgment, where does legal judgment get its authority? — RussellA

Legal judgements and punishments for the criminal acts comes from the set of criminal laws of the country, and only the appointed legal judge can hand down the decisions on the details of punishment. That process is nothing to do with morality.

It is a change. The information of DNA is not preserved completely during the process of cell division. This is the cause of aging. — MoK

Aging is a perception of change, not the change itself. The wine aged well, they say. You cannot tell it was aged well until you taste the wine.

No, that is very unlikely because of the second law of thermodynamics. Does a glass change when you break it? Sure yes. Do you expect parts of the broken glass to come together and form the glass? It is possible but that is very unlikely. — MoK

Broken glass is not a process. It is the result of the breakage. You are trying to revert the physical consequence to the original physical state. You can't.

You could perhaps try to glue them back if desperate. But it wouldn't be quite original state would it? Same applies to you MoK trying to age back to the state of egg. The law of physics wouldn't allow you to do that.

But aging is a concept. You realise or notice you have aged by looking at the mirror with the increased amount of wrinkles on your face, or empty patches of your head due to lost hair, or missing teeth no longer able to chew the chocolate you used to enjoy, or feel your body is groggy and not energetic without any valid reasons like when it used to be. There is no time involved for that perceptual Aha moment.

Accepting that aging is a change then it follows that aging requires time since any change requires time. — MoK

Aging is a concept. It is for describing a body or food has been changing via time. Because it is a concept, it doesn't affect the actual physical process of change itself. It doesn't require direct intervention of time. It is a perception and realisation or description of your state of change via mental reflection on you or your food or drinks.

Aging is a process by itself but can also be considered as a mental representation of a process. We need to make a distinction between these two. — MoK

Aging is not process. If something is a process, then it can go back to the original state. Can you age backwards to your newly born state or even to an egg?

Stoning to death is a legal punishment for adultery in Iran, and therefore normative within Iran today (Wikipedia - Capital punishment in Iran).

Some within Iran may disagree with this law. That some disagree with the moral normativity of the society that they live in, does it follow that this makes them necessarily morally corrupt or morally insensitive? — RussellA

Again you are not telling the difference between moral judgement and legal punishment.
The example demonstrates, that adultery is universally judged as moral wrong. Moral judgement ends there.

The punishment is a legal judgement. It has nothing to do with morality. Legal punishment is all different from country to country depending on what religion mainly they practice, and what the effect of their traditional legal customs are, and how much they stick to their own legal customs. Nothing to do with morality.

Some society would have only moral judgement on certain acts, but other countries societies would brush the acts under the legality too.

Sure, but you don't have to know about aging to get old. Your body still gets old, whether you know about aging or timing, or totally unaware of it like the indigenous folks.
What does it tell you? Aging is just mental awareness, and it is doesn't have any relation or control of the physical body getting old.

If you were unconscious next 50 years, and suddenly you woke up. You didn't know anything about the passed time. But your body would still be 50 years older than now.

Aging is a representation? Correct. Representation only, not the real entity of any kind.

For those who suspect math underpins the character of nature, then the passage of time might well be understood in mathematical rather than philosophical discourse. — jgill

Math can describe the motions and movements of objects in numbers and functions. But they are not time itself, is it?

But does that mean that they were in fact either morally corrupt or morally insensitive? — RussellA

Moral normativity is effective for the time period and the societies we live in. You don't go back in history, and bring in some strange and weird practices they used to have in the history books, and claim as if they are relevant to us now, and as some meaningful examples for the current moral normativity. That would be a fallacy of anachronism.

Some would say that 1 + 1 = 10 — RussellA

Morality is also based on what is called "normativity". Without it, morality derails into subjective denialism.

It depends on what number system you are using. — RussellA

Of course. But we must stick to what is called "normativity" when discussing morality. There could be folks who don't even know what morality means. What is the point of talking about the extreme ends, when the whole issue is about normativity?

But, how can you justify in words why that X harming others is morally wrong? — RussellA

It can be justified based on practical reason, which all humans supposed to share, and accept the certain moral codes as the maxim. Of course there would be folks who don't agree, or understand the maxim.

In that case, it is not because it cannot be justified, but because they might have different criteria of reason, or indeed they have no understanding of the moral code why it is right or wrong, which is not universal or shared or agreed, or just unintelligent.

In that case, they would be treated as morally corrupt or morally insensitive, or even folks with no morality by the rest of the society.

Why is harming others wrong? — RussellA

It would be like asking "Why 1+1=2", wouldn't it?

Moral codes can be described but not justified. — RussellA

Doing X harms others, therefore X is morally wrong. Could this be not a justification of moral code?