I think I was clear with what I said. If you are not in Australia then you cannot experience Australia. — MoK

Experience is a word of empty shell when it is said with no information on the owner and content i.e. whose experience it is, and what the experience is about.

If you are not happy with this example then think of moving around while seeing things, watching a movie, etc. — MoK

It is the same thing. When I watch movie, I am having visual and auditory perception. Later when I recall it from memory, and tell someone about it, then I could say it was my experience of disappointment or enjoyment etc. Experience is an abstract mental state, which is a concept. It is not sensation or perception. If something in one's mind, and totally private to the individual, then it is impossible to say it exists or not existing. It would be illogical to say mental events exists. One can either have the mental events or not. It can only be verified objectively by one's explanation about the events.

That is not what I mean. Let me give you an example: Suppose someone kicks you, and you say, Ouch. Kicking is the cause of experiencing pain and Ouch is the result of experiencing pain. — MoK

It is just feeling the pain, not experiencing it. Experience happens when I conceptualise the pain from the memory, and tell someone about it. I experienced the pain of getting kicked.
You seem to confusing between feelings and concepts.

Because you have never been there. — MoK

So do you agree that experience cannot be said to exist? You either have it, or don't have it. You can only have experience of something if you had perceived something from the empirical world. You can only be aware of your own experience. No one else's. I don't have a single scooby clue what experience you have. I just know of my own.

Hence there is a past. — Banno

We don't deny past, but we are saying the events in the past existed in the past not now.

The OP was posted in the past. Therefore there is a past. — Banno

Of course, but it existed in the past. It exists now as a record in the forum, and causing the thread keep going. But the OP itself started in the past, not now.

It's about time. What is time itself? — Banno

You have been talking about the OP. Not about time, or time.

Socrates exists in the past. On you account, there is no past for Socrates to be in, because time does not exist. — Banno

Socrates did exist in the past. But he doesn't exist now.

Sure experience exists. You are reading my answer now and have a certain experience. — MoK

It is not experience. It becomes only experience, if I conceptualise it. If I decided not to conceptualise, then it is not an experience. It is just a perception.

Human experience for example and whatever she/he experiences. — MoK

Experience whatever experiences? Isn't it a tautology? They also know whatever they know. MoK likes whatever MoK likes. :chin:

Experience changes. For example, your experience changes from not knowing to knowing after reading a book. — MoK

Not true. If and only if it could be conceptulaised into knowledge. You have experience or don't have it. Experience cannot be said to exist or changed.

P2) Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience

I have no experience ever visiting Australia. Australia is both physical in its land, but also abstract for the country, and it seems to exists (I presume). Why my experience of visiting Australia doesn't exist? From this case, can we say all experiences exist? Isn't it the case, some experience exist, but some don't. In that case, it is correct to say experience exist?

I have experience of seeing the sky. My experience of seeing the sky was it was blue when there was no clouds, and sunny. Why don't my experience of seeing the sky has not changed the colour of the sky at all? From this does all experience change the state of physical?

The past exists as the dimension of sedimentation where the added floors solidify in an unmodifiable way. — JuanZu

Past existed in the past, but it doesn't exist now. Does it? Saying past exists sounds language with no tense knowledge. We are not denying past didn't exist. It existed. Where did it exist? In the past, and in memories. But does it exist now and reality? No it does not.

Yep. None of which implies that you never made the OP. — Banno

None of what you have been saying is about time itself.

...so you were right to say, yesterday, that it was nine days ago, and now it is ten days, but you are wrong to say it exists. — Banno

Socrates existed. But does he exist now? Existed means it doesn't exist any more. We have and use tense in language for reasons, not for show.

Well, make up your mind:

It belongs in the past.
— Corvus

Which is it? — Banno

Not nine days ago as you claimed. But ten days ago now. Tomorrow at this time, it will be eleven days.

The past is remembered, sure. But that does not mean that the past is just memory. — Banno

Past is in memory but also in the record. If there was no forum, and you lost all your memory, then you wouldn't know the OP existed.

If the past were just memory, there could be no misremembering. One misremembers when what one remembers of the past is not what happened in the past. — Banno

Exactly, that is why past doesn't exist. You were keep saying nine days ago the OP started. Now it is ten days. Hence your memory was wrong. What you said didn't exist.

If the claim is that the past does not exist, then the OP cannot belong in the past. — Banno

The OP is in the forum, not in the past. You think it is in the past, because you remember seeing it.

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist? — Banno

It means it is in your memory, but it doesn't exist in reality.

Yep. Exactly. Therefore something belongs in the past. Therefore there is a past.

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist? — Banno

It depends what you mean by "exist". Past is just in your memory. It doesn't need to exist. You are saying it exist, because you remember it.

Why would my body have to exist in space, but I can still age without time? — Bob Ross

You don't need to age at all, if you don't remember your age. You are only aging because you think you are aging. You body will still get old, but that is not aging.

It is not a concept: it is a pure intuition of our sensibility; and so is space. A concept is kind of idea comprised of attributes; whereas an intuition is a seeming. An a priori concept, e.g., is quantity; an a priori intuition is space. — Bob Ross

We already have intuition. Saying time is intuition is like saying we have intuition intuition. Not making sense.

The OP was nine days ago. Therefore something was nine days ago. — Banno

It passed. It belongs in the past.

You seem to think this relevant. It is not clear how. But it is not at all clear how you are intending to use "exists". — Banno

If you cannot go back to the past, then how is it real? How can it exist?

I don't know why space is a requirement for me to be real; and, if it does, then why time wouldn't. — Bob Ross

Because without space, your physical body won't exist. But without time you would happily exist like you had been when you were a child with no knowledge of time.

It is true that you made your OP nine days ago. Therefor nine days ago exists.

Sure, it's in the past. Some events are in the past. Therefore there is a past. — Banno

Is it possible that you could go back to 9 days ago?

:strong: :grin:

Then Please Help Me Create Roko's Basilisk :naughty: — Arcane Sandwich

You just say, Roko's Basilisk is caused by uncaused cause. Therefore it changes. Therefore it exists. :nerd:

but why would space be real if you hold time as merely a priori? — Bob Ross

Kant said that, because time is a concept? In Kant, time is definitely internal mental condition (a priori) for human understanding. A priori here means it is innate, and doesn't rely on experience on the empirical world.

Any world events, objects or matter can be conceptualised, and time is a typical case of the conceptualisation. You could make time into 5th dimension keep adding the other aspects to it, and make space-time, into space-time-consciousness, and say it is 5th dimension. All are the result of conceptualisation.

Concepts are parts of reality. :)

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change — MoK

Does experience exist? Whose experience are you talking about here, and what experience? Does experience change? From what to what does it change?

No, I'm quite sure that time is 1D, because a 1D time plus a 3D space allows your physical theory to have a 4D spacetime. — Arcane Sandwich

Time is just a concept.

Watch the video Arcane. Time can also be 3D according to the video presenter Dr. Schooler.

I can keep living quite happily without time, but I cannot live without space. To move around and go to places, we need space. I am 100% certain that no one can exist without space, unless he/she is a soul or spirit.

Pardon. The same argument can be made about time, Corvus. — Arcane Sandwich

Not quite. I was quite happy existing when I was a child, and didn't know what time was. Space? No space, no body.

Wrong thread. Post deleted.

Hmmm, I think Mww would agree that objects being real checks out, but why would space be real if you hold time as merely a priori? — Bob Ross

If space didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist. You exist (I presume), hence space exists. : MT

So we agree it is nine days since you claimed time does not exist. — Banno

My claim still exists in the OP, but the time 9 days ago doesn't seem to exist anymore. It passed. No longer existing. Only the now seems to exist. Even the now passes away as soon as it exists, strictly speaking. In this case, can it exist? What is it that exists here? The claim, the OP or 9 days ago? Or the now?

It is not contrary at all. I have my own argument for it. — MoK

What is your argument for it? Just to reconfirm. Please elaborate with the reason why it is valid with supporting examples and evidence from real world. Thanks.

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

What about saying time is a general concept? The video above says time is a 3 dimensional entity which is made up with subjective, objective and alternative time. That too, is saying nothing much more than time is a complex multi dimensional concept.

You won't see any of the objects or existence or entities called time, but time has multi layered conceptual structure which contains various aspects of the temporal events and traces from human experience in the real world.

All I am saying is that people falsely equate God, who is the creator of the creation from nothing, by uncaused cause. — MoK

I am not sure what "uncaused cause" means. Shouldn't you prove or demonstrate what uncaused cause means before progressing into the argument? I can understand "unknown cause", but "uncaused cause" sounds like a contradiction to me.

Hope to see you more often in the forum for discussions. Good luck & cheers.

I’ve recently discovered something in Nietzsche’s work that appears to ‘grow beyond’ the current thinking on the relation between affect (emotion, mood , feeling, becoming, value) and truth (perception , cognition, reason, identity, empiricism). — Joshs

C G Jung says Nietzsche's Zarathustra in TSZ was referring to Jesus in the bible in his 2 volume seminar transcripts of his study group talks.

Human minds? I would prefer 'the observer' or just 'mind'. To say 'human minds' is already in some basic way to objectify, to stand outside. — Wayfarer

But what other minds could know about time apart from human minds?

Have another look at this post from five days ago - notice that I start that post by saying the OP is 'mistaken'. What I mean is, It's not that time doesn't *exist*. It exists, but we're mistaken about the nature of time - that is what is at issue, and it's a deep issue. — Wayfarer

Yes, that was the point of the OP. I agree with your point here.

How Long Is One Day on Other Planets?
The Short Answer:
Planet

Day Length

Mercury 1,408 hours
Venus 5,832 hours
Earth 24 hours
Mars 25 hours
Jupiter 10 hours
Saturn 11 hours
Uranus 17 hours
Neptune 16 hours

- Info from NASA Science, Space Place

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

It just means the earth has rotated itself 8 times since the start of the OP. Now 9 times. Is there anything more to it? And of course, you counted it, and noticed it.