Are willing to stomach those conclusions above? If not, what are you keeping and what intuitions are you choosing to get rid of? — substantivalism

The OP doesn't deny time is real. We use time daily. But when it asks does time exist, it means does it exist as a physical entity in the universe? Space exists in the universe.

Without space, nothing can exist. But space itself is invisible. Could we say something exists, when something is not visible, has no mass and no energy?

Time has similar properties. It is not visible, not sensible to our senses as an entity. So where is it coming from? When the OP asks does it exist? It means where is it coming from?

The nature of time is an interesting topic, because there are many folks talking about time travel. If time is some sort of shared mental state of humans, then any talk of time travel would be a fantasy.

Does it imply that God, souls and Thing-in-itself are also real as time? Or are they just figments of human imagination? If time is real, why aren't the other abstract concepts real?

That sounds like a strawman. You are suddenly talking about Venus, when the point of the replies was about the morning star and evening star. They may refer to Venus, but the reason they are called the morning star and evening star is the time when it is visible.

You are making up either a strawman, or you don't seem to know the point of the argument here.

It's also not necessarily a tautology, not to a person that doesn't know it's the same object they're calling both of those things. — flannel jesus

"The morning star is the evening star." is also a tautology. The morning star and evening star both refer to Venus. Hence it has the same meaning as "The morning star is the morning star.", which is a tautology.

The reason that the Morning star is morning star is because it is only visible in the mornings.
But the reason that the evening star is the evening star is because it is only visible in the evenings.

It follows,
"Morning star is evening star" is the same as "Morning star is not evening star."

Saying "Morning star is evening star" has the same meaning as
"Morning star is evening star and Morning star is not evening star."
A ^ ~A is a contradiction.

I see space like time - they are like measurements and measuring sticks at once. They are bound up with each other, as well as mass. — Fire Ologist

Space is not like time. Space exits without measuring anything. Does time exist, if you didn't measure it? Can you tell time without looking at a watch or clock? But watches and clocks are not time. Even if your watch and clocks stop, changes motions and movements in reality still happen.

That was my question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation — jgill

Today is 13th of January in Chinese lunar calendar, and 12th of Magha Shukla in Hindu calendar. In Gregorian Calendar it is 10th February 2025.

Could they be also a form of Time dilation?

:ok:

Hence, Phosphorus could be the sun? What would Hesperus be? — Corvus

Is Phosphorus also the star or planet?

Thompson argues, Bergson's fundamental insight about the significanc of 'lived time' remains valid, in Thompson's argument. — Wayfarer

Could "lived time" be similar idea to Wittgenstein's "memory time"? I recall seeing Wittgestein's idea of time diving it into "Memory time" and "information time".

Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences are variables which determine and constrain our choices. They are real and their effects on our choices are real. — Truth Seeker

They could be thought of the qualities of your being. They are not direct effects and causes for your choices. Extending the effects and causes to your general qualities of being is committing the fallacy of relevance.

If those words were the last words that Jesus said then yes, Jesus and God are not one. — MoK

No, I cannot. The concept of Christian God has been the subject of discussion by several important scholars for about 1000 years. It is not possible to summarize their works in a short post. I already cited Aquinas's article on the subject of the Trinity. Did you read it? I also suggested you read the post of Count Timothy von Icarus. Did you read it? — MoK

Well, MoK, if you agreed that Jesus and God is not one, then you must be in agreement that Trinity is an invalid doctrine. That gives us a logical consequence and entailment, that Aquinas is also invalid. Why would you keep reading and dragging it further?

You know, my friend, you don't have a coherent view and don't want to accept that it is incoherent. So, there is nothing I can do to help you. So, let's say that we disagree. — MoK

Well, one last point you must understand is that, when an act has been committed with no time for consideration and contemplation for moral good, it cannot be a moral act. But because there haven a loss of life by the act of self dense, the case will be taken up by the legal authority.

OK, MoK, my dear friend. It has been pleasure in engaging the discussions with you on this topic. But regrettably we disagree on some part of the conclusion. So be it. We can still carry on with discussions on some other topics which we have mutual interests and points. Thank you. G'day to you and yours.

You've identified even more ambiguity. These all higlight the significance of semantics when sharing information. — Relativist

"The morning star is the morning star." sound like a tautology. But it is not a tautology, when the subject means the planet Venus, and the predicate means the star Sun. Hence would it be the meaning of the words dictates on the sentence being tautology or not?

For another example, "Today is today." It sounds like tautology, but the subject means the name of a newspaper, and the predicate refers to a day in a month. Then they are not tautology.

There is a paradoxical co-existence of time. On one hand, only the present moment truly exists. However, the nature of the present moment differs from that of spatial locations and objects. The moment vanishes as soon as it emerges and cannot be carried into the next one. — Number2018

Is it possible to say that something exists, when the existence vanishes the moment it is perceived or realised? Existence means it keeps existing through past, present and future.

And it is neither a brief interval between the past and future nor a fleeting absence of being. — Number2018

Isn't it just a mental state? The ability to tell the difference between past, present and future using different type of mental operations in human mind i.e. memory, consciousness and imagination?

Thus, the present moment's reality is shaped by a virtual time, existing as neither what is no longer nor what is not yet, but as the difference between past and future. — Number2018

Virtual time? Remember when you were a baby and child? You couldn't have known what time is about. As you grew older, you learn about it, read about it, and think about. You have a concept of time. But the nature of time itself is still abstract. When you get older, they say time feels going a lot faster than when you were younger. What does it tell you? Isn't time just a mental state?

Maybe we measure oscillation. Not time.

So a duration of time like 10 seconds is number of ocsilations .
Each oscillation exists in a physical moment.
They don't exist simultaneously.

10 meters is in fact ...10 meters.

Not the same kind of measurements. — Mark Nyquist

Oscillation of what? I can measure many different things and use them as time such as the number of water droppings from the gutter while making a coffee. With the stop watch in the phone, it takes 3 minutes.

But I could ignore the phone clock, and use the water dropping clock, and say it takes 90 water drop time for making a coffee. Could it count as time as well? If yes, then which is the correct time for making a coffee?

Well, use "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus" instead. — Banno

What difference would they make for the statement?

Yes, they are. The second meaning of 'free will' is the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes". — Truth Seeker

When you say making choices, it necessitates options.  In other words, you could have made choices because there were options or alternative decisions.

All the things you come up with as determinants and the prior causes don't allow you to have options.  Therefore they are irrelevant for making choices.

Genes, environments and nutrients are not philosophical concepts.  They are the concepts in Genetics, Sociology and Biology, which has nothing to do with philosophical ideas.

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

Those are not related to philosophical idea of free will. Constraints and determinants are the properties of your own being. They are part of your essence.

I am not denying that I have a will. I am saying that my will is not free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

Well, that is a misunderstanding the concept free will, I am afraid. You have free will. If you didn't have free will, you would not have typed your posts. :nerd: I am sure that no one was forcing you to type your posts. You are typing your posts by your free will the now. And I am too.

Using the concepts without implied boundaries and definitions within the concepts will cause confusions like that. Philosophical investigation is to point out these misuses of the concepts.

Free will means that you are free to choose on a particular matter from what you are given and as a living being, be it gene, environments, nutrients or whatever the case.

If I had the genes of a banana tree, instead of my human genes, I would have grown into a banana tree, provided I was in the appropriate environment and received the appropriate nutrients. Since no banana tree is sentient and types in English, it would have been impossible for me to post anything on this forum. — Truth Seeker

No humans have banana tree gene. What is the point of telling us that? It is irrelevant point, and there is no logical link for what you are claiming.

What do you mean by free will? My will is certainly not free from my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. I think my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Your idea of free will doesn't have boundary or definition, and it is not a correct concept. "genes, environments, nutrients and experiences" are not relevant elements for having free will.

Assume "Evening star" and "morning star" both refer to an object in the world. In that case, they are referring to the same object - so it's semantically equivalent to saying "The evening star is the evening star." — Relativist

According to ChatGpt, Venus is not a star. It is a planet. The sun is a star. Stars shine their own light. Planets don't. Planets reflect the light from the sun.

Hence, the morning star could the sun? What would the evening star be? Under this clarification is "Morning star is evening star." still a tautology? Or is it downright false?

I am not talking about changing the past. What determines who chooses what? If the choices are determined by genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, are the choices free? — Truth Seeker

Choice itself implies the act of choosing was made by the person and the person's free will.

If I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, could I have typed these words? I don't think so. — Truth Seeker

Banana tree gene is irrelevant premise for your conclusion. It makes no sense at all. There are many other reasons why you typed the post, other than your genes. But most of all, it was your free will which typed your posts.

I see nothing of substance in this philosophical discussion of time. — jgill

If you find nothing of substance in this philosophical discussion of time, then maybe you are not interested in philosophical topics? Almost all major philosophers in history of philosophy had something to say about the nature and existence of time from the era of Aristotle or even before that time.

But, if something can be physically manipulated and scientifically measured, I wager it exists. — jgill

I am not sure if being able to measure X, is a proof of the existence of X. Anyhow we are not denying time is real. We are trying to explore on the nature and existence of time.

Time dilation does just that. — jgill

The problem with Time dilation is that it is another hypotheses i.e. possibility if you could fly in the speed of light. Could you fly in the speed of light? Could anyone? Even if you did, the result is not confirmed. It is a hypotheses.

"in due course"?

At a later time? — wonderer1

It just means, "future". We have three perception of temporality. Past, present, future. Past comes from our memories, present comes from the state of consciousness for the now, and future from imagination.

I was imagining and meaning some present moment in the future, when said "in due course". Not "at a later time". But of course at times (often) I also say lunch time and dinner time by habit with the knowledge that time itself doesn't exist.

In my view, like Einstein realized the better conception of time and space is as one space-time, I think the better view is space-time-matter. — Fire Ologist

In my view, time in space-time should have been "space-perception", not time. Time doesn't exist. Space does. Einstein must have meant to say "space-perception" instead of "space-time". Would you agree?

To say X is relative implies, X doesn't exist. But X could be real in the sense that we talk and ask about it, and use it in daily life.

Does physical matter exists?
That's a better starting point because it's more basic than a concept of time. — Mark Nyquist

When you say "matter", it is not clear what you are exactly referring to. Could you be more specific? Of course physical objects exist i.e. chairs, desks, cups, trees, folks and cars .... I see them. I can interact with them. They have the concrete existence. Time? I don't see, or sense it. I can hear people talking about it, and asking it. So what is the nature of time?

Therefore, yes since the sun rises there are a lot of things that happened. — javi2541997

But what had been happening are not time itself. They are events, changes and motions.

We can flip it and see the coin of the reverse side: — javi2541997

Can we flip time, and see the other side of time?

dogs bark yet we don't understand bark language. Does the message in the dog's bark exist even though we can't understand it? — javi2541997

Dog barking has no grammar, syntax or semantics, hence it cannot be understood in meaningful way.
They could be cleaver in some ways, but they are not rational.

No, as I mentioned, the persons of the Trinity are different from God's essence. — MoK

Do you agree Jesus doesn't have God's essence from the OP's implication?

I already cited an article on the topic if you are interested in reading more, as I cannot summarize the discussion on this topic shortly. — MoK

If you are looking at the issue from general logic, then you could. You don't want to dip into the water of theology, because there is no general logic in there. If you want to bring in the traditional theology into the discussion, then we need to discuss in the domain of faith then, which transcends general logic, needn't we?

The point is you kill a human being even though you think it is objectively wrong. Call it self-defense or whatever. That does not resolve the issue. — MoK

I disagree. The real point is that if you acted in the situation of self defence, then the case is in the domain of legal matter of the society you live in. Morality doesn't apply to it.

It is alright to change your mind. Let's say that we disagree on the topic. — MoK

It has nothing to do with changing mind. The point is that practical reasoning is guiding you that,

1) No one but himself has right to decide what to do with his own life if he is an adult.
2) From the maxim, it is wrong to kill life even if one's own life, hence life must go on even if it is challenging.

Please bear in mind that all case involving death is legal matter. But still practical reasoning can direct you to the best advice on the situation.

I don't know a lot about Kant and much of what I do know I don't like, but I do like his discussion of space and time. Here's some of what he says about time, from Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 5 of the Critique of Pure Reason. — T Clark

From my memory of reading their texts, Hume and Kant both seem to be saying time has no independent existence i.e. time is an internal perception emanated from the motions and movements of objects in space. In some sense, this point would negate Hume's system i.e. some perceptions don't have the matching impressions from the external world objects such as time. In Kant, there is no problem, as mind has a priori concepts which are not derived from experience of the empirical world.

Space and objects co-exist momentarily; they are co-present. However, for us, the present time is shaped by the current virtual time horizons of the past and future. — Number2018

What do you mean by "the current virtual time horizon"?

how can any contingent empirical proposition, say "the cat is presently on the mat", be true when said now but false when said in the past or in the future? — sime

Time reflects the state of changes in reality. Our perception can tell the state of the changes, and judge the propositions as true or false according to the state of perceived reality. Hence time is built in our perception?

So, spatiality and temporality are vicariously just as material, and therefore just as real, as the properties of the material objects that generate them; only, they have no independent existence. — Bunge (2006: 245)

Bunge's writing is reflecting the point. We are not saying that time is not real, but saying that time has no independent existence. So, a question arises, how something which is so real has no independent existence?

I agree. I cannot perceive anything or any object which is time itself either. I have never seen a being called time itself. But we often hear people talking about time, and asking about time.

When you get hungry in the mid afternoon, isn't it your stomach telling you the time? It is the lunch time. You need to go and grab some sandwich. It is just telling it is time to have something to eat, but it is not saying anything about time itself.

This presumes an ontology where events are sorted into past, present, and future. Fine and dandy, but sans an empirical difference, I don't see the point. — noAxioms

There are only three types of time perceptions we have. Past, Present and Future.

Past come from the memory i.e. remembering the events in the past. Present comes from our live perception happening now with consciousness for the now. Future comes from our imagination.

If you lost all your memories, then you don't have the past. If you can't imagine, then you don't have any ideas about the future. If you are not conscious, you don't have the present, past or future.

You can only make choices for now. You could also plan to make choices for your future using your imagination and thoughts.

Please bear in mind that the OP is not denying the fact that we use time in our daily living. However, it is trying to explore the existence, entity and nature of time i.e. is it something which exists as a concrete being somewhere in the universe, or as a part of the universe? Or is it a product of human mind?