Events or objects in the past exist in different state and properties to the ones at present. — Corvus
We can join bits of language together in ways that are somewhat deceptive. Think about the poem about the little man who wasn't there. It has a metaphysical ring to it, from the conflict between seeing f a little man, despite his not being there. Now I don't think there is any profound metaphysics in
Antigonish, just the concatenation of a few words that behave in a way not dissimilar to an illusion.
I think something not too different is happening when one says something like "Time does not exits". I don't see how we can sensibly dispense with the notion of time, without leaving ourselves open to the sorts of discontinuities discussed above, where one talks about the past, and about past events, or the future and possible future happenings, or differentiates these from the present, while at the same time insisting that there is no time.
I surmise that there is a point you are trying to make, something to do with things in the past not being the subject of direct perception in the way things before you right now are, or some mistaken idea that only what is proven or believed or present to you now is what exists. I don't think you captured that sentiment with "time does not exist".
There is also something more than a little bit problematic in supposing that there are different
types of existence, such that things in the past existed in a different way ("state") to how they exist now. perhaps this coms down to treating existence as a (first order) property, such that things that are before us now supposedly have a different sort of first-order existence to things in the past. I don't think there is a property
of my footstool that changes between when I put my foot on it a few seconds ago and now, that somehow means it is now in a "different state" to how it is now.
When you keep insisting about the OP when it was created still exists, you were talking about identity of the OP, were you not? I was just trying to let you know that the OP exists now with different properties. The OP when created had time stamp of "1 minute ago". It had no replies.
Now the OP has time stamp "11 days ago", and has 523 replies. They are not the same OP. — Corvus
There is a very strong sense in which it is the very same OP, and that OP still exists, still can be linked to, is the very same OP mentioned in previous posts, had the time stamp "1 minute ago" but now has the time stamp "12 days ago". This is the common sense use, where when we ask "what is the OP of this thread?" we get the same answer now as we did then. If I ask you what the OP of this thread is, you will point to
this.
It is not an issue of "not exist". It is an issue of "different state of existence". Error is your not being able to tell the difference on nature of the existence. — Corvus
This is different to your original thesis, that time does not exist, so Kudos for adjusting your position. But as discussed above, it is not clear what "different states of existence" might be.
Being perceived is not what it is for something to exist.
— Banno
Why not? What is it that qualifies and proves for something to exist? — Corvus
becasue we can misremember - the idea that what we believe happened and what actually happened are different makes perfect sense. We might be wrong. This is what permits us to adjust our thinking to match what is the case. If what is true were nothing more than what we perceive, we could never misperceive. We could never learn.
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.