A pure concept that is not empirical.

Time does not exist; it is used for human convenience and, Tom, you are correct. Time defined: what clocks measure; the measurement of motion. Time, therefore, is a measurement. I'm doing the measuring so I must be creating time or the clock is creating time. There is no past or future--only the present. The past exists in our minds and the present continues to what is called the future. Is time, then, a real immaterial existent? If I wanted to argue for time, I would maintain that.

Truth is when your view or perception matches reality. So what is reality?

When your thought, your view, your perception matches reality, you have the truth.

Why no responders?

Examine, criticize.

An interesting post

I submit probability and quantum mechanics. This post is a development of such.

Science and philosophy

We may be the universe's only consciousness, but there may be numerous other beings in a vast universe.

There are centuries of evolution ahead. What will we be then?

I think the three are basically incompatible, but a reconciliation would be a milestone. I think macro and micro reality are like apples and oranges: an apple, unless converted, will never be an orange.

It's unwise not to adopt that view, but we must keep trying and looking for verifications in reality

Yes, we are the best and worst of creatures.

What good is the whole universe without consciousness?

If you say so.

When we observe the most advanced of us, it's easy to develop that view; however, we must still perform animal activities, but our intellectual activities set us apart.

Indeeed, since the brain is part of the body .

Thanks for your input.

I equals the body-brain; it is a pronoun that stands for the body-brain which is conscious.

I never conflate both; they both work together to make the individual viable.

Do you have a different view?

I may be wrong, but that is the way I see it.

He He

We have been living with nothing a long time. it has grown on us and it is hard to eliminate. Recently, it occured to me that we have been discusing a non-existent. Incidentally, I appreciate all coments, pro or con

But is simply space nothing? Well, space may be simply immaterial. But that is not nothing but no-thing.

This is much ado about nothing. I like this: Either something or nothing exist, but nothing does not exist; therefore, something exists. The logic is clear and so is the statement.

I will have to consider general nothing. Nothing is such an engrained part of our life, like time. Do you think that nothing (general or specific) could ever be located? It could--in the mind of humans.

If I have a dime and lose it, do I have nothing? no, I no longer have a dime. What will be left is the abscene of the last atom. We tend to call the abscence or end nothing. To us such ceasings may be called nothing. Let me repeat: nothing is a concept, the reality of which has no existence. There are other such concepts with no existence: infinity, time, etc.

Why there is something rather than nothing is as follows: either something exists or nothing exists; since NOTHING DOES NOT EXIST, something must exist. That existent is immaterial space in the pre-universe.

Well, Kant probably felt time. But when I read that section, I thought that his intuition was equivalent to our perception; however, intuition is not perception. Associating consciousness with time may be common.

Gregory, thanks for response. On time, I use myself as the authority.

My view is that time does not exist. If I am wrong, time is an immaterial existence. Now it can be easily said that no movement, no time. Time is what the moving hands on the clock measure. Is that mass it measures?

No. My space is real; Kant's was perceptual, but it is transcendental in accordance with Kantian requirements.

I see posts mentioning time. Is time a real immaterial existence or just a mathematical one?

Thanks for post. I have mulled over it and it seems to be, in the least, plausible. Immaterial space becomes the first existent and the uncaused cause which is then related to actual space. I connected the transcendental with the empirical. Mass could not create itself; therefore, it is a result of the immaterial.

Yes, we wil leave not hostile to each other. Incidentally, I favor agnosticism and I am a Star Trek fan.

There is just one--immaterial space. Just this one, in my view, created the universe. Do I know that this view is correct--no! But it is a natural view of how the universe became. Again, do not talk about nothing; nothing does not exist. Why should one discuss a non-existent. Let's talk about nothing! To repeat: there is only one immaterial existent and it is immaterial space.

Too much to reply too . I'll answer at least a few. . I stick with the principle from nothing comes nothing; the book alienates me. Remember: existence can only be material or not material. Existence can only be immaterial or not immaterial. Cherry picking--perhaps. You're quite challenging and that is good.

In the list of synonyms, not material is my selection; it is a Kantian transcendental since space is absolute, necessary and universal as I view it. The problem with immaterial is us; perception of the material is evolutionary for survival. There is no need to perceive particles. The immaterial is transparent as is current space; there is no blockage. Existence can only be material and not material; the material did not create itself. More later after your response.