Time does not exist.

[Terrapin Station]

Bahman, time is objectively real in my view. That's because (relative) motion is real, and that's what time IS.

If everything freezes, time ceases. Again, because time IS (relative) motion.

[ken]

Time is a thing that allows us to embed events within it, without it we cannot have any events.

The correct definition of time is: Time is a concept which we invented to measure relative motion.

Space is a concept that we define which is related to relative distances between objects.

That is the definition of distance, not space.

The distance between two objects is called (the) space, right?

Just like the distance between two events is called (the) time, right?

[SpheresOfBalance]

We experience forms and motions. Time is a concept that we use to have an idea about two motions, one is our standard clock and another is subject of our experience.

It would surely seem that relative change and motion take time, that's how we 'represent' it anyway, but does time actually exist, in and of itself? Is it a thing? That chemical change or movement through space does so at a particular rate that would suggest time, it's just so as to measure the sequence of things, is it not.

[bahman]

Yes, I meant all motion ceases. Time should persist to exist if it is objectively real even if everything freezes.

DUH! But you said "everything' freezes, that would include time too. This might be happening every minute, but since not time passes when everything freezes you'd never know. However this just begs the question as to whether or not time exists. Since you cannot freeze everything, then you are just blowing up your own bum. Your 'thought experiment' is meaningless.
[/quote]

No, my thought experiment is useful. Either time is related to motions or independent of them. Time must persist to exist even all motions stop. I already told you a practice you can do to see that time is illusion.

[bahman]

Time is useless if it doesn't serve a dynamic process whether objectively frozen or non-existent. But let's play your game. If the universe is a solid state of non-motion what is the purpose of time why would it still exist or need to exist if nothing MOVES?

You could be an observer in the universe which is frozen. The question is whether you as an observer can experience passage of time? If yes, then I suggest you the following practice: Find a quite place and don't let that your mind scattered by any external and internal stimuli. You will see that there is no passage of time. I simple word, time cease to exist when all movement freezes. Why? Because time is an invented concept which is related to relative motion between two things.

[bahman]

Bahman, time is objectively real in my view. That's because (relative) motion is real, and that's what time IS.

If everything freezes, time ceases. Again, because time IS (relative) motion.

So we agree with each other. Time is relative motion and it cease to exist when everything freezes.

[bahman]

The distance between two objects is called (the) space, right?

Just like the distance between two events is called (the) time, right?

Aren't we able to experience form directly? Yes. We can experience form since it is embedded in space. Aren't we able to experience time directly? No. Since time is an invented concept that allows us to measure relative motion. We only experience form and motion.

[bahman]

It would surely seem that relative change and motion take time, that's how we 'represent' it anyway, but does time actually exist, in and of itself?

Relative motion is related to time if one of motion is our standard clock and another motion is subject of study.

Is it a thing? That chemical change or movement through space does so at a particular rate that would suggest time, it's just so as to measure the sequence of things, is it not.

That only suggests the motion is happing with particular rate.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It would surely seem that relative change and motion take time, that's how we 'represent' it anyway, but does time actually exist, in and of itself?

Relative motion is related to time if one of motion is our standard clock and another motion is subject of study.

Is it a thing? That chemical change or movement through space does so at a particular rate that would suggest time, it's just so as to measure the sequence of things, is it not.

That only suggests the motion is happing with particular rate.

My point is that time is all about sequence, nothing more.

[Terrapin Station]

Bahman, time is objectively real in my view. That's because (relative) motion is real, and that's what time IS.

If everything freezes, time ceases. Again, because time IS (relative) motion.

So we agree with each other. Time is relative motion and it cease to exist when everything freezes.

We agree on that. We don't agree that "time does not exist" or that it's just a concept or anything like that.

[bahman]

We don't agree that "time does not exist" or that it's just a concept or anything like that.

Time is just a concept related to relative motion of two things. It is a concept which we invented to understand things simpler. Do you agree with that?

[Terrapin Station]

We don't agree that "time does not exist" or that it's just a concept or anything like that.

Time is just a concept related to relative motion of two things. It is a concept which we invented to understand things simpler. Do you agree with that?

No, I don't agree with that. If I believe that time is objectively real, because time is identical to motion, then I'm certainly not going to agree that it's just a concept. Those two statements are incompatible.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Time is a thing that allows us to embed events within it, without it we cannot have any events.

The correct definition of time is: Time is a concept which we invented to measure relative motion.

Space is a concept that we define which is related to relative distances between objects.

That is the definition of distance, not space.

The distance between two objects is called (the) space, right?
No, distance implies a measure.

distance [dis-tuh ns]
noun
1. the extent or amount of space between two things, points, lines, etc.


Just like the distance between two events is called (the) time, right?
Nope, rather sequence!

sequence [see-kwuh ns]
noun
1. the following of one thing after another; succession.

Here you go, to show you how so called time and space are meaningless: What is the distance between the earth and Neptune, and how much time would it take for you to travel from here to there?

Got it? OK.

Now lets blow you up so you are 10 billion times larger than the distance between the milky way and Andromeda. Now our solar system are like atoms relative to your size, now what is their distance and how long for you to travel between them? Now you can't travel between them can you?

[bahman]

We don't agree that "time does not exist" or that it's just a concept or anything like that.

Time is just a concept related to relative motion of two things. It is a concept which we invented to understand things simpler. Do you agree with that?

No, I don't agree with that. If I believe that time is objectively real, because time is identical to motion, then I'm certainly not going to agree that it's just a concept. Those two statements are incompatible.

What is real and we can measure directly is motion. Can we agree on that?

[Hobbes' Choice]

DUH! But you said "everything' freezes, that would include time too. This might be happening every minute, but since not time passes when everything freezes you'd never know. However this just begs the question as to whether or not time exists. Since you cannot freeze everything, then you are just blowing up your own bum. Your 'thought experiment' is meaningless.

No, my thought experiment is useful. Either time is related to motions or independent of them. Time must persist to exist even all motions stop. I already told you a practice you can do to see that time is illusion.

Sorry but it is not sinking it.
I do not think I can explain this any more simply for you. You just ain't getting it.