Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
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?

Sure, and once again in my view, time is identical to motion.

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote: 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.

Yes, that's the conclusion when I wrote why would it still exist or need to exist if nothing MOVES?

But having said that we still don't know and possibly never know what it actually is beyond its obvious function of keeping objects and events separate, i.e., by what means it reveals itself within any process the two being virtually synonymous or...what may keep time going in a frozen universe.

I didn't see that one post. If the universe were frozen, you'd not be able to experience anything. You're part of the universe, and if you're not frozen, too, then the universe isn't frozen.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

ken wrote:

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



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.

Even the definition you provided has the word space in it.

'Distance' IS the space, or more correctly, the extent or amount of space between two things... Is this much different at all from what I said?

I was just saying the word/term 'space' can also imply a measure.

Sure, if I had put the word 'sometime's in between 'is' and 'called', then My sentence would be more correct, but the point still stands.

By the way unless you have read everything between bahman and I, then you may well be unaware of what I am actually trying to do here.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

ken wrote: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.

To measure the 'sequence', which is the following of one thing after another, we sometimes use the word/term 'time', right?.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Here you go, to show you how so called time and space are meaningless:

How exactly have you shown how 'time' and 'space' are meaningless?

They are meaningless in relation to what exactly?

Do you actually know My views on 'time' and 'space'?

Do you know the meaningfulness and meaninglessness of 'space' and 'time' from My perspective?

I gave those "definitions" because they are the exact same ones bahman has used. I just swapped the words 'time' and 'space' around in the definitions to get bahman to see something, which is not yet being seen.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:What is the distance between the earth and Neptune, and how much time would it take for you to travel from here to there?

The distance between the earth and neptune is about 2.7 billion miles at their closest and about 2.9 billion miles when they are at their furthest.

How much time would it take for Me to travel from earth to neptune would depend on how fast I am actually traveling, obviously.

What is the point you are trying to make with this question?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Got it? OK.

No, not at all, what was I meant to have got here?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Now lets blow you up so you are 10 billion times larger than the distance between the milky way and Andromeda.

I am not sure what you think I am, but I am pretty sure we have two completely different definitions for 'you', 'I', and 'self'. These things can NOT be blown up, from My perspective.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: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?

Not sure of what distance you are referring to here, so I can not answer that part. And, of course I could not travel between "them", I could NOT travel between anywhere that is smaller than Me, if that is what you are referring to when say I have been "blown" up.

I really do NOT understand what you have been trying to point out here, especially with these last two questions. Would you like to explain more and/or expand further on what it is that you are wanting to say here?

Maybe tell Me first what you think My reply IS in relation to, then we will see if whatever you are trying to say here has anything at all to do with what My point was in relation to.

bahman wrote:

ken wrote: 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.

Thank you for actually proving the point I have been trying to make here, which is if a person believes some thing, then they are not able to see otherwise. Your words work perfectly to substantiate the truth of what I have been saying here.

What do you mean by 'exist' or "not exist"?

What does the word "time" refer to?

Dubious wrote:

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote: 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.

Yes, that's the conclusion when I wrote why would it still exist or need to exist if nothing MOVES?

But having said that we still don't know and possibly never know what it actually is beyond its obvious function of keeping objects and events separate, i.e., by what means it reveals itself within any process the two being virtually synonymous or...what may keep time going in a frozen universe.

So I think we can agree that time does not exist in a frozen universe. If it is so then time is related to motion.

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote:

bahman wrote:

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.

Yes, that's the conclusion when I wrote why would it still exist or need to exist if nothing MOVES?

But having said that we still don't know and possibly never know what it actually is beyond its obvious function of keeping objects and events separate, i.e., by what means it reveals itself within any process the two being virtually synonymous or...what may keep time going in a frozen universe.

So I think we can agree that time does not exist in a frozen universe. If it is so then time is related to motion.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: 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?

Sure, and once again in my view, time is identical to motion.

But absolute motion does not exist. What is real and measurable is relative motion. In simple word, you need a framework in which you measure motion of an object.

Dubious wrote:

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote: 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.

Yes, that's the conclusion when I wrote why would it still exist or need to exist if nothing MOVES?

But having said that we still don't know and possibly never know what it actually is beyond its obvious function of keeping objects and events separate, i.e., by what means it reveals itself within any process the two being virtually synonymous or...what may keep time going in a frozen universe.

So you believe that time persist to exist even when nothing moves?

A_Seagull wrote: What do you mean by 'exist' or "not exist"?

What does the word "time" refer to?

Exist: Have objective reality or being.

Time: A measure of relative motion between two object one of them is standard clock and another is subject of study.

bahman wrote: Exist: Have objective reality or being.

Time: A measure of relative motion between two object one of them is standard clock and another is subject of study.

Time exists then, by these definitions, unless you're the type to assert the clock doesn't exist for whatever reason.

Why would you question the existence of time, defined thus? From where comes the doubt?

Mind you, this seems more like a definition of temporal distance (a measure) than what time is itself, but if you can measure it, it exists. So without really knowing what time is, you still managed to demonstrate its existence.

I see a lot of eternalism posts, and I think they mistakenly assert that nothing moves under eternalism, that there is no time, and that it means everything is frozen. That's nonsense. Frozen means lack of movement over time and carries the mistaken implication that there is a block universe that exists in external time, unmoving. But time is part of the block, and that means there is change and movement. You'd not be able to measure it if there was not.

bahman wrote:But absolute motion does not exist. What is real and measurable is relative motion. In simple word, you need a framework in which you measure motion of an object.

I didn't say anything about "absolute motion." You don't need to include the word "relative" in my view. That should be understood, because it's what motion is after all. If I had to write the word "relative" before everything that's relative, half of what I type would be the word "relative."

bahman wrote:

A_Seagull wrote: What do you mean by 'exist' or "not exist"?

What does the word "time" refer to?

Exist: Have objective reality or being.

Time: A measure of relative motion between two object one of them is standard clock and another is subject of study.

Time is not identical to the measurement of something. It is the something we're measuring.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: But absolute motion does not exist. What is real and measurable is relative motion. In simple word, you need a framework in which you measure motion of an object.

I didn't say anything about "absolute motion." You don't need to include the word "relative" in my view. That should be understood, because it's what motion is after all. If I had to write the word "relative" before everything that's relative, half of what I type would be the word "relative."

Ok, lets say that you are looking at a clock and experience a motion. That motion has a specific rate because you compare it with your psychological motion. This means that your experience of clock's motion could be faster or slower depending on how your psychological motion is. So time as I define is is a concept related to relative motion.