Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 8:26 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:22 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:08 pm
What does it mean to be out of the train to you if it leads to death?

It's called an analogy. it's not perfect.
Death is when you are out of time. Since time was the train, death is the end of the journey.
What more are you looking for?

To me we wouldn't die when we leave time, I can experience the passage of time.

That is a confused statement. You can only experience events as time passes. There is no experience without time. WHen you are out of time is the same thing as saying you are dead.

Sculptor wrote:

That is a confused statement. You can only experience events as time passes. There is no experience without time. WHen you are out of time is the same thing as saying you are dead.

Maybe

1.But still how can you say time exists if there is no events to experience?

2.Can you say time exists if no events are occurring?

3. And finally how can you say time exists without an 'observer' experiencing and measuring it
- Is time itself really existent without it's measurement

UniversalAlien wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 5:18 am Sculptor wrote:

That is a confused statement. You can only experience events as time passes. There is no experience without time. WHen you are out of time is the same thing as saying you are dead.

Maybe

1.But still how can you say time exists if there is no events to experience?

Time only exists as a result of causality, if in fact U R dead, then causality continues - your experience does not.

UniversalAlien wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 5:18 am 2.Can you say time exists if no events are occurring?

No. There is NO time without an event.

UniversalAlien wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 5:18 am 3. And finally how can you say time exists without an 'observer' experiencing and measuring it
- Is time itself really existent without it's measurement

Well, I didn't say that, not sure if Sculptor did either.

Time IS purely a measurement ...of events... something MAN has construed that is synchronised to EVENTS.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:59 pm I think we can agree on the arrow of time which tells us that there is a direction in time. Time, however, exists at one point so-called now, the past is collective memory and the future does not exist objectively. My question is how time can have a direction if it only exists at one point? That is a problem since you need two objective points (by two objective points I mean two points which both exist) to define a direction.

Time does not exist ontologically, materially, or physically. Time, is only an attribute or quality, just as length, distance, direction, velocity, temperature, and weight are attributes, and no attribute exists independently of the actual existents they are the attribute of.

Things have length, so length exists, but only exists as an attribute of things that have that attribute. There is no such thing as length as an independent existent. There are no wild, "lengths," running around out there.

Things that move have velocity, so velocity exists and is real, but it only exists as an attribute of things that move, and can only be measured relative to other things that move, but there is no independent existent velocity.

Time is just another attribute of things that move, related to velocity, but only exists as an attribute of things that move, can only be measured relative to other things that move and has no independent existence separate from things that move. There is no such thing as, "time," as an independent existent.

Your question is absurd, because time does not exist as a thing. It is exactly like asking how can red have a direction and only exist at one point. Calling the relationship of the past to the future a direction is an analogy, not a physical fact, and time exists as an attribute of the relationship between motions so long as there is motion and exists perpetually as a concept for that relationship.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:21 pm Time is the same thing as change.

I'm sure you understand it correctly, but that is not quite the right way to express it. Time is actually one of two parameters by which motion is measure, and motion is, "change of position." (A motion is the change in either or both the direction or distance of one thing relative to another.) Both time and velocity are measurements of motions relative to other motions (because there is no absolute motion).

There is another "change" phenomena, change of motion, which is acceleration. An acceleration is a change in any of the parameters of motion: distance, direction, time, or velocity.

While nothing can move in more than one direction without acceleration, it can accelerate in more than one direction and those accelerations produce the vector sum parameter, "speed." Change certainly makes time a fact, but they are not the same thing, because change also makes acceleration and speed facts as well, even if the time is the same.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 7:11 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:21 pm Time is the same thing as change.

I'm sure you understand it correctly, but that is not quite the right way to express it. Time is actually one of two parameters by which motion is measure, and motion is, "change of position." (A motion is the change in either or both the direction or distance of one thing relative to another.) Both time and velocity are measurements of motions relative to other motions (because there is no absolute motion).

There is another "change" phenomena, change of motion, which is acceleration. An acceleration is a change in any of the parameters of motion: distance, direction, time, or velocity.

While nothing can move in more than one direction without acceleration, it can accelerate in more than one direction and those accelerations produce the vector sum parameter, "speed." Change certainly makes time a fact, but they are not the same thing, because change also makes acceleration and speed facts as well, even if the time is the same.

So , when I say that "time is (identical to) change," I'm not reporting a standard view from physics, or any conventional wisdom, really. I'm reporting my ontological view, arrived at via philosophical analysis.

Change (again, identical to time in my view), need not be motion. Motion is simply a subset of change. Any change is identical to time on my view.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 7:59 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 7:11 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:21 pm Time is the same thing as change.

I'm sure you understand it correctly, but that is not quite the right way to express it. Time is actually one of two parameters by which motion is measure, and motion is, "change of position." (A motion is the change in either or both the direction or distance of one thing relative to another.) Both time and velocity are measurements of motions relative to other motions (because there is no absolute motion).

There is another "change" phenomena, change of motion, which is acceleration. An acceleration is a change in any of the parameters of motion: distance, direction, time, or velocity.

While nothing can move in more than one direction without acceleration, it can accelerate in more than one direction and those accelerations produce the vector sum parameter, "speed." Change certainly makes time a fact, but they are not the same thing, because change also makes acceleration and speed facts as well, even if the time is the same.

So , when I say that "time is (identical to) change," I'm not reporting a standard view from physics, or any conventional wisdom, really. I'm reporting my ontological view, arrived at via philosophical analysis.

Change (again, identical to time in my view), need not be motion. Motion is simply a subset of change. Any change is identical to time on my view.

Your saying time is identical to change from an ontological view? Frankly, I have no idea what that can possibly mean, and everything I could guess seems impossible, so I won't guess.

Now, you perhaps mean something else by, "ontological," but generally ontology refers to the fundamental nature of existence, i.e. what it is and what it's nature is and how that existence relates to epistemology as that which is known.

If that is what you mean by ontology, what does it mean to say, change is identical to time? What is it that changes? What exactly do you mean by change? In what way is there a change--from what to what?

If you just say, "time and change are the same thing," it doesn't really say anything, does It?

Please see my previous post, just so you now what I mean by time, so you can explain what you mean by time according to your meaning. You may not agree, which is fine, but time does not exist ontologically at all.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 8:35 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 7:59 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 7:11 pm
I'm sure you understand it correctly, but that is not quite the right way to express it. Time is actually one of two parameters by which motion is measure, and motion is, "change of position." (A motion is the change in either or both the direction or distance of one thing relative to another.) Both time and velocity are measurements of motions relative to other motions (because there is no absolute motion).

There is another "change" phenomena, change of motion, which is acceleration. An acceleration is a change in any of the parameters of motion: distance, direction, time, or velocity.

While nothing can move in more than one direction without acceleration, it can accelerate in more than one direction and those accelerations produce the vector sum parameter, "speed." Change certainly makes time a fact, but they are not the same thing, because change also makes acceleration and speed facts as well, even if the time is the same.

So , when I say that "time is (identical to) change," I'm not reporting a standard view from physics, or any conventional wisdom, really. I'm reporting my ontological view, arrived at via philosophical analysis.

Change (again, identical to time in my view), need not be motion. Motion is simply a subset of change. Any change is identical to time on my view.

Your saying time is identical to change from an ontological view? Frankly, I have no idea what that can possibly mean, and everything I could guess seems impossible, so I won't guess.

Now, you perhaps mean something else by, "ontological," but generally ontology refers to the fundamental nature of existence, i.e. what it is and what it's nature is and how that existence relates to epistemology as that which is known.

If that is what you mean by ontology, what does it mean to say, change is identical to time? What is it that changes? What exactly do you mean by change? In what way is there a change--from what to what?

If you just say, "time and change are the same thing," it doesn't really say anything, does It?

Please see my previous post, just so you now what I mean by time, so you can explain what you mean by time according to your meaning. You may not agree, which is fine, but time does not exist ontologically at all.

I'm not clear why this seems odd to you. Are you familiar with the fact that time is a common topic in ontology first off?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 6:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:59 pm I think we can agree on the arrow of time which tells us that there is a direction in time. Time, however, exists at one point so-called now, the past is collective memory and the future does not exist objectively. My question is how time can have a direction if it only exists at one point? That is a problem since you need two objective points (by two objective points I mean two points which both exist) to define a direction.

Time does not exist ontologically, materially, or physically. Time, is only an attribute or quality, just as length, distance, direction, velocity, temperature, and weight are attributes, and no attribute exists independently of the actual existents they are the attribute of.

Things have length, so length exists, but only exists as an attribute of things that have that attribute. There is no such thing as length as an independent existent. There are no wild, "lengths," running around out there.

Things that move have velocity, so velocity exists and is real, but it only exists as an attribute of things that move, and can only be measured relative to other things that move, but there is no independent existent velocity.

Time is just another attribute of things that move, related to velocity, but only exists as an attribute of things that move, can only be measured relative to other things that move and has no independent existence separate from things that move. There is no such thing as, "time," as an independent existent.

Your question is absurd, because time does not exist as a thing. It is exactly like asking how can red have a direction and only exist at one point. Calling the relationship of the past to the future a direction is an analogy, not a physical fact, and time exists as an attribute of the relationship between motions so long as there is motion and exists perpetually as a concept for that relationship.

Time is a substance. It bends.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:10 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 6:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:59 pm I think we can agree on the arrow of time which tells us that there is a direction in time. Time, however, exists at one point so-called now, the past is collective memory and the future does not exist objectively. My question is how time can have a direction if it only exists at one point? That is a problem since you need two objective points (by two objective points I mean two points which both exist) to define a direction.

Time does not exist ontologically, materially, or physically. Time, is only an attribute or quality, just as length, distance, direction, velocity, temperature, and weight are attributes, and no attribute exists independently of the actual existents they are the attribute of.

Things have length, so length exists, but only exists as an attribute of things that have that attribute. There is no such thing as length as an independent existent. There are no wild, "lengths," running around out there.

Things that move have velocity, so velocity exists and is real, but it only exists as an attribute of things that move, and can only be measured relative to other things that move, but there is no independent existent velocity.

Time is just another attribute of things that move, related to velocity, but only exists as an attribute of things that move, can only be measured relative to other things that move and has no independent existence separate from things that move. There is no such thing as, "time," as an independent existent.

Your question is absurd, because time does not exist as a thing. It is exactly like asking how can red have a direction and only exist at one point. Calling the relationship of the past to the future a direction is an analogy, not a physical fact, and time exists as an attribute of the relationship between motions so long as there is motion and exists perpetually as a concept for that relationship.

Time is a substance. It bends.

I don't think time actually "bends" - I think whatever the sub-atomic 'matter' that is still a part of causality, which still produces the man made measurement of time, affects 'time' - and obviously, this causality, ususally in the presence of large bodies such as planets, curves space\time

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 8:38 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 8:35 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 7:59 pm
So , when I say that "time is (identical to) change," I'm not reporting a standard view from physics, or any conventional wisdom, really. I'm reporting my ontological view, arrived at via philosophical analysis.

Change (again, identical to time in my view), need not be motion. Motion is simply a subset of change. Any change is identical to time on my view.

Your saying time is identical to change from an ontological view? Frankly, I have no idea what that can possibly mean, and everything I could guess seems impossible, so I won't guess.

Now, you perhaps mean something else by, "ontological," but generally ontology refers to the fundamental nature of existence, i.e. what it is and what it's nature is and how that existence relates to epistemology as that which is known.

If that is what you mean by ontology, what does it mean to say, change is identical to time? What is it that changes? What exactly do you mean by change? In what way is there a change--from what to what?

If you just say, "time and change are the same thing," it doesn't really say anything, does It?

Please see my previous post, just so you now what I mean by time, so you can explain what you mean by time according to your meaning. You may not agree, which is fine, but time does not exist ontologically at all.

I'm not clear why this seems odd to you.

Really. I'm sorry. I tried to very clear about it. I didn't find anything, "odd," about what you wrote, I simply do not know what you meank, so I asked you, if change is identical to time, "What is it that changes? What exactly do you mean by change?" and, "In what way is there a change--from what to what?"

I only asked, because I have found that you are usually quite reasonable in your discussion. I certainly don't see what my familiarity with what others discuss as ontology (and most philosophers are disastrous in that area) has to do with your view.

If you're not interested in explaining what you mean, you're under no obligation to. Just ignore the question, and I'll just have to assume you have no sound reason for believing time has any ontological existence, or at least one you can explain, and you can assume anything you like.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:10 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 6:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:59 pm I think we can agree on the arrow of time which tells us that there is a direction in time. Time, however, exists at one point so-called now, the past is collective memory and the future does not exist objectively. My question is how time can have a direction if it only exists at one point? That is a problem since you need two objective points (by two objective points I mean two points which both exist) to define a direction.

Time does not exist ontologically, materially, or physically. Time, is only an attribute or quality, just as length, distance, direction, velocity, temperature, and weight are attributes, and no attribute exists independently of the actual existents they are the attribute of.

Things have length, so length exists, but only exists as an attribute of things that have that attribute. There is no such thing as length as an independent existent. There are no wild, "lengths," running around out there.

Things that move have velocity, so velocity exists and is real, but it only exists as an attribute of things that move, and can only be measured relative to other things that move, but there is no independent existent velocity.

Time is just another attribute of things that move, related to velocity, but only exists as an attribute of things that move, can only be measured relative to other things that move and has no independent existence separate from things that move. There is no such thing as, "time," as an independent existent.

Your question is absurd, because time does not exist as a thing. It is exactly like asking how can red have a direction and only exist at one point. Calling the relationship of the past to the future a direction is an analogy, not a physical fact, and time exists as an attribute of the relationship between motions so long as there is motion and exists perpetually as a concept for that relationship.

Time is a substance. It bends.

You are reifying a metaphor.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:35 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 8:38 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 8:35 pm
Your saying time is identical to change from an ontological view? Frankly, I have no idea what that can possibly mean, and everything I could guess seems impossible, so I won't guess.

Now, you perhaps mean something else by, "ontological," but generally ontology refers to the fundamental nature of existence, i.e. what it is and what it's nature is and how that existence relates to epistemology as that which is known.

If that is what you mean by ontology, what does it mean to say, change is identical to time? What is it that changes? What exactly do you mean by change? In what way is there a change--from what to what?

If you just say, "time and change are the same thing," it doesn't really say anything, does It?

Please see my previous post, just so you now what I mean by time, so you can explain what you mean by time according to your meaning. You may not agree, which is fine, but time does not exist ontologically at all.

I'm not clear why this seems odd to you.

Really. I'm sorry. I tried to very clear about it. I didn't find anything, "odd," about what you wrote, I simply do not know what you meank, so I asked you, if change is identical to time, "What is it that changes? What exactly do you mean by change?" and, "In what way is there a change--from what to what?"

I only asked, because I have found that you are usually quite reasonable in your discussion. I certainly don't see what my familiarity with what others discuss as ontology (and most philosophers are disastrous in that area) has to do with your view.

If you're not interested in explaining what you mean, you're under no obligation to. Just ignore the question, and I'll just have to assume you have no sound reason for believing time has any ontological existence, or at least one you can explain, and you can assume anything you like.

The reason I asked what I did is that you were bringing up the definition of ontology in the context of my comments.

Time is identical to change. Any change. Any thing(s) that changes, in any way. Change obtains when things don't stay the same, don't remain static, including their relations to other things. Motions are a type of change, but as I said, that's not the only type of change. Another type would be if something were present but then disappeared, or the opposite--there's nothing, but something suddenly appears. Another type would be a change in size (though we could describe that as at least the circumference being in relative motion if we're positing something with no parts).

With motions, changes can be any sort--continuous and steady, discontinuous (suddenly "jumping" to a different position, say) , changing speeds, changing velocities--whatever.

So again, any changes, of any thing(s).

(And it seems to me like the above should be obvious via simply noting that something is identical to change, and if we're capable of conversing in a forum like this we should know what change is.)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 11:18 am The reason I asked what I did is that you were bringing up the definition of ontology in the context of my comments.

Time is identical to change.

The reason I brought up ontology is because time does not exist as an independent ontological existent. It is not an entity, it is an attribute (or quality, or property) which has no existence at all independently of actual physical entities.

Time certainly exists, in the same way as length, or width, or size, or direction and distance exist, as concepts for attributes of and relationships between entities but have no existence independent of the entities they are the attributes of or relationships between.

The simplest illustration of the fact that time and change are not identical is the fact that the concept time applies to duration (that which does not change) as well as things that change. "Watching the chemical reaction, there was no change at all for an hour." If time were identical to change, if there is, "no change," there would be, "no time." But, of course there is.

There cannot be time if there is no change is true because time is a concept for the relationship between changes, just as velocity is. If there were only one thing in the universe that changed, the concept of time would not be possible. It is the same for all measurable relationship, like direction, distance, velocity, and acceleration.

Consider the concepts of position and direction. If there were only a single entity (in all existence) the concepts of position and direction would have no meaning. A, "position," only has meaning if there is at least one other position, because a position is only a relationship between two or more entities at different positions. In the same way, there can be no concept of direction unless there are at least two entities at different positions. Any existent only has a position or direction relative to another entity.

Now consider change. If there were only one entity, there could be no change. Before there can be a concept of change there must be at least two existents in some relationship (direction from and distance between each other) that changes, that is, the distance between the entities must change or their direction from each other must change. The concept of motion is the change in either the distance between two entities or their direction relative to each other. Motion is a change in position. Please note that position, direction, distance, and motion do not exist at all except as relationships between entities.

Please also not that direction and distance are measurable attributes, but to measure them, some arbitrary (chosen) unit of measure (like units of length or compass points) must be used.

Like position, motion has two measurable attributes, velocity and time. If there were a single entity both the concept of position and motion would have no meaning at all, first because motion, as change of position cannot have meaning if there is no concept of position, and secondly there can be no concept of motion of a single entity. There must be at least two entities, the position of which changes relative to each other, for there to be motion. If their relative positions do not change, there is no motion.

Velocity is the measure of the difference in the rate of change of distance or direction (or both) of two entities for the same change in direction or distance. Time is the measure of the difference in the distance or direction (or both) of two entities changing at the same rate. Neither velocity or time exist except as attributes of actual ontological entities that move.

Acceleration is also a kind of change--change of motion. Any change in an entities motion, that is, any change in any of the measurable attributes of motion, direction, distance, velocity, or time, is an acceleration.

Time is no more an ontological existent, or entity, than position, motion, direction, distance, velocity, or acceleration are. They are all real and exist, but only as measurable metrics of ontological entities' attributes and relationships. None of these, including time, exist independently of the actual physical entities they are the attributes of.

I'm not trying to convince you, because you have to come to your own conclusions about your views. I am just a little surprised that you hold the view you do of time. The idea that time and space are actual material (ontological) things is a kind of mysticism (widely held, like most mystical ideas), but you seem very objective in your other views, so this one surprised me.

`

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 3:27 pm The simplest illustration of the fact that time and change are not identical is the fact that the concept time applies to duration (that which does not change) as well as things that change. "Watching the chemical reaction, there was no change at all for an hour." If time were identical to change, if there is, "no change," there would be, "no time." But, of course there is.

This is very easy to understand.

So first, if there's no change period, then there's no time.

But when we say, "Watching the chemical reaction, there was no change at all for an hour" (and ignoring the abstraction there--there actually would be all sorts of changes in whatever we're watching over the course of an hour; it's just that there's no change of the specific sort that we might be looking for), all we're saying is, "There was no change in A while B changed in x way." In other words, there were most certainly changes a la a clock ticking away, or the sun changing position or whatever we're using for "an hour passing."

"An hour passing" is simply identical to whatever changes we're using as a basis for keeping time, so to speak.

Now consider change. If there were only one entity, there could be no change. Before there can be a concept of change

It's worth pointing out that change isn't a concept, it's an ontological phenomenon. The concept is developed in response to the phenomenon.

But sure, I'd agree that if change isn't relative to something, there's no way to say that it's change.

None of this has anything to do with an argument that time isn't identical to change, however.

Time is no more an ontological existent, or entity,

I'm not sure why this is even an issue. No one was claiming anything like "time is an independent existent." And again, this doesn't have anything to do with whether time is identical to change.