Years, months, days, hours, minutes and seconds are just the social contracts on the intervals of rise and setting Sun on our horizon. Without the solar system operation i.e. the Earth rotating around the Sun in a regular manner, which the current calendar system is based on, there wouldn't be such a thing as a timing system as we know it. — Corvus
Space and objects are affected by the flow of time, for instance. — javi2541997
Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist — Corvus
More precisely, according to Leibniz, space is the “order” of coexistents, and time that of successives. Hence, the scientific materialist adds, if there were no things there would be no space; and if nothing changed there would be no time. Moreover, for either to exist there must be at least two distinct items: two things in the case of space, and two events in that of time. — Bunge (2006: 244)
So, spatiality and temporality are vicariously just as material, and therefore just as real, as the properties of the material objects that generate them; only, they have no independent existence. — Bunge (2006: 245)
So much for our outline of a relational theory of spacetime. Such a theory is not only relational but also compatible with relativistic physics, in that (a) it assumes the structure of spacetime to depend upon its furniture, and (b) it does not postulate a global structure. However, the theory is not relativistic: it does not include any of the special laws characterizing the various relativistic theories, such as for example the frame independence of the velocity of light, or the equations of the gravitational field. The relational theory of spacetime sketched above is just a component of the background of any general-relativistic theory- if one cares to add such an ontological background. Physicists usually don't: they are in the habit of postulating the four-manifold without inquiring into its roots in events. — Bunge (1977: 308)
Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist. — Corvus
Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist. — Corvus
1. Time is not an empirical conception. For neither coexistence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation à priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession.
2. Time is a necessary representation, lying at the foundation of all our intuitions. With regard to phenomena in general, we cannot think away time from them, and represent them to ourselves as out of and unconnected with time, but we can quite well represent to ourselves time void of phenomena. Time is therefore given à priori. In it alone is all reality of phenomena possible. These may all be annihilated in thought, but time itself, as the universal condition of their possibility, cannot be so annulled. — Immanuel Kant
Isn't it the other way around? Without movement and changes, there would be no time.Time is an integral part of motion and movement. The coin takes time of what, one second plus, to hit the floor. Now, if it would take 0,1 seconds it would be a lot faster, likely then to be thrown to the ground, not just fall with gravity. — ssu
Same with gravity. There are only motions. When mass or objects are released from the height in space, they constantly fall onto the ground. Hence, an imaginary force called gravity is invented.And seeing? Do you see gravity? Mass? Weight? And when light hits your eye's retina, that already is motion. So without motion and time, no "seeing". — ssu
As described in the OP, past, present and future are products of our minds. The graph seems to be depicting imaginary map of space and time, but time doesn't exist in the real world.You need time for movement, for past, present and future. Notice the word on the graph below. — ssu
Of course there are changes, motions and movements — Corvus
I'm with Kant on this one; they are how we have to think about existence. — unenlightened
Have you considered Eleaticism? Parmenides and Zeno of Elea and all that?Isn't it the other way around? Without movement and changes, there would be no time.
With the objects moving in space, time was deduced from the interval of the movement.
Time is an illusion, which has no entity or existence. — Corvus
Can you prove time exists? Can we perceive time as an entity? — Corvus
Isn't it a product of human mind? You see the sun rise in the morning, and impose an idea that time has passed. Nothing has passed. It was the earth which rotated itself by 1 turn since yesterday morning.I agree, and I understand that time, as an entity, is complex to understand. Why does this happen? Why does something intangible, such as time, exist? — javi2541997
Dogs don't care about time or numbers. Maybe they would do, if they had the concept of time and numbers. But we cannot teach dogs to be ready go for walk at 6pm today, or bark 7 times if she wants the biscuits or 8 times if he wants salami..I bet my dog is not aware of time, but I do, and when my dog was just months old, I called her a "puppy," but now that she is 6 years old, I consider her nearly "senior," yet she doesn't care about these facts. — javi2541997
The experience of any thing is the consciousness of time. When we think or perceive an object , we are synthesizing the ‘now’ of its existence for us as a three-part structure of retention (immediate past), present and protention (anticipation). Without awareness of time there is no awareness of the continuity of the flow of experience. It would be impossible to understand music, for instance, or the spacing of space. — Joshs
This is a very difficult topic, so I'll just quote the opinion of someone who is a better philosopher than me: — Arcane Sandwich
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.