I can push my book here on the desk without knowing anything about time, and it moves. If I measured time it took to move from one side to the other end, I know the time. But otherwise, time is not involved in the movement at all. — Corvus

Rubbish. Moving the book will take time, whether you know it or not.

I don't know - indeed, the question may well be useless. We don't need to know where time comes form in order to understand that force and energy involve time. What we might seek is consistency. — Banno

Time is an extra variable to calculate the value of energy, but for the movement of the object, it doesn't get involved at all. The object moves quite happily without knowing anything about time.

Rubbish. Moving the book will take time, whether you know it or not. — Banno

If we don't know anything about time, does time exist?

Time is an extra variable to calculate the value of energy, but for the movement of the object, it doesn't get involved at all. The object moves quite happily without knowing anything about time. — Corvus

This shows a deep misunderstanding of both movement, and knowledge.

Movement involves an object being in one location at a given time, and at another location at another time. Hence movement involves time.

And some things are true, even if they are not known.

If we don't know anything about time, does time exist? — Corvus

You might not know anything about time, but the rest of us have quite a good understanding.

This shows a deep misunderstanding of both movement, and knowledge.

Movement involves an object being in one location at a given time, and at another location at another time. Hence movement involves time. — Banno

If you only measure it.

And some things are true, even if they are not known. — Banno

We are talking about time here. What is something?

You might not know anything about time, but the rest of us have quite a good understanding. — Banno

Wrong answer. Not talking about me here. The question was if you don't know anything about time, does time exist?

If you only measure it. — Corvus

No. If an object has moved, then it is in a different location at a different time. That's what "movement" is.

The question was if you don't know anything about time, does time exist? — Corvus

We do know things about time. Quite a bit. Including that, contrary to your OP, it exists.

No. If an object has moved, then it is in a different location at a different time. That's what "movement" is. — Banno

Movement doesn't care about time, but it still happens. You get the time value when you measure it with the stop watch.

We do know things about time. Quite a bit. Including that, contrary to your OP, it exists. — Banno

What do you know about time? Please tell us.

Movement doesn't care about time... — Corvus

A category error. Caring is not the sort of thing that movement does. Movement does require time.

You get the time value when you measure it with the stop watch. — Corvus

Yes. You seem to think this implies that time only occurs when measured. That does not follow.

What do you know about time? Please tell us. — Corvus

Later.

A category error. Caring is not the sort of thing that movement does. Movement does require time. — Banno

If movement was from human or animals, then the mover don't care about time for movement. Mover still moves. Movement still happens. Caring was a bit of metaphor, but you don't seem to understand it.

Yes. You seem to think this implies that time only occurs when measured. That does not follow. — Banno

How else do you get the time value without measuring? You seem to be now stepping into mysticism.

Later. — Banno

Ok

If movement was from human or animals, then the mover don't care about time for movement. Mover still moves. Movement still happens. Caring was a bit of metaphor, but you don't seem to understand it. — Corvus

What has any of this to do with the definition of movement? An object moves if it is at a different place at a different time. Hence movement involves time. Talking of "care" here is a category error.

How else do you get the time value without measuring — Corvus

Presumably if you have a value for the time passed, then you have made a measurement. But that does not imply that without a measurement there is no time. Time may pass, unmeasured.

Ok — Corvus

So you understood my "Later". It seems you do know something about time, despite your protestations to the contrary.

What has any of this to do with the definition of movement? An object moves if it is at a different place at a different time. Hence movement involves time. Talking of "care" here is a category error. — Banno

It wasn't about definition of movement. It was a statement that movement happens without time. Mover doesn't care about time, but still moves.

Presumably if you have a value for the time passed, then you have made a measurement. But that does not imply that without a measurement there is no time. Time may pass, unmeasured. — Banno

But you didn't get any accurate useable time value apart from "passed". What's the point?

So you understood my "Later". It seems you do know something about time, despite your protestations to the contrary. — Banno

Time is a concept. "Later" means some future, which is an element of the set of time. I never protested about anything.

I just said you seem to be talking wrong things not even reading or understanding the posts that you were supposed to reply to, and keep giving out wrong answers, and then in deep illusion that I was protesting about something. I was just answering to your questions, because you seem to be curious about the topic of time.

It wasn't about definition of movement. It was a statement that movement happens without time. Mover doesn't care about time, but still moves. — Corvus

Movement presupposes time. Movement is being at one place at one time, and another place at another time. The claim that movement does not involve time involves a misunderstanding of movement.

But you didn't get any accurate useable time value apart from "passed". — Corvus

So what. If there is a past, then time has passed, and therefore time exists.

"Later" means some future, which is an element of the set of time. — Corvus

You seem to know quite a bit about time. Odd, if it doesn't exist.

What I have done here is show that saying time does not exist leads to quite a few inconsistencies. Specifically, today, I have shown that movement, force and energy all involve time.

If you think my answers are wrong, it might be becasue you are asking the wrong questions.

Going back to the OP, this:

Time doesn't exist. — Corvus

has been shown to lead to inconsistency.

Movement presupposes time. Movement is being at one place at one time, and another place at another time. The claim that movement does not involve time involves a misunderstanding of movement. — Banno

So how did rocks fall down from the hill to the river before invention of time?

So what. If there is a past, then time has passed, and therefore time exists. — Banno

Can you access the past? Is the word "passed" useful for time value?

You seem to know quite a bit about time. Odd, if it doesn't exist. — Banno

Time is a concept. Later is a word to mean future. It is not time itself. It is a word. Your misunderstanding seems to be coming from mistaking a word as time. They are not the same. Anyhow, you say it exists. Please demonstrate and prove it exists.

What I have done here is show that saying time does not exist leads to quite a few inconsistencies. Specifically, today, I have shown that movement, force and energy all involve time.

If you think my answers are wrong, it might be becasue you are asking the wrong questions. — Banno

As said, the original point I was talking about was why the objects move. But you came up with the whole loads of strawman wasting much time talking about the irrelevant details coming from misunderstanding the words as time.

Going back to the OP, this:
Time doesn't exist.
— Corvus
has been shown to lead to inconsistency. — Banno

It wasn't inconsistency. It was an assumption of the OP.
Demonstrate and prove time exists.

So how did rocks fell down from the hill to the river before invention of time? — Corvus

Time wasn't invented.

Can you access the past? — Corvus

Yep. I am here replying to your post, made in the past, while you are reading this thread, after I wrote it.

Is the word "passed" useful for time value? — Corvus

Most certainly. "Past" even more so.

Time is a concept. Later is a word to mean future. Demonstrate and prove it exists. — Corvus

You've said "time is a concept" several times, as if that meant something. You have demonstrated that you understand the concept. Asking for further proof is superfluous. But I might offer more, some time...

As said, the original point I was talking about was why the objects move. But you came up with the whole loads of strawman wasting much time talking about the irrelevant details. — Corvus

You said

Objects move because of energy or force, not because of time. — Corvus

And I have shown this to be in error by demonstrating that movement, force and energy all presuppose time. There is no movement, force or energy unless there is time.

Demonstrate and prove time exists. — Corvus

Already done.

Time wasn't invented. — Banno

I asked you but you never answered. Where did time come from, if not invented?

Yep. I am here replying to your post, made in the past, while you are reading this thread, after I wrote it. — Banno

That is archive of the post, not the past itself.

Most certainly. "Past" even more so. — Banno

It is just a word. It is meaningless on its own. You should know that, if you studied language.

You've said "time is a concept" several times, as if that meant something. You have demonstrated that you understand the concept. Asking for further proof is superfluous. But I might offer more, some time... — Banno

It is my inference so far, but it might change. Hence the OP was launched for debates. The OP is not about consistency or inconsistency, truth or falsity. OPs start with assumptions for further discussions and coming to possible conclusions.

You said
Objects move because of energy or force, not because of time.
— Corvus
And I have shown this to be in error by demonstrating that movement, force and energy all presuppose time. There is no movement, force or energy unless there is time. — Banno

I have explained to you with the examples why movements and movers don't need time, but still move.
Time only appears when you measure it.

Demonstrate and prove time exists.
— Corvus
Already done. — Banno

You seem to think words and numbers are time. Surely your understanding of time is incorrect.
You need to first explain what "existence" "exists" means, and then explain what time is, and why time exists.

I asked you but you never answered. Where did time come from, if not invented? — Corvus

I did answer, quite directly:

I don't know... — Banno

It is just a word. It is meaningless on its own. You should know that, if you studied language. — Corvus

It has a sense, it has a use. You know that.

The OP is not about consistency or inconsistency, truth or falsity. — Corvus

Indeed.

I have explained to you with the examples why movements and movers don't need time, but still move.
Time only appears when you measure it. — Corvus

And i have given you counter arguments that show that movement requires time. The very notion of movement requires a different location at a different time. And I have shown that your conclusion "Time only appears when you measure it", does not follow from your argument.

You seem to think words and numbers are time. — Corvus

No.

You need to first explain what "existence" "exists" means, and then explain what time is, and why time exists. — Corvus

I've no idea what you might mean here by "existence" exists - sure the word "existence" exists... surely you are not suggesting otherwise? In the past I've given you many examples that show what time is. I can give you more, later. I just gave you another.

I did answer, quite directly:
I don't know...
— Banno — Banno

Then to say," time exists" and "movement requires time." are groundless claims.

It has a sense, it has a use. You know that. — Banno

Only if you further clarify what you meant by it. A word itself doesn't mean anything, or it can mean many different things.

And i have given you counter arguments that show that movement requires time. The very notion of movement requires a different location at a different time. And I have shown that your conclusion "Time only appears when you measure it", does not follow from your argument. — Banno

It sounds like your counter argument is coming from your psychological state or appeal to authority.
According to your counter arguments, all the cavemen before invention of time couldn't have moved to hunt, and no rocks fell down the river, and no rivers flowed due to no time.

No. — Banno

Yes.

I've no idea what you might mean here by "existence" exists - sure the word "existence" exists... surely you are not suggesting otherwise? In the past I've given you many examples that show what time is. I can give you more, later. I just gave you another. — Banno

"existence" and "exists" are both in the quotation marks meaning they are different words. The former is a noun and the latter is a verb. Wasn't it obvious?
You never said what time is, and why time exists. You never explained what "existence" and "exists" means either. These concepts needs to be defined objectively and agreed for the validity, before you can assert "Time exists."

Pointing to the old postings, and claiming "Time exists" is not a proof or definition of time.

Then to say," time exists" and "movement requires time." are groundless claims. — Corvus

Rubbish. You know what time is, despite your claims to the contrary. And you know what movement is, despite your claims that it does not require time.

Only if you further clarify what you meant by it. A word itself doesn't mean anything, or it can mean many different things. — Corvus

"Past"? Or "Passed"? Either way, you are flummoxing. You know what both of these are. The time for saying otherwise has passed, and your OP is in the past.

It sounds like your counter argument is coming from your psychological state or appeal to authority. — Corvus

More rubbish. Movement requires that the object that moves is in one place at one time, and at another place at another time. Therefore it requires time. You haven't addressed this. And it has nothing to do with psychological states or authority. GO ahead and give a different definition, if you can, that does not presuppose time.

According to your counter arguments, all the cavemen before invention of time couldn't have moved to hunt, and no rocks fell down the river, and no rivers flowed due to no time. — Corvus

What twaddle. Again, time was not "invented". Nor does my argument imply any such thing. Present an argument, rather than making tangential assertions, if you can.

You never said what time is, and why time exists. You never explained what "existence" and "exists" means either. These concepts needs to be defined objectively and agreed for the validity, before you can assert "Time exists." — Corvus

Despite what you say here, you have shown that you understand "past", "passed", "future", "Later" and so on. In that very paragraph you make use of the notion of "never" in a temporal context. We use these words effectively, and understand their use. Your every post shows the inadequacy of your contention that time is not understood and does not exist. You will, in due time, reply to this post, and in that very act you will show that you are mistaken that time does not exist.

Rubbish. You know what time is, despite your claims to the contrary. And you know what movement is, despite your claims that it does not require time. — Banno

You confirmed that you don't know anything about time. Remember your own posting?

I did answer, quite directly:
I don't know...
— Banno — Banno

"Past"? Or "Passed"? Either way, you are flummoxing. You know what both of these are. The time for saying otherwise has passed, and your OP is in the past. — Banno

Past what? What has passed? Words themselves don't mean much. They have to be in correct grammar, and must have proper objects they refer to in the real world, to be meaningful.

More rubbish. Movement requires that the object that moves is in one place at one time, and at another place at another time. Therefore it requires time. You haven't addressed this. And it has nothing to do with psychological states or authority. GO ahead and give a different definition, if you can, that does not presuppose time. — Banno

Only if you believe time is needed. Without knowing anything about time. movements still occurs, and movers move.

What twaddle. Again, time was not "invented". Nor does my argument imply any such thing. Present an argument, rather than making tangential assertions, if you can. — Banno

You seem to be denying the official historic facts here. The first record of time was 4241 BC in Egypt or Sumerian region. Are you saying, time was handed down by God or time crashed into the earth from the outer space?

Despite what you say here, you have shown that you understand "past", "passed", "future", "Later" and so on. In that very paragraph you make use of the notion of "never" in a temporal context. We use these words effectively, and understand their use. — Banno

This is what I meant. Your idea of time comes from idea of words. You think words are time. This is not true, and it is a grave misunderstanding of time and even the words.

You will, in due time, reply to this post, and in that very act you will show that you are mistaken that time does not exist. — Banno

More misunderstanding here. You seem to think past archive is time. We have record of postings which we can refer to. The archives are the objects. They are not time. I am not saying time exists or doesn't exist yet, as you seem to be imagining. I am saying there are many aspects to consider in time. It is not a simple and naive topic saying the words are time, and the use of the words are time.

Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist. — Corvus

Therefore, time exists.

Therefore, time exists. — L'éléphant

Prove it. Tell us what time is first.

Prove it. Tell us what time is first. — Corvus

The duration of time that it took you to respond to my post coincided with the beating of my pulse, in seconds.

The duration of time that it took you to respond to my post coincided with the beating of my pulse, in seconds. — L'éléphant

What do you mean by the duration of time? We are talking about time here. Duration of time sounds unclear. What is the relationship between duration and time? Or are they same?

I am trying to see good arguments on the existence of time. I am not saying your description of time is right or wrong at this stage.

You confirmed that you don't know anything about time. — Corvus

You are being quite carelss. You asked:

Where did time come from then? — Corvus

To which I replied:

I don't know - indeed, the question may well be useless. — Banno

Not that we do not know anything about time. Others will understand that one might well knwo something of a topic, yet not everything.

Words themselves don't mean much. — Corvus

You have used this phrase several times. We are here making use of words in a context, with purposes; these are not words themselves, whatever that might mean. You do use "past", "present" and "future" correctly, so it is evident that despite your claims to the contrary you do understand what time is, and further your use of temporal language demonstrates that you believe time exists, despite your inconsistent assertions.

Only if you believe time is needed. Without knowing anything about time. movements still occurs, and movers move. — Corvus

You need time. It separates out each of your responses, one from the other. And again, movement, force, energy and the other physical concepts of which you make use each require that there be time in which they might occur. Movement still occurs without knowing anything about time, becasue time exists regardless of our knowing about it. It is somewhere in this that your confusion inheres. you somehow have convinced yourself that time requires mind, perhaps form misunderstanding Kant or @Wayfarer, and have worked your way into a right mess.

You seem to be denying the official historic facts here. The first record of time was 4241 BC in Egypt or Sumerian region. Are you saying, time was handed down by God or time crashed into the earth from the outer space? — Corvus

You claim that there was no time before time was measured. No 4242 BC. That's ridiculous. The reasons were given previously.

Your idea of time comes from idea of words. — Corvus

Not at all. You and I are both embedded in time, existing in time regardless of words or ideas or concepts. You show this by the very fact that you reply to these posts one after the other. Time exists. You will demonstrate this yet again when you reply to this post, after I post it.

I am not saying time exists or doesn't exist yet, as you seem to be imagining. — Corvus

You have expressed a most confused and contrary view of the nature of time, that is bellied by your actions as well as by your words. Makes for a fun thread. But perhaps not for you.

I am trying to see good arguments on the existence of time. — Corvus

On the contrary, the arguments are before you, but your confusion forbids you recognising them.

Again, you post one reply after the other.

perhaps form misunderstanding Kant... — Banno

My understanding is not that time doesn't exist, but that it has an ineluctably subjective aspect. Meaning that the reality of time is not solely objective but is in some basic sense subject-dependent. Whereas, as I'm discussing in another thread, we're accustomed to regarding only what is objective as fully real. What is subjective is usually relegated to the personal.

It (i.e. time) needs human mind to exist. Are we being extreme idealists here? — Corvus

My view is that this is not extreme.

Fair enough. What might be said is that our knowledge of time - indeed, our knowledge of anything - has a "subjective" component in that knowing requires a mind. The mistake is to supose that therefore time requires a mind. That's your step too far, yet again.

The confusion to which that view contributes is well shown in this thread.

I’d like to differentiate myself from the thread owner. And the so-called ‘step too far’ you keep accusing of me is nothing of the kind. It is plainly impossible to consider any sense of time without a scale or units of duration in mind. What time might be, or indeed anything might be, in the absence of any mind whatever, can a fortiori never be known.

I’d like to differentiate myself from the thread owner. — Wayfarer

Sure. Your account is much more sophisticated and much more coherent. But there are similarities.

It is plainly impossible to consider any sense of time without a scale or units of duration in mind. — Wayfarer

Yep. And yet time might pass, unnoticed. (My emphasis. What we consider to be the case and what is indeed the case are not the very same.)

What time might be, or indeed anything might be, in the absence of any mind whatever, can a fortiori never be known. — Wayfarer

And yet some go a step further, as in this thread, and insist that time does not exist, when at most they can only conclude that they can say nothing.

What do you know about time? Please tell us.
— Corvus
Later. — Banno

Nice :lol: I can almost guarantee he won't get it.

What time might be, or indeed anything might be, in the absence of any mind whatever, can a fortiori never be known.
— Wayfarer
And yet some go a step further, as in this thread, and insist that time does not exist, when at most they can only conclude that they can say nothing. — Banno

Yes, this is indeed the "step too far"—saying that we cannot know anything about anything without the mind (well, duh!) and then concluding that therefore nothing exists without the mind. The epitome of tendentiously motivated thinking!