I think Kant and Leibnitz were both correct. Because Kants notion of time and space being absolute (controlled for/assumed constant) gives access to the formulation of Newtonian physical equations. — Benj96

Kant’s notion of time is a critique of Newton’s. Time is neither an absolute quatitative constant for Kant, not a relationship between material objects. It is the passive exposure of subjective intuition to an outside, to something existing. We generate time in apprehending, and must have something outward if there is to be apprehension. Time is the activity of pure self-affecting.

Time is the activity of pure self-affecting — Joshs

I hope that's not the last word on the subject. :roll:

As it has been stated before several times, that is true...but only If we take all perception out of the equation. Once perception is introduced, then change only has meaning in the context of time, e.g. it takes time for my eyes to scan the image and process changes in the patterns. — Watchmaker

"...only If we take all perception out of the equation". A better question is why you insist on including perception.

You are making the unfounded assumption that change only occurs when perceived, with all the antirealist consequences I've pointed out many times before.

Changes may happen unperceived. We just do not know about them. What is true and what is known are different things. You are concatenating them, to the detriment of your capacity to explain stuff.

There are things that are true yet unknown.

Change requires the "energy" to do it, and the "time" for it to get done. — Benj96

As has pointed out, this is just incorrect. The scare quotes probably indicate that Benj is aware of this, but thinks of pointing to some alternative use of "energy" and "time". But then, why the pretence of talking about physics?

Henri Bergson argued: “duration is a principle of qualitative differentiation in a heterogeneous multiplicity. — Joshs

...quoted in a paragraph of it's own as if it said something useful.

The only positive one might take from these appalling posts is the reminder that there are folk hereabouts who are not interested in clarity, in explanation, but have instead an active preference for the cryptic and esoteric. These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation.

Now to be sure there are profound mysteries all around us. But doing philosophy badly is no way to address them. What's unfortunate is that folk such as see such discussions and rightly laugh at philosophy.

All this by way of saying what is being argued here is not my cup of tea, so I'll leave you to it. The way out of the flybottle might be over there, when you are ready.

The only positive one might take from these appalling posts is the reminder that there are folk hereabouts who are not interested in clarity, in explanation, but have instead an active preference for the cryptic and esoteric. These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno

As a layperson, I'm inclined to hold a similar perspective to this. The problem for someone like me is that in the absence of a theorized philosophy, all I have are intuition and 'common sense'. It is fascinating to me that some forms of philosophy seem to hold irrationalist positions and seek to remove any form of foundational thinking as though philosophy is tantamount to demolition work. It's fascinating and exciting to read, but I understand your dismay.

Changes may happen unperceived. We just do not know about them. — Banno

That makes sense.

What about time though? How can things change without time?

Is this all theoretical or are there examples of things that change without time?

See, I don't get this. Numerous examples are scattered throughout the thread you are looking at. What's going on here, that you ask such a question?

Is it possible to explain it simply?

How does change happen without time?

Is it possible to explain it simply? — Watchmaker

Maybe. Suppose you are looking at the computer screen before you. It is devoid of imagery, but is a continuously changing color from yellow on the left to red on the right. If you allow your eyes to move from left to right there is an element of time change involved. But if you simply move back a bit and look at the entire screen what you see is yellow changing to red as an entity of its own, not requiring a period of time.

This seems overly simplistic. Banno can do better.

These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. — Banno

:up: :lol:

Henri Bergson argued: “duration is a principle of qualitative differentiation in a heterogeneous multiplicity.
— Joshs
...quoted in a paragraph of it's own as if it said something useful.

The only positive one might take from these appalling posts is the reminder that there are folk hereabouts who are not interested in clarity, in explanation, but have instead an active preference for the cryptic and esoteric. These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno

So let me get this straight. Are you arguing that the contributions to the understanding of time offered by the likes of Bergson, James, Whitehead, Husserl, Heidegger, Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty runs “against the flow of philosophy” and opposes itself to “open rational explanation”? Or are you just unhappy with the quality of posts on this particular thread?

If you allow your eyes to move from left to right there is an element of time change involved. But if you simply move back a bit and look at the entire screen what you see is yellow changing to red as an entity of its own, not requiring a period of time. — jgill

Are you talking about perceiving red and yellow as one simultaneous unity? Together but separate?

Any physical unit that cannot exist in the physical present is problematic ( because it cannot exist ).
A mass of a given unit measure can exist in the physical present. A temperature of a given unit can exist in the physical present. Length exists in the physical present. Also voltage, moles, and luminous intensity.
A duration of time cannot exist in the physical present and is a derived unit by referencing to other matter. Brains exist only in the physical present. However brains perceive past, present and future. Past and future, of course, do not physically exist in the physical present.
So what I'm seeing is that our brains deal with more than actually does physically exist. And our brains hold ideas of time, some of which could be in error.

Are you talking about perceiving red and yellow as one simultaneous unity? — Joshs

Perceiving the changing from yellow to red simultaneously. Not quite change, I'll admit.

As ↪jgill has pointed out, this is just incorrect. The scare quotes probably indicate that Benj is aware of this, but thinks of pointing to some alternative use of "energy" and "time". But then, why the pretence of talking about physics? — Banno

It might be helpful if you quoted what he/she said so I could understand better her point of view.

I use scare quotes for certain words as I have a dualistic approach to things. Energy means one thing physically/objectively and an another as a concept/sensation/feeling.

It has quantitative and qualititative characteristics.

I would imagine from the context you gave me that jgill is referring to energy and time from a materialism/objective perspective. From the point of view of an observer using them as controls (constants) for the purpose of newtonian measurements.

Again the quote would have been useful as I don't like to make assumptions about what others said.

But then, why the pretence of talking about physics? — Banno

It's not pretence. In case you weren't aware physics treats time dualistically as well (newtonian =where its absolute/external and constant) and special relativity (where it changes in reference to an observer depending on velocity).

So if I'm "just incorrect", shall we discard special relativity altogether? I think you'll have a hard time trying to convince physicists to that.

Perhaps then you presumed from your own rigid set of assumptions the interpretation of exactly what I meant when I used the scare quotes. Communication is as much about what the listener already assumes as it is about what is meant by the orator. The difference is the interpretation.

I hope i clarified my position a bit better now.

Kant’s notion of time is a critique of Newton’s. Time is neither an absolute quatitative constant for Kant, not a relationship between material objects. It is the passive exposure of subjective intuition to an outside, to something existing. We generate time in apprehending, and must have something outward if there is to be apprehension. Time is the activity of pure self-affecting. — Joshs

Well I think he ought to have not critiqued Newton's findings as incorrect as they're extremely useful and gave rise to a pretext for the elucidation of all of mechanical newtonian physics.

At best he ought to have clarified that "perception of time" is another facet to objective/standardised and discrete time, the former created internally through the ability to have memories and thus anticipate change in reference to that data set.

They dont mutually exclude the existence of both facets of time. One is (conceptual/our experience of it) the other is how it runs outside of us as observers (objective).

Physics later confirmed this with the advent of special relativity which considers the role of the observer on how the external time changes at different velocities. It consolidated newtonian physics and relativity as referring to the same thing just with a separate prerequisite set of assumptions.

This seems overly simplistic. Banno can do better. — jgill

This is Banno's patented bullshit story, which Banno knows is bullshit, yet will continue to defend until the very end of Banno's time. Simply put, you see yellow on one side, and you see red on the other. You do not see yellow changing to red, nor do you see red changing to yellow, as the latter assigns a priority to red, and the former assigns a priority to yellow.

This bullshit is just a ploy by Banno to create ambiguity in the meaning of "change", so that equivocation can be effectively used in the practise of sophistry. It is examples like this which display the reason why I accused Banno of dishonesty in the truth thread.

Maybe. Suppose you are looking at the computer screen before you. It is devoid of imagery, but is a continuously changing color from yellow on the left to red on the right. If you allow your eyes to move from left to right there is an element of time change involved. But if you simply move back a bit and look at the entire screen what you see is yellow changing to red as an entity of its own, not requiring a period of time. — jgill

Your thought experiment read simply, but the instructions were not that clear to me.

Is this color scheme, this shift from yellow to red on the computer screen a static gradient? What am I supposed to be imagining here? "Continuously changing color" is throwing me off.

Now if I move back from the screen far enough, I can kind of see where you might be going. Colors can blur together, and from that distance away, one could see things as the same.

Do you happen to have an image or a gif that you could post for this example that might help?

The derivative dy/dx does not in itself involve a time variable. However, that's just putting off the argument whether time must pass for change to occur. The change in x, dx, may or may not involve time. I've been dabbling in generalities of dynamical systems for a long time, and step by step time is there as variables change.

The computer screen example I gave is really all about how something has changed, rather than change itself.

Your thought experiment read simply, but the instructions were not that clear to me — Watchmaker

Sorry for presenting it. :sad:

It might be helpful if you quoted what he/she said so I could understand better her point of view. — Benj96

I linked to it.

This article describes the famous debate about time between Bergson and Einstein in 1922.

Most important, then began the period when the relevance of philosophy declined in the face of the rising influence of science.

(Canales)

Instead, let us imagine an infinitely small piece of elastic, contracted, if that were possible, to a mathematical point. Let us draw it out gradually in such a way as to bring out of the point a line which will grow progressively longer. Let us fix our attention not on the line as line, but on the action which traces it. Let us consider that this action, in spite of its duration, is indivisible if one supposes that it goes on without stopping; that, if we intercalate a stop in it, we make two actions of it instead of one and that each of these actions will then be the indivisible of which we speak; that it is not the moving act itself which is never indivisible, but the motionless line it lays down beneath it like a track in space. Let us take our mind off the space subtending the movement and concentrate solely on the movement itself, on the act of tension or extension, in short, on pure mobility. This time we shall have a more exact image of our development in duration.

(Bergson)

For Bergson the concept of "duration" - inadequately defined - speaks to the continuity of time, similar to the continuity of the real line vs the line as an uncountable collection of dimensionless points (though mathematically, "separable" - having a countable dense subset).

As for psychology, there can be endless models of time and there are. So what is time physically? I see continuity of physical matter. Continuity of time could be just a psychological add on. In physics time is what the clock says.

There's a sympathetic account of Bergson's wider philosophy on Philosophy Now from 2004. Might be paywalled.

It has the smell of Tory romanticism about it, that pining for what might have been.

In physics time is what the clock says. — Mark Nyquist

Sure, but in measurement there is a duality of the thing measured, and the measurement. These two are distinct. What the clock says, is the measurement. What do you think is being measured?

Instead, let us imagine an infinitely small piece of elastic, contracted, if that were possible, to a mathematical point. Let us draw it out gradually in such a way as to bring out of the point a line which will grow progressively longer. Let us fix our attention not on the line as line, but on the action which traces it. Let us consider that this action, in spite of its duration, is indivisible if one supposes that it goes on without stopping; that, if we intercalate a stop in it, we make two actions of it instead of one and that each of these actions will then be the indivisible of which we speak; that it is not the moving act itself which is never indivisible, but the motionless line it lays down beneath it like a track in space. Let us take our mind off the space subtending the movement and concentrate solely on the movement itself, on the act of tension or extension, in short, on pure mobility. This time we shall have a more exact image of our development in duration.

This is very similar to heisenbergs principle of uncertainty.
Take a particle at a single instance in time. It is a fixed point. Locatable. But we have no sense of its Velocity when we only have the present instant to base that prediction off. You cannot ascertain the speed of something in time when the time stamp is precise.

Now allow the particle to move in its sphere of potential locations. Now the Velocity is measurable (the track it takes, as a waveform of probable positions) however we now have lost its exact position (particularity) in this moment. Because we are not in "freeze-frame" but motion.

This is the uncertainty that partitions the particulate (objective) from the wave (potential/probability).
And in essence this explains as you referenced above with the elastic analogy by Bergson.

Time, like particles vs waves (light) is a Duality.
To know one state you cannot know the other.
Because to know both leaves no room for "change" (uncertainty).

Response to Metaphysician Undercover,

Progression of physical matter.
Clocks are physical matter that can delivery a number.

The idea of duration of time can exist in your mind and it's very useful but duration ( time initial to time final ) can't exist in the physical present. All we are doing with the idea of time is piggybacking on the progression of physical matter.

As for psychology, there can be endless models of time and there are. So what is time physically? I see continuity of physical matter. Continuity of time could be just a psychological add on. In physics time is what the clock says. — Mark Nyquist

Indeed mark. In physics we standardise time as a constant so we can place it in reference to other phenomena and make calculations/predictions.

What is a clock but something cyclical - whether its based on atomic oscillations or a pendulum, or the rate of decay of an unstable isotope, or the vibration of a quartz crystal, or a 12 hour domestic circular clock face, it measures the "to-and-fro", the frequency, of something that repeats.

We use that frequency as a standard to make things linear or "chronological", and that gives us access to Newtonian/mechanical physics (objective and discrete).

What it doesn't offer though is access to special relativity or quantum physics unless we look at time from two other formats: (the perception of an observer - relativity) and probability/uncertainty (the Wave-particle function of quantum physics).

- as i outlined above in response to jgills Bergson post.

Progression of physical matter.
Clocks are physical matter that can delivery a number.

The idea of duration of time can exist in your mind and it's very useful but duration ( time initial to time final ) can't exist in the physical present. All we are doing with the idea of time is piggybacking on the progression of physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

Well, is our body and brain not progression of physical matter also? Our body has an inherent rhythm, from which our mind (the energy coursing around our nervous system) extrapolates a perception of time from. This perception is considered both very precise but also inaccurate.

In the sense that "time flies when you're having fun" - processing a lot of alerting/thrilling stimuli. But in another way one can easily train themselves through routine to wake up one minute before their alarm goes off (which I think is amazing).

Meanwhile time continues in a non "your perception" sense when you die. As time is required for your body to decay and be transformed through natural processes.

When we speak of time really we are speaking about three things and their interrelationship: 1). Energy (potential to do work), 2). Matter (potential to be worked/acted upon) and 3). Information/change - the intermediate between and including the first two: as energy holds information, matter holds information, and acts (the process of their influence on one another), again has information.

Nice discussion of the physics related to time. Thanks. :cool:

I tend to scold people here on their use of the word " information " without much result. Could you explain ( your basis for and physically how ) energy and matter hold information.

To me, the best way to understand time psychologically is to define information as brain state existing as the physical brain with mental content. No Tinkerbelling please. Energy should be just energy and matter should be just matter.

These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno

Actually, "Time" is like Energy. Intuitively,everybody knows what it does, but the mystery arises when you ask what it is. — Gnomon

:100:

Curious how this impacts the discussion?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2346548-quantum-trick-sees-light-move-forwards-and-back-in-time-simultaneously/?utm_source=nsday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nsday_111122&utm_term=Newsletter%20NSDAY_Daily