Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.

(There is a blending)

If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.

(Block universe)

What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.

(Good for testing out possible scenarios, but what actually happens trumps 'could have')

What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.

(Same as the previous)

Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden.

(Similar also)
— Corvus

Memory’s ideas recall the last heard tone,
Sensation savors what is presently known,
Imagination anticipates coming sounds—
The delight is such that none could produce alone.

These are examples..I don't know the exact nature of this intrinsic sense of "time", but only noting that there must be something.

I suggest that the best explanation for this vague sense of time, is that it is consistent with reality: there's something ontological; it's not just a figment of the imagination.

It's a secondary matter as to how we account for time, and how we analyze it. We first need to accept that there is SOMETHING ontological to it. — Relativist

I had this idea that Time could be a general concept for all the durations, intervals in hours, minutes and seconds, days, months, years, even the light years. It even includes past present future. When you are looking for the ontological status of time, what you get is just your past memories, present perceptions, and future ideas, which are fleeting in your mind.

I agree, and I think it's worthwhile to construct a framework that helps us analyze time. A framework that makes successful predictions is better than one that doesn't. Would you agree? — Relativist

I need to think about the point. Will get back to you if and when I get some ideas on it. But for now, what I think is this. It is a reiteration of above my point. It could be wrong, or reasonable. I need to keep thinking on it. If you let me know what you think, that would be great too.

Time is a general concept which contains all of the particular events of durations, intervals, moments, and personal perceptions from the memories of past, future ideas and present perception with consciousness.

It's the national poem of Argentina. It's part of my identity. — Arcane Sandwich

:ok: :cool:

durations, intervals, — Corvus

Time moves in steps, not flowing smooth and free,
Each Planck-length jump too small for eyes to see;
No infinite division saves the hare
From catching up with Zeno’s theory.

If there were no life on earth, would time still keep flowing? — Corvus

It would - but by what measure? In the absence of awareness of past-present-future then what is time? We of course can comprehend the world before life existed but we do so against an implicit sense of the meaning of time, derived from our awareness of days and years. But again that is what we bring to it.

EL MORENO
Si responde a esta pregunta
téngasé por vencedor;
doy la derecha al mejor;
y respóndamé al momento:
cuándo formó Dios el tiempo
y por qué lo dividió.

MARTIN FIERRO
Moreno, voy a decir
sigún mi saber alcanza;
el tiempo sólo es tardanza
de lo que está por venir;
no tuvo nunca principio
ni jamás acabará,
porque el tiempo es una rueda,
y rueda es eternidá;
y si el hombre lo divide
sólo lo hace, en mi sentir,
por saber lo que ha vivido
o le resta que vivir. — José Hernández

And here's the English version, courtesy of Yours Truly:

THE DARKER-SKINNED GAUCHO
If you answer this question
consider yourself the winner;
I give the right to the best;
and answer me immediately:
When did God form time?
and why did God divide it?

MARTIN FIERRO
Moreno, I'm going to say
as far as my knowledge suffices;
time is only delay
of what is to come;
it never had a beginning
nor will it ever end,
because time is a wheel,
and a wheel is eternity;
and if man divides it
He just does, in my opinion,
to know what he has lived
or he has still to live. — Who would be the Author, Hernández or Arcane Sandwich?

When you are looking for the ontological status of time — Corvus

The Eterne’s motion dooms forms’ permanence;
But, the patient time til their expiration
Restrains for awhile the shapes’ destructance;
Thus they can slowly traverse life’s distance.

Energy is a beauty and a brilliance,
Flashing up in its destructance,
For everything isn’t here to stay its “best”;
It’s merely here to die in its sublimeness.

Like slow fires making their brands, it breeds,
Yet ever consumes and moves on, as more it feeds,
Then spreads forth anew, this unpurposed dispersion,
An inexorable emergence with little reversion,

Ever becoming of its glorious excursions,
Bearing the change that patient time restrains,
While feasting upon the glorious decayed remains
In its progressive march through losses for gains.

It sounds illogical to be able to imagine a world independent of mind, when imagining is a function mind. — Corvus

That doesn't seem to follow. Do you have an argument for why and how the fact that imagining is a function of mind precludes the possibility of imagining that the world is independent of mind?

The task of a metaphysician (including us amateurs) is to provide a metaphysical account of the clear facts. The best you can hope for is an account that is coherent and has sufficient explanatory power to address all the clear facts. If you develop or encounter multiple such metaphysical theories, they can be compared to see which seems (subjectively) superior (e.g. more parsimonious; is consistent with other metaphysical assumptions you may make).

So yeah, it's worth pondering - but don't expect to land on a "proven" paradigm.

It would - but by what measure? In the absence of awareness of past-present-future then what is time? — Wayfarer

How would it flow? If time is a general concept which covers all the temporality in general, how would time flow without human mind perceiving, measuring, asking, and telling?

That doesn't seem to follow. Do you have an argument for why and how the fact that imagining is a function of mind precludes the possibility of imagining that the world is independent of mind? — Janus

Tell us first why it doesn't seem to follow.

So yeah, it's worth pondering - but don't expect to land on a "proven" paradigm. — Relativist

Arguments are as important as the conclusion in philosophy. Paradigm can change anytime when better proofs and arguments come along.

How would it flow? If time is a general concept which covers all the temporality in general, how would time flow without human mind perceiving, measuring, asking, and telling? — Corvus

That's what I mean.

That's what I mean. — Wayfarer

:ok: :up:

How would it flow? If time is a general concept which covers all the temporality in general, how would time flow without human mind perceiving, measuring, asking, and telling? — Corvus

We know that time 'flows' absent of human awareness, because we see evidence of it. We see evidence that things were changing (therefore time was flowing) before we were here, and this allows us to extrapolate, and talk about the flow of time, without the human mind being there, at that time, to perceive the resulting changes. This allows us to use things like geological formations to do chronological dating. These forms of dating rely on the assumption of a necessary relation between change and the flow of time.

However, it's very interesting to note that we study the flow of time from its effects, and we do not directly experience the flow of time through sense observation. We infer logically, that the flow of time is real and independent, from the evidence of sense observation. We see evidence that things were changing prior to our presence. This makes the flow of time very mysterious to us. We only understand it only as a "general concept", but we also commonly assume that it exists (or occurs) independently from us. Further, we commonly claim to experience it, but in no way do we sense it. The reality of time remains a deep mystery.

That's what I mean. — Wayfarer

There will be changes, motions and movements for sure as always have been since the beginning of the universe with the weather, nights, mornings and days, explosions and comets flying. But time? It needs human mind to exist. Are we being extreme idealists here?

We know that time 'flows' absent of human awareness, because we see evidence of it. We see evidence that things were changing (therefore time was flowing) before we were here, and this allows us to extrapolate, and talk about the flow of time, without the human mind being there, at that time, to perceive the resulting changes. — Metaphysician Undercover

But seeing things were changing is not time itself, is it? You are just seeing changes of things. Where is time, if you didn't measure the duration or intervals of time taken for the changes?

However, it's very interesting to note that we study the flow of time from its effects, and we do not directly experience the flow of time through sense observation. We infer logically, that the flow of time is real and independent, from the evidence of sense observation. We see evidence that things were changing prior to our presence. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not sure if time flows is logically correct way of saying it. Because if something flows, then it must be stoppable, and it must be visible or detectable directly. Time doesn't have the qualities which flowing normally gives. All there are in time are intervals, durations, instances, moments, years, months, hours and seconds. Hence could time be just a general concept calling all these temporal elements?

Further, we commonly claim to experience it, but in no way do we sense it. The reality of time remains a deep mystery. — Metaphysician Undercover

It looks like time is a concept to me. It is like a general concept "human". We say "human" often in the arguments and daily conversations. But actually when you try find out who human is, there is no one called human in the world.

There are Johns, Marys, Janes, Peters, and Pauls, and a Metaphysician Undercover who also has his own real name. But there is no one called human. But all of the folks living in the world are humans. Isn't it the case with time?

There are intervals, durations, instances, moments, pasts, presents, futures, years, months, days, and seconds and light years ...etc. But there is no time in reality. And yet all those concepts are the subconcepts of time.

But time? It needs human mind to exist. Are we being extreme idealists here? — Corvus

Human minds? I would prefer 'the observer' or just 'mind'. To say 'human minds' is already in some basic way to objectify, to stand outside.

Have another look at this post from five days ago - notice that I start that post by saying the OP is 'mistaken'. What I mean is, It's not that time doesn't *exist*. It exists, but we're mistaken about the nature of time - that is what is at issue, and it's a deep issue.

But again all you have argued is that in order to know, believe, doubt, or measure time there needs to be a knower, a believer, a doubter or a measurer.

That tells us nothing about time. Only about believing, doubting, and measuring.

Are we being extreme idealists here? — Corvus

Yep.

That tells us nothing about time. Only about believing, doubting, and measuring. — Banno

Measuring is what is significant. Give us a dissertation on the nature of unmeasured time. That should clear things up for once and for all.

Measuring is what is significant. — Wayfarer

significant - to do with signs, hence mind.

It cannot be concluded that time does not exist without minds. It's an illegitimate leap.

The same problem that infects all your ontology.

But seeing things were changing is not time itself, is it? You are just seeing changes of things. Where is time, if you didn't measure the duration or intervals of time taken for the changes? — Corvus

That's right, it's exactly what I said. We don't see time flowing, nor do we sense it in any way, we infer it logically. Then from visible evidence we can conclude that X amount of time flowed past, even though we never saw any time flow past. That's what makes time so mysterious, and allows people like you to ask "where is time?". Some will even conclude that since we can't sense it in any way, it's not real. But that position is very problematic, and difficult to defend in front of the evidence.

I am not sure if time flows is logically correct way of saying it. — Corvus

I prefer to say that time passes.

It looks like time is a concept to me. It is like a general concept "human". We say "human" often in the arguments and daily conversations. But actually when you try find out who human is, there is no one called human in the world. — Corvus

Time is not like this though, because there is actually something in the world which is referred to with "time". It is something we measure, as the passing of time, and we talk about measured quantities of time, an hour, a day etc..

It cannot be concluded that time does not exist without minds. It's an illegitimate leap. — Banno

It's already been demonstrated in this very thread, that there is a scientific argument for the indispensability of the observer in cosmological physics.

The problem of including the observer in our description of physical reality arises most insistently when it comes to the subject of quantum cosmology - the application of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole - because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers.

Andrei Linde has given a deep reason for why observers enter into quantum cosmology in a fundamental way. It has to do with the nature of time. The passage of time is not absolute; it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another, for example, how many times the hands of the clock go around relative to the rotation of the Earth. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time looses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may readily be restored by considering the Universe to be separated into two subsystems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the Universe.

So the observer plays an absolutely crucial role in this respect. Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'. — Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271

What do you think he means by that?

It's already been demonstrated in this very thread, that there is a scientific argument for the indispensability of the observer in cosmological physics. — Wayfarer

The problem though is that cosmological physics uses a conception of time based in relativity theory, i.e. relative time. This means that there must be a choice of reference frame in order that the flow of time is something real rather than having the flow of time lost in the infinite ambiguity of infinite possibilities.

If we assume that the principle known as the relativity of simultaneity is just a useful tool, and that in reality time is absolute, then there is no need for an observer to make time real.

What do you think he means by that? — Wayfarer

He is assuming time is relative rather than absolute. Notice he says: "The passage of time is not absolute".

Straight to quantum strangeness, 'eh... Davies' view is speculative at best.

It forgets the Page-Wootters mechanism, loop quantum gravity, Bohmian mechanics, many-worlds, and so on. It conflates "observer" with "consciousness".

It's an illegitimate leap.

Folks are never hesitant to appeal to the implications of science when it seems to support realism. But when anti-realism enters the picture, woo betide them. But, go back to wordplay if that’s what you think philosophy is.

He is assuming time is relative rather than absolute. Notice he says: "The passage of time is not absolute" — Metaphysician Undercover

He’s saying in plain English, the passage of time always depends on there being a change in one physical system relative to another. Customarily, that involves measuring the change in one system relative to the observer’s system. The observer is intrinsic to that. That is all that is being said, but it’s significant.

Folks are never hesitant to appeal to the implications of science when it seems to support realism. But when anti-realism enters the picture, woo betide them. — Wayfarer

But you are not advocating antirealism, you are advocating mysticism.

He’s saying in plain English, the passage of time always depends on there being a change in one physical system relative to another. — Wayfarer

That'd be the measure of the passage of time. Do you have reason to suppose that time could not pass without change? Not that we could not measure time without change, but that time could for some reason not pass without change.