I don’t agree. The clock is the instrument by which we measure, but the act of measurement is carried out by the measurer. As that passage I quoted says, ‘ A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession’ - which is what measurement entails. — Wayfarer

The thing is that to measure we need interaction. The observer is subsumed in this interaction in such a way as to make that interaction physical. So the observer is our measuring machines, like a clock, which makes the coherent state of an isolated system disappear. That interaction does not exist between our consciousness and the system. I am not saying that the clock measures the time of consciousness, what I am saying is that the clock is the interaction that the mechanism reflects as a function of a minimal movement. So measures a part of the movement of the world (and remember that there is no time without movement) But there must be an ontological continuity between the clock and those movements. This continuity does not exist between the consciousness and the measured object (here the isolated system in coherence). To affirm the contrary is to affirm magic or some kind of mentalism. How does the consciousness interact with the isolated system if it cannot even see it? It has a representation of it but does not interact, it needs the machine. Did you get it?

Wow, many posts on this topic. Will get back to the points in due course when time permits here. Time exists for sure, but in the form of general concept from the probable assumption, which could be refuted.

Meanwhile here is an interesting video about time for quick reference from a psychologist and brain scientist, Jonathan Schooler Ph.D.

The observer is subsumed in this interaction in such a way as to make that interaction physical. So the observer is our measuring machines, like a clock, which makes the coherent state of an isolated system disappear. — JuanZu

The observer is the engineer or builder who makes the clock and decides on the units of measurement. The interaction is between the object of measurement and the observer who takes the measurement. Were there no observer, there would be neither a clock, nor two systems that interact. It makes no sense to say that the observer is 'subsumed' by the mechanism, when the mechanism is the instrument made by the observer. And measurement is not just physical interaction, but an intentional act that requires an observer to define, interpret, and establish a measurement framework. Without an observer, a clock is just a set of moving parts—it is not measuring anything in any meaningful sense.

By invoking "magic," you seem to be saying that the requirement for the observer somehow violates causality—perhaps that consciousness somehow directly affects physical systems. But this doesn't require consciousness to be a causal agent in that sense; it is simply that measurement, as a concept, only exists within an interpretative framework, and that framework is necessarily provided by observers. If no observer sets the terms of measurement, then the notion of measurement is meaningless —whatever object is being considered is simply undergoing change.

Seems to me that your issue is that if measurement depends on mind, then it seems to entail that reality must somehow be "mental". That seems to be the core fear—that acknowledging the role of the observer seems to entail an idealist framework. Is that how you see it? Whereas, I see the attempt to depict the measurement as being something that takes place irrespective of any intentional act, arises from a fallacious division between 'material' and 'mental'.

I need to see an argument before I can tell you whether or not I think it follows. — Janus

It was a simple statement with no complexities in its point. But you pointed out something doesn't follow in the statement, which indicates you have an argument why it doesn't follow. You couldn't have said it doesn't follow without your argument why it doesn't follow. :)

It's now eight days since the OP. Does time still not exist? — Banno

It just means the earth has rotated itself 8 times since the start of the OP. Now 9 times. Is there anything more to it? And of course, you counted it, and noticed it.

How Long Is One Day on Other Planets?
The Short Answer:
Planet

Day Length

Mercury 1,408 hours
Venus 5,832 hours
Earth 24 hours
Mars 25 hours
Jupiter 10 hours
Saturn 11 hours
Uranus 17 hours
Neptune 16 hours

- Info from NASA Science, Space Place

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. — Wayfarer

But what other minds could know about time apart from human minds?

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. — Wayfarer

Yes, that was the point of the OP. I agree with your point here.

By invoking "magic," you seem to be saying that the requirement for the observer somehow violates causality—perhaps that consciousness somehow directly affects physical systems. But this doesn't require consciousness to be a causal agent in that sense; it is simply that measurement, as a concept, only exists within an interpretative framework, and that framework is necessarily provided by observers. If no observer sets the terms of measurement, then the notion of measurement is meaningless —whatever object is being considered is simply undergoing change. — Wayfarer

I think the consciousness does act causally, with the measured physical system, necessarily so. This is done through the measuring tool. The tool is created with intent. As you see, others like to argue that the tool measures without any interaction with the conscious mind. But as you argue, that is not actually a measurement at all. So we need to accept that "the measurement" includes the intent put into the tool, as well as the observations of the tool.

Conversely, the thing measured must have an effect on the mind which measures, or else there would be no information from the thing, to be interpreted by the measurer. So a measurement is truly an "interaction", with causation on both sides. Measurement is essentially a strictly bounded experiment, complete with intention and interpretation, where the interaction is constrained within well-defined parameters which enable the prediction based interpretation .

What I want you to understand is why the measuring device is necessary. The collapse of function in fact is explained not because a person thinks or is aware of the experiment. In this sense the human or scientist is neutralized. There is no experiment that is correctly explained by something like "collapse by interpretation". In such an experiment the measuring apparatus and the environment are involved. And both are efficient causes of the collapse, the passage from coherence to quantum decoherence. Just think about the necessity of the means to perform the measurement: why are they necessary? They are necessary to interact with this quantum phenomenon. And, at this point it is obvious, they are necessary to measure, that is to say, they perform the measurement. The scientist is the person who interprets that measurement, but he is not the efficient cause of the wave function collapse.

I think the consciousness does act causally, with the measured physical system, necessarily so. This is done through the measuring tool. The tool is created with intent. As you see, others like to argue that the tool measures without any interaction with the conscious mind. But as you argue, that is not actually a measurement at all. So we need to accept that "the measurement" includes the intent put into the tool, as well as the observations of the tool. — Metaphysician Undercover

This sounds to me like, literally, the ghost in the machine.

You refer me to the battle realism VS idealism. For me there is always a delay of everything existing that prevents its presence from being absolutely or absolutely identical to itself, but it is still constitutive. This delay is given by the relational being of things. And this is impossible to be given without time and space. This is applicable to consciousness which in turn is referred to an outside that constitutes it. Therefore time and space are conditions of consciousness. Therefore, time is something real and existent. — JuanZu

What about saying time is a general concept? The video above says time is a 3 dimensional entity which is made up with subjective, objective and alternative time. That too, is saying nothing much more than time is a complex multi dimensional concept.

You won't see any of the objects or existence or entities called time, but time has multi layered conceptual structure which contains various aspects of the temporal events and traces from human experience in the real world.

So we agree it is nine days since you claimed time does not exist.

Righto.

:lol:

I am just waiting for you to keep periodically mentioning this lmao.

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

Hmmm, I think @Mww would agree that objects being real checks out, but why would space be real if you hold time as merely a priori?

So we agree it is nine days since you claimed time does not exist. — Banno

My claim still exists in the OP, but the time 9 days ago doesn't seem to exist anymore. It passed. No longer existing. Only the now seems to exist. Even the now passes away as soon as it exists, strictly speaking. In this case, can it exist? What is it that exists here? The claim, the OP or 9 days ago? Or the now?

Hmmm, I think Mww would agree that objects being real checks out, but why would space be real if you hold time as merely a priori? — Bob Ross

If space didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist. You exist (I presume), hence space exists. : MT

If space didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist. You exist (I presume), hence space exists. — Corvus

Pardon. The same argument can be made about time, Corvus.

Pardon. The same argument can be made about time, Corvus. — Arcane Sandwich

Not quite. I was quite happy existing when I was a child, and didn't know what time was. Space? No space, no body.

So you think that there's an ontologically significant difference between space and time. Well, you're not wrong, since the former is 3D, and the latter is 1D.

Watch the video Arcane. Time can also be 3D according to the video presenter Dr. Schooler.

I can keep living quite happily without time, but I cannot live without space. To move around and go to places, we need space. I am 100% certain that no one can exist without space, unless he/she is a soul or spirit.

↪Arcane Sandwich
Watch the video Arcane. Time can also be 3D according to the video presenter Dr. Schooler. — Corvus

No, I'm quite sure that time is 1D, because a 1D time plus a 3D space allows your physical theory to have a 4D spacetime.

No, I'm quite sure that time is 1D, because a 1D time plus a 3D space allows your physical theory to have a 4D spacetime. — Arcane Sandwich

Time is just a concept.

No, it's a part of Reality Itself, just like space : )

Concepts are parts of reality. :)

I think Mww would agree that objects being real checks out…. — Bob Ross

Yeah, he would. With the provisio that “checks out” is relative to a specific theoretical framework. Within the confines of that same framework, it follows necessarily that space and time are not real.

But then, of course……there’s possibly as many frameworks as minds that can think them up.

Then Please Help Me Create Roko's Basilisk :naughty:

but why would space be real if you hold time as merely a priori? — Bob Ross

Kant said that, because time is a concept? In Kant, time is definitely internal mental condition (a priori) for human understanding. A priori here means it is innate, and doesn't rely on experience on the empirical world.

Any world events, objects or matter can be conceptualised, and time is a typical case of the conceptualisation. You could make time into 5th dimension keep adding the other aspects to it, and make space-time, into space-time-consciousness, and say it is 5th dimension. All are the result of conceptualisation.

Then Please Help Me Create Roko's Basilisk :naughty: — Arcane Sandwich

You just say, Roko's Basilisk is caused by uncaused cause. Therefore it changes. Therefore it exists. :nerd:

Thank you, the Basilik gives you a reward in the form of a cool ascii style sword:

@zzzz[::::::::::::::::::::::::>

:strong: :grin: