What I want you to understand is why the measuring device is necessary — JuanZu

If understand that and did not say otherwise. I didn’t say anything about ‘collapse’ by which I presume you’re referring to so-called ‘wave function collapse’. My analysis of that is presented in an an offsite essay. You will see that I reject any idea of doing away with the observer.

But there must be an ontological continuity between the clock and those movements. — JuanZu

Why? What dictates that necessity?

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? — Corvus

It is true that you made your OP nine days ago. Therefor nine days ago exists.

Sure, it's in the past. Some events are in the past. Therefore there is a past.

Sure, it's in the past. Some events are in the past. Therefore there is a past. — Banno

:fire:

In memory….

is right about this specific point,

It is true that you made your OP nine days ago. Therefor nine days ago exists.

Sure, it's in the past. Some events are in the past. Therefore there is a past. — Banno

Is it possible that you could go back to 9 days ago?

I don't know why space is a requirement for me to be real; and, if it does, then why time wouldn't.

:up:

I don't know why space is a requirement for me to be real; and, if it does, then why time wouldn't. — Bob Ross

Because without space, your physical body won't exist. But without time you would happily exist like you had been when you were a child with no knowledge of time.

In memory…. — Wayfarer

of whom?

Does it make sense to ask if your memory is accurate - is it true that the OP was made nine days ago? If so, then by existential introduction isn't there a time that was nine days ago?

The OP was nine days ago
Therefore something was nine days ago.

Is it possible that you could go back to 9 days ago? — Corvus

You seem to think this relevant. It is not clear how. But it is not at all clear how you are intending to use "exists".


Added: Worth pointing out yet again that Wayfarer has muddled his memory with what is the case. Again, muddled his beliefs with how things are. Again, mistaken epistemology for ontology.

You seem to think this relevant. It is not clear how. But it is not at all clear how you are intending to use "exists". — Banno

If you cannot go back to the past, then how is it real? How can it exist?

What does that question mean?

The OP was nine days ago. Therefore something was nine days ago.

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

For Kant, time and space are modes by which our faculties of cognition cognize sensations. You are claiming that there is a space beyond that a priori space but yet that there isn’t a time beyond that a priori time. What is the argument for that?

Any world events, objects or matter can be conceptualised, and time is a typical case of the conceptualisation

It is not a concept: it is a pure intuition of our sensibility; and so is space. A concept is kind of idea comprised of attributes; whereas an intuition is a seeming. An a priori concept, e.g., is quantity; an a priori intuition is space.

The OP was nine days ago. Therefore something was nine days ago. — Banno

I declare that I am a mereological and metaphysical part of Roko's Basilisk. Therefore, something has declared that it is a mereological and metaphysical part of Roko's Basilisk.

:fire:

1) No bumps allowed. If you want to attract replies, think of a better way.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines-note-use-of-ai-rules-have-tightened

Why would my body have to exist in space, but I can still age without time?

I didn't bump anything, I made a structurally similar argument to yours, as in:

1) Say something about something.
2) Conclude that something exists.

The OP was nine days ago. Therefore something was nine days ago. — Banno

It passed. It belongs in the past.

It is not a concept: it is a pure intuition of our sensibility; and so is space. A concept is kind of idea comprised of attributes; whereas an intuition is a seeming. An a priori concept, e.g., is quantity; an a priori intuition is space. — Bob Ross

We already have intuition. Saying time is intuition is like saying we have intuition intuition. Not making sense.

It belongs in the past. — Corvus

Yep. Exactly. Therefore something belongs in the past. Therefore there is a past.

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist?

Why would my body have to exist in space, but I can still age without time? — Bob Ross

You don't need to age at all, if you don't remember your age. You are only aging because you think you are aging. You body will still get old, but that is not aging.

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist? — Banno

Exactly what they mean: that it doesn't exist, because what exists is the present moment.

Bergson considers an oscillating pendulum, moving back and forth. At each moment, the pendulum occupies a different position in space, like the points on a line or the moving hands on a clockface. In the case of a clock, the current state – the current time – is what we call ‘now’. Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do. — Aeon.co

Yep. Exactly. Therefore something belongs in the past. Therefore there is a past.

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist? — Banno

It depends what you mean by "exist". Past is just in your memory. It doesn't need to exist. You are saying it exist, because you remember it.

If the claim is that the past does not exist, then the OP cannot belong in the past.

But

It belongs in the past. — Corvus

Does the future exist, in your opinion?

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist? — Banno

It means it is in your memory, but it doesn't exist in reality.

Technically speaking, the past doesn't exist, it existed!

It depends what you mean by "exist". Past is just in your memory. It doesn't need to exist. You are saying it exist, because you remember it. — Corvus

The past is remembered, sure. But that does not mean that the past is just memory.

If the past were just memory, there could be no misremembering. One misremembers when what one remembers of the past is not what happened in the past.

If the claim is that the past does not exist, then the OP cannot belong in the past. — Banno

The OP is in the forum, not in the past. You think it is in the past, because you remember seeing it.