And the future doesn't exist either. Instead, it will exist! When? Well, take an educated guess.

The OP is in the forum, not in the past. — Corvus

Well, make up your mind:

It belongs in the past. — Corvus

Which is it? Does it belong in the past or is it not in the past?

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

Past is in memory but also in the record. If there was no forum, and you lost all your memory, then you wouldn't know the OP existed.

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. — Banno

Exactly, that is why past doesn't exist. You were keep saying nine days ago the OP started. Now it is ten days. Hence your memory was wrong. What you said didn't exist.

Well, make up your mind:

It belongs in the past.
— Corvus

Which is it? — Banno

Not nine days ago as you claimed. But ten days ago now. Tomorrow at this time, it will be eleven days.

If there was no forum, and you lost all your memory, then you wouldn't know the OP existed. — Corvus

Yep. None of which implies that you never made the OP.

Not nine days ago as you claimed. But ten days ago now. — Corvus

...so you were right to say, yesterday, that it was nine days ago, and now it is ten days, but you are wrong to say it exists.

It was ten days ago, therefore something was ten days ago.

Or, if you prefer, my browser says it was nine days ago, yours, that it was ten. Which it correct? On your account, neither.

I didn’t say anything about ‘collapse’ by which I presume you’re referring to so-called ‘wave function collapse’. — Wayfarer

You did. But indirectly.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/968214

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/968235

This blurring between the objective and the subjective is a confusion of concepts that is solved by removing the unjustified intrusive belief of the role of the scientist in quantum physics experiments.

Why? What dictates that necessity?
3h — Wayfarer

Because otherwise we would have no possible explanation of how the watch functions.

Historians going crazy with this discussion.

I think of time as a building that goes upwards. We have the current floor and the floors below that are the past. You need a virtual and indeterminate raw material (future) to keep building floors.

The past exists as the dimension of sedimentation where the added floors solidify in an unmodifiable way.

:clap:

Because otherwise we would have no possible explanation of how the watch functions. — JuanZu

I don’t understand your reasoning. What you said was

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

Why must there be ‘ontological continuity’ between the clock mechanism and the movement of the clock hands? ‘Because otherwise….’

Finish that sentence ;-)

Yep. None of which implies that you never made the OP. — Banno

None of what you have been saying is about time itself.

...so you were right to say, yesterday, that it was nine days ago, and now it is ten days, but you are wrong to say it exists. — Banno

Socrates existed. But does he exist now? Existed means it doesn't exist any more. We have and use tense in language for reasons, not for show.

The past exists as the dimension of sedimentation where the added floors solidify in an unmodifiable way. — JuanZu

Past existed in the past, but it doesn't exist now. Does it? Saying past exists sounds language with no tense knowledge. We are not denying past didn't exist. It existed. Where did it exist? In the past, and in memories. But does it exist now and reality? No it does not.

None of what you have been saying is about time itself. — Corvus

It's about time. What is time itself?

Socrates existed. But does he exist now? — Corvus

Socrates exists in the past. On you account, there is no past for Socrates to be in, because time does not exist.

It's about time. What is time itself? — Banno

You have been talking about the OP. Not about time, or time.

Socrates exists in the past. On you account, there is no past for Socrates to be in, because time does not exist. — Banno

Socrates did exist in the past. But he doesn't exist now.

Socrates did exist in the past. — Corvus

Hence there is a past.

You have been talking about the OP. Not about time, or time. — Corvus

The OP was posted in the past. Therefore there is a past.

Hence there is a past. — Banno

We don't deny past, but we are saying the events in the past existed in the past not now.

The OP was posted in the past. Therefore there is a past. — Banno

Of course, but it existed in the past. It exists now as a record in the forum, and causing the thread keep going. But the OP itself started in the past, not now.

We don't deny past, but we are saying the events in the past existed in the past not now. — Corvus

But your claim, in the OP, is that time does not exist.

So are you now saying that there is a past, but no time?

So are you now saying that there is a past, but no time? — Banno

Time exists, but in a conceptual form. The OP's statement time doesn't exist have different implications. The OP was in the past, and it doesn't exist now, as it was when it first created.

You have been talking about the OP in the past, but not time. What existed in the past doesn't exist as in the same state when time passed.

Jelly fish certainly have no tense knowledge at all. :nerd:

Historians going crazy with this discussion.

I think of time as a building that goes upwards. We have the current floor and the floors below that are the past. You need a virtual and indeterminate raw material (future) to keep building floors. — JuanZu

Past events exist in the past as causes, memories, records, archives as forms of knowledge and experience or facts.

These are different forms of existence to the existence of real beings which exist now at present.

They existed in the past. Some continue to exist into the present. Some ceased to exist at present, hence can be inferred or judged as not existing anymore.

Socrates existed over 2300 years ago. But he doesn't exist now.
If you say, but he existed in the past, then you are talking about the past event (which doesn't exist now), not Socrates the being, not time itself.

Past events exist in the past as causes... — Corvus

How can anything act as a cause, from the past? Isn't it the case that the only way something can be a cause, is to act at the present?

That is single-handedly the dumbest bit of sophistry I've ever heard. Growing old is aging in the sense that I obviously meant it; and you just sidestepped the question.

It seems your psychology is seeking nothing but sophistry. There are the indigenous tribes in the jungles, who have no concept of time. But they all get old and die like rest of us.

How can anything act as a cause, from the past? Isn't it the case that the only way something can be a cause, is to act at the present? — Metaphysician Undercover

Think of a case, X killed Y 10 year ago. The event happened 10 year ago, but X would be still charged and put into the trial for what he had done 10 year ago. The act happened 10 year ago would be the cause for the trial of X having killed Y.

No, it wouldn't be the cause for the trial. X being in court with prosecutors accusing, is the cause of the trial.

The Court of Law is a man-made construct. It is not natural. Nature does not hold court.

Time exists, but in a conceptual form. The OP's statement time doesn't exist have different implications. The OP was in the past, and it doesn't exist now, as it was when it first created. — Corvus

"...it doesn't exist now"? Your OP exists. Here is a link to it:

"...as it was when it first created"? Do you mean that you edited it?

Time is much more than a concept. It's happened between your last post and your next. It happened between your reading the beginning and the end of this sentence. And your reply to this post is in the future. Unless you are reading this even further not the future, or you give up and do not reply.

You have been talking about the OP in the past, but not time. What existed in the past doesn't exist as in the same state when time passed. — Corvus

I am definitely talking about time; I mentioned your OP, but now I am talking about your last post. What they both have in common is being in the past, which is an aspect of time.

That sounds like quackery.

"...it doesn't exist now"? Your OP exists. Here is a link to it: — Banno

It is the archive of the OP. It is not the OP when it was created. You are still confused between reality now, and events taken place in the past. It existed means, it passed. It is now existing as a record of the event, not the event itself.

I am definitely talking about time; I mentioned your OP, but now I am talking about your last post. What they both have in common is being in the past, which is an aspect of time. — Banno

You are talking about time which has passed, and not existing at this moment pointing at the archive of the OP. It is like pointing at the picture of Socrates in the book, and saying Socrates exists. Look here, and this is him.

But isn't it the case that they are archives, essays or drawings on Socrates. They are not Socrates himself.

Ok about the posts written 10 days ago, and 1 day ago. They keep continue to exist now. But they are the archives of the posts, not the posts themselves.

You must understand some objects existed in the past, no longer exist, because they passed into the past. But some keep exists as records or archives of the objects and events.

Existed and exists are not the same thing here.

No, it wouldn't be the cause for the trial. X being in court with prosecutors accusing, is the cause of the trial. — Metaphysician Undercover

What's the different between cause for trial and cause of trial? Is it wrong to say, what is your reason for being late? It sounds not quite correct, if you say, what is the reason of being late. Hence cause for trial sounds better?