I used to interpret Kant's experience as "perception — Corvus

OK. But then you agree as would Kant that perception is given in the present. And we agree that you have to explain the prensent rationally in some way.

Let me ask you, do any of those worlds you invented have that function of explaining the present?

We are talking about logic here now, not physics. Until the moment the glass broke, the glass was unbroken. Therefore glass breaking is not a process. Glass breaking is a momentary motion. — Corvus

There are many (practically infinite states if we accept that time is continuous) states before the glass breaks into parts. The glass first is deformed without breaking since the atoms attract each other. As time passes there is a moment that atoms cannot hold on to each other so they separate. That is what we call the crack in the glass. As time passes, the cracks continue to extend and there is a moment when we have parts of glass. It is then that the glass shatters and its pieces move differently.

Sorry I missed your response. The exchange thus far in reverse order has been:

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. :) — 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?
— Janus

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

You made a bare assertion, to wit:

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

It doesn't sound illogical to me, so I wanted to know why you think it sounds illogical. Do you think it just sounds illogical but is not, or do you think it not only sounds illogical but is illogical. I see no logical contradiction in saying that we can imagine that the world is independent of mind or even that we can imagine a world independent of mind.

Math can describe the motions and movements of objects in numbers and functions. But they are not time itself, is it? — Corvus

There is a continuity of existence that is mechanically measurable. A car sitting by the curb ages a bit over twenty four hours in a an approximation of an ideal or mathematical continuity. Unless, for instance, someone comes along and blows it up. Then there is a discontinuity of existence and the end of a mathematical parallel description. The Riemann integral concept in math analysis embodies the notion of addition of a sequence of temporal points, the distances between points shrinking to zero. When applied properly to dynamical systems that are analogous to physical change, predictions result.

The accuracy achieved is, of course, ultimately governed by Planck dimensions. So, whether Bergson's interval description of the atoms of time is cited or a "continuity" of points is described, is irrelevant.

Events or objects in the past exist in different state and properties to the ones at present. — Corvus

We can join bits of language together in ways that are somewhat deceptive. Think about the poem about the little man who wasn't there. It has a metaphysical ring to it, from the conflict between seeing f a little man, despite his not being there. Now I don't think there is any profound metaphysics in Antigonish, just the concatenation of a few words that behave in a way not dissimilar to an illusion.

I think something not too different is happening when one says something like "Time does not exits". I don't see how we can sensibly dispense with the notion of time, without leaving ourselves open to the sorts of discontinuities discussed above, where one talks about the past, and about past events, or the future and possible future happenings, or differentiates these from the present, while at the same time insisting that there is no time.

I surmise that there is a point you are trying to make, something to do with things in the past not being the subject of direct perception in the way things before you right now are, or some mistaken idea that only what is proven or believed or present to you now is what exists. I don't think you captured that sentiment with "time does not exist".

There is also something more than a little bit problematic in supposing that there are different types of existence, such that things in the past existed in a different way ("state") to how they exist now. perhaps this coms down to treating existence as a (first order) property, such that things that are before us now supposedly have a different sort of first-order existence to things in the past. I don't think there is a property of my footstool that changes between when I put my foot on it a few seconds ago and now, that somehow means it is now in a "different state" to how it is now.

When you keep insisting about the OP when it was created still exists, you were talking about identity of the OP, were you not? I was just trying to let you know that the OP exists now with different properties. The OP when created had time stamp of "1 minute ago". It had no replies.
Now the OP has time stamp "11 days ago", and has 523 replies. They are not the same OP. — Corvus

There is a very strong sense in which it is the very same OP, and that OP still exists, still can be linked to, is the very same OP mentioned in previous posts, had the time stamp "1 minute ago" but now has the time stamp "12 days ago". This is the common sense use, where when we ask "what is the OP of this thread?" we get the same answer now as we did then. If I ask you what the OP of this thread is, you will point to this.

It is not an issue of "not exist". It is an issue of "different state of existence". Error is your not being able to tell the difference on nature of the existence. — Corvus

This is different to your original thesis, that time does not exist, so Kudos for adjusting your position. But as discussed above, it is not clear what "different states of existence" might be.

Being perceived is not what it is for something to exist.
— Banno

Why not? What is it that qualifies and proves for something to exist? — Corvus

becasue we can misremember - the idea that what we believe happened and what actually happened are different makes perfect sense. We might be wrong. This is what permits us to adjust our thinking to match what is the case. If what is true were nothing more than what we perceive, we could never misperceive. We could never learn.

Somethings being proven to be the case is very different to something just being the case. One is about how we think things are, the other about how they are. This is a very fundamental difference that seems obscured in the thinking of many folk.

If Carlo Rovelli is right that time is coming from the way we perceive the universe, then time exists, it's just not what we often conceive it to be, that is, independent of us.

Indeed.

Carlo Rovelli is right that time is coming from the way we perceive the universe, then time exists, it's just not what we often conceive it to be, that is, independent of us. — frank

Time is a category of the understanding, not a property of the world.

The mind shapes objects in space and time.

I call this theory transcendental idealism.

Lots of Kantians out there think along similar lines.

Not offered as anything authoritative - I think they are both wrong. But they are not the same.

Not offered as anything authoritative - I think they are both wrong. But they are not the same. — Banno

I don't find the ChatGpt response persuasive in its identification of distinctions. It seems to argue that Kant considers time a non-relative absolute and a feature of reality. I take his view of time as a form of idealism, with time being necessary for understanding, but not a feature of reality.

The ChatGpt reference to time being emergent seems to contradict what else it says of time not being absolute. I take emergence to be the creation of a whole greater than its parts (as in consciousness) arising from various other interactions (as in brain states), but nothing suggests an emergent property is less real because it's origin is emergent.

I know little of Rovelli, but I can say it sounded a whole lot like Kant from @frank's short blurb. I'll trust the two are not identical, but they're surely within the same family.

error

If (….) time is coming from the way we perceive…. — frank

…..how can it possibly be independent of us?

…..how can it possibly be independent of us? — Mww

Newton's conception of time was as something independent of us, right?

Let me ask you, do any of those worlds you invented have that function of explaining the present? — JuanZu

They are kind of possible worlds inferred from present state of consciousness. Many folks believe possible worlds exist. If you have no present, then nothing would be possible, and no possible worlds would be available to you. From present, you could remember past, and imagine future. From present, possible worlds get inferred, emanate, invoke, evoke, appear and reveal as you meditate, reason or imagine them.

I will be a bit slow in my postings due to increased work loads in real life here, but will try to catch up all the posts, as things get a bit quiet and free. Later~

Dunno if he states that unequivocally, but if his notion of absolute time is justified, then one has no logical recourse but to agree that time is independent of us.

But then, it is profoundly contradictory to profess the absolute of anything whatsoever, in juxtaposition to the impossibility for empirical verification, so…..

But all that really doesn’t matter, if time is given from the way we perceive, then time’s independence from the way we perceive is also contradictory, therefore, wrong.

in juxtaposition to the impossibility for empirical verification, — Mww

I don't know where this is coming from. Why would empirical verification be a problem if an item is independent of us?

Not talking about an item.

The idea that one could fail to recognize that time is real does not negate nor suggest that it isn't real.

However, under the Kantian interpretation of time, yes, time is not real but exists. You seem to be conflating self-reflectively knowing time exists with it not existing. By concept of time, I am presuming you are exclusively referring to a concept derived through experience by self-reflective reason.

The idea that one could fail to recognize that time is real does not negate nor suggest that it isn't real. — Bob Ross

What do you mean by real?

There are many (practically infinite states if we accept that time is continuous) states before the glass breaks into parts. The glass first is deformed without breaking since the atoms attract each other. As time passes there is a moment that atoms cannot hold on to each other so they separate. That is what we call the crack in the glass. As time passes, the cracks continue to extend and there is a moment when we have parts of glass. It is then that the glass shatters and its pieces move differently. — MoK

It seems physics cannot capture the moment of coexistence of the glass breaking and unbreaking. Math cannot either. Logic can.

Your description of the breaking in detail is the physical steps how breaking happens, but none of that step is the actual breaking. The breaking happens at the moment when the breaking and unbreaking coexists. The rest is not breaking itself or unbreaking itself.

Somethings being proven to be the case is very different to something just being the case. One is about how we think things are, the other about how they are. This is a very fundamental difference that seems obscured in the thinking of many folk. — Banno

Perception is not existence itself.  To say perception is existence would be a Berkeleian.  Some folks believe it, but it would be regarded as an extreme case of idealism. 

However, even if one is not an extreme idealist, it is perfectly rational to say that perception is the source of the knowledge of existence.  Of course not all perceived events or objects are true or existence. 

But you have a mental function called reason or rationality to be able to discern truth from falsity, existence from illusion.

If you had no perception, then you would have none of that.  You would just see blankness, and hear silence when facing the world.  There would be no knowledge about the world in you at all without your perception.

The OP created on the very first day has different properties from the OP you are seeing now.  The OP when it was created had a time stamp of the day, but now it has today's time stamp.  The OP also has hundreds of replies now.  When it was first created it had no reply.  Therefore you are seeing a different OP now from the moment when it was created.   

You have been saying that the OP when it was created exists now.  This is an unclear statement.  You clearly see the difference between the different properties of the OP.  

Likewise, Banno, born 50+ years ago, is not the same Banno of now in weight, height and looks, and wisdom and knowledge too.  Hence saying that they are the same Banno would be a wrong statement.
The statement "Time doesn't exist" in the OP was a suggestion to explore and to debate.  It was not a claim or conclusion.   You don't start OP with a conclusion.  You start OP with suggestion and assumption.

Existence has ambiguity in its meaning.  Socrates existed. But he doesn't exist now.   Existence becomes nonexistence.  Is it then existence or nonexistence?   

Then there is a discontinuity of existence and the end of a mathematical parallel description. — jgill

Yes, exactly. A mathematical description of the existence is not the existence itself. That was my point. Of course, it could be an accurate description. But it is still a description.

You've thrown an odd notion of identity into the mix.

The Banno of fifty years ago is the same Banno as the one writing this post. That Banno has aged, but it's not a different Banno. Ask yourself; Who aged? Why, Banno aged. See how identity persists?

The OP is the same OP you wrote, perhaps edited and perhaps with a different time stamp. Which Post has a different time stamp? Which post my have been edited? Why, the OP, of course. Identity persists despite change.

You have been saying that the OP when it was created exists now. — Corvus

No I haven't. I have been saying that the OP you wrote still exists. You can show this by following the links.

Existence has ambiguity in its meaning. — Corvus

So existence becomes nonexistence and yet that there is no time.

No I haven't. I have been saying that the OP you wrote still exists. You can show this by following the links — Banno

When you say X is identical to Y, it is because X and Y have exactly same properties in every aspects. The OP when created, and the OP now has different properties. Hence they are not the same OP. Of course the OP exists now, but with the different property.

So existence becomes nonexistence and yet that there is no time. — Banno

Existence stopped becoming existence. Time stopped the moment it ceased to be existence. Nonexistence is in the mind of the living as a concept, not in the existence which ceased to be existence.

The OP is the same OP you wrote, perhaps edited and perhaps with a different time stamp. Which Post has a different time stamp? Which post my have been edited? Why, the OP, of course. Identity persists despite change. — Banno

Above is a contradiction. Banno with the properties (weight, height, looks, knowledge, wisdom) 50+ years ago is not the same Banno with the properties (weight, height, looks, knowledge, wisdom) in 2025.

Is a seed of oak tree same as the oak tree in 100 years after it has grown from the seed?

When you say X is identical to Y, it is because X and Y have exactly same properties in every aspects. — Corvus

You can do that. But what is being asked here is not if the OP is identical, but if it is the same OP. The OP has changed - what has changed? the Op has changed. It is the same OP but now it has different properties. The OP on my screen may not have the very same properties as the same as the OP on your screen, yet we talk about their being the same OP.

Existence stopped becoming existence. Time stopped the moment it ceased to be existence. Nonexistence is in the mind of the living as a concept, not in the existence which ceased to be existence. — Corvus

I've no idea wha that might mean.

Banno with the properties (weight, height, looks, knowledge, wisdom) 50+ years ago is not the same Banno with the properties (weight, height, looks, knowledge, wisdom) in 2025. — Corvus

That's right. Banno has changed. Who changed? Banno changed. Look at that question with great care. The young man and the codger are the same person - your very utterance assumes that, by referring to the young man and then to the codger with the very same term.

It seems physics cannot capture the moment of coexistence of the glass breaking and unbreaking. — Corvus

There is no moment that glass is broken and unbroken. The change is continuous.

The OP on my screen may not have the very same properties as the same as the OP on your screen, yet we talk about their being the same OP. — Banno

The point here is that, the OP created on the first day doesn't exist. It exists as OP with different properties. It has not only changed the time stamp, but it also has hundreds of replies. It also changed some of the readers ideas on time too.

I've no idea wha that might mean. — Banno

It means a simple point. When existence stops being nonexistence, it happens in the state of coexistence of existence and nonexistence. There is no time involved in the change. The continued nonexistence is just a concept of the living after Socrates' nonexistence.

That's right. Banno has changed. Who changed? Banno changed. Look at that question with great care. The young man and the codger are the same person - your very utterance assumes that, by referring to the young man and then to the codger with the very same term. — Banno

If being same being means having exactly same properties in every aspect, then they cannot be the same person. There have been too much changes in properties. If Banno +50 year ago is the same Banno after 50+ years, then it means there hasn't been any changes in his properties. But there has been changes in the properties, therefore they are not same Banno.

At this point we could differentiate identity into two different types, if you still want to see identity as a relation from past memories. Identity of properties and identity of relations?

Identity could be a subtopic of existence and time, because they are all related to each other.

There is no moment that glass is broken and unbroken. The change is continuous. — MoK

Time is temporal continuity composed of moments. Not seeing it, means physics and math cannot capture the true nature of time or physical changes.