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

Mathematics and physics can explain what a continuous change is.

Mathematics and physics can explain what a continuous change is. — MoK

But obviously they cannot see the moment of coexistence of breaking and unbrokenness of the glass.

The point here is that, the OP created on the first day doesn't exist. It exists as OP with different properties — Corvus

Hmm. If you cannot see the contradiction in those two sentences, then there is not much that can be done to explain it further.

But obviously they cannot see the moment of coexistence of breaking and unbrokenness of the glass. — Corvus

There is no such thing!

Hmm. If you cannot see the contradiction in those two sentences, then there is not much that can be done to explain it further. — Banno

No contradictions at all. It is a logical and physical fact.

There is no such thing! — MoK

It sounds like a subjective denialism. :) I can see it perfectly in my reasoning and inferring. The moment of coexistence of the breaking and unbrokenness is the actual breaking in unbrokenness. Physics and math have no ability to see it or describe it.

There cannot be any change in the case of a simultaneous process. Change exists. Therefore, the states of physical are not simultaneous.

The moment of coexistence of the breaking and unbrokenness is the actual breaking in unbrokenness. Physics and math have no ability to see it or describe it. — Corvus

Sure they do. A simple graph describes the aging of the glass, then, abruptly, there is a discontinuity when the glass breaks. Draw your own picture.

Now I see why fdrake retired as moderator.

There cannot be any change in the case of a simultaneous process. Change exists. Therefore, the states of physical are not simultaneous. — MoK

Change is composed of momentary continuity. You must be able to see the moment of the actual change, not the pseudo changes you describe (which is the illusion you see when seeing changes).

Now I see why fdrake retired as moderator. — jgill

Strawman posts will be ignored.

Now I see why fdrake retired as moderator. — jgill

:up:

So you will not be putting up your hand? Me neither.

So you will not be putting up your hand? Me neither. — Banno

If you have ran out of what to say on the points due to lack of knowledge or ideas, don't post strawman posts please. That really doesn't help anyone.

Change is composed of momentary continuity. You must be able to see the moment of the actual change, not the pseudo changes you describe (which is the illusion you see when seeing changes). — Corvus

I explained the change.

I explained the change. — MoK

Sure, I think you are seeing the change as unbroken continuity. I am seeing change as continuity composed of slices of moments.

Sure, I think you are seeing the change as unbroken continuity. — Corvus

Correct.

I am seeing change as continuity composed of slices of moments. — Corvus

Time is made of moments but time is continuous.

Time is made of moments but time is continuous. — MoK

OK, think of a movie in the traditional roll films. You have thousands of moments of stills image in each single film in the long continuous roll of films. When you look at the cut of the film of the glass breaking, there will be the single film which contains the glass in contact with the stone.

The stone hit the glass, so it is in contact with the glass, but glass is still unbroken until the stone further pushed into the glass. The moment of the contact is what I am talking about. That moment is the actual breaking. Not before or after.

Changes look continuous because your eyes and brain has something called latent memory when seeing objects in motion. Change itself is not continuous. It is made of slices of many moments.

The point here is that, the OP created on the first day doesn't exist. It exists as OP with different properties — Corvus

Very clearly, in the first sentence you say that the OP does not exist. In the second you say that the OP exists.

If you cannot see this to be a problem, then there is no point in continuing.

If you cannot see this to be a problem, then there is no point in continuing. — Banno

As I said, your point seems to be coming from the concept of identity in relations rather than identity in properties. Would it be Wittgensteinian or Quinean?

The existence of OP is not main point of topic. You can still keep discussing on the other side of the topic, because it is wide and versatile theme in history of philosophy from various schools, as long as you don't participate or support the gormless strawman posters.

If you don't agree, and still see no point, then fair enough, discussions could be closed with you. No worries.

Would it be Wittgensteinian or Quinean? — Corvus

Logic.

Logic. — Banno

Isn't it Wittgenstein who believed that anything you can express in language, exists. Therefore past facts and events exist. Is it the case? I am not too familiar with Wittgenstein, but just guessing here.

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. — Janus

A world independent of mind is a world which exists without mind.
Imagination is a function of mind.
Without mind, there is no imagination.
Therefore a world independent of mind cannot be imagined. (or It is impossible to imagine a world independent of mind.)

That was my argument. It seems to be free from logical inconsistency here, but you claim, it doesn't follow. I was asking you why you assert it doesn't follow. What is your ground or reason for claiming that it doesn't follow.

If you have no present, then nothing would be possible — Corvus

Why not say the same about the past? Something proper to the past is that it was once present. In that sense there is a need for the past in order to understand and explain the possibility of the present. That the present passes but does not disappear completely (becomes past) is necessary for the existence of the present as something caused.

I've been researching cancer and i suddenly read the title of this thread as "Oncology of Time".

Breaking News:
Father Time has been diagnosed with a rare, cosmic form of "temporal tumor". His hourglass is leaking sand at an alarming rate, causing Tuesdays to last for three weeks and weekends to vanish entirely.

Don't take time for granted, or it might develop a serious medical condition that requires a specialist in the very niche field of "Temporal Oncology". And definitely, definitely, get a second opinion from Doctor Who.

Father Time has been diagnosed with a rare, cosmic form of "temporal tumor". His hourglass is leaking sand at an alarming rate, causing Tuesdays to last for three weeks and weekends to vanish entirely. — punos

Doctor Who diagnosed gravity as being the cause of Time's tumor, and in the operating room, when they opened him up, they found a black hole inside.

Doctor Who diagnosed gravity as being the cause of Time's tumor, and in the operating room, when they opened him up, they found a black hole inside. — PoeticUniverse

Oh, that's not good. Not good at all. I'm sure the gravity of the situation was not lost on anyone in the operating room.

Okay okay, let's not derail this thread. As you were everyone, as you were.

OK, back to Time, in the months and seasons passing by:

A world independent of mind is a world which exists without mind.
Imagination is a function of mind.
Without mind, there is no imagination.
Therefore a world independent of mind cannot be imagined. (or It is impossible to imagine a world independent of mind.)

That was my argument. It seems to be free from logical inconsistency here, but you claim, it doesn't follow. I was asking you why you assert it doesn't follow. What is your ground or reason for claiming that it doesn't follow. — Corvus

If you imagine a world without mind of course there is no mind by stipulation. The fact that you are using a mind to imagine a world without mind is not illogical. When you are, for example, just imagining a landscape you are not imagining it to have a mind.

The part of your claim that is unargued is as to why it should be impossible to use a mind to imagine something that has no mind.

The part of your claim that is unargued is as to why it should be impossible to use a mind to imagine something that has no mind. — Janus

If you had no mind, would you be able to imagine a world?, or be able to imagine anything?

Yep.

↪Janus Yep. — Banno

That is not a philosophical posting, is it?