This point has been addressed to Bob Ross also. Is it correct to say change is real? Are there fake changes? — Corvus

Sure the change is real and there is no such thing as fake change.

I was not denying the fact there are changes. But My point was that change happens in the moment where there is co-existence of change and not change. — Corvus

That is incoherent.

All I know is that time is a perception appearing in my mind, and change is also perception captured and appearing in mind. How they appear or why they appear physically or mentally is not philosophical topic or interest, I believe. — Corvus

I don't understand how that could be a proper response to our discussion.

No, you won't do that.  You also have reason to tell you not to do it.  Reason is not just for telling you what to do, or what or why the world is the way it is.  It is also for telling you not to do things when it is a possible danger.   

You have sense perception, but you also have reasoning ability for discerning things, telling you what is the case, what to do and what not to do.  You are not a CCTV camera just capturing the world. Are you? — Corvus

Therefore there is a car that is moving. Therefore, changes in physical are real.

That was what I have been explaining to you too until my face went blue. Physics and math cannot capture, describe or understand it, hence they would say that. Logic can. So what does it tell you? The world works under the principle of logic. Makes sense? — Corvus

I am discussing logic here. Could you have a change in a simultaneous process?

So do you mean we have three different types of time, which are subjective, psychological and objective? — Corvus

Yes.

Which one is the real time. — Corvus

Subjective time for sure is a substance so real. Objective time is required to allow a motion of the subjective time and it is not a substance. Psychological time is mysterious. It can be easily experienced by the conscious mind when there is nothing that we can entertain our time with. Therefore, I think that it is a substance as well.

The point here was about logic, but you seem to talking about your own imagination. Anyhow this is not even main topic in this thread. Please refrain from posting off-topic trivialities. — Corvus

Logic is about what we can coherently imagine.

and if yours cannot imagine a world without minds then I can only pity you.
— Janus
Should it not be self-pity on your part? :lol: — Corvus

Why take it personally? I don't believe you cannot imagine a world without minds, so I wasn't saying I pity you, I was saying I would pity you if you really could not imagine a world without minds. That is not the same as saying you cannot imagine a world without having a mind. You seem to be confusing the two.

Indeed it is. There is a distinction between “it is possible for there to be a world without minds”, ↪Janus account, and your “without minds, there are possible worlds”.


You may well be right that this last is false. But it is not what is being suggested. — Banno

Did you mean "your “without minds, there are no possible worlds”"?

Cheers.

It has long been noticed you have well established group of folks supporting each other when one gets criticism due to their ill manners. Hence no surprise. :wink: — Corvus

There have been no "ill manners". You are being over-sensitive. As far as I have witnessed Banno agrees when he genuinely agrees—and we have had our share of disagreements, so your fantasy of a "well established group" is looking a bit like a case of paranoia.

Taking critiques of or disagreements with your arguments personally makes doing philosophy in a fruitful way difficult if not impossible. It should be an opportunity to learn—to sharpen your arguments or find the humility to concede to a more well reasoned view.

While the arguments are fallacious, I might agree with the basic premise: maybe time is a placeholder, an abstraction, there is no actual entity corresponding to the word.

What really is, is casual processes. These processes can be mentally separated and made independent. Then, when we compare placeholders that are significant to us in these processes, such as revolutions of the earth, ticks on a clock, beats of a heart, you can compare the two: some amount of X placeholders in one process have transpired as some amount Y of the other has.

This is what we ordinarily call time. But this description doesn't seem to necessitate some separate, ineffable, metaphysical entity, the way the noun 'time' seems to suggest.

Sorry, I mean you are confusing the subjective time with psychological time. — MoK

Time is a concept. Like human is a concept. They are like sets. We say them, use them to describe the elements in the set. But they don't exist like cups and chair exist.

Time has the members in the set. T = {durations, intervals, instances, past, present, future ...etc}
Human has its members in the set H = {John, Paul, Peter, Jane, Mary, .... MoK ... another billions of persons}.

Continuity is a property of time. It is not time itself. It doesn't cause anything. The glass breaks due to the energy contact with the glass and the mass, not time. Time could capture the moments and durations of events.

I am still not quite sure what you mean by subjective and psychological time here.

While the arguments are fallacious, I might agree with the basic premise: maybe time is a placeholder, an abstraction, there is no actual entity corresponding to the word. — hypericin

OK, my argument is not 100% accurate or free from logical consistency, but it is purely from my own reasoning, and I admit it could be fallacious in parts. This is where logical and rational debates are cried for, suppose.

Your post here is interesting, and intelligible to me. I am going to read it over, trying to understand fully and return with my further points on your ideas.

There have been no "ill manners". You are being over-sensitive. As far as I have witnessed Banno agrees when he genuinely agrees—and we have had our share of disagreements, so your fantasy of a "well established group" is looking a bit like a case of paranoia. — Janus

I was just commenting on your sentence "going to pity". That wasn't necessary, and it just sounded like personal attack. Honestly I have never seen someone will pity somebody in philosophical debates or books. It was very first time I ever seen anyone saying that.

Read over your postings. You have been noticed making many personal attack type comments on your postings. I was just pointing it out not making great deal about it. But if you read your postings, you make big deal out of it taking it very personally yourself for what had been started by your own emotional writings to others.

It tells me that you are very lenient on your emotional writings to others, but very sensitive and paranoid on other folks response to your postings. If you have any personal points to address, use the INBOX messages. Don't write your personal and emotional grievances in the public philosophical threads.

And try to be fair and honest. Don't be lenient to your own paranoia. Be objective. Be lenient to other party's response to your postings too as you are to your own paranoia, and think why they were addressing the problematic points as they did.

Taking critiques of or disagreements with your arguments personally makes doing philosophy in a fruitful way difficult if not impossible. It should be an opportunity to learn—to sharpen your arguments or find the humility to concede to a more well reasoned view. — Janus

You are making mountains out of a mole hill, as they say. My point was simple. Use INBOX for any non philosophical posts. Don't write your emotional writings in the public philosophy threads.

Psychological time is mysterious. It can be easily experienced by the conscious mind when there is nothing that we can entertain our time with. Therefore, I think that it is a substance as well. — MoK

Your explanation here sounds like a mysticism. You claim that your explanations were based on logic, but here you seems to be admitting it is actually based on mysticism. Correct?

Subjective time for sure is a substance so real. Objective time is required to allow a motion of the subjective time and it is not a substance. — MoK

I reject your claim time is subjective, real and a substance. If subjective time is real, then objective time must be fake, right? First, you need to demonstrate how and why subjective time is a substance.

What really is, is casual processes. These processes can be mentally separated and made independent. Then, when we compare placeholders that are significant to us in these processes, such as revolutions of the earth, ticks on a clock, beats of a heart, you can compare the two: some amount of X placeholders in one process have transpired as some amount Y of the other has. — hypericin

I agree.

This is what we ordinarily call time. But this description doesn't seem to necessitate some separate, ineffable, metaphysical entity, the way the noun 'time' seems to suggest. — hypericin

This is interesting. What could that "some separate, ineffable, metaphysical entity" be? We need more elaboration on this.

I am discussing logic here. Could you have a change in a simultaneous process? — MoK

Change happens in a contradictory moment. The contradictory moment where forward driving force or energy on the mass (the stone or steel pipe), and the object (the glass) comes into the physical contact with each other. The force and the object being in contact with the mass with the force is in the contradictory moment. That contradiction is the instance of the change.

When the change had happened, it is no longer change. Before the change happened, there was no change. Change is the instance. It is not process. It is not continuity.

Therefore there is a car that is moving. Therefore, changes in physical are real. — MoK

Change is from the original state to a new state. You don't say car moving is change. Car moving is driving or travelling.

I don't understand how that could be a proper response to our discussion. — MoK

Well, I have been trying to help you understand, but the progress seems to be slow and challenging.

That is incoherent. — MoK

I think I said it before, but will say again. It is difficult to understand from physics or math point of view. All they have is numbers and measurements of the movement, motions and change of the objects. That is not time itself. You need to rise above from the physical plain, and think in metaphysical plain.

What could that "some separate, ineffable, metaphysical entity" be? We need more elaboration on this. — Corvus

My suggestion it that it is a fictiticious placeholder, an abstraction of derived from physical process.

But if there is such a thing, it is the same sort of thing as space. Space is the medium of arrangement, as time is the medium of sequence.

The difference between

Did you mean "your “without minds, there are no possible worlds”"? — Janus

This: “without minds, there are no possible worlds" is what Corvus is maintaining. He thinks it a counter you your “It is possible for there to be a world without minds”. Of course, it isn't.

Corvus is incapable of shouldering critique. Been that way for years. Hence his response here is to attack you and I, to do anything but reconsider.

So he writes

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

and

Time doesn't exist. — Corvus

Yet

I never claimed time doesn't exist. — Corvus

So blatant. Oh, well. There's nought queer as folk.

Corvus is incapable of shouldering critique. Been that way for years. Hence his response here is to attack you and I, to do anything but reconsider. — Banno

You don't hold back your unfounded critiques to others, but you are not prepared to accept others' critiques on you. That is an irrational attitude.

So blatant. Oh, well. There's nought queer as folk. — Banno

My point was to get over it, and just concentrate on philosophy.

My suggestion it that it is a fictiticious placeholder, an abstraction of derived from physical process. — hypericin

That sounds not far from my idea on time too. But a fictitious placeholder sounds a bit unclear. Why "fictitious"? What do you mean by "fictitious"?

When you say "a placeholder", would it be in the form of concept? Or would it be some other form or nature?

But if there is such a thing, it is the same sort of thing as space. Space is the medium of arrangement, as time is the medium of sequence. — hypericin

I understand space as physical entity. Do you mean the placeholder could be in space somewhere?
Could it be in the form of property of space or principle of motion?

...unfounded... — Corvus

You blatantly contradicted yourself, at least twice.

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

and

Time doesn't exist. — Corvus

Yet

I never claimed time doesn't exist. — Corvus

Not so unfounded...

Yet
I never claimed time doesn't exist.
— Corvus

Not so unfounded... — Banno

You seem to have problem of understanding under what form OP comes in general. They come in the form of suggestion and assumption for further discussions. OPs don't start with conclusions.
Also "existence" can mean many different things. "doesn't exist" implies it exists in other forms. Obviously your understanding of existence is 1-dimension only.

...unfounded...
— Corvus
You blatantly contradicted yourself, at least twice. — Banno

If you did read a good basic logic textbook, then you would have known that contradiction is necessary in some cases of logical reasonings.

If I contradicted myself, then it would have been for proving something using Reductio ad absurdum. Why do you find it unacceptable that contradiction was adopted in the process of proof or assumption?

You wriggle and squirm.

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

and

Time doesn't exist. — Corvus

Yet

I never claimed time doesn't exist. — Corvus

You do not have anything more than a superficial grasp of logic. You were not presenting a reductio. You are a bit of a twit.

You wriggle and squirm. — Banno

I am just trying to help you understand the points.

You do not have anything more than a superficial grasp of logic. You were not presenting a reductio. You are a bit of a twit. — Banno

I take that as your self-confession. :rofl:

You don't understand those points yourself. :roll:

Your stupidity is doing my head in. I'll have to leave you to it. You and your ilk are a large part of why philosophy is not taken seriously in certain circles. It's not enough just to make shit up, as you do.