So what's really going on?
It may be that the notion of time itself is linked to certain categories of existence. Not all existence is temporal. The Pythagorean theorem is true and that is not an event that happened, happens, will happen, can cease to happen etc. It is outside of time.....Does any of this proves time exists as such? ....
The past too is, in a way, outside of time. It cannot be altered just added to.
But for things that are contingent, that could be or could not be, and for our existing, it is inherently temporal.
It seems that for time to exist it would have to exist within time which is sort of a loop. Better to say that for anything contingent to exist it must exist temporally, and that includes both regular and irregular existences, paused existences, cyclic existences, as well as nothing, here meaning a period of time where no contingent thing exists.
Time comes from the fact that to exist is a verb...something like that.
Our subjective notion of time is a contingent fact. If there were no contingent beings at all for a period of time then by hypothesis there would be only such a time.
The scientific definition of time and its instantiation in the various atomic clocks, observatories, and bearuas of standards is well established. It does not measure a social construct but defines a physical parameter that is used to define physical reality. For example, if the universe were to stop for a period of time the thing so measured would also stop and while by hypothesis there would be a duration, that duration would not be measurable in seconds as currently defined.Measuring time with a clock would be essentially providing a more convenient sequencing of our perception of the microstructure.....the thing supposedly measured by clocks, is a social construct, from which is derived time as a scientific concept...
Unfortunately, I have to read mine.Clocks don't measure time. They tell time.
How else do you think you can know reality if not via direct perception?
The key to understanding is not ruminating but living life attentively, conscious of thought and perception - the more conscious you are the more obvious it gets that there really is no such thing as perception, that the perceiver, perceiving and the perceived are one and that the distinctions are made/thought up.
Agree - how could we? We never experience a "material world" - you could say that "thought is matter" as matter "exists" only after interpreting experience in an objective way.
Haha... not sure if there is a point. Maybe to see that outside the map there is nothing to talk about, nothing to name, no separation...?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests