What is time?

[bahman]

...does change exist? Is it a substance?

Yes change exists. Yes, change is in a substance.

I guess what you are saying is that change is dependent on there being things to change. Time on the other hand would march on, even if nothing happened.

Although what you said is true that is not what I am trying to say. What I am trying to say is that change is a substance since we experience it.

I have difficulty to come with an example of something that is not a substance. Basically, to me reality is made of mind and qualia which both of them exist, mind is an irreducible substance and qualia are reducible substances.

I don't understand what qualia are reducible to.

By reducible I mean it is subject to change therefore it is also subject to destruction and creation.

Change is a sort of qulia as well since we experience it.

Again I'm guessing, but I take it you mean that time is an irreducible substance, while change is reducible because there needs to be things to change, and we experience it. If that's a fair assessment, then don't we experience time?

I didn't say that time is irreducible. I said mind is irreducible which means it is changeless and is not subjected to destruction and creation.

[CHNOPS]

You dont experience "time" or "change".

You only experience THINGS, OBJECTS.

The only thing with this is that you experience images (that are objects, things) where a few of them we call it "memory of a past time".... and that is where it came the confusion or ilusion of time.


Time is a difference we make about the objects we see.


bahman, everything is mind, perception, YES, that is right. I dont want you to change that believe. I want you to complete your knowledge.


When you believe that "time" is a substance, you will always be incomplete, and you always be searching for that, and you will never gonna find it.


Most of people are in a debate of "qualias/no-qualias", and you must to understand that THERE ARE NO QUALIAS, but that doesnt mean that then the materialist way is rigth, no, it only means that:

"everything is qualia, or nothing is qualia".


So, I believe that everything is qualia, that is why there is no qualias... because everything is perception, there are no "physical things and qualias things", there are just the same kind of substance.


And when you believe that time is a substance, you are making time as if there is a qualia, diferent from other things. And that is wrong.


There are only things, and when we compare that things is where you talk about "time". Nothing more than that.

[bahman]

You dont experience "time" or "change".

I do experience time and change. I even experience acceleration. Haven't you ever been to an amusement park?

You only experience THINGS, OBJECTS.

That is true. I also experience change, speed, and acceleration. How could we know that they exist if we have never experienced them?

The only thing with this is that you experience images (that are objects, things) where a few of them we call it "memory of a past time".... and that is where it came the confusion or ilusion of time.

Time is a difference we make about the objects we see.


bahman, everything is mind, perception, YES, that is right. I dont want you to change that believe. I want you to complete your knowledge.


When you believe that "time" is a substance, you will always be incomplete, and you always be searching for that, and you will never gonna find it.

As I mentioned, I experience time. How could I experience something that does not exist? Time exists, so it is a substance, given the definition of substance.

Most of people are in a debate of "qualias/no-qualias", and you must to understand that THERE ARE NO QUALIAS, but that doesnt mean that then the materialist way is rigth, no, it only means that:

"everything is qualia, or nothing is qualia".

Not everything is qualia. Everything is qualia and minds. Qualia is subject to change so it needs something to change it so-called mind.

So, I believe that everything is qualia, that is why there is no qualias...

Now, you are not making any sense at all. Qualia is the subject of experience. You cannot say that it does not exist.

because everything is perception, there are no "physical things and qualias things", there are just the same kind of substance.

Perception is just a mode of experience. There are other modes of experience, such as the experience of thought.

And when you believe that time is a substance, you are making time as if there is a qualia, diferent from other things. And that is wrong.

No, that it not wrong.

[Harbal]

I think someone else said it earlier: Time is a system of measurement. If it can be experienced, then we experience it in a similar way to how we experience a metre, or a gallon, or a kilogramm. Just thinking out loud (and then typing and posting the thoughts).

[CHNOPS]

I think someone else said it earlier: Time is a system of measurement. If it can be experienced, then we experience it in a similar way to how we experience a metre, or a gallon, or a kilogramm. Just thinking out loud (and then typing and posting the thoughts).

And you experience "a metre" or "a kilogramm" ?

When you see a rock of 5 kg, what do you see? what you really really see?

[CHNOPS]

I do experience time and change. I even experience acceleration. Haven't you ever been to an amusement park?

Yes, but I dont say I experience acceleration as if it were a substance, a thing. I just experience a car and riels.

I experience one relation that I call "relation A" that is a particular relation when the car, the mountain and the riels are in a particular relation, for example the car is ON THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAIN.

Then, I experience another relation that I call "relation B" that is another particular relation when the car is ON BOTTOM OF THE MOUNTAIN.

Then, I compare the 2 experiences and now I can talk about "acceleration". But I never experience a thing called acceleration....

As I mentioned, I experience time. How could I experience something that does not exist? Time exists, so it is a substance, given the definition of substance.

We are reasoning about if that is true or not. You cannot start saying "I experience time, then....", because u need to doubt about it.

[Harbal]

And you experience "a metre" or "a kilogramm" ?

Sorry, I only answer silly questions by appointment.

[popeye1945]

Can we all agree that time realms occur in differing parts of the universe, that these systems are of a certain size and behave in differing ways? They affect the stability and the movement of other objects within the time realms that they belong to. That biology within said time realms will also be affected by the time realm systems they are part of? That the reactions of biology are due to the effects of this larger time system? Just think of the time realm as an object. Objects are energies affecting our biologies. Time is energies affecting our biologies thus both time and objects of our apparent reality are reactions, biological readouts of these said energies. We do not create energies, but through us, the effective readout is an apparent reality of biological reactions. Time is the whole affecting its parts, as the parts affect each other and the parts ultimately affecting the whole.

[uwot]

Basically, to me reality is made of mind and quail...

Fair enough. What is the source of qualia?

[attofishpi]

Basically, to me reality is made of mind and quail...

Fair enough. What is the source of qualia?

A good question.

Interesting that we are biological and that we have minds that depend on qualia - an input that permits us to perceive "reality".

So as humans, we are an ongoing chemical reaction called biology. Ongoing refers back to the thread title, that time, events must occur to permit such a chemical reaction, that eventually permits conscious minds.

It appears that we as conscious minds are entwined with what we perceive, as the clock of what we perceive is also of the clock of our own conscious awareness.

[bahman]

Basically, to me reality is made of mind and quail...

Fair enough. What is the source of qualia?

Mind experiences and causes qualia.

[bahman]

I do experience time and change. I even experience acceleration. Haven't you ever been to an amusement park?

Yes, but I dont say I experience acceleration as if it were a substance, a thing. I just experience a car and riels.

I experience one relation that I call "relation A" that is a particular relation when the car, the mountain and the riels are in a particular relation, for example the car is ON THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAIN.

Then, I experience another relation that I call "relation B" that is another particular relation when the car is ON BOTTOM OF THE MOUNTAIN.

Then, I compare the 2 experiences and now I can talk about "acceleration". But I never experience a thing called acceleration....

What is an object to you? To me, an abject is a set of minds that they are attached by qualia.

As I mentioned, I experience time. How could I experience something that does not exist? Time exists, so it is a substance, given the definition of substance.

We are reasoning about if that is true or not. You cannot start saying "I experience time, then....", because u need to doubt about it.

Can you experience something that does not exist?

[bobmax]

So, I believe that everything is qualia, that is why there is no qualias... because everything is perception, there are no "physical things and qualias things", there are just the same kind of substance.

But this "substance", not being something, is not there.

It is, but for this very reason it is not there.
And what is not there is not itself also nothing?

As a child I happened to be seized by a melancholy, which at times became anguish for the nothing that I perceived latent behind everything.
With adulthood, however, the world became more concrete, and the sense of horror of its nullity was rarefied.
But now it's coming back, now that the intensity of life is waning.

When it happens there is always that indescribable horror.
But now it seems to me that I will be able to hypothesize at least one reason.

And the reason for that Nothing is, in my opinion, that is the confirmation of the impossibility of perceiving the true reality.
It is Being, which is not there, precisely because it is.

[CHNOPS]

An object is what i percieve.

When I see a chair, then, that chair is an object.

When I see a cat, then, that cat is an object.

When I feel love, then, that love is an object.

Because everything is qualia... so, there is no diference between a chair or love, in terms of substance, there are the same substance.


And no, I cannot experience something that doesnt exist.

What exist? the objects...


What not exist? the relation between objects, the numbers, change, acceleration, etc, because there arent objects....

Is the "7" an object? NO.

There are no "7". There are only cats, and when you compare it you say "there are 7 cats". Is an abstraction that doesnt exist.


The same with time... there are only objects... and when you compare it you say "its accelerate", "it changed".


When you say someting "changed", you are comparing 2 objects: the one you are percieving, and another object that you are imagining (remembering).



I think is more easy if you understand first, that there are no "7", just "7 cats", "7 dogs", "7 chairs", etc, but no "7".


Then, you will understand the rest more easy.

[attofishpi]

An object is what i percieve.

When I see a chair, then, that chair is an object.

When I see a cat, then, that cat is an object.

When I feel love, then, that love is an object.

Because everything is qualia... so, there is no diference between a chair or love, in terms of substance, there are the same substance.


And no, I cannot experience something that doesnt exist.

What exist? the objects...


What not exist? the relation between objects, the numbers, change, acceleration, etc, because there arent objects....

Is the "7" an object? NO.

There are no "7". There are only cats, and when you compare it you say "there are 7 cats". Is an abstraction that doesnt exist.


The same with time... there are only objects... and when you compare it you say "its accelerate", "it changed".


When you say someting "changed", you are comparing 2 objects: the one you are percieving, and another object that you are imagining (remembering).



I think is more easy if you understand first, that there are no "7", just "7 cats", "7 dogs", "7 chairs", etc, but no "7".


Then, you will understand the rest more easy.

You've got an interesting and peculiar way of looking at things.

Love is not an object, it is an emotion.