Here, I provide an argument against the common belief that time exists only at now and changes. I also provide a solution to the problem of time and its change that requires that the immediate future exist. Here is the first argument: A change in time requires that a later moment becomes now later. But a later moment cannot become now later if there is no time. So we need time for a change in time. This leads to an infinite regress. An infinite regress is not logically possible. Therefore, time cannot change if it only exists at now. And the solution to this problem is that the immediate future must exist and be created constantly, and now must be subject to constant annihilation, so the immediate future becomes constantly now.
Kant wrote that time and space are a priori constructs established as part of human nature. They are built into our minds. Konrad Lorenz wrote that this a priori knowledge was the result of our minds evolving by Darwinian evolution. This makes sense to me.
This is an assumption that I don’t think is justified.
Time is not something that can be understood only logically. It’s not philosophy, it’s science. It’s a fact of the world. Things you say about it have to be justified empirically.
Time doesn’t change. Your perception does.
I think they are talking about psychological time. Here I am talking about physical time that is independent of our minds. Most philosophers and scientists are not aware of this distinction.
It is not an assumption. Time is required when something is becoming something else later.
Here, I am discussing time from a philosophical point of view. Whatever time is from a scientific point of view, it has to respect this view.
Anything that is subject to change requires time, whether it is an object or your perception. Time itself changes, otherwise, change is not possible, whether in an object or in your perception.
I think most philosophers and scientists know the difference between physical and psychological time.The implication of Kant’s claim is that there is no time independent of our minds.
This is a circular argument—“Time is required when something is becoming something else at a later time.”
I would have thought it was the other way around—philosophy can’t contradict science.
Time needs time for time to change? Time is already time, hence time doesn’t need time to change. Or time doesn’t change at all. It is your perception of change which imagines time changed?
He is certainly talking about psychological time then. I don’t think he believed in the existence of physical time at all, given your quote.
It is not circular. Time is needed for any change: Consider a change, X to Y, where X and Y represent two states of affairs*. X and Y must lie at two different points of something; otherwise, they are simultaneous, and there cannot be any change. Let’s call these points tx and ty, respectively. Moreover, Y comes after X, so ty comes after tx as well. tx, and ty are two points of something that we call time.
*X and Y could be two states of a physical system, such as a falling apple, where X and Y represent the states of the apple in two different positions.
Think of the cyclic universe, which clearly leads to infinite regress. It is not acceptable philosophically; therefore, it cannot be a correct model of the universe.
Yes, if time exists only at now.
That is certainly false.
That is clearly wrong and illogical.
Please prove time changes.
Please read the OP!
Here, please find the argument that time is needed for any change: Consider a change, X to Y, where X and Y represent two states of affairs*. X and Y must lie at two different points of something; otherwise, they are simultaneous, and there cannot be any change. Let’s call these points tx and ty, respectively. Moreover, Y comes after X, so ty comes after tx as well. tx, and ty are two points of something that we call time.
*X and Y could be two states of a physical system, such as a falling apple, where X and Y represent the states of the apple in two different positions.
It is obvious that time changes from tx to ty from the above argument.
Already did. The OP seems assuming time changes with no explanation what change means in time. All you get is read times. Time is not physical existence. It cannot change like darkness to lights, cold to warm, or ice to water.
The two states of affairs are in your perception of the objects you observed. They are not time itself. You are confusing your own perception of the objects or states with your reading times which is also perception of your clocks and watches.
I already provided the argument that time is subject to change. Please read the argument in my last response to you.
It does not matter what the states of affairs are. Just please read the argument to see that time changes as well.
This is a great deduction because it’s exactly the way quantum mechanics manage time. I can try to explain how it works but it will need a long an difficult post.
you can try this prompt with Gemini: “Explain how the gauge symmetry of the time dimension turns time into a free variable at the fundamental quantum level. How does this mathematical freedom create a bidirectional (forward and backward) virtual ‘draft’ exploration of causality, and why does this a-causal computation drop off sharply to form the exact probability apex we experience as the ‘Present’ (the Now)?”
Just a comment here. Suppose you have an empty sealed box within which there is no physical change. I know, a stretch. Ten years later you inspect the box, which externally shows decay. Can you say that time has passed in the interior of the box?
Thank you very much for your positive reply. I am a physicist by education, and I studied particle physics, cosmology, and string theory to a good extent, a very long time ago, 35 years ago. I am rusty now, so please forgive me for my ignorance on the topic, as I don’t remember things now. I followed what you suggested and interacted with Gemini, but that didn’t add up to anything that I didn’t know about time. It would be nice if you could elaborate and explain why what I argued is already treated in the quantum theory of time.
It is exactly circular. You say time is required because of the characteristics of time.
As I understand it, philosophy is required to conform to the reality manifested in reality and not the other way around.
Yes, I did. When an apple drops from the tree to the ground, there is moment of the drop, and the moment of hitting the ground.
Nowhere you can see the time in the process of the drop. You just perceive the drop motion until it lands on the ground.
Time only generates from your measuring the motion from the start of the drop, and landing on the ground inside of your perception from the stopwatch reading.
Time has not changed. It was generated by your reading operation.
Another example from the counter arguements. Consider your own birth - the year you were born and now. The time of your birth was recorded, and now you see the calendar and you perceive how old you are.
Where is the time? Time is invisible. But you have your age from the recording of the DOB and now.
There is nothing changed in time. But only the person called MoK has changed. Time change is an illusion. Time doesn’t exist in physical form. It is just perception.