A simultaneous process is a vague concept which is empty without what it is about. So you are asking something empty if I know it.
We have been trying to clarify whether time exists in the material world, or in your perception. This is the most fundamental point to clarify before we can progress further into the analysis.
Could you clarify what the strictly timed structure of Matter is?
Does Matter has timed structure? Or time is the structure of Matter?
How are Matter and time related?
Do you know what a simultaneous process is? Yes or no?
It is not an relevant or intelligent question to ask for the discussion. Of course anyone can goole or go to AI and know it.
The point here is which arguments will be found to be more reasonable and rational for the existence of time topic. It is not about whether you know X or Y or Z.
Any questions like that is meaningless in philosophical discussions these days, because you know anyone can know anything by googling or AIing.
It is relevant to the discussion. We cannot go further if you do not explain here what a simultaneous process is.
It would be far more helpful if you answered what your position is on the existence of time (material or mental) and what the changes of time means in real terms, and why it is so.
I could only direct you to Google or Wiki if you donât know about it. But I donât believe me explaining that to you here would help anything or anyone in the discussion.
A simultaneous process is a process in which events occur at one point. Agree or disagree?
From my own reasoning, all times (past, present and future) exist in now, in our perception. There is no such existence called physical time in the whole universe. So time itself cannot change.
Above is my argument, and I would like to hear your own thoughts on it. No thing from Wiki or Google or AI. Just what you think about the point on the analysis.
That is certainly false, and I am not interested in discussing it here. Feel free to open your own thread on this, and I will probably join you there. Back to basics: A simultaneous process is a process in which events occur at one point. Agree or disagree?
Itâs quite contradictory.
Perhaps there are some criteria for what can be called existence? At least intersubjective ones? Otherwise, one says time exists, another says it doesnât, a third says itâs not in our reality. Itâs too much for a simpleton like me.
So, are there criteria by which we can say this exists and that doesnât, so we can talk about time?
Yes we are in Time means we canât define what it is, we can just think of the t variable. This means time doesnât exists as a separate object we can envelop with other things. So at our level it doesnât exists: we exist as separate objects moving in Time.
At the inter-categorial level, between quanta and matter categories, I defined Time as the product of the self-reflexion of the quanta causality, randomness: this is a produced object at this level, so it has existence, in pure quantum state it doesnât exists, in the self-reflected quantum state, i.e. material state, it exists, and then (i.e. in Time) Life exists in Time, and then Thought (us) exists in Time: see the difference now between objects existing in external ânon-existingâ Time container and Time existing in the multi-categorical container (i.e. Totality)?
Edit: a clean way to say it is: existence is a Time property. Time doesnât exists in Time as an object: this has no meaning.
I defined Time as a quantum self-reflexion. Matter does not belong to quanta reality it belong to the Einsteinâ Time-Space. For Matter you use the variable local time of the Einstein time-space container. Itâs a container: you canât catch it from the content.
It would be unnecessary practice keep starting new threads when there are already same threads going on in the forum.
That sounds like an irrelevant tautology for the discussion. If it is relevant, you need to explain how it is related to existence and change of time.
Have you read Kantâs CPR?
I am not sure if there are another entities apart from matter and mind. If there are, I have not perceived or experienced yet. The only existence and events I have perceived and experienced are matter and mind.
When you say âcontainerâ as time, it sounds more like a mental entity in your mind rather than physical. Because no one has ever seen a physical container called time.
This is the problem I started with in my MCogito system: you canât solve any philosophical aporia like the Time question when stuck in the matter-mind bi-categorical thinking framework. There are five irreducible categories: quanta, matter, life, thought, data.
= you canât catch the Time container with some Thinking content. You can only represent Time with the variable t, but you still donât know what it is. Time is a product of the quanta category and exists only for the Matter category.
If there is disagreement on the one, wouldnât there necessarily be disagreement on the other?
Prime criterion for existence is extension in space;
That which exhibits extension is a thing;
The thing effecting the senses is an appearance;
The affect on the senses by appearance is sensation;
Time is none of that.
We in general make the mistake of talking about time, when in fact we are merely talking about the relations of things, either to ourselves or to each other.
Plus, we need something to explainâŚâŚ
âŚâŚ.why two things can be in one place at different times, but one thing cannot be in two places at one time;
âŚâŚ.why all parts of space are just the same space, re: as aggregate, but all parts of time are not the same time, re: as succession.
âŚâŚand that which needs to be explained cannot be a property of the observed things, but must arise from the very possibility of comprehension of those observations.
Can you then tell me:
What is space itself (which assumes extension)?
And gravity (which influences extension)âis it a thing?
Space is nothing more than that human rational invention which logically satisfies the relation between observation and explanation.
Gravity is merely the name of a force humans use to explain specific observations.
Gravity as an influence on extension of course, presupposes it, which doesnât require any more from it than being a force.