It is not getting stuck in mind and matter. But they are all human perception can perceive.
If there are entities outside of the human perceivable categories, then they are the subject of metaphysics, religion and esotericism, which can be understood via faith and belief.
From your words: if gravity is the name of a force, then you recognize force as something existing. At the same time, is this âforceâ extended? Does it satisfy the criteria of extension in order to exist?
That gravity exists does not follow from the notion it is merely a force. The primary criteria for existence has already been given, from which it is clear gravity is as non-existent as time.
Be aware of the fact, with respect to sensation of existent things, what we think of as the sensation of gravity from our contact with the ground, is nothing more than pressure. On the other hand, with respect to some thing forcing its pressure on us, we understand that as nothing more than weight.
What belongs to Nature is very different from what humans think as belonging to themselves. Extension of a thing belongs to it alone; gravity only comes from some property a human thinks it should have.
This is a typical aporetic idea coming from the Mind-Things bi-categorical thinking confinement: as Mind is locked up in inself and its âperceptionsâ the only mean it has to access independent âthingsâ is magic: faith, belief etc.
In a matter-life-thought multi-categorical framework this is solved mainly by the âdifferential speed of beings construction speedâ concept that explain that ideas know only other ideas, but as they construct with a much more throughput than life or matter structures constructions, they tend to âmoldâ from the outside these slower entities. There is also another extraordinary concept, âtotality embeddingâ that get rid of the aporetic concept of âperceptionâ. Ans tons of other completely original working concepts.
Okay, but if something we sense affects us and objects equally, behaves identically across the globe, and is verified identically (regardless of culture, language, or other subjective factors), yet you continue to claim it doesnât exist because it doesnât fit your criteria, then youâre either a prisoner of your imagination (your previous words) or a denier of the facts.
This whole series of questions to you stems from the fact that your criterion for describing existence is weak, and therefore, it wonât be able to assess whether time exists.
Is it? The logical criterion for truth is that for which the negation is impossible.
Try holding something in your hand that doesnât exist.
Philosophy begins with doubting, and looks for the concrete knowledge on the world and mind. If doubting is not allowed or discouraged, then philosophy will fall into blind religion, dogma and propaganda.
Not quite sure what it is trying say here. Maybe you are coming from some different school or mode of thinking or philosophy?
I am only familiar with the ideas and thoughts in the History of Philosophy books. I am just a casual hobby reader, not a philosopher or scientist.
No. First, you: try walking on the ground without gravity =)
Been doing it for close on to 8o years. Put one foot in front of the other in order, and VOILA!!! Iâm walking.
All I need to walk is to put one foot in front of the other in series. I donât need gravity to put one foot in front of the other, therefore I donât need gravity to walk.
Time exists, and it is real. We live in each moment of it, so we cannot observe it. I already provided an argument in favor of time. Have you read it? If yes, what is your objection?
Are you interested in understanding my argument? Or you want me to accept your opinion, which is not based on any argument?
It is very necessary, and we cannot go further if you donât answer this simple question: Do you agree with the definition of simultaneous process?
Not yet. What does he say?
A simple counterexample falsifies that claim: The air pressure changes with altitude. Thatâs change without time. Of course youâre probably talking about change over time, but wording it that way makes it quite obviously circular. Change over X is meaningless if X isnât defined or doesnât exist.
Not sure how you define any of those. I would guess (apparently incorrectly) that objective and physical are the same thing, as are subjective and psychological.
The equations in physics tend to reference either proper time or coordinate time. The former is what clocks measure, and the latter is what dilates. This is pretty similar to how distance is treated since space and time are different dimensions of the same thing. So you have proper distance (that which rulers measure) and coordinate distance (that which contracts). Both are physical time. Proper time and distance are invariant, hence would probably qualify as âobjectiveâ. Coordinate time and distance are frame dependent, hence more abstract, not objective.
None of that âchangesâ. Itâs really difficult to understand what you mean by âtime changesâ.
Psychological time and subjective time (you can explain the difference) would seem to reference the subjective intuition that there is a preferred (present) moment in time, and that this current moment flows from one time to the next. The current moment (which is not time at all, just a pointer) can change if you decide it does. There is no evidence for the reality of this preferred moment, only intuition, a known source of lies. But perhaps this is that which you reference in the OP, which references ânowâ several times, and seems to confuse this ânowâ with time itself. Theyâre different things, the former being entirely made up, kind of like Russelâs teapot. You can assert what rules you want about something for which there is no evidence, and thatâs what this whole topic seems to be attempting.
Notice that thereâs no mention in physics of this funny dt between now and some immediate future. There are a few proposals of time being discreet (quantized), but a unified theory would help.
If time didnât exist, then the whole concept of âsimultaneousâ would be meaningless. So the statement above is nonsensical, saying effectively that if X didnât exist, then everything becomes the same X.
Theyâre called events, not âphysical statesâ. If would be more clear if you used the standard terms.
Sort of like in the Langoliers? About 6 hours for annihilation, and maybe 30 minutes of future getting prepared to be now.
It being real is different than it being objectively real. Almost everybodyâs definition of âis realâ is not an objective one, even if it claims to be.
This is completely wrong. Two events that occur at one point are the same event. Simultaneous events are events which occur at the same coordinate time. Simultaneity is a coordinate (abstraction) thing only.
You can move one foot with respect to your body, but the center of mass of your body stays at the same point if there is no external force acting on you. So, can you walk without gravity? No, because walking is an activity in which you move your center of mass forward by moving your feet. For that, you need a force acting on you forwardly, namely, friction between your foot and the ground. There would be no friction without gravity, so that no walking would be possible without gravity.
Your argument is unsound based on the false premise that time is physical.
When you talk about the definition of simultaneous process, you are no longer talking about time, but something else, which strays from the point.
Kant said what I said. Time is your mental intuition. It is not physical. Time is your perception, and a priori condition for all other perception.
When time is your intuition, future can come before past, past can come after future.
You can visit the ancient Greece, and meet Socrates and have a chat about life, which is possible in your imagination. Why the imagination of time travel is possible? Because time is your intuition and perception. If time is physical, it would be impossible to do that.
I am not talking about the change that happens spatially. I am talking about another sort of change, like motion.
No, your understanding is not correct.
No, you can have a set of events that happen at a timeless point.
No, two events that occur at the same timeless point are simultaneous rather than being the same, like you being here and there at the same timeless point.
You havenât shown that yet!
What makes a simultaneous process different from a temporal process?
He might confuse psychological and physical time. What is his argument?
I have been showing it all along my previous posts, but it appears that you havenât read or understood them.
The answers are in the Google and AI. I wonât repeat them here.
You need to explain the grounds for your position why time is not perception.