Because the two times are not identical, an examination will be made to determine their differences. What an ontological definition of time
may be is the familiar “Time is what clocks measure”. In accordance with this definition, the hands of a clock MOVE from point A to point B.
The result of this movement of the hands on a clock is called time and is shown as a number, the measurement of time on the clock. What is
significant about this motion from point A to point B is that any measurement of time is dependent on motion. Moreover, when the hands
of a clock do move from point A to point B, a distance is measured. This distance from point A to point B can be called time. Motion, then,
not only makes time possible but actual, and it seems that a definition of time is the measurement of motion. Kant’s transcendental view of
time subordinates motion to time while motion just becomes a representation is not a true view. Time is dependent on motion, not the
reverse; and I think this dependence of time on motion makes time not ontological but conceptual. In my view time’s ontological existence
depends on ontological materialism and immaterial space. Since time is not material, ontological time cannot be sensed or found in the reality
of materialism and cannot have an immaterial existence because immaterial space is the only possible immaterial existent. Therefore, time’s
ontological existence is doubtful, but time has a conceptual existence as witnessed by its regulatory, organizational and practical applications
in the affairs of humanity. The relative time in spacetime, if it exists, can only be conceptual time.
Cool analysis.
One thing I was thinking about this, how can something move if time doesn’t already exist? You want to subordinate time to movement, I think that’s fair. But then how does something move in the first place? Movement is change. So let’s say, things change is a basic truth of (at least some) existing things.
If things change, this already seems to necessarily imply the notion of time. Not merely conceptually but logically, ontologically. Imagine that time does not exist, everything is one frozen moment. How could something change? It doesn’t seem like it could. Unless…
Everything materially is frozen, but there are certain energies (not “things”, more like immaterial energies, waves or something like that) that move around the frozen reality-sculpture. From the perspective of those energies themselves, they only experience whatever they happen to be moving around on. So they might think reality is also moving because from their perspective it is moving; they don’t realize they are essentially reading an unchanging ‘code’. Like how we take a bunch of frozen film frames and run them in a fast sequence to make a “movie”.
There might be some truth to this idea in terms of physics. They say time is quantized. So everything must be digital at base. Plank time would ‘jump’ from instant to instant with no intervening space/changes/moments. But this jumping is happening so insanely fast that everything ends up looking like it’s in motion, even on massively greater macro-scales like the one we live in.
But even this theory has a flaw, namely: the energy moving around the frozen reality-sculpture or whatever is jumping from plank instant to plank instant, how is that moving/changing if there is not already some kind of time? Maybe something about the frozen unchanging base layer of reality is generating these energies or perspectives to ‘jump’ around. Maybe something about reality itself, even though it is entirely static at its core, is self-inconsistent and cannot mesh or match with itself fully and so is producing ‘errors’ or disjoints. Like out of phase, or maybe different dimensions intruding upon each other. Or, maybe each individual Plank instant in Plank space is its own fully unique dimension incapable of relating to the other little Plank instant-spaces around it, therefore a kind of fundamental skew it build right into reality. This skew or impossibility to reconcile one point of reality to any other is somehow causing errors, something escapes the point, a kind of basic energy or force. Maybe the energy is an illusion of sorts, like reality is so disjointed at its core that it metaphysically stacks up higher layers that are also part of the sculpture but attempt to bridge these gaps/tensions. Maybe it is like Deleuze said, and difference is fundamental. The repetition of pure difference as such is somehow an impetus for… something to ‘move’ or at least for something to be onto-logically unable to remain motionless.
Therefore we could have the frozen unchanging reality of material, along with something immaterial that jumps or moves around the various instantaneous points of reality. That immaterial energy-something could be what we experience as consciousness, or at least what we experience as consciousness could be like a very derivative and extended macro version of it.
Thanks for reply. It’s believed that the first motion started with the big bang. Inertia continues unless acceleration by some force. If time was ontological, I
think motion would depend on it. Stop time and all motion stops. Einstein said that time was an illusion, but conceptual time isn’t. But there is no need for
ontological time; however, motion is a paramountal requirement, On the clock, the hands move before time is measured. That’s my view, but I understand
the view for ontological time.
By conceptual time I think you mean consciousness, our perception of time. A kind of metaphysical time. But on the other hand maybe Einstein was wrong and time does literally exist, maybe it isn’t an “illusion”.
Time can’t be only the measure of motion, since motion is impossible without something like a temporal dimension to begin with. However, we might say that temporality does exist in a metaphysical sense, like a latent possibility, but time itself is nothing more than stuff in motion and taking measurements of that which measurements we call “time” or the units of time.
Time is somewhat relative, we already know that, and Einstein seemed right about general relativity and special relativity. At least as far as we plebs are told by the elite institutions and academia. Supposedly his equations are needed to coordinate GPS satellites and supposedly they are proven by using identical atomic clocks and sending one into space at high velocity only to return and be slightly out of sync with the one that remained on earth. I can buy that even if logically it’s a bit dubious, but it’s certainly not something I am able to verify for myself. The relativity of time that I can verify is more the subjective experience of time passing, which depends in part on how the mind subdivides experiences and how it pays attention to some things while ignoring other things. Some experiences are subjectively experienced more quickly than others. Likewise we can imagine that time is bound to its particular scale of material reality, so if a single cell organism could have subjective experiences analogous to our own it might experience a literal lifetime of time for itself in what for us passes as about 15 minutes.
And also the fact that speed/velocity is relative. If time = measuring motion, and speed is relative, then time would seem to admit to relativity as well.
Not consciousness, but the time related such as measurements, organization, regulations and practical uses, etc. Ontological time, if it exists, is not material; therefore, it
must be immaterial. My view is that there can only be one immaterial–space. Immaterial space is something like a god–there can only be one. Time is a useful human
creation. Time cannot be found, not even on a clock. Nowhere in existence is time found; it is needed only by humans.
First engaged here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 9#p2918959
I’ll come back.
The irreducibly complex interlocking synchronicities are like yeast in rising dough… kind of like the timing belt of an engine that won’t run without it. But we can steer models of the vehicle and manufacture them according to the mechanics of the grand engine. The whole timeline is the whole timing belt if you don’t exclude the rest of the engine or fuel, and limit its destinations to internal ones. Internal to what? The spiritual matter of the engineer.
The whole is parts; If a part is bad, that’s too bad.
It is not what goes into a man that defiles him.
“Time” is how man measures change - entropy.
Man uses anything with a consistent predictable sequence.
In the past men used their own biology: the systolic/diastolic rhythms of their cells determining their perception of change…later they used the consistent arc of a pendulum, relative to the Earth’s gravity…later they used crystals vibrating at predictable consistent rates.
Time is about juxtaposition.
On a cosmic scale linear time is a movement from near-bsolute order towards increasing disorder - momentum towards a theoretical near-absolute state of chaos.
This means as organisms we experience this as need/suffering, as we attempt o resist this increasing disordering or change.
As such I say that the truly revolutionary political stance is conservatism, because liberalism worships change which is inevitable…it occurs with or without our approval.
Of course lefties - remaining infected by Abrahamic theology and not yet completely over it - mean that change is good because it changed the current state of affairs which they dislike, and the future is always ‘positive’ since the cosmos is governed by a benevolent movement towards goodness - they secularly define this as absolute order.
So, as nihilists, they’ve inverted the sequence and believe that the cosmos is moving towards increasing order, which they will benefit from because they will immerse themselves in a universal collective.
Those who know, know that what they truly worship is chaos - movement towards increasing level of randomness, or no-thingness…where all suffering/need will cease because there will be no life to become conscious.
Consciousness itself is attracted to order - patterns - because it is a manifestation of an ordering, i.e., organism.
I thought that entrophy or disorder (not good) is the natural rule.
Objectively speaking nothing is good or bad.
Relative to life, with the objective of continuing to live, yes…chaos is a negative.
But here’s kicker:
Chaos is also our greatest benefactor.
Without it order would not emerge and free-will would not be necessary.
Life and non-life would be indiscernible.
As I’ve noted:
Judaism worships the Demiurge of Gnosticism…a hermaphrodite good/evil deity, representing nature - chaos/order - only they side with chaos.
Islam and Christianity worship a purified order, projected as an absolute end, an ideal.
Satanism is how these Abrahamics relate to paganism.
So, in Hellenic paganism Prometheus is man’s benefactor, and is punished by the gods for his gifting to man …what exactly?
Objectivity.
This is what is lost in the Garden of Eden. Innocence. The innocence of animals and children.
Prometheus becomes Satan…the evil benefactor of man.
Prometheus is in Greek Προμηθεας, the foreseeing one; the one that can predict.
His antithesis is Επιμηθεας…brother of Prometheus and his opposite.
The one who cannot foresee. The one that perceives after-the-fact.
The ability to accurately predict is a product of objectivity.
It’s third-person perspective eliminating ego, self-interests, emotions, so as to prevent corruption.
But this evolutionary ability comes at a cost …it increases man’s awareness of himself, making the Know Thyself possible.
And this exposes man to another source of suffering, and so man loses paradise when he gains objective foresight…or the third-person perspective.
A cognitive leap with a high cost.
The only factor limiting man’s foresight is…chaos.
Man can only foresee what is patterned, ordered. So, chaos is also the source of his greatest fears, anxieties…evil.
Chaos is anti-rational: reason loves order like kidneys love water. Readers of Hamlet get to hear him say there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so. That applies
to values–to morality, but reality is amoral, hard and harsh.
Yes, chaos, properly defined and understood, is irrational, and unpredictable…and so a source of anxiety.
Nature is chaos + order.
Morality is an evolutionary behaviour, helping organisms to practice cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
Organisms are resistant to chaos…they are ordering.
Nature is indifferent to life.
Life wills and life cares.
Humans encoded these moral behaviours into sacred rules…considered, by him, divine, because they benefited his survival.
Ethics evolved as human systems became more complex.
Ethics are amendments of morals laws.
So, morals are genetic - innate behaviours - converted to language, abstractions; ethics are memetic, ideological, facilitating the reproduction of a particular kind of behaviour, a particular kind of man.
and yet…immoral madness multiplies maniacally
Yes, clocks measure time, but only accurate clocks measure time correctly. Ever heard of a clock that gains or loses time? Sure you have, because not all clocks measure time accurately.
If we have two clocks that are synchronized, reading the same and keeping the same time, and then some duration elapses and the two clocks no longer read the same, then it is a fact that one of the clocks, or maybe both of the clocks did not keep accurate time.
Time does not need a clock to exist. Time does not need anything to exist. Time is simply duration, with or without a universe or any clock or motion. Time is inevitable!
As you alluded to earlier, time is an aspect of space. Or perhaps space is an aspect of time. Or they are one in the same or neither. But, It is real, it is not needed, it is likely also yet not fully found, nor are we capable yet of fully understanding it, as such, many judgments here and there are hasty.
Movement = space/time synthesis.
That’s not true.
Motion only happens because infinity is being itself and can’t catch up with itself.