Since it is a human constuct, does that mean cars and everything else that humans have constucted do not exist.
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=161134
ask your self when did time start?
either
there has always been ‘flux’ which means
- there is no starting point and a starting point or ‘change’ is required for the ‘time’
or
- there is a starting point.
that is some point in the past something changed or 'movement started.
If you chose example 1 time does not exist
If you chose example 2 time does exist but a cause for the change to occur also exists
which leaves the door open for the existance of a higher power!
It means that none of them exists as a thing-in-itself, they have no existence that is independent of other things. Because of this interconnection, it also means they are constantly changing…and what we construct to characterize this change we call ‘time’.
Theres only the tao. Any words you use to describe it are insufficient. its not waves, not particles, not the movement of particles, not energy, not space, curvature, not matter, not mind. though all these descriptions are useful in different limitations they are all incomplete. No description can describe what is…That doesn’t mean to say we can’t understand it…we just can’t through verbal thinking…maybe the same can be said about mathematical thinking but ithink this comes closer not a complete description…
But as godel proved just writing out symbols and manipulating them does not equate to the meaning of the symbols…but by understanding what an equation means you can ‘see’ its truth.
With respects to time begining… I think as time is not absolute there can be no absolute begining only relative ones. So to us now the big bang can a relative beging but if we could actually be an obsever inside the big bang out observations would lead us to the conclusions that this is not the begining at all but that there was a begining at some other point in spacetime…this point to us today could be any arbitary spacetime point…ok im justs spouting bollox at this point… but its called thinking i guess.
Time is a dimension with one direction(forwards only).
Saying that time doesn’t exist
you imply that 3-dimentional space doesn’t exist either.
And that’s completely off-balanced and wrong.
Well technically this “time” does exist, or else it wouldn’t be referred to in the statement. Although it is only a negative in the proposition, that is, you are saying that X does not exist (X is “time”) and in that sense you are using the term as a real subject in the statement, it symbolizes a hypothetical concept…a “zero”. When the statement is heard and interpreted, it works, because this thing which does not exist is represented by a term which is in question.
The better question is, does an event really happen when sense is made from a statement involving references to negative things…things which do not exist? If statements correspond to events and behaviors, how does one represent and demonstrate a negative concept other than marking an absence of something in the propositional definition of “X”?
If not X, then not not X either. Therefore X.
But this is not necessary in logic. Zero has a value as an unreal thing.
Actually, if there is no time, there is no movement. Just ask yourself, when you pause a game, did you freeze time? Pretty simple proof time exists, in the sense that - it is a distribution of energy-flow over a space.
To say there is no time, is to say energy never flows, and energy has never existed. That’s a pretty big claim!
You have to exist simultaneously all of the moments you make a move, any move is a change not only of position, but to another different area, and their must be a cointaining space-object in which you can exist.
Super - you’ve got it backwards. If there is no movement, there is no time. Time is merely a measurement of movement. I do not know why this is so difficult.
Measurements don’t “exist”. They are just something that we do, from time to time.
No pun intended.
Actually no, because time is space, rather, it is space-time, did you not take physics?
SPACE-TIME, they are the same, if you have no time, you have no space in which to exist, because they are the same object, which is space-time.
Space-time decribes four dimensions. Dimensions are measurements. Space doesn’t exist, either. The stuff that occupies it does.
I not only took physics, I understood it.
It shows.
My only comment is to add “the stuff that occupies it does relative to all other stuff.” Which, interestingly, allows one to argue that space exists, but also only in relation to all other stuff. 
Well, science treats space as if it exists - so far, anyway, because everyone else does - at least everyone who has thought about it. But “space” is a mathematical abstraction. Very useful, of course.
There is no “stuff” without space. A ball only exists as a ball because of the space around it. Space defines borders and boundaries of “things”. If this were not true, the would be no differentiation of anything. No-thing exists without space.
In some cosmological perspectives nothing exists within time, but brings time into existence in it’s own creation. Things come into being, persist, and ultimately return to the flow. “Things” create time. There is no time separate from things just as there is no thing without space.
A ball exists - as a ball - because of the definition of “ball”. The abstraction “space” is one way of defining the limits we place on that which we name. It’s the name that makes the ball. Else all is oneness.
And if all is oneness, we don’t need the word “space” - or any other word.
I’ll claim that because science can’t know, it shouldn’t claim to know that it knows, we can take space as a given a priori existent.
Otherwise the whole of science collapses if science says no to this question:
Can you get a vector (move to) to the-all-non-existing-space, if it absolutely doesn’t exist?
Space is not a nothing, it is an empty-thing-existant, if it exists, it is a thing-that exists, ALWAYS. If it never had absolute potential-to-exist, then it can never exist.
The best way to see how stupid scientists are is to think of it in terms of a strategy game, especially supreme commander.
Can a unit in supreme commander get a vector, to a non-existing vector-space? Hmm… I didn’t think so either!
Super - we do take space as an a priori existent. But a priori existents cannot be proven, by definition. Fortunately, they don’t need to be.
That’s the best I can do, considering what i take to be a couple of serious typos in your last post.
Ahh but all existing things are OBJECTS, even if we can’t measure them directly, we can infer them using geometry.
Space is distinct from objects, so because it is distinct, it is a distinct object and all distinct object that exists, must have a boundary
Check out this argument:
Does ALL-existence, exist always?
If we exist, there can not possibly be an absolute-non-existence, never.
All potential to exist, must have always existed.
Flat-earthers were difficult to convince also.
Contrary to popular perception ; movement does not exist.
The phenomena of matter / particles is a trick ( persistence of vision) played on the eye by energy waves. As “matter” pops in and out of our perceived universe; we only think we see movement. A paper airplane will not move across the room, but appear and disappear many times from here to there. see ( Zeno Paradox ).
And it is this perceived movement that further gives the illusion of passing time.
And further more ; Old science told of matter and space in which matter existed. space was a void. In actuality ’ space" is the plenum from which everything, we perceive, originates.
Matter tells spacetime how to curve; spacetime tells matter how to move. One can not exist without the other…end of argument
Caps - In Zeno’s premises (or supposed premises), he claims that the arrow moves. In the conclusion, he claims that the arrow does not move. True is implying false…