Does time really exist?

If you read my passage, slowly and carefully, i had already said in the relative sense time does varies, which means it appears to be not constant when observed. Thats quite easy to understand.

Time as a concept and a factor is taken as a constant for all practical purposes on earth or beyond. If I travel from Paris to Istanbul in summer, the time taken for me to reach back to Paris in winter or next summer will remain the same if the conditions remain the same. The railway route planner need not factor 'time' but can factor conditions like snow, rain etc, but not 'time'. Thanks

Let me try and explain the issue of Trojan wars and last week. The memory is what makes you think (memorisation) about the past. last week is nearer than Trojan wars, which you had nothing to do with. The things played out during last week is in your RAM of your memory hard disk. Trojan wars are only in the pages of history. The concept of past has nothing to do with 'Time'.

Time is, what is. In other words 'is' is Time.

I think we misunderstand each others term relative...

What if the Trojan wars raised more interest than last weeks drudgery? will you remember last week, next year. In my mind , not in a a book, forever in my imagination.

If you believe time is just the measurement of a train journey then chronometry and its discipline is your bag. Time is memory and expectation, nothing more. The ticking of a clock adds urgency to our expectations.

No!! I do not know what logically means; and I do not know what possible means... But I do understand the question in regard to Kant, and since I asked first, how do you presuppose physical laws a priori not given empirically... If you are not in your fictive world whether you presume it logically possible following the laws of logic, how do you KNOW it to be logical in fact??? The Matrix has been mentioned in regard to this question, and as a fiction, it is fantasy with no one governed by physical laws who was once aware of their existence in a world of fiction...Is fiction freedom??? Is it logical to expect that humanity can only be free in our imaginations???

For Kant; if I can believe the Book: Critiique of Scientific Reason by Kurt Hubner; Physics remained, at least in terms of its form, the single justifyable way viewing the external world...

From an operationalist point of view; physics, (Your logically possible world) is neither true or false; but rather, rests on a priori precepts and ideal constructions which are imposed upon natuure only to the end of providing a schema for its mastery...No claim is made that these construction delienate the constituent structure of nature itself...

I read that as meaning we only understand enough of reason to beat the life out of nature, which is not enough to say what is reasonable when projected onto fictive worlds...Nature teaches us reason... We do not teach nature reason, and we cannot say all that is reasonable... We may suppose that all of infinite existence is exactly as this existence, following universal laws... We know even from our subjective experience of time that the human element, perception, ego consciousness, all play a huge part in what we think of as logical...

I say: no cop, no law because we cannot take ourselves out of the picture and presume anything is logically possible... Ultimately even physics is a moral form... Truth is a moral form... and logic is a moral form... These concepts exist because of us, and not without us...

yes, i think we are missing the points by light years!

The 'interest' that you generate or inculcate has got nothing to do with 'Time'......... you are completely in the dark here, i am sorry to say.

'...... and they lived happily ever after' ; 'memorable old times'; 'golden days of yore' makes you believe that indeed those 'time' are like a living entity or 'planes of existence'. It is the 1.2 kg brain cells that make you think likewise using the faculty of 'imagination'. In my initial proposition, i had already stated that 'time is movement of thoughts'. The movement of thought while imagining takes care to explain the phenomenon.
Secondly, the 'ticking of clock' adds urgency to our expectations, is a correct assessment of psychology. But how does it refute the point that time is not a constant. If i have a job appointment, my anxiety or urgency or expectations or the lack of it will not delay the scheduled meeting, would it.

'Time' is a constant in any process. Here your imagination is a kind of process. A train reaching Point A to Point B is also a process. A job interview is also a process. No processes wil take place without time being constant to all components or parties involved.

You have to do better to explain why Time is not a constant. I had said that time, apart from its other defining terms, including its relativity, is also a constant factor.

Please give reasons to your refutations, and please do not go into tangents like trojan wars are dearer and nearer to you (in your mind) than the dreadfullness of last week. And therefore 'time' is not constant, is not a logical argument to make. The time you are using here (time is memory) is psychological time which is relative just like two grains of sand is different from each other in shape and size, or like two human finger prints. If you are saying this, than surely there is nothing to fight about (so sad!).

But again, this does not mean that physical factor like time is not a constant.

Its you that states time is the movement of thoughts. Does your relationship to the experience of time stay constant? If time is the clock ticking constantly on my mantle shelf, then yes that's time. If you see it as a basic tool of measurement, then it is constant. If you see time as a means of experiencing and imagining, then it is far from constant.

thanks! I agree with you completely.

That makes our 'times' together much clearer. So one of my initial 6 propositions : 'Time is also a constant' remains as it is.

What is "logically impossible"?

If X is logically impossible, then there exist predicate P, and "not P" such that X is P, and "not P".


There is good reason to think that any possible world W, W cannot be logically impossible. You disagree?


The laws of nature is empirical, and not a priori. What this means is that we must discovery the regularities in the world, and formulate those regularities in the form of a "law". One can imagine possible worlds with different laws of nature. In all possible worlds, it seems that we can have different laws of nature, but whatever laws we can imagine, the laws must be logically possible. You disagree ?

If you say an event far beyond our lives in time is possible, for an example, the Trojan War, for which we have a witness of sorts, and evidence, then you have said something... To construct a scenario built upon your sense of what is logical, following laws and principals we have established, but have hardly mastered, then I think it is all nonsense... You must project some one into your possible world to verify, and even logic in our time must be verified against a physical reality... And I am with Descartes to a point of following proofs as by a geometric method, but there is a limit to that just as there is a limit to all logic and all proofs, that they exist in the physical world...But people do not except in the most elementary fashion exist in the physical world... Just as you let your mind play with logical possibility, another might occupy his time with the possibility of spiritual salvation... We exist in spiritual/moral worlds, and there, meaning is more essential than being... So if you say a world is logically possible you have told me nothing since you do not grasp the totality of your existence in any logical formula, and people are not logically possible in any sense of the word to experience your logically possible world as though fact...

You know, I keep talking beyond you, and perhaps you are doing the same... The fact is like a transporter or star ship days...If it were possible to throw some one an atom at a time across some great distance, would they be the same upon return??? Would they not be like Hereclites' river???We project ourselves into history or into the future as we do into the moment, with our iimaginations; but it means nothing...If we cannot be there to verify, as we could not with Troy, then it is all fiction whether possible or not...

Possible worlds serve as a way to talk about abstract concepts, but one does not need to take it literally. For example, if i say " P, Q, R are true in possible world W", I don ` t at all need to believe W exist. There is of course nothing to prevent me from supposing W exist.

I think that there is a certain presumption, which I do not see much disputed that everything exist out of necessity... I am certain I am not getting the right word here, but perhaps the meaning, anyway...It does not matter what might be possible, even logically possible in an imaginary world because if you cannot point to a necessity, a reason, a cause then all you have is fantasy...

Necessity is different from a reason, or a cause. The first is a modal notion, The second rely on the principle of sufficient reason. The third rely on causality.
The first is explicated by possible worlds semantics. The are good argument to show that the principle of sufficient reason is not true. The third has problems indicated by hume` s commentaries. What exactly do you want?

Do you think our world, the world we live in, is logically possible???...Because we would have to show a chain of logic strretching back to the beginning of time and beyond, to a first cuase... But if you say that it, the world, exists without an explanation, without a first cause evident, then you can shed a lot of speculation to no good end, at the cost of being denied much speculation about what might be logically possible..
It is not a single logical event that results in the world as we know it... For every atom and molecule there is a logical reason, which no one can say they know...If you imagine another world, suggesting it is both logical and possible Does that mean you believe you understand the logic behind every event in this world in order to recreate or judge another world logically possible???

Suppose it matter that the world is a brute fact, or has a efficient cause? No, since they are both logically possible. Why? because the do not contradict any laws of logic.


It is not correct to say events has a logical reason behind them. Logic don` t cause anything to happen.

But outside human thinking there is no time. All that there is in a universe that changes. The change is ONE and the "instant" in wich change happens is also ONE.

Time is change that's all it is. If there is no change, then there is no time. Everything changes constantly even if it doesn't appear to, it is on some level. Change is constant.

Even going from non-existing to existing constitutes change, which means time is not something created but constant, because change is constant.