@xxxx,
xxxx wrote:
time is an abstract measurment. Time is not needed in the universe. The natural world is simply movement through space and the coversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Even without time the world would be able to function properly. There is no need for it.
"Time is an abstract measurement"...yes. "Time is not needed in the universe"...yes. "The natural world is simply movement through space and the conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy...wait doesn't the word "through" imply a temporal measurement --how otherwise to mark the entrance and exit? Hmmm...
farmerman wrote:
time and space are conjoined
farmerman wrote:
time is that thing that keeps all other things from happening at once
Eh, cliches...if time and space are synonymous, then what prevents everything from happening all at once; if time merely prevents this, why does anything happen at all?
fresco wrote:
The issue lies with the definition of "existence", not "time" per se. If "existence" is taken as relative to an observer then the issue dissolves. (Note that some cultures have no linguistic tokens for "past" and "future"....only "now" and "not now". Don't be mesmerized by "western scientific chauvinism".)
Who mentioned "existence"? The word at issue is "is". Pedantic? Yes.
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Movement cannot take place without two other things: space and time. It's the physicist's Holy Trinity -- space, time and motion. None of the three can exist without presence of the other two.
Doesn't motion include time and motion? Time and space certainly seem necessary concepts for the measurement of motion. But how does motion "need" space and time. "Holy Trinity" indeed...motion needs space and time in exactly the same way that the "omnipotent, omniscient Creator" needs "the Son" and "the Holy Ghost"...
vikorr wrote:
Language simply does not exist.
Language is an abstract function. Language is not needed in the universe. The natural world is simply movement through space and the conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Even without language the world would be able to function properly. There is no need for it.
True dat
Cyracuz wrote:
Time is a measure of change. One state follows another, and the progression has direction. This process, when experienced by an individual who can remember previous states, gives us time.
Time and space are not prerequisites for the existence of matter and energy. They are consequences of it.
Yesh ...(although i disagree that there are, in fact, "states", and that their "progression" is in any way dependent on third-party individual observers...not that i believe in progress
), but still largely yes --in context.
JLNobody wrote:
Theoretical physic's T (or space-time) exists as an intellectual understanding of Nature. Time, as (felt) duration, exists as the phenomenological aspect of Nature. The former is an inter-subjective reality and the latter is a purely subjective one.
Is there anything, intellectually or existentially, aside from the usual reservations of Einsteinian relativism, that prevents the two from coexisting...? A conceptual framework that takes both positions into account?
fresco wrote:
According to Heidegger, to talk of existence at all implies a Dasein (thinking entity) which experiences its world "in time". Thus time (Zeit) and being (Sein) are inseparable co-extensive concepts. The fact that the "time" of physics is theoretically inseparable from "space", is a secondary analysis concerned with the predictive functioning of science. The point is that without the psychological Zeit of "existence" Einstein's physical and pragmatic construction of space-time would never have occurred. In other words "existence" cannot be separated from "time" on the basis of the models of physics, anymore than "physics" itself could be said to "exist" without cognate observers.
Well, not that we've had that much interaction lately, but i have to tell you that i'm still pretty annoyed by people that paraphrase Heidegger without having read him (which i'm assuming you still haven't...)
Granted, "to speak" of "existence, at all" might require an observer, as well as an observer who was a language user -- one would assume that they were the same thing, yes? Otherwise, how would you know?
And while Zeit may be constitutive of Dasein, what assures you that Sein requires a Zeit or a Dasein? Aside from Dasein, who couldn't know...
fresco wrote:
...if all "experience" involves language then it too may fall under the heading "intersubjectivity". (Note the post 1947 Heidegger adage "Language speaks the Man" !....I interpret this as language being a "social field effect" which is a priori to individual "experience")
Ugh...like Heidegger, you seem to conflate experience with process, and assume that the second requires the former to "is" properly. Many processes occur outside the horizon of Dasein's ability to experience them-- why should they be subject to a linguistic origin? Might their existence be a posteriori to a social network of associations?
Man, i'm sticking my hand into the hornets' nest in this thread...
