Okay, so if I squint really hard maybe you are proposing a functional theory of time and just explaining it in a way that is not clear? For example, does this post about logical time comport with your model?
Saying “time is a verb” still doesn’t say much, unfortunately, because lots of folks have known for quite some time that time as we normally think of it is an after-the-fact construction and not metaphysically basic. That is, it seems that our notion of time arises from how we perceive and remember events and is an expression of causality, that is whatever the fundamental way it is that the world changes from one state to another. If so, this is again not revolutionary, although maybe you are just unfamiliar; I can off the top of my head think of the likes of Dogen, Husserl, and Merleau-Ponty saying similar things, and I’m certain these ideas have a recorded exploration back at least 2000 where they were explored in Indian philosophy (though I can’t remember the names attributed to those works now).
If that’s not the case I’d really like to know, but you are giving us frustrating little to try to understand whatever you think your big idea is (hence, I suspect, the many downvotes you are receiving).
That’s better. You’re making sure you understand what I’m saying before dismissing it.
Time is a term describing motion. A specific type of motion. I’m talking about temporal motion. Motion from one moment to the next. Time doesn’t move. We don’t move through time. We time. Time is not a dimension.
You’re just repeating yourself and still not offering an explanation of your theory, just some vague glimpses of it. I’ve tried twice now to ask specific questions that you could have answered to provide clarification, and rather than engage with them directly you chose either to presume I didn’t read what you wrote or restate what you originally said in fewer words. LW it’s about curiosity and inquiry among other things, and if that’s not the spirit in which you’ve come here I won’t continue to engage with you and will encourage others to do the same.
Okay, so if I squint really hard maybe you are proposing a functional theory of time and just explaining it in a way that is not clear? For example, does this post about logical time comport with your model?
Saying “time is a verb” still doesn’t say much, unfortunately, because lots of folks have known for quite some time that time as we normally think of it is an after-the-fact construction and not metaphysically basic. That is, it seems that our notion of time arises from how we perceive and remember events and is an expression of causality, that is whatever the fundamental way it is that the world changes from one state to another. If so, this is again not revolutionary, although maybe you are just unfamiliar; I can off the top of my head think of the likes of Dogen, Husserl, and Merleau-Ponty saying similar things, and I’m certain these ideas have a recorded exploration back at least 2000 where they were explored in Indian philosophy (though I can’t remember the names attributed to those works now).
If that’s not the case I’d really like to know, but you are giving us frustrating little to try to understand whatever you think your big idea is (hence, I suspect, the many downvotes you are receiving).
That’s better. You’re making sure you understand what I’m saying before dismissing it.
Time is a term describing motion. A specific type of motion. I’m talking about temporal motion. Motion from one moment to the next. Time doesn’t move. We don’t move through time. We time. Time is not a dimension.
You’re just repeating yourself and still not offering an explanation of your theory, just some vague glimpses of it. I’ve tried twice now to ask specific questions that you could have answered to provide clarification, and rather than engage with them directly you chose either to presume I didn’t read what you wrote or restate what you originally said in fewer words. LW it’s about curiosity and inquiry among other things, and if that’s not the spirit in which you’ve come here I won’t continue to engage with you and will encourage others to do the same.
I’m not interested in explaining something so obvious. dqups1 got it immediately. I’m sure some other people will too.