Again you are using the wird time without any definition.
Eh, at this juncture, even a scientific definition of the word “time” is consistent with how I’m currently using the word.
You are inferring time has a reality of its own yes or no?
Yes and no. In philosophy, the word, “reality” is ambiguous.
There are some people who will say that we each have our own reality. To me, that is a convoluted way of saying that we each have our own vantage points and perceptions of reality. Time is not some conscious entity that has perceptions of other things, so no, time does not have a reality of its own in that personifying way.
But, time is real, and by that, I mean it’s not imaginary. It exists. It also exists independent of human minds. Time elapsed between the formation of earth and it’s first tree. Time, though not a physical thing itself, it’s a real phenomena in nature. So, if by “reality of it’s own” you mean it’s real, then yes, but I’m also saying it’s real even in the absence of someone to observe and measure it.
Change exists we observe it.
I agree.
Objects are in motion, and because that is so, change is amongst us, or as you put it, change exists; however, although it’s true that we observe it, that wouldn’t mean objects wouldn’t be in motion unless we observed it. In fact, if it wasn’t already true that objects were in motion, we couldn’t have observed it.
Without humans time does not exist.
I disagree.
Without humans, there would be no observation of the movement of objects, but surely (like I just covered) there is the movement of objects whether we are here to observe and measure or not. Also, time and our concept of time are two totally different things. Without humans, the human abstract mental concept of time doesn’t exist, but without humans, time is a real dimension inherent to our universe that is there for the observing; where I disagree with science is on whether we can
directly measure what time really is; I had no idea science propagated the idea that where there is no human conception of time there was no time. That sounds like a misrepresentation of scientific espousal—not intentionally of course.
The universe exists without clocks.
Lots of laughs. I hope what you mean to say is that no clocks were in existence before man came along and invented them. Either way, close or not, the universe exists, and within it, there are clocks. Time does not depend on the existence of clocks.
The moon exists regardless of how we conceptualize and name it.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Before I move on, I’d like to expound upon the subject of referring terms. It’s rather simple overall, but there is something that does raise some eyebrows. It’s a convention we use, yes, but it’s for communication purposes.
There are referring terms, and there are non-referring terms. That’s it; just two things.
Referring terms either succeed or they fail. So, we have three things to consider:
1) referring terms that succeed
2) referring terms that fail
3) non-referring terms
A lot of people confuse the hell out of 2 and 3
A non-referring term is a term where there’s no chance of instantiation. Words like “of” and “although” have meaning, but they have no referent.
The word, “unicorn” isn’t a non-referring term, as an instance of a unicorn would make the term succeed.
Think of it like archery. You can shoot and hit, shoot and miss, or not shoot at all.
The term “God” is a referring term. Whether it succeeds or fails has been debated for centuries, but it’s certainly not a non-referring term.
Movement isn’t itself an object but its a real phenomenon, so although you cannot hit it with an arrow, it’s either a phenomena that exists or doesn’t. I say time does exist. The issue we shouldn’t be having is whether it exists independent of man but whether or not it exists independent of movement. That’s where my qualm lies.
Unless you have an explicit alternative view time is a label we create to describe change.
What I believe you mean to say is that the word “time” is a label we create to describe change.
And yes, I do have an alternative view. We directly measure change and change is not time but rather what we measure to tell time. If you take away change, however, it’s what we measure that has been taken away, not time itself; it just means there’s no readily measurement for it.
Perhaps you are conflating subjective perception and sensation of the experience of change in the day with something else? You take your perceptions as reality?
Nope, not doing any of that stuff.