Time exists as an experience of consciousness. It is the measurement of action as our fellow toad has said. Change itself is consciousness, thus all changes can be recognized on a scale of time and exist as a manifestation if consciousness.
"the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole." Saying that time doesn't exist is like saying there is no such thing as existence. It is a fundamental part of our universe as all we can do is travel through time, decaying slowly within this space.
Time is the perceived linear progression of events, but that doesn't mean these moments exist in a linear progression. We see a chain of causation but these moments exist if themselves. Through conscious awareness we experience a linear progression and label it as time, that doesn't mean that it has an absolute existence. It only means that we as human beings live an existence based on this perception we call time.
Meaning we are being bound by time because of our belief in it. A fully conscious being sees that time is an illusion.
This is a dumb and arrogant human trait, to assume some kind of inherent importance to the universe. You die, the planets keep spinning, suns keep burning, the universe does not give a fuck. Accept your unimportance and you are free.
To 'see' that time is an illusion.. you must be in time. Linear time is illusion, and not time itself.
1.) A child is not aware of the fact that the earth revolves around the sun... so does that mean the earth doesn't revolve around the sun? 2.) I don't experience the proliferation of cells in my body... does that mean cells in my body are not constantly being produced?
How can you have a concept of sight without FIRST knowing what sight is...? Similarly, to conceptually negate time, you must be in it and aware of it, i.e., the conceptual negation of time presupposes time itself.
seem to me good questions, but very theoretical, like the question about what came first the chicken or the egg? can we really know the answer to these type of questions and if we did would it matter at all? sight and time are two very different 'things' (although they are not objects, right?) time is a succession of events - and these events take place regardless of observation/measurement or not. The earth revolves around the sun, regardless whether anyone observes it or not. But of course we do observe the earth's movement around the sun, and we call a full circle around the sun, a year. And a year, as we all know, is a measurement of time. But I agree, time itself is not a concrete substance/thing. I agree, sight is an interpretation/observation of light waves - it is not an object but an action, the act of observing light. But sight does require a few things to be possible at all, such as time and objects. Action denotes succession of events (time) and light has to reflect off of something, off of concrete things. And of course it requires someone to do the observing and interpreting. Light from the sun however, does not require observation, the sun will still radiate light regardless anyone observes it. Likewise objects, such as rocks, don't require interpretation/observation (consciousness in a beholder) to be what it is. A rock will still be a rock. And a rock requires time to be, cause it came from somewhere, which is a process in time. It's all in motion, these succession of events. The question I have is, where did this motion come from, who/what started it all. Everything we see has a cause. But maybe that is the chicken/egg question?
i agree with what you say to be honest. the way you have to look at it is, without humanity, who is there to judge what 'time' is? time is only relevant to what man percieve it as in this earth and surrounding planets. i cant say the same for any other possible forms of 'life' anywhere, anywhere. in my opinion anyway.
but my point is that, yes these actions do take place, but not in the same way we can relate to, some different concept of time, some different perspective of time