>>11048005Sure why not? The concept has no actual basis in reality. It's like playing word games with the word "unicorn".
>>11048010>One qualitative property of a second is that is a small duration Again you define it with itself. It is not a quality to begin with so it can't possibly be its own quality.
>Humans can perceive time innately, just like they perceive temperature or distance innately.> humans perceive shadows innately, therefore they're real.Even though they're illusions/effects of something else that is actally real, that being light and the real object that "causes" them to appear real.
Quality is measurable. No quality is not measurable. "To measure" is to compare, express, estimate, or apply a standard of measure to SOMETHING that is real and measurable. The "standard of measure" is what was made up...based hopefully on something at least real.
Time isn't even that. It's not based on anything real at all! There isn't a real thing in this universe that we took and applied the standard of measure called "time" to. We're just so ignorant that when we observed all these plethora of effects commit the same actions we reified the intervals of the actions "as something" or even in a more illogical case the cause of the action itself.
The rate of an action is not something and does not cause the rate of an action! It's illogical and why many people in this thread keep having to point out that its circular reasoning.
If that is truly the explination then the "thing" that defines "itself" would still BE "SOMETHING" and wouldn't waver itself to be defined by anything else. There would be no change it would just "be" and then there wouldn't be a need to measure jack shit.
