>>11677612>Now combine this with the premiseThe premise is that people in this thread are speaking about it as if it means something. Also the previous quote I posted (>the greentext with an arrow) would serve as a premise. Oh and also the thread topic. I concluded the premise by basically saying time doesn't exist. It is indeed an illusion. Unfortunately, since there is no proof of time in the first place the burden of proof doesn't really fall on me, but I took a shoot anyway. What's been said is really all there is to be said of something that is a discussion of no use.
>And yet we experience it>and here's howOnly no one explained how. They just keep defining time with itself, by itself with no explanation other than it being simply a measurement of change. It does not, nor could explain why the change actually occurs.
>The conclusion is not "time doesn't real." What else could it be?It's motion quantified. The thing you speak about moves, what does measuring and recording the amount it moves/changes based on something else accomplish? Because that's what time "is". Why does the thing move and change? The "time" has nothing to do with the "why". If it did then it would be some measurable force/ a cause to something.
A measurement, not something measurable.
>but we measure the time with a clock.24 hour "time" for example:
Motions of oscillating and revolving spheres are quantified into 24ths. That isn't "something", it's a complicated description of something that's doing something as a result of something else etc.
