> Time is thought to exist whether we are conscious or not. That is,
> time is supposed to exist by its own efforts. It pulls itself up by
> its own bootstraps. Time for us is a thing in itself, it is as at the
> very least as it seems to be. We have another thought: we think that
> once time was kicked into play, time 'endured' absolutely and
> accompanied all things. The existence of time seems beyond reasonable
> doubt, indisputable. My position is that there is no species we call
> time.
>
> But I have a difficulty. I cannot describe time as something which is
> 'not existing absolutely', without constructing out of this something
> an object that takes the place of time, an 'it' that goes proxy for
> time. This something or 'it' which arises from the expression 'time
> does not exist absolutely' would seem to offer us an alternative time,
> perhaps a 'relative' time or a time that is 'hidden' or 'absent' in
> some way.
>
> This problem arises because I have not said what is meant by 'not ...

> "John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d6016b81-56a2-4690-8db5-b2eea30233c3@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>

>> Time is thought to exist whether we are conscious or not. That is,
>> time is supposed to exist by its own efforts. It pulls itself up by
>> its own bootstraps. Time for us is a thing in itself, it is as at the
>> very least as it seems to be. We have another thought: we think that
>> once time was kicked into play, time 'endured' absolutely and
>> accompanied all things. The existence of time seems beyond reasonable
>> doubt, indisputable. My position is that there is no species we call
>> time.

>

>> But I have a difficulty. I cannot describe time as something which is
>> 'not existing absolutely', without constructing out of this something ...