I showed that time exist in absence of anything else. Therefore, Aristotle was wrong on this take. Creation is another topic.
Yes, I know. Soul/form is just there as the form of corpse.
Great. The soul/form doesn’t have an animating principle when the person dies.
Please read the wiki link.
So, what is the form of dead corpse?
I know that. You just don’t read what I wrote carefully.
That is what you said “However, time requires motion which requires things that are in motion. So, without things, there’s no motion, and therefore, no time.”
So where is the soul if it is not the form of corpse?
I know what you wrote but that was not an answer to what I wrote.
Isn’t soul the form of body?
Was that an answer to my question?
Yes. You were seemingly referring to a ‘corpse’ as if it were a human body. It’s not. It used to be a human body, but is no longer one.
So, another question, as this genuinly an area of confusion to me; if motion is ontologically prior to time, then without motion there is no time, yes? If so, could we also say that without physical objects of given dimensions there would be no space either? But that be the case, space would be merely a measurement of what has physical properties rather than a dimension by which physical entities reside in. But, when we construct a coordinate plane, we can have it empty, yet nonetheless there is space there (for we can count length without anything of length residing on it). As such, what would you say to this?
What would be your reasoning to deny such? Is it because the principle of causality in reference to existence must be universal?
If I am not mistaken, Aristotle said that the form of “human body” (if a human body were consumed) assimilates into the form of the consumer, such as a lion. As such, the bodily human form becomes the bodily lion form.
Well this all depends very heavily on what we agree time is. If time is a dimension of change which is ontologically prior to motion, then I must agree with @STT. If time is instead what @Gorgias says, which, if I’m correct, its that time is more of a measurement of change and as such ontologically subsequent to motion, then I must agree with Gorgias. I just need more argument or justification to fall into one category over the other (though I must admit, I see time more as a dimension to reside in rather than a measurement).Gorgias:
So, perhaps @quaestio45 can help you.I know. We’ve seen it. And dissected it. It’s kinda unconvincing.
It’s really shorthand of a sort. The classical, Aristotelian definition is that time is the measure of change in physical objects. “Change” and “motion” are used interchangeably in that context. So, it’s more the case that, without the change of physical objects, there’s no “measure of the change of physical objects”. And, moreover, without the existence of any physical object, again there’s no “measure of the change of physical objects.” So, without a universe, there’s no ‘time’.
No. Space exists. It has extension. We could measure the universe, even if it were devoid of any physical objects, right? (In fact, I would think that we assert that forces would exist, and also quantum particles, so you never really get to a universe devoid of everything.). So, we would always think that, where there’s a universe, there’s ‘time’ as such.
I think it’s a perception issue. Calling it a ‘dimension’ helps with the math, but it doesn’t change what time itself is – a means of measuring something that’s somewhat orthogonal to physical objects, per se.
Does anything in nature is made of a substance and has a form according to Aristotle?
What is form?
According to Einstein time could exist even if there is no such a thing as object and motion. I already discuss that in depth with Gorgias.
Principle of causality apparently applies to material entities. This is basically the first law of Newton which states that an object which is not in motion stay motionless unless a force applies to it. Nothing however is not a material entity so I don’t see any reason to support that a mover is needed to bring something out of nothing, of course I am talking about the case that nothing to something is possible process.
I agree with this considering the definition of form.
The form would not be “form of human body”. It would be (I dunno…I’m thinking out loud here): “forms of various dead organic material”.
Looks like you have some reading to catch up on.
No. No force, no matter just time.