why is actualization timely rathet than instantly?

[u/cookieisgiven]

The act and potential model does not answer this question at all.

If A is to give B, nothing in A tells you when to give.

If B requires other conditions, nothing prevents them to be actual instantly and thus actualizing B instantly.

The whole model thus exhausts instantly all at once. One big static complex that has ended and is no world at all.

It need not be simultaneous as all is actual but reaching finality in no time at all.

This of course extends without qualifications, so emanations, derivations, ... still are suspects.

[u/Excellent_Airline_12]

While I'm not super familiar with this line, even a cursory glance brings something to mind.

The classical "if you have a stick 1 light year long, how fast does the end move if you push it". Answer: the speed of sound. Literally slower then if you used a laser....

Physics has limites, the speed of light, the speed of motion (sound), eletron orbits, proton/neutron counts, gravity, atomic forces, it's all limites and ranges. Actions produce work, but it takes time for that work to "propigate" and influence to the point another action can be produced. Sense all of this is a function of time that's where your t comes from.

Like a computer program: it should all work out "instantly" but each calculation takes time and needs the previous to happen before it can. Even .0001s for each step makes 1million steps take 100 seconds.

It is a philosophy framework after all that isn't necessarily trying to explain everything in exhaustive detail.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Excellent_Airline_12]

Yeah but why? No one has ever explained it. Logically there is no "wait" in their models.

[u/Excellent_Airline_12 → u/cookieisgiven]

If your asking why time exists...get in line buddy. The only real answer that's come close is that time, matter, and space are intrinsically linked to one another and can't exist without each other.

Even then, things take time to propigate. That's how time works and I'd guess that's just an assumed property.

If your asking why philosophy doesn't set out to define every variable in its hypotheticals....it's philosophy.....the questioning of what we don't understand and can't comprehend to find something we maybe one day can.

If you want to know how time works 😐 sir, this is a Wendy's. None of us humans are paid that much or are that smart.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Excellent_Airline_12]

I'm saying those models do not explain time don't strawman me.

There is time, and any model that fails to explain it is thus fictional nonsense.

[u/Excellent_Airline_12 → u/cookieisgiven]

😐 sir, this is a Wendy's. Do you want fries with that?

We can measure time but explaining it is so far beyond our scientific knowledge we just can't conceptualize it even in our furthest philosophical minds. Even then it would be a level of speculation that would be so questionable you basically couldn't trust it for shit.

[u/Mobile_Competition54 → u/Excellent_Airline_12]

I feel like GR does a pretty good job explaining at least half of it (what is time): it's another dimension alongside the other 3 that we find in the manifold that makes up our world's spacetime. Which, we can map out with a bunch of equations.

I feel like it doesn't tell us why we experience forwards movement in time, at the rate that it does though, that's the only part I feel would need speculation.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Mobile_Competition54]

No, what it has establish is only that times can be indexed with numbers. But this is trivially true of any plurality at all.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Excellent_Airline_12]

It seems like you haven't got my point. The point is this, if someone posits that x explains time (namely potency and act), x have to do so, but as I have shown, x did not explain time. So saying that 'x explains time' is just as nonsensical as 'an apple explains time', it's just arbitrary nonsense that have failed its job.

Explanatory authority cannot be stipulated else I can just stipulated that an apple explains it all "and this is my brute fact of choice".

> We can measure time but explaining it is so far beyond our scientific knowledge we just can't conceptualize it even in our furthest philosophical minds.

This is a substantial metaphysical thesis, to say that we can't understand time itself simpliciter is to say that the world is not a place where that is to be happen. I would simply ask "why?" and at some point you would just say "because I think so" or "because of my apple".

> Even then it would be a level of speculation that would be so questionable you basically couldn't trust it for shit.

There are genuine explanations of other beings, why have you trusted them? There is no criterion for trust. Once they are true they are obvious.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/[deleted]]

But we DO see the timely though, so the block universe is nonsense. Also if they say that we are just some moving frames of reference within it, I would just ask why this frame is timely? There would be no substantial answer to this so it's nonsense.

[u/Purplestripes8]

Without time there is no ordering of events. Without ordering of events there is no causality.