Ulla Mattfolk and platinum wildcat,
The problem concerns assertions about time. We must not confuse epistemology (what we know) with ontology (what exists). What we know about reality is not the same as what reality is.
If perception is discrete and processed, that does not mean that reality itself is illusory.
Let’s take the case of an operator acting on a well-defined mathematical object, in that case, we respect logical and deterministic physical rules.
However, if the “time operator” is metaphorical and subjective, then it has no defined domain, no measurable quantities, and no consistent rule set.
Therefore, it cannot be logically deterministic or used as proof of anything about physical time.
The claim that “by the time we observe, the phenomenon is already in the future” is trivially true , there is indeed a small delay in neural processing. But this does not imply that the future already exists or that motion is an illusion.
It only shows that consciousness lags behind physical events by milliseconds, a neurophysiological fact, not a metaphysical one.
The brain, observation, and consciousness depend on space, time, and motion, therefore, these cannot be illusions. They are not false, they are the conditions that make experience possible.
This is about the distinction between objectivity, subjectivity, and philosophical interpretation.
A “time operator,” like any function, must differentiate between input and output, and we must consider probability and determinism.
That is why physics, mathematics, and logic are essential in interpretation and application. But if we choose the maths first, we have problems at my humble opinion.Not with the physical structures and the logic before.
Thus, the “time operator,” consciousness, and perception do not imply a literal operator in logic or physics ,they concern only the processing of sensory data.
Our perceptions do not prove that reality is an illusion; they reveal how human experience structures reality.
Phenomenology (the study of experience) must not be confused with ontology (what exists).
Therefore, philosophy should not be mistaken for pure logic.
Mathematics may create abstract problems, but physics and logic ground those abstractions in the structure of reality.
We must separate epistemology and ontology, that is we cannot assert assumptions.We are free to discuss yes , but only the proved axioms, laws , equations can be asserted.
Best Regards
