How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

[RCSaunders]

The simplest illustration of the fact that time and change are not identical is the fact that the concept time applies to duration (that which does not change) as well as things that change. "Watching the chemical reaction, there was no change at all for an hour." If time were identical to change, if there is, "no change," there would be, "no time." But, of course there is.

This is very easy to understand.

So first, if there's no change period, then there's no time.

But when we say, "Watching the chemical reaction, there was no change at all for an hour" (and ignoring the abstraction there--there actually would be all sorts of changes in whatever we're watching over the course of an hour; it's just that there's no change of the specific sort that we might be looking for), all we're saying is, "There was no change in A while B changed in x way." In other words, there were most certainly changes a la a clock ticking away, or the sun changing position or whatever we're using for "an hour passing."

"An hour passing" is simply identical to whatever changes we're using as a basis for keeping time, so to speak.

Of course, because the movement of something that changes does have both attributes, time and velocity, relative to something else. But if time and change are, "IDENTICAL," without bringing in any relationship to anything else, where is the time for entities that do not move (change their position)?

[As an aside, and because I'm curious, why would you not say "velocity is identical to change?" Except that velocity compares a one aspect of change (distance to time), just as time compares the other aspect of change (distance to velocity), they can both be described in exactly the same way. There can be no velocity without change and every change has a velocity. Of course, if you did say velocity is identical change you would have the obvious contradiction that velocity was identical time. (v=d/t, d=vt, t=d/v.)]

Now consider change. If there were only one entity, there could be no change. Before there can be a concept of change

It's worth pointing out that change isn't a concept, it's an ontological phenomenon.[/quote]
Acceleration is an ontological phenomenon, as well. I did not say time does not exist ontologically, I said it only exists as an attribute of ontological entities with no independent existence of its own. There is no acceleration without entities that accelerate. There is no time without entities that move, and time is just one of the attributes by which motion is described. The other is velocity.

The concept is developed in response to the phenomenon.

That's right. The concept designated by the word, "time," identifies the attribute of change, "time."

I think I can simplify this discussion by asking you, if you believe the words, "change," and, "time," identify the same thing, since velocity equals the change in distance over the change in time (v = ds / dt), if change is identical to time, would it be correct to say, velocity equals the time in distance over the change in time (v = ts / dt)? If not, why not? I think it is obvious change and time are not equal or they would be interchangeable. Time is simply one of the two metrics by which any specific change (motion) can be measured. Time is just an attribute, like distance, velocity, weight, volume, temperature, or angle (direction).

I agree you cannot have time without change and all change entails time, but they are not the same thing. If you are determined to hold that they are the same thing, it probably doesn't matter that much, and not at all to me. It will ultimate confuse some other concepts in both ontology and epistemology, but that's not my problem.

It has been an interesting discussion, at least to me; so thanks for that.

Feel free to have the last word.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course, because the movement of something that changes does have both attributes, time and velocity, relative to something else. But if time and change are, "IDENTICAL," without bringing in any relationship to anything else, where is the time for entities that do not move (change their position)?

So again, I agreed that it doesn't make sense to say that change obtains unless it's relative to at least either one other thing or some asymmetry in a single thing. As I pointed out, change need not be a change of position, unless you'd say, for example, that disappearing or appearing are changes of position. In any event, for something where there are no changes relative to something else, including parts of the thing in question, or at least relative to asymmetries in a single thing, there is no time. This is a fortiori the case because time is identical to change. So no change equals no time of course, and vice versa.

[As an aside, and because I'm curious, why would you not say "velocity is identical to change?"

Change in no way hinges on direction.

There can be no velocity without change

Sure, because we're talking about speed, too, but direction doesn't matter.

and every change has a velocity.

Not so. Not every change has a difference of position (per above) or a direction.

Of course, if you did say velocity is identical change you would have the obvious contradiction that velocity was identical time. (v=d/t, d=vt, t=d/v.)]

Again, this has nothing to do with current conventions, including equations, of physics.

Re the velocity equation I already explained it to you, and it's very simple. We're looking at one change (The speed/direction of something) relative to another change (the ticking of a clock or whatever we're using on the occasion to keep time, so to speak), or you could say one set of (temporal) events relative to another set of (temporal) events. (Temporal is in parentheses there because "temporal event" is actually redundant, but "temporal" is added just to emphasize that we're talking about time.)

[UniversalAlien]

To understand time you must understand where it began - At the moment of the 'Big Bang'

Before the Big Bang there was no time - this is not, and may never be understood.

At the moment of the Big Bang - the only time there was ever a state called 'Now', time begins.

Once time begins it remains in play until the end - If there be an end?

Once time is in play everything, anything, all that exists, must exist 'in time'
- nothing exists outside of time.

Therefor time is not just a quality of measurement - It is a universal fact of all that exists.
- All that exists must exist in time