We have been here before

[Age]

An action is what happens between physical things but it is a physical thing in itself as well
To act is to do and doing is by definition physical activity so any action is therefore physical

Okay, to you, time is actually a physical thing, correct?

[surreptitious57]

To me time is the measurement of change as I already said but whether it is physical or not I do not know
Motion and change are definitely physical and time may simply be an abstraction but I cannot be certain
What is important is defining what time actually is rather than speculating what it might or might not be

[Age]

To me time is the measurement of change as I already said but whether it is physical or not I do not know

What do you mean you do NOT know?

You just got through telling me/us that;
An action is what happens between physical things but it is a physical thing in itself as well
To act is to do and doing is by definition physical activity so any action is therefore physical

Now, to measure, is to act, and to act is to do, and doing is, by your definition, physical activity, so the action of measuring is therefore physical, to you, correct?

I am not sure how you could NOT know some thing like this, especially in light of what you have just through telling us is the case, and also in light of how it was only not long ago you told us that this is the way things are.

Motion and change are definitely physical and time may simply be an abstraction but I cannot be certain

Okay, but I am certain.

What is important is defining what time actually is rather than speculating what it might or might not be

Well that defining has already be done, some 'time' ago now.

I do not see any need to keep rehashing over the same things, which have already been defined and explained. Doing so does not make the big and whole picture any more bigger nor any more clearer, well not to me anyway. All the pieces fit together perfectly already.

[surreptitious57]

A measurement to me is a mathematical one between any two points in space or time or spacetime
And it will always take the form of a number and numbers are abstractions so they are not physical
I was not therefore referring to the physical act of measuring but what the measurement actually is

[Age]

A measurement to me is a mathematical one between any two points in space or time or spacetime

What is 'spacetime'?

And it will always take the form of a number and numbers are abstractions so they are not physical
I was not therefore referring to the physical act of measuring but what the measurement actually is

[surreptitious57]

Spacetime is the amalgamation of space and time into a single entity at the cosmic level
But they are still treated as separate entities when referencing ordinary everyday scales

[Age]

Spacetime is the amalgamation of space and time into a single entity at the cosmic level
But they are still treated as separate entities when referencing ordinary everyday scales

So WHY do the two non-physical things of space and time get amalgamated into a single entity at the cosmic level?

What is the difference between the so called "ordinary everyday scales" compared to the "cosmic scale, or level"?

To me, there is NO actual separation of scales nor levels. From the quantum "level" to the cosmic "level" they ALL lay on the exact same 'scale'. Both views and interpretations have as much 'weight' as the other.

Just being able to distinguish and separate the Truth from the Falsehoods in all views and interpretations (wrong and right) is what leads to Unifying all these imagined separations and different levels to the One level playing field and observation deck. This is WHERE Truth lays, and can be very easily and very simply SEEN, for what It IS.

[surreptitious57]

This is precisely why the map should never be confused for the territory because they are not exactly the same
One is actual reality while the other is simply a representation of reality so there is a disconnect between them

[nothing]

But how is or could space/time be as: speed?

Subject moves x space over time y.
eg. 60mph means: 60 miles (x) over 60 minutes (y).
This is a ratio of space/time.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Space and time do not move, so there is no speed with space nor with time. They are both just the measurement of distance.

Space and time are like the eyes of the yin-yang: their interaction is 'motion' concerning any subject.
As with electromagnetism wherein electricity requires both dielectric and magnetic forces working in unison to produce anything,
motion requires both time and space.

You just wrote "well observed" but then contradict that.

There is no contradiction.

The actual measurement of space and time can be observed, with the physical eyes, but space and time, themselves, are of no physical thing, which can be directly observed, with the physical eyes.

You can measure s/t but not t/s because t/s is faster-than-light (relativity is not correct).
You can not talk about one without talking about the other: hence, reciprocals (as stated).
It was the second thing I stated.

1/x = real (less than the speed of light) = matter (ie. "stuff")
1/1 = unity (speed of light)
x/1 = ethereal (greater than the speed of light) = energy (ie. "work")

But how is or could space or time be as: energy?

The first step in understanding this is to stop trying to separate space and time. They are reciprocals, like yin-yang. See above.

Space and time do no move, so there is no energy with space nor with time. They are both just the measurement of distance.

The first step in understanding this is to stop trying to separate space and time.

You just wrote "well observed" and then contradict that.

There is no contradiction.

The actual distance of space and time can be observed, with the Mind's Eye, and space and time, themselves, although are of no physical thing, can actually be directly observed, with the Mind's Eye.

The inseparability between space and time / time and space can be understood with the "Mind's Eye", but not by everyone.

Why is this even brought into a discussion when it is not even needed?

It is needed: it clarifies that A (ie. any manifest subject) must have motion as an intrinsic property. There is no-thing in the universe not in motion, thus the Aristotelian identity law A=A is false. It is relevant because the concerned observation:

I think that time is the measurement of change and motion is needed for change to happen
Without motion there can be no change and if there is no change then there can be no time

mandates that any identity law incorporate "motion" as intrinsic to its existence.

Are you able to at least explain what the above could achieve?

√1 = +1, -1
√A = +A, -A
A ≠ A
A = *A
___________
*variability allows motion(s)

It achieves an immensely versatile mapping of a torus field. If one is unable to intuit how/why this can be used to solve for practically anything, they will have to wait until the theorem is out, as it will be used to solve for the problem of 'from whence human suffering?' and/or 'believer vs. unbeliever' (same problem/solution).

[bahman]

Is it?

Since when is a 'set of points' been known as 'time'?

You can call it whatever. I call it time.

There, FINALLY my POINT is acknowledged, and so NOW can be clearly SEEN.

'you', "bahman", call some thing 'time', but that in NO way means that 'time' is an actual thing, which ALLOWS change.

For the Truth IS any one can call any thing absolutely any thing at all. BUT, doing so does not mean any actual thing is true or not.

I already showed that time allows changes.

If you say so, then it must be true, correct?

By the way, what you have said here does not follow logically, nor reasonably, as already pointed out.

All you need for change is physical things. Full stop.

I cannot make it clearer than this.

But you have made your BELIEFS very clear already.

And what I have pointed out is that they are just your BELIEFS only, which are NOT necessarily true at all.

I am NOT here to tell you what to believe. I am also NOT here to tell you WHY your BELIEFS are wrong and incorrect.

I am just here questioning and challenging you on your own stated claims and BELIEFS. You have already proven that you, so far, can not back up and support your BELIEFS and claims with any thing other than more BELIEFS and more claims. You have already SHOWN that you have absolutely NO logical NOR reasonable reason for WHY your BELIEF is true.

From what I have observed here, what you BELIEVE is logical and reasonable is actually illogical and unreasonable.

For example, saying; "No time leads to no points", to me, is illogical and unreasonable. Saying; "this then leading to the impossibility of change", is also just as illogical and unreasonable, to me. And, saying; "You need time to have change", is also just as illogical and unreasonable.

Obviously, to me, saying; 'All that is needed for change is physical things' is absolutely logical and reasonable. This is because change could not happen without physical things, of which 'time' is NOT one of those physical things.

This has been CLEAR enough, to me, for a while now already.

Time is a physical thing. It bends. Bending requires energy/mass. Therefore, it is a substance. I invite you to read a little general relativity. Gravitation wave is real and it was observed experimentally.

[bahman]

I think that time is the measurement of change and motion is needed for change to happen

That is what Aristotle said (bold part). Do you know what does he mean with that?

Do 'you', "bahman", KNOW what "aristotle' meant with "time is the measurement of change"?

If yes, then what did "aristotle" mean with that?

Also, how do 'you' KNOW what "aristotle" meant?

And, what does it care what "aristotle" meant or what you thought or believe "aristotle" meant?

I don't know what does it mean. Do you mind to elaborate?

Without motion there can be no change and if there is no change then there can be no time

Motion is a sort of change. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Why supposedly not?

To me, the conclusion followed from the premise perfectly.

What part and WHY does the conclusion not follow from the premise, for 'you', "bahman"?

So you have never experience waiting?

[commonsense]

I think that time is the measurement of change and motion is needed for change to happen
Without motion there can be no change and if there is no change then there can be no time

Interesting. Time and motion and change are actions more than they are things.

An 'action' is also a 'thing'. An 'action' is just not a 'physical thing'. Although 'physical things' are needed for an 'action', and 'action', itself, is not a 'physical thing'. Unless shown otherwise, of course.

Where I wrote “things” I was thinking “physical things”. Unfortunately, I must have had a mini-stroke at that moment.

[commonsense]

An action is what happens between physical things but it is a physical thing in itself as well
To act is to do and doing is by definition physical activity so any action is therefore physical

You don’t see action. What you see is the state of physical things prior to an action and afterward. This is change. You don’t see action/change but rather the effects of action/change.

Action/change is colorless, odorless, tasteless, silent and without palpable mass. One can believe that action is physical, but one has no means to know that it is so.

[Age]

This is precisely why the map should never be confused for the territory because they are not exactly the same

Yet 'you, human beings, keep making up new maps, and then looking at them, and wondering why there is so much contradiction.

As I have suggested numerous times before, when 'you' STOP assuming, guessing, theorizing (making maps) and START to just LOOK AT what IS actually True, Right, and Correct instead, then you will STOP being so confused and bewildered.

One is actual reality while the other is simply a representation of reality so there is a disconnect between them

So, WHY draw a, and on, representation ONLY?

WHY draw a representation when you can just LOOK and SEE and UNDERSTAND 'Reality' for what It Truly IS?

[Age]

Interesting. Time and motion and change are actions more than they are things.

An 'action' is also a 'thing'. An 'action' is just not a 'physical thing'. Although 'physical things' are needed for an 'action', and 'action', itself, is not a 'physical thing'. Unless shown otherwise, of course.

Where I wrote “things” I was thinking “physical things”. Unfortunately, I must have had a mini-stroke at that moment.

If thinking the 'one thing', but writing 'some thing else', is called a "mini-stroke", then I must have had millions of "mini-strokes" in this forum.