Infinite regress is logically impossible

[bahman]

Since those values are merely a fallible-human attempt to describe the objective reality of time, the fact that they change is not at all surprising. And it doesn't tell us that time itself changes.

Time is proven to be a substance

Time is not "proven" to be a "substance" by anyone or anything. Quite the opposite. "Substances" have mass, density, size, volume, etc. Time has none of these.

Substance is something that exists and has properties/property. The property of time is that it changes at a specific rate. It changes slower near heavy objects.

[Immanuel Can]

Time is proven to be a substance

Time is not "proven" to be a "substance" by anyone or anything. Quite the opposite. "Substances" have mass, density, size, volume, etc. Time has none of these.

Substance is something that exists and has properties/property.

That's actually not quite right. It has not just to have "properties," which even abstract concepts have, but rather specifically "material properties," such a mass, density, etc. Otherwise, it's not a "substance" at all, by definition.

[bahman]

Time is not "proven" to be a "substance" by anyone or anything. Quite the opposite. "Substances" have mass, density, size, volume, etc. Time has none of these.

Substance is something that exists and has properties/property.

That's actually not quite right. It has not just to have "properties," which even abstract concepts have, but rather specifically "material properties," such a mass, density, etc. Otherwise, it's not a "substance" at all, by definition.

Do you know that time slows down near heavy objects?

[Immanuel Can]

Substance is something that exists and has properties/property.

That's actually not quite right. It has not just to have "properties," which even abstract concepts have, but rather specifically "material properties," such a mass, density, etc. Otherwise, it's not a "substance" at all, by definition.

Do you know that time slows down near heavy objects?

So it's still yesterday, at Lizzo's house?

[attofishpi]

Substance is something that exists and has properties/property.

That's actually not quite right. It has not just to have "properties," which even abstract concepts have, but rather specifically "material properties," such a mass, density, etc. Otherwise, it's not a "substance" at all, by definition.

Do you know that time slows down near heavy objects?

..and perhaps the reason being that an object in a high gravitational field or travelling close to the speed of light experiences LESS events within itself, for the time period of us, the observer.

Thus a clock (from our POV) would appear to 'tick' slower.

[bahman]

That's actually not quite right. It has not just to have "properties," which even abstract concepts have, but rather specifically "material properties," such a mass, density, etc. Otherwise, it's not a "substance" at all, by definition.

Do you know that time slows down near heavy objects?

So it's still yesterday, at Lizzo's house?

You, don't want to learn, you don't listen, and I am done with you.

[bahman]

That's actually not quite right. It has not just to have "properties," which even abstract concepts have, but rather specifically "material properties," such a mass, density, etc. Otherwise, it's not a "substance" at all, by definition.

Do you know that time slows down near heavy objects?

..and perhaps the reason being that an object in a high gravitational field or travelling close to the speed of light experiences LESS events within itself, for the time period of us, the observer.

Thus a clock (from our POV) would appear to 'tick' slower.

What do you mean with the time period? Please don't tell me what the clock shows.

[attofishpi]

Do you know that time slows down near heavy objects?

..and perhaps the reason being that an object in a high gravitational field or travelling close to the speed of light experiences LESS events within itself, for the time period of us, the observer.

Thus a clock (from our POV) would appear to 'tick' slower.

What do you mean with the time period? Please don't tell me what the clock shows.

I'll try and explain with an example:

The EVENT count on our clock is going to = 1hr
The EVENT count on the clock that is in a high gravitational field, or close to the speed of light, is going to = less than 1hr

[bahman]

..and perhaps the reason being that an object in a high gravitational field or travelling close to the speed of light experiences LESS events within itself, for the time period of us, the observer.

Thus a clock (from our POV) would appear to 'tick' slower.

What do you mean with the time period? Please don't tell me what the clock shows.

I'll try and explain with an example:

The EVENT count on our clock is going to = 1hr
The EVENT count on the clock that is in a high gravitational field, or close to the speed of light, is going to = less than 1hr

So it seems that we are left with my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.

[attofishpi]

What do you mean with the time period? Please don't tell me what the clock shows.

I'll try and explain with an example:

The EVENT count on our clock is going to = 1hr
The EVENT count on the clock that is in a high gravitational field, or close to the speed of light, is going to = less than 1hr

So it seems that we are left with my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.

You need to understand that everything breaks down to a finite point in our reality, space and time have a boundary - the Planck scale.

It's a 'Zeno's paradox' thang - which is no paradox outside of mathematics...when applied to physical reality the paradox no longer exists, since at the finite scales things of spacetime are quatised right down to a binary event or not an event.
When I move from A to B (there are not an infinite number of 'points' in the space between) at each 'point' travelling to reach B there exists EVENTS, binarily confirming I am at B or I am not at B. Everything at such scales is quantised spacetime. It's an itsy-bitsy REAL_IT_Y.

...the main problem you have is you still don't understand that time only exists while events exist - because that is ALL that time is, EVENTS (measured).

[bahman]

I'll try and explain with an example:

The EVENT count on our clock is going to = 1hr
The EVENT count on the clock that is in a high gravitational field, or close to the speed of light, is going to = less than 1hr

So it seems that we are left with my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.

You need to understand that everything breaks down to a finite point in our reality, space and time have a boundary - the Planck scale.

It's a 'Zeno's paradox' thang - which is no paradox outside of mathematics...when applied to physical reality the paradox no longer exists, since at the finite scales things of spacetime are quatised right down to a binary event or not an event.
When I move from A to B (there are not an infinite number of 'points' in the space between) at each 'point' travelling to reach B there exists EVENTS, binarily confirming I am at B or I am not at B. Everything at such scales is quantised spacetime. It's an itsy-bitsy REAL_IT_Y.

...the main problem you have is you still don't understand that time only exists while events exist - because that is ALL that time is, EVENTS (measured).

My argument, right or wrong?

[attofishpi]

So it seems that we are left with my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.

You need to understand that everything breaks down to a finite point in our reality, space and time have a boundary - the Planck scale.

It's a 'Zeno's paradox' thang - which is no paradox outside of mathematics...when applied to physical reality the paradox no longer exists, since at the finite scales things of spacetime are quatised right down to a binary event or not an event.
When I move from A to B (there are not an infinite number of 'points' in the space between) at each 'point' travelling to reach B there exists EVENTS, binarily confirming I am at B or I am not at B. Everything at such scales is quantised spacetime. It's an itsy-bitsy REAL_IT_Y.

...the main problem you have is you still don't understand that time only exists while events exist - because that is ALL that time is, EVENTS (measured).

My argument, right or wrong?

What argument? U R NOT MAKING NE SENSE.

[bahman]

You need to understand that everything breaks down to a finite point in our reality, space and time have a boundary - the Planck scale.

It's a 'Zeno's paradox' thang - which is no paradox outside of mathematics...when applied to physical reality the paradox no longer exists, since at the finite scales things of spacetime are quatised right down to a binary event or not an event.
When I move from A to B (there are not an infinite number of 'points' in the space between) at each 'point' travelling to reach B there exists EVENTS, binarily confirming I am at B or I am not at B. Everything at such scales is quantised spacetime. It's an itsy-bitsy REAL_IT_Y.

...the main problem you have is you still don't understand that time only exists while events exist - because that is ALL that time is, EVENTS (measured).

My argument, right or wrong?

What argument? U R NOT MAKING NE SENSE.

This argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.

[attofishpi]

My argument, right or wrong?

What argument? U R NOT MAKING NE SENSE.

This argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events).

What do you mean by X is an event and Y is an event?

[bahman]

What argument? U R NOT MAKING NE SENSE.

This argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events).

What do you mean by X is an event and Y is an event?

Do you want me to give you an example of events?