We have been here before

[Age]

You agreed that the events lay on different points. That is all I want to hear.

Okay. So if this is true, then you do not want me now to say any thing more on any matter at all, correct?

Okay, thank you for the correction and the clarification. Are you now able to back up and support what you say?

How is it possible and/or actual that this thing called 'time' ALLOWS change to happen?

What is the thing, which, if it did not exist, then there would be NO change?

That is obvious: You already accepted that events cannot lay at the same point since otherwise, all events become simultaneous and there would be no change.

Come on, you are seriously NOT this stupid, are you?

So, what you are saying is obvious, IS, it is MY ACCEPTANCE, which is the thing that ALLOWS change to happen, correct?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then what is the THING that ALLOWS change to happen?

Obviously the result, is NOT the cause of itself. Events not laying at the same point is the RESULT. I have been asking you what is the CAUSE that ALLOWS this 'change' happen? We both agree that change happens, so what do you say is the THING, which ALLOWS change to happen?

What you are more or less saying above is; because things do change this is what allows things to change. The absurdity and ridiculousness of this speaks for itself. What it is also speaks of and SHOWS is that you have absolutely NOTHING to back up and support your idea that 'time' allows change to happen.

The more you keep deflecting, the more you are just PROVING that what you believe is true, is actually NOT true at all.

As I say, if you want to claim some thing to be true, then it is best to first have some actual evidence to support your claim is actually true, BEFORE you express that claim.

All you have done so far is done all you can to avoid this the Truth, which IS; you have NOTHING at all to support your BELIEF and claim here.

What point?

To the point that we agree that I am right.

LOL

Talk about being STUCK in one's OWN BELIEFS.

WHY would any one agree with you on this matter?

Please look. Change is the result of events happening sequentially.[/quote]

'Change' IS, the name for, 'events happening sequentially'.

For that, you need a set of points to accommodate different events. This set of points is so-called time.

Is it?

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

No time leads to no points, leading to the impossibility of change. You need time to have change.

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.

[surreptitious57]

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

[Age]

For starters I suggest to NOT believe any thing, because if you do, then you are NOT open to any thing contrary. So, instead of believing this claim to be true, I suggest just remaining OPEN to all things. Then it will be much easier for you to recognize and SEE what IS actually True.

I am an analytical thinker. When a thing is new to me, I tend to remain open until I have analyzed the evidence, or lack there of, both pro and con.

If you only 'tend to remain open', then what else do you 'tend to do', as well'? Remain closed? Because if one is not open, then what are they?

Also, why do you only tend to remain open 'UNTIL you have analyzed the evidence, ...'? What do you do 'AFTER you have analyzed ...'? Is that when you start believing, and thus start to close off?

I found NOT believing any thing Truly very helpful in discovering, learning, understanding, reasoning, and SEEING the Truth of things. So, I remain OPEN always.

Also, if I have written that it is the case that time does not exist as a physical thing, then what would be a far better and far more accurate thing to write is; From what I have observed 'time does not exist as a physical thing', but, in this forum I am writing things as "it is the case ..." in order to find some way to evoke curiosity in "others", which would tempt them to question and (or at least) challenge me. Non of the other ways of writing that I have tried have worked so far.

You certainly evoked my curiosity.

Great, ask as many questions as you like, and challenge me on absolutely any thing I say and write.

The more I get questioned and challenged, then the better it is for me, as I can discover and learn more.

Now, to see a reason why 'time is not a physical thing' is correct, or not, is to first ask is there any actual thing that is what 'time', itself, IS?

Both questions are seeking essentially the same answer.

I do not see this as so much as 'seeking' an answer, as I just want you to answer Honestly and Openly.

So, to you, have you seen hitherto observed any evidence whatsoever that 'time' is a physical thing?

If you do not know of any thing, then recall if you have heard of any one expressly telling you what the actual thing is that 'time' is said to be. If you do not know of any, then see if you recall ever reading any thing that states what the physical thing is, which is known as 'time'.

No one, except bahman, has told me that time is a physical thing. And I have not experienced time as a physical thing.

Great. So, some one has told you that time is a physical thing. Now, have you or any one else asked "bahman" what are the physical particles that 'time' is made up of exactly, and/or if time is physical, then it must be able to be seen and observed, so what does 'time' look like physically?

If any one has asked "bahman" this, then what was the response?

Now. if NO one or NO thing is telling you or showing you any physical thing, which is known as 'time', and you personally can not see any physical thing, which could be 'time', itself, then I suggest that is ONE REASON why the statement, 'time does not exist as a physical thing' just may be correct.

This is probably the strongest reason to reject the idea that time is a physical thing.

Well to me it would seem like a very weak reason, and honestly a very stupid reason, to accept the idea that time is a physical thing.

If there is absolute NO evidence, hitherto, that time is a physical, then WHY would any one even think it is, let alone believe it is, and then say it is?

See, what I like to do now, if I am still not sure, is to now LOOK AT what IS possible and what IS not possible. When I do this I can very easily SEE 'time' does exist in some way, so I LOOK to see if it is possible that 'time' could exist physically. Like every one else I have yet to see 'time' is physical, but I can very simply see how 'time' does exist not as a physical thing. So, from what I have observed, 'time' exists as a non physical thing, but does exist as a concept in thought, 'time' could be a physical thing but there is NO reason for it to be.

I prefer to use the word ‘experience’ rather than the word ‘see’ an aroma or music, however I can experience both.

That is fine, you, and EVERY one "else", are FREE to do whatever they want to do in Life.

When I use the word 'SEE' it is usually in reference to 'understand' or 'understanding'. Did you SEE what I mean?

After this pieces of the puzzle of this subject and put together with the pieces of the other subjects, and they ALL start coming together perfectly, forming the big or WHOLE picture of Life, and then when It is ALL together, and the picture is crystal clear, then 'you' will SEE WHY I use the word 'see'.

After the puzzle is ALL-TOGETHER, the picture is CRYSTAL CLEAR, then you WILL SEE and/or UNDERSTAND WHY I have chosen the words that I have and USE.

Once all of these things start making sense and fitting together perfectly with HOW other things in the Universe, including the Universe, Itself, and how they ALL work in conjunction and in harmony with each other, then SEEING how and why 'time' does not exist physically is correct becomes far easier and crystal clear. Now, in saying all of this, 'time' MAY exist physically, but as of now, when this is written there is just absolutely NO evidence that I have observed anywhere, and every time I ask for evidence that 'time' is physical, NON has ever been given.

Since the preponderance of evidence, or lack there of, points toward the claim that time is not a physical thing, it is reasonable to conclude that time may not be a physical thing. As a practical matter, this leads to the assumption that time is not likely to be a physical thing.

I found there is no use in 'concluding' as it is the final end, and, I do NOT like to assume any thing at all. I just much prefer to remain OPEN always.

Also, I am just expressing what I have observed, up to this point or moment, and every thing I have observed may have given me WRONG views of Life. So, absolutely EVERY thing I say and write could be WRONG or partly wrong. In the end I really do NOT care if they are WRONG or RIGHT. I just want to express my views. And, hopefully, while I am expressing and some one sees absolutely ANY thing this is NOT right or even just appears to be a slightly bit NOT right, then I would LOVE to be informed of this. I like to be told WHERE my view/s are WRONG, and more importantly WHY my view/s are WRONG. My views can NOT become better, and/or less wrong, if I am NEVER informed of where and why they are WRONG.

I have found being OPEN to being WRONG, far easier and quicker to change, for the better, then ever I could if I ever believed I was NOT wrong.

What makes 'time does not exist as a physical thing' SO, is the very fact that there is absolutely NOTHING, other than a concept or thought, that would even suggest that 'time' is a physical thing in the first place.

Yes, and even a concept or thought that time is a physical thing does not make time in actual physical thing.

Very true and absolutely correct.

For example, I KNOW that the absence of a Truly Peaceful existence for most people does NOT prove that a Truly Peaceful existence, Itself, does not exist. (Now we are getting into what the actual word and term 'Reality' means.) Anyway, I AGREE wholeheartedly that the absence of a thing does not prove that thing does not exist. I NEVER disagreed with this, and if my writings have led any one to think that I was intending differently, then I apologize profusely.

I understood you.

So, what is 'ultrasound' exactly, which there are physical devices that can detect and quantify 'ultrasound', itself?

Literally, ultrasound is sound above the range of human hearing. Sonar and radar image ultrasounds and then create blips on screens based on echoes from objects in the path of the ultrasounds. In medicine, ultrasound is used to form images of internal structures of the human body.

Until then, to me, both 'time' and 'length' are just words used in reference to measuring, or describing, the (also non physical) 'distance' between two agreed points.

What do you mean by ‘distance’?

The length of the 'space' between two points.

[Age]

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

I agree wholeheartedly with this and so accept it totally. So, we are in what is called Agreement. Now, if there is NO one who could refute this statement, and so is essentially in Agreement, and there is NO one who is disagreeing for some actual logical and reasonable reason, then we have come to A Truth. If EVERY one is in Agreement, then this would be classed as thee Truth of things.

I would just add to it though, motion can only happen because of and with two things; matter and space.

Matter just being any thing physical, down to the smallest particle of matter, and space just being the distance between particles of matter.

Without BOTH there would either only be one singular piece of matter for eternity, or, eternal space; absolutely nothing.

Now, obviously either could be the ONLY 'thing', but, to even consider either is really just a waste as either is absolutely illogical or nonsensical, for the very fact if there was ONLY either, then there would NOT be any thing else. And, if there was nothing "else", then there would be nothing to consider.

For change to happen, then there NEEDS to be motion, and for motions, then there NEEDS to be these two things of; physicality and space.

Space, or no limiting thing, is NEEDED for physical things to move about freely.

Every physical thing is absolutely FREE to go wherever it "wants" to go. The only things that limits physical things is physicality, itself. So, before I get to far off track, to measure change there NEEDS to be motion, and for motion to occur there HAS TO BE the two things of; physicality and space.

The two fundamental parts of the Universe ARE; things/particles, and, no things/space. (no thing is nothing, nothing is one thing, thus nothing is some thing).

Either of these two things can not exist on their own, because if either did, then it would not matter one bit as no one would know. If there was only one thing, then there could not be motion nor change, and without change, there could not come to exist a knowing thing.

Because there is some thing KNOWING, there are three reasons why the Universe is the way It is infinite and eternal.
If there was one thing only, either space or physical, then it would be infinite and eternal, itself, and thus it could not move or change at all. So, there are both the two things; some thing (physical) and no thing (space).
For absolutely any thing to come into Existence at least two things are needed prior. A thing can not come from just one thing. So, there are both the two things; matter and space.
Absolutely EVERY thing comes from at least two other things, coming together. EVERY thing exists because of two things. Even the One thing, called the Universe solely and only exists because of the two things; things and no things. There must be at least some thing and there must be nothing.

There obviously is something. A Universe, with a being.

For the Universe to have a KNOWING Being, which MUST HAVE COME from at least two things, then that means that Existence has existed ALWAYS, in the same, way, shape, and form. That same way, shape, and form is a constant motion of change, which can be measured, to work out how It IS the way It IS.

Existence is eternal and infinite, and so the Universe could not exist in any other way, always and forever. The same way forever and always constantly-changing in motion. The Universe, Itself, therefore could not have begun. The only time 'time' came into existence was when human beings made up the word 'time'.

[surreptitious57]

I agree with all that but I would add a caveat which is that in order for objects to move through it space does not have to be an absolute vacuum
Instead it just has to be relatively empty but they will still be restricted by one of the four fundamental forces that affect all observable objects
So no object has total freedom but will instead be limited by such forces no matter how small it may be as nothing can exist in absolute isolation

[Age]

I agree with all that but I would add a caveat which is that in order for objects to move through it space does not have to be an absolute vacuum

But I would not say objects move "through" space.

To me space is just the distance between objects.

So, for example, if two quarks move closer to together then the space or the distance between is now shorter than it previously was.

To me matter does not move through space. Space is just the thing that HAS TO exist for matter to move, about freely. That thing is just a distance.

And I am not sure why when I just use the 'space' word only, the two words 'absolute vacuum' seem to jump into some people.

But if we want to look at 'absolute vacuum', If there is absolutely nothing between the two smallest particles of matter, which may still be unknown, then is that space an absolute vacuum?

How could there even be any thing other than just an absolute 'empty space', and an absolute 'empty space' by definition, would be an 'absolute vacuum' correct?

Instead it just has to be relatively empty but they will still be restricted by one of the four fundamental forces that affect all observable objects
So no object has total freedom but will instead be limited by such forces no matter how small it may be as nothing can exist in absolute isolation

Are those four fundamental forces, physical or non-physical?

If forces are physical, then I did qualify this by stating;
Every physical thing is absolutely FREE to go wherever it "wants" to go. The only thing that limits physical things is physicality, itself.

So, if forces are physical, then as I have already said; physicality limits absolute FREEDOM.

This freedom, which is limited by physicality, causes an affect. The limited ability to move freely is the cause and effect process, and this process is HOW and WHY the principle of cause and effect is, like Life, Existence, and the Universe, Itself, infinite and eternal.

This limited ability to move freely, or, this ability to move freely, which is limited, is a True paradox, that is; seems absurd or contradictory but expresses a truth. This is exactly how free will and determinism both work equally together. Every one has the ability to choose freely, but every one of them is limited by the choices that they can choose from.

Free will and determinism co-exist just like matter and space co-exist, and if the truth be known, none of them can exist on their own.

The cause and effect process also actually explains just HOW creation and evolution are intertwined like matter and space and free will and determinism ARE. They literally can not be one without the other. Every thing is created by the coming together of at least two things, and every thing created has to change, which is in essence is just evolution in action itself.

[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.

[nothing]

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

Very well observed: indeed, the universe is strictly motion.
Time and space are reciprocals, thus can be viewed as two reciprocal sectors.

Worldly = space/time (as: speed) = observable
Ethereal = time/space (as: energy) = not observable

A universe with no motion is temporally meaningless.

This is why Aristotelian identity law A = A is incomplete at best, false at worst.

√A = +A, -A
∴ A ≠ A
A = *A
__________
*variability (+/-) permits motion(s)

Now *A can "move" (as all matter moves) according to any given reference/coordinate system.
Here is an example of bi-directional variability as it applies to a generic torus field:


*A = subject
(+/-) = motion
(√+/√-) = poles concerning motion(s) associated with subject

This geometry satisfies both sectors: worldly and ethereal.

[bahman]

For that, you need a set of points to accommodate different events. This set of points is so-called time.

Is it?

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

You can call it whatever. I call it time.

No time leads to no points, leading to the impossibility of change. You need time to have change.

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.

[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?

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.

[Age]

For that, you need a set of points to accommodate different events. This set of points is so-called time.

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.

No time leads to no points, leading to the impossibility of change. You need time to have change.

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.

[Age]

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?

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"?

[Age]

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

Very well observed: indeed, the universe is strictly motion.
Time and space are reciprocals, thus can be viewed as two reciprocal sectors.

Worldly = space/time (as: speed) = observable

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

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

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

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.

Ethereal = time/space (as: energy) = not observable

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

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

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

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.

A universe with no motion is temporally meaningless.

This is why Aristotelian identity law A = A is incomplete at best, false at worst.

√A = +A, -A
∴ A ≠ A
A = *A
__________
*variability (+/-) permits motion(s)

Now *A can "move" (as all matter moves) according to any given reference/coordinate system.
Here is an example of bi-directional variability as it applies to a generic torus field:


*A = subject
(+/-) = motion
(√+/√-) = poles concerning motion(s) associated with subject

This geometry satisfies both sectors: worldly and ethereal.

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

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

[Age]

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.

[surreptitious57]

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