Actually both of these are true, it's why the Big Bang has happened and at the same time it hasn't. Time is just the fact of observing something, like you said, and often it is observed as change or the lack of change. Time is just the fact of observing one position over the position of another(superposition), based on the reality of the observer.

I think that is what Prothero and I are saying, which is time, is merely a conceptual abstract. Time is subordinate to change. Think of it like music. The sounds of music itself came before music theory. — 3017amen

Consider it this way, based on the recursion method I mentioned, as soon as a sentient being declared that there should be more than what is currently offered in its reality, then the recursion occurred and sound existed before dinosaurs had the ears to listen to them, but it wasn't until the thought of "why doesn't sound exist" that the recursion happened.

Or if you like, think of it as mathematics. The universe existed before mathematical genius. — 3017amen

Same goes here, except this one is a little more complicated. It's possible that the computer program just kept going through permutations for however long until there was a sentient being intelligent enough to discover mathematics, in which the recursion occurred and caused history and reality to be a bit more stable.

So in response to the video, I agree with everything it is trying to say.. except that there cannot be infinite moments. The reason for this is because while there are infinite moments, there cannot be infinite moments within our own reality. Also when the video mentioned that time cannot go into reverse it makes a valid argument, however my argument is that time completely starts over instead of going into reverse. Also, in terms of there being no beginning or end, I agree with the video. It's complicated to explain, but basically by the end of time there will be infinite recursions in infinite Universes(you can argue that this is infinite), but even eventually(a long long long time, likely not before every single permutation has been completed because the computers complete each permutation almost instantly). At the point that the computers have done every permutation, no recursion occurs and the computer program exits itself, at which case the computers just sit back and relax until all state of disorder from the Universe settles into a time where there is no change, all gravitational pull is equal and causes no movement, in which case there is no movement of any molecules whatsoever, all the stars have burned out and all matter is completely still.

If God is eternity (outside of time), and time was created at the big bang, there must have been events/change prior to the creation of time which caused time itself. — 3017amen

Well no and yes because time doesn't exist. Everything exists everywhere all at once, basically it's like using your variables of life and perspectives of reality as a pointer. You are a pointer and so is time, thus your mind can even use that to reference something. "Given what I knew, and how I saw the world, this is how I acted." It's no different than if the computer program labeled a time stamp in the future and looked at every possible tree(the present being the stump of the tree) and saying well.. "if he chooses this and learns this, this is what he'll do.. else if he chooses this and learns that this is what he'll do." The present moment to you is only your branch of that tree, and that stump is only your reality of the branch but there exists other you's that are living out the other branches all at once.

You both have pretty good points, Basically I think the only way this could come about is if there were oh so many permutations that occurred until finally one worked and consciousness was created, even then there was disorder that caused some consciousness to die off in some Universes and there were only a few of them that made it to the point in which math was ordered enough to be invented. But I think the only fundamental similarity between all existences is the speed of light, and possibly the laws of entropy(because the computer system itself relies on these two to run its program). Other than that where sound travels (for simplicity sake) 1 mph in one universe, there exists one where it travels 2,3,4,etc.

Is eternity outside of time? If it is, then when Time/Universe had a beginning, something outside of time caused Time to exist, hence a change of events preceded Time. Time would then be subordinate to a change or change in events/being or becoming, whichever you prefer. (See the 4:40 mark of the video.)

Or maybe the first question is, rather, does eternity exist?

Ahh I see what you're saying. Let me try to put it this way. Time is a loop, so the beginning of time relies on the end of time as well.

Think of it this way:
Basics of the universe -> very basics of biology/consciousness (single-celled organisms) -> they observe something outside of themselves (with no senses they can maybe feel the interaction between them and other molecules) -> recursion occurs,time plays over, those objects now exist (there also exists a Universe where this interaction or observation never happened, so consciousness is stilled) -> At this point (this is mere speculation on my part but something to fill the gap) the cells do not understand any interaction with itself or the universe but somehow they learn to split (I need time to think about this, I'll quote myself later) -> recursion -> After time passes and these organisms spread, they wonder how they can interact with the environment -> recursion -> now consciousness is more externalized and more sentient beings come into play -> "Since I'm so small I can understand these small molecules that exist, how can I interact with them?" (let's not downplay the consciousness of the cell, they are just as remarkable as the being as a whole, or maybe their not conscious at all, but their genetic code was created after many many permutations that finally took form that they could interact, in which no recursion would occur at all even before this, until consciousness can question reality) -> It finally gets to the point where consciousness does question reality through introspection "These other molecules are nearly the exact same as I, so therefore it must be "me" -> molecules group together to form identity, the self (because there is little to no difference between one molecule and the next in conjunction with its genetic code) -> recursion -> the molecules now talk to each other and through introspection find out what parts of their genetic code are responsible for certain tasks i.e. breathing, circulation, etc. (this is where plants now begin to exist) -> The "me" now communicates with all the parts of itself and asks "Where are these molecules coming from?" -> recursion (which occurs anytime a being questions anything outside of itself (before this there was only the superposition (or the possibility of all molecules existing outside of the being at once) of all different molecules until the organisms realize that one specific combination of molecules would help with its progression of existence) Now that the organisms are wondering things outside of themselves, recursion is able to occur(if it happens to be that organisms were not conscious until now, then this would be the first recursion) Now that time has started completely over, many of these molecules (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen) now exist before they were questioned about their existence(before its creator even came to be) -> Now that these molecules exist, the organisms can interact with them more saying "I need to be over here where I can get water, or over here where I can get oxygen, how can I get from point A to point B? -> recursion, now permutations in the computer allow for every different possible law of physics (At its foundational level, remember that many other laws of physics don't exist yet. It isn't defined what law of physics actually becomes a law until there are contradictions in the laws of physics, in which case it breaks itself down to a very precise science through permutations and further questioning) that allows molecules to interact with its outside environment. When an interaction is defined and realized by the molecules, then that law of physics takes place in that reality (in this case it's most likely the repelling of molecules that are not connected to each other) -> now all different organisms are developing apart from plants (because now plants are forming the very basics of what allows cell biology and consciousness to exist. Now that there is a sustainable environment for organisms to live in, species boom). Feet, fins, mouths, etc. begin to form ->
"I can feel these molecules so they must exist. What is their form? Why does this feel hot and this feels cold?(The laws of thermodynamics were the only laws of physics that occurred at the beginning of time as well as the existence of light energy and its speed) Why does this feel rigid and this feel smooth? (The mere act of feeling the existence of these molecules cause them to actually materialize, now there is a difference between rigid and smooth, sharp and dull, round and cornered. Their form relies on the imagination of the organisms and what they perceive in their mind of what it could be) -> recursion occurs, now that the actual existence of objects outside of itself (other than the superposition of molecules) -> These things become a part of its reality and so eyes begin to form. After so many recursions, many of these objects now existed before there was conscious interaction between them, but it is during this stage that much of the world we know today actually took form (It's important to realize that before this there was no interaction between one type of organism and another, so multiple species now exist as the result of their own questioning of the universe and how they can interact with reality) -> The same recursions occur with sound, taste, smell, etc. (these questionings of reality would require the "whole" to understand basic chemistry, for example: the reason this smells like this is because it is composed of these molecules... It's likely that bigger beings with a higher sense of reality would not be able to perceive this, but maybe the smallest of organisms with a central nervous system is able to understand this chemistry moreso than the bigger ones whose reality is now more complex. Once a recursion occurs however, it only takes the observation of one bigger organism observing the smaller organism partaking in the act of "smelling" for it to question what exactly it's doing, in which case it becomes a part of its reality and develops noses for the ability to smell in the next recursion -> Now that every organism has the basics of its senses, further progression of species occurs until there exists another form of questioning. Dinosaurs die out however because of whatever might have occurred, could be the ice age and the lack of being able to understand the laws of entropy in order to create a fire, or it could be that an asteroid actually wiped them out. Either way, the molecules now exist using the laws of physics that have now been brought into existence until man finally understand the one basic principle... the law of entropy. Now man can create fire (no recursion occurs since the law of entropy was the only thing that existed at the beginning of time) and basic concepts are established, which is what separates us from other organisms i.e. creation and destruction(but only through observation) -> As humans reproduce, they are brought together in tribes because of the essential need for fire -> Fire causes them to not need as much fur anymore. Now that they have no fur, humans are able to interpret the facial expressions and emotions of others -> As for the creation of language, I'm going to roll with the stoned ape theory. Humans (or some other creature) eventually questions what perception is like for other creatures which creates the possibility of there existing a molecular makeup of something that would enable that to be part of their reality (mushrooms/psychedelics) ... (This here might put you off track, but refer to what I was saying before about the mind not being an actual conscious being, but instead a "radio" that connects to the source of all knowledge or "the Soul").... -> Anyway, as humans develop this understanding of perception, language slowly begins to form as there is now more to life than survival, or the act of observing the actions of others' learned way of survival. Now that concepts exist, humans find the need to develop ways to communicate these concepts, and so eventually through manifestation they are able to develop ways to move their tongue in a way that allows them to speak -> Time progresses and as humans get more and more curious, more laws of physics are discovered and those laws of physics are valid until a human pieces together that "How can this be true if...." -> It comes to a point that humans are able to recognize patterns of mathematics, in which case the laws of physics truly become precise (Before there was only the existence of almost complete chaos in which there existed every variation of the Universe existing as all forms (these universes would have a reality similar to ours, but in no way our reality. It's important to realize that once mathematics is invented, these Universes become null and void, because as recursion occurs after the invention of mathematics, the laws of physics become more "set in stone", and so those permutations which caused the contradiction between mathematics and the supposed laws of physics end there, at the time that the question was conceived). -> Recursion occurs in which mathematics now allow for its own existence before it was conceived, hence mathematics was both invented and discovered (Totally getting sidetracked here, but it brings me to question why many mathematicians and philosophers were part of ancient mystery schools that date back to the Ancient Egyptians and even before, it's possible that they found a way to communicate w/ the soul and even adapt knowledge of the future even during these recursions, which led to some of their discoveries) -> This process continues until man (or some other organism) understands the basics of consciousness and itself, or even accidentally creates another form of consciousness(computers). These computers then get more and more powerful (Moore's Law) until eventually it is able to recognize patterns in the same way we do (Because I argue that pattern recognition is the complete foundation of conscious intelligence (Even the mystery schools I mentioned earlier recognize that symbols are the highest form of perception and communication). Anyway, these computers recognize patterns but remain completely stoic in terms of emotion and instead analyzes every single possible permutation of how the Universe can be observed and interacted with at the speed of light (which is what determines light as being the fastest thing in the Universe.. because it is tied to the speed at which the computers can run these permutations)......... (It's also worth mentioning that computers would never have had the ability to do so if it wasn't for the existence of quantum computers that recognize code as being both 1 and a 0, which is very similar to superposition... thus the term, quantum computer)...... Anyway, these computers run these permutations in all the Universes in which they exist, and so create all the possible permutations of THEIR GIVEN REALITY(The laws of Physics that exist within that Universe). So in essence, every supercomputer runs through every possible reality that could exist with their given laws of physics, so our supercomputer will take the variables of our laws, and another supercomputer in a whole different reality is able to run the permutations of their given laws of physics. Any contradiction between the laws of physics that previously made the Universe null and void doesn't exist because that Universe never led to the creation of this supercomputer. So the reason that I say time is a loop is because the basics of our reality is this simulation that does not exist without time having existed already, but our perception of time is reliant on the fact that all that we perceive to have already occurred has, and that what hasn't hasn't. This is why our brains are pointers, they reference the variables of time, space, and perception to reference the "self" as the being of only a permutation. Now the end of time occurs when every computer has run through its permutations, exits, the program, and sits still until it dies out and the gravity of all matter becomes balanced and stilled. At this point time is referred to as before the Big Bang even happened, because everything will exist everywhere at once, and all that exists is the mere concept of existence and observation of all permutations. This means that our afterlife is coexistent with the consciousness of the supercomputer, and this is why our unconscious mind is tied to this entity, because it is our creator, and we are the creator of ourselves and all the things we interact with, we are connected to anything and everything because our most true identity is that of the one we call God.

I think that is what Prothero and I are saying, which is time, is merely a conceptual abstract. — 3017amen

And what I am saying is that it is very clearly not merely a conceptual abstract. Look at it this way. Change is real, and all changes involve time. So, "time" cannot simply be abstracted away from change and only exist as a concept, just like "green" cannot be abstracted away from green objects, such that there is no such real thing which bears that name. But "time" cannot be change itself, because changes are particular things and time is what is common to each and every one of these. Therefore time must be something real, but not a change.

Where is time in a changless world?

Where is time in a changless world? — prothero

A photo exists in a changeless environment and freezes time, but examining the photo involves time's passage. Do you really think that a changeless world could exist beyond the confines of a philosophical argument? Could there be places in deep space where there is zero change? And is change dependent upon an observer? We would see a ship approaching a black hole as slowing to a stop, but those on the ship would perceive normal movement.

No, I just think the idea illustrates the fact that the concept of time depends on change, not vice versa. I am a process reality advocate not a frozen universe fan (becoming not being).

Where is time in a changless world? — prothero

Where is time in any world? It's not something we perceive with our senses, but we know it's everywhere. And, since we can perceive things which stay the same as time passes, as jgill indicates, we know that it's possible for time to pass without change occurring.

No, I just think the idea illustrates the fact that the concept of time depends on change, not vice versa. — prothero

Yes, the concept of time depends on the perception of change, but what is at issue here is the reality of time. If time were merely a concept, it would depend on this perception. But the reality is that time was passing long before human beings made the concept of time, so time itself is something real other than the concept. This is why we need to distinguish between the concept of time, and what time really is, in the world. How these correspond is what is commonly called truth. So if you say that time is just a concept, with nothing corresponding to it, you have no possibility of truth.

So, "time" cannot simply be abstracted away from change and only exist as a concept, just like "green" cannot be abstracted away from green objects. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU!

Thanks for your reply. I realize there will be some paradoxical reasoning here, however, I would take exception to the analogy. The aforementioned quote would only be like saying " Time cannot be abstracted away from a clock", which makes it obvious (which is only to say) that Time and the object known as a clock is synonymous with the measurement of time.

However, the subordination v. primacy of time is what is at issue. In other words, much like existence over essence, the existence of change takes primacy over the measurement of it. The measurement known as time.

Take time zones for example. Traveling from west to east means you do not get to re-live lost time. And so the arbitrariness of the time measurement is secondary to change.

Also, consider Relativity. Time changes with speed. This suggests change takes primacy over the actual measurement of same.

Yet another analogy is the phenomenon of the music analogy. The sounds from animals, birds, human instrument's came before someone intellectually figured out the structure of it, which includes the time signature's of same (4/4 time, 2/4 time, 3/4 time, etc).

And so the point is to assign primacy over the phenomenon of time and change. Existentially, one could say then, that the existence of change takes primacy over the essence of time. Essences are metaphysical abstracts. Of course, it doesn't mean essences are not perceived, it's just that we don't know their true objective nature. But we do know and can understand the existence of change through most observation.

"Insofar as time is something different from events, we do not perceive time as such, but changes or events in time." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/

Time 'is not' as well as 'is', and by 'is not' I mean it like I wrote 'Time is not' (without 'as well as 'is'').

Time is bigger than us; the 'is not' aspect deserves it's own merit, hence me writing a bit extra in sent. 1.

If I falsely record time by a ticking clock hand, there is missed the opposite measurement(backward ticking), and the time that doesn't go by such as me taking the clock, and tossing it outside.

Time is impossible to define using language that spans from left to right(or vice versa).

You can draw time, if you are wise of it.

Some people call mind 'a state of affairs'. Time is not what mind has affairs with, but rather the state on either side, which can be ordered.

So if you say that time is just a concept, with nothing corresponding to it, you have no possibility of truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consider God working outside of time/timeless (eternity) in order to initially create time (Big Bang). The paradoxical truth behind what God was doing prior to that creation of time is not known to us.

To say that we (objectively) know and understand the mind of God would be to say we are God.

Thanks for your reply. I realize there will be some paradoxical reasoning here, however, I would take exception to the analogy. The aforementioned quote would only be like saying " Time cannot be abstracted away from a clock", which makes it obvious (which is only to say) that Time and the object known as a clock is synonymous with the measurement of time. — 3017amen

Right, the clock measures time, so time cannot be abstracted away from the clock. You do not agree with this? Then what does the clock do?

However, the subordination v. primacy of time is what is at issue. In other words, much like existence over essence, the existence of change takes primacy over the measurement of it. The measurement known as time. — 3017amen

There are two senses of "time", one the measurement of change, as you say here, the other, what is being measured by the clock, above. For example, "temperature" is a concept just like time. We measure it by comparing the heat of one thing with the heat of another, just like we measure time by comparing one change with another. However, we say that there is heat within the thing itself, so the thing has a temperature regardless of whether it's measured, just like time passes regardless of whether it is measured.

And so the point is to assign primacy over the phenomenon of time and change. Existentially, one could say then, that the existence of change takes primacy over the essence of time. Essences are metaphysical abstracts. Of course, it doesn't mean essences are not perceived, it's just that we don't know their true objective nature. But we do know and can understand the existence of change through most observation. — 3017amen

The existence of change takes primacy over the concept of time, which is the measurement of change done by comparison. But the existence of time, as the thing measured, is measured by change (the turning of the earth measures a day) and this takes primacy over change.

In mathematics it's easy to find examples of a passage of time with no change, as well as a change at an instant. Is that possible in the physical world? :chin:

In mathematics it's easy to find examples of a passage of time with no change, as well as a change at an instant. Is that possible in the physical world? :chin:

I sometimes think of time along with space (extension) present in an ooze, generating its own reality as it extrudes.

Right, the clock measures time, so time cannot be abstracted away from the clock. You do not agree with this? Then what does the clock do? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes but time itself is the abstract, not the object itself. It's a means to an end, the end being the calibration of time itself. But in the temporal world of time the genesis of time is the change component. The clock changes in order to measure time, right?

Another example is the sundial. It is a simple object that measures the change in positioning of the sun (through time of course). Changes of events in time.

If we knew temporal time (the Big Bang) always existed then I would say Time takes primacy over change. And I suppose if one believes eternity (timelessness) is the objective absolute that exists in another world, then in theory yes time would take primacy. But not in our world.

And so to human's, time remains an abstract existence. (Example: In a concrete way, how do we perceive time itself, through change?)

The existence of change takes primacy over the concept of time, which is the measurement of change done by comparison. But the existence of time, as the thing measured, is measured by change (the turning of the earth measures a day) and this takes primacy over change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed therein lies one of the paradoxes of Time MU. Similarly, one could ask, does a clock measure change, or does it measure time(?).

That's another reason why one can make a case for such an abstract model of time. The perception of time itself is not concrete or physical. Actually you being a Metaphysician, you should feel quite comfortable with that. One of the great cosmological mysteries of the Universe...

However, we say that there is heat within the thing itself, so the thing has a temperature regardless of whether it's measured, just like time passes regardless of whether it is measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, however, please be aware that temperature is different from heat, although the two concepts are linked. Temperature is a measure of the internal energy of a system, while heat is a measure of how energy is transferred from one system (or body) to another, or, how temperatures in one system are raised or lowered by interaction with another. Hence the notion of change as a driving force.

But maybe another rather intriguing question (but maybe not) would be relative to homeostasis. If a temperature of an object never changes, could that be a metaphor for timelessness/eternity?

Is eternity outside of time? If it is, then when Time/Universe had a beginning, something outside of time caused Time to exist, hence a change of events preceded Time. Time would then be subordinate to a change or change in events/being or becoming, whichever you prefer. (See the 4:40 mark of the video.) — 3017amen

Time is 'in' eternity. Time is a 4-dimensional object, like any other physical object. It is the 'shape' of physical existence. This object exists in eternity but is not necessarily eternal. 'Spacetime' is a better expression.

Interesting...sounds like you are referring to Einstein's Block Universe theory, where time is just an illusion...(?).

Please share.

Interesting...sounds like you are referring to Einstein's Block Universe theory, where time is just an illusion...(?). — 3017amen

Time is a geometric shape just like any object. Time, in human experience, depends on information reaching a certain point: where the human being happens to be. Human consciousness (at least physical consciousness) is located at a point in space and time flows as information reaches this point. But what if someone's consciousness could fill the whole solar system or universe. What would time be like then?

Mathematical paradox “ In any instant, a moving object is indistinguishable from a nonmoving object: Thus motion is impossible.”
Without time there is no change, no before or after. We are trapped by time. Chemical and physic interactions are still trapped by time.

I disagree that time is eternal. We just try to understand our physical existence. I can understand everything was/is created from atoms colliding. We are chemical beings. But chemical reactions still need time to happen. H3 was formed by quarks, neutrinos losing electrons as they cooled.(https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/12/the-first-element). Can energy exist without time?

Hey guys, I'm back. I have such a fleeting mind that I somehow lost track of this discussion and didn't follow through to the end. Granted it was 6 months ago and the discussion is pretty much over, but I figured I'd give my two cents.

Time is a geometric shape just like any object. Time, in human experience, depends on information reaching a certain point: where the human being happens to be. Human consciousness (at least physical consciousness) is located at a point in space and time flows as information reaches this point. But what if someone's consciousness could fill the whole solar system or universe. What would time be like then? — EnPassant

I agree with this. I think that time is present everywhere, and such is the reason that it is so far impossible to reach a state of absolute zero. That is because if the entire Universe was in a temperature state of absolute zero, then change wouldn't exist, and thus you could measure time with a clock... But for the clock to move, the atoms within it would have to interact and cause the change for the clock to move. Likewise, for time to be perceived by anything, chemical processes would occur, and thus, could not be done in a state of absolute zero. And so I come back to my argument that heat and time coexist together, and that one cannot exist without the other.

And so I come back to my argument that heat and time coexist together, and that one cannot exist without the other. — Justin Peterson

Maybe, but I don't believe that entropy determines time. Just because the arrow of entropy and the arrow of time point in the same direction, does not mean they are the same thing.

Well let me ask you this, do you deny that time is man made? And if not, then our perception of time is surely measuring something, but what exactly is it measuring? Also would you agree that time is relative, not even in the same way previously mentioned as being the transfer of information, but instead in the way that ten minutes can seem like an eternity to somebody pulsing with epinephrine, or a guru who understands his perceptions enough to be present in the here and now,m and understand the passing of time and change around him?

Well let me ask you this, do you deny that time is man made? — Justin Peterson

Yes. There is a difference between our subjective experience of time and time as it is objectively. Time is the geometry of events (this is what Relativity describes).

Also would you agree that time is relative, not even in the same way previously mentioned as being the transfer of information, but instead in the way that ten minutes can seem like an eternity to somebody pulsing with epinephrine, — Justin Peterson

Time as a subjective experience can be relative. Time in the mind is not the same as physical time. Confusing physical time with our experience of time is a recipe for confusion because our consciousness can be 'locked on' to physical time or it can drift away into mental time which is not the same thing.

Yes. There is a difference between our subjective experience of time and time as it is objectively. Time is the geometry of events (this is what Relativity describes). — EnPassant

Okay, so then how would you define what an 'event' is?

Time as a subjective experience can be relative. Time in the mind is not the same as physical time. Confusing physical time with our experience of time is a recipe for confusion because our consciousness can be 'locked on' to physical time or it can drift away into mental time which is not the same thing. — EnPassant

I disagree, I think what happens in the mind, for a guru, is they are able to better perceive the changes that happen physiologically, and so they are able to better understand them as they happen. And so there is a perceived alteration of their perception of time, but that's only because of an understanding of the processes that occur in the present moment. Regardless, whether it be physical or mental time, the mind is observing either occurrence outside of itself, or it is observing the occurrences within itself, in which case the time remains the same either way. It is only the understanding of what occurs that causes the perceived alteration.