We have been here before

[bahman]

Therefore, absolutely NOTHING needs to be said to PROVE that 'you' are NOT open at all to hear what I have to say. So, END OF STORY.

You have, ONCE AGAIN, completely MISSED THE POINT, and the MARK.

If this is what 'you' BELIEVE is TRUE, then I am PERFECTLY FINE with this.

Just as long as 'you' are AWARE that 'you' have NOT argued for this in a sound nor logical way. The ONLY so called "argument" that you have provided is whatever 'you' can grasp onto, which would make TO YOUR your OWN BELIEFS seem more true and more real.

And as long as you are AWARE that 'you' OWN BELIEFS could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG, then I am happy for you.

You have PROVEN that 'you' are NOT open at all, and so being CLOSED off to any thing else other than your OWN BELIEF, then it is a complete and utter waste to even 'try to' talk to 'you'.

You, after all, could NOT even comprehend and fathom the point I was making by asking you the most simplest of clarifying questions. The POINT being absolutely NOTHING what 'you' ASSUMED IT to be.

By, open I mean that I can hear your counter-argument if there is any. So far you didn't offer anything nor try to contemplate on my argument.

I have not YET offered any so called "counter"-argument, because I was just 'trying to' fathom how 'open' you really were FIRST. Because it took you so long for you to just answer the most simplest of yes/no clarifying question, and because you completely MISSED what was happening, we have been LOOKING AT that new issue and have been discussing that instead. I have been waiting patiently to find out thee Truth of how open or not you REALLY ARE. Since, you have PROVEN that you are NOT open at all to listening to any thing other than your OWN BELIEFS, there was and still is NO use providing an argument.

By the way, 'you' would have to provide an actual 'argument' for a 'counter-argument' to be provided also. I have YET to SEE an argument from 'you' that 'time' MUST exist otherwise there would NOT be any changes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this your argument? You did, after all, say and write;
I already argued against that:
If there was no time, then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous.
You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

So, is this YOUR 'argument'?

If yes, then okay.

If no, then what is YOUR 'argument'?

I provided a more elaborate argument before. But let's start with this.

[bahman]

btw, it looks to me like Age is indeed starting a counter-argument for you. I think his question (about the possibility of time existing only as a concept) is actually the first step of his counter-argument.

I would be happy to hear his argument.

Why would you be happy to hear some thing, which, to you, is completely NOT even possible?

What does the word 'argument' mean to 'you', "bahman"?

Also, being 'happy' has NO relevance to being 'open'.

Here is my argument: Events apparently don't lay at one point (events are not simultaneous), at least in our reality. Therefore, they lay on different points, on a line, so-called time.

Here is 'an' argument, which is NOT 'my' argument.

Tell me if it works or not, "bahman".

Events apparently do not lay at one point (events are not simultaneous), at least in "our" reality.
Therefore, events lay on different points, on a line, so-called change, (or just "not-time").

Change by definition is a process through which something becomes different. Change is reserved for something else. So, why not use time. By the way, you are accepting that events do not lay at the same point but different points, on a line so-called whatever. Is that true?

[Age]

If it is your contention that time may exist in concept, please explain further. I am fascinated by this.

If there is a thought about a word called 'time', and/or, there is a thought about what the word 'time' relates to, or some thinking occurring about what 'time' is actually, then do you agree that all of that exists in 'concept'?

If no, then how are you defining the word 'concept' here?

If yes, then do I still need to explain further?

To me, the word 'time' was thought up to explain the difference between two points like, for example, the two different points on the shadow of a stick as the earth span, relative to the light from the sun.

The word 'time' then just became the word to describe the measuring between to different agreed moments of when the earth is in relation to the light of the sun, for example, "daytime" and "nighttime".

The word 'time' then became associated with where exactly are 'we', and our our "EXACT" position, in relation to the the light of the sun.

The word 'time', then became associated with events, and thus changes.

The word 'time', then became associated with, "What is the time?", in relation to events and what is occurring.

Then, 'What is 'time' actually?' was wondered.

Now, when this is written, because the word 'time' is to closely associated with changing events, some people actually BELIEVE, with absolutely NO evidence, that 'time' is an actual physical thing, which causes things to happen.

Although the order of things I just wrote may not be exactly right, what can be seen is it is not the case that 'time' MAY exist in concept. But, actually DOES exist in concept.

Obviously the word 'time' exists, and 'what time is' is wondered. So, 'time' exists, and, exists in concept.

I just say 'time' exists in concept ONLY. I say this because from what I have OBSERVED there is NO actual thing as 'time', other than in thought and that is expressed in spoken and written WORDS, ONLY.

When, and IF, ANY one brings ANY thing along, which SHOWS that 'time' is some actual physical thing, which causes change, itself, to happen or occur, then OBVIOUSLY I will OBSERVE some thing different than I do now, when this is written.

(I could explain further, in more detail, or in another way is so liked).

Thank you. Very well put. I thought as much, however I was at a loss when it came to expressing it.

Now, it seems to me that if it is said that time exists only as a concept, then it would be implied that time does not exist as a physical thing. How say you on this?

I am not sure what, "How say you on this?", means?

Is that question in relation to your previous sentence, and are you asking me some thing like, 'How would I say, or express, that sentence?"

If that is some thing like what you are asking me, then I would say; If time exists only as a concept, then that means 'time' does not exist as a physical thing.

To me, if it is said that time exists in concept only, then it is not implied that time does not exist as a physical thing, but rather it is the case that time does not exist as a physical thing.

Or, have I completely misunderstood what you were getting at?

[Age]

By, open I mean that I can hear your counter-argument if there is any. So far you didn't offer anything nor try to contemplate on my argument.

I have not YET offered any so called "counter"-argument, because I was just 'trying to' fathom how 'open' you really were FIRST. Because it took you so long for you to just answer the most simplest of yes/no clarifying question, and because you completely MISSED what was happening, we have been LOOKING AT that new issue and have been discussing that instead. I have been waiting patiently to find out thee Truth of how open or not you REALLY ARE. Since, you have PROVEN that you are NOT open at all to listening to any thing other than your OWN BELIEFS, there was and still is NO use providing an argument.

By the way, 'you' would have to provide an actual 'argument' for a 'counter-argument' to be provided also. I have YET to SEE an argument from 'you' that 'time' MUST exist otherwise there would NOT be any changes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this your argument? You did, after all, say and write;
I already argued against that:
If there was no time, then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous.
You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

So, is this YOUR 'argument'?

If yes, then okay.

If no, then what is YOUR 'argument'?

I provided a more elaborate argument before. But let's start with this.

Maybe best if we move straight on to the so called "more elaborate argument" of yours, as I do not even see this as being an argument at all.

What I SEE is YOUR ASSUMPTION of some thing, which you BELIEVE is what is true. I do NOT see an argument for any thing.

An 'argument' showing how time causes change would show HOW time causes change. All your argument shows is what you BELIEVE is true.

Do you have any ACTUAL evidence that time causes change?

If yes, then just provide it. Then you would not even have to formulate an argument anyway.

[Age]

I would be happy to hear his argument.

Why would you be happy to hear some thing, which, to you, is completely NOT even possible?

What does the word 'argument' mean to 'you', "bahman"?

Also, being 'happy' has NO relevance to being 'open'.

Here is my argument: Events apparently don't lay at one point (events are not simultaneous), at least in our reality. Therefore, they lay on different points, on a line, so-called time.

Here is 'an' argument, which is NOT 'my' argument.

Tell me if it works or not, "bahman".

Events apparently do not lay at one point (events are not simultaneous), at least in "our" reality.
Therefore, events lay on different points, on a line, so-called change, (or just "not-time").

Change by definition is a process through which something becomes different.

Agreed.

Change is reserved for something else.

I do not know what you are trying to infer here.

So, why not use time.

Trucking by definition is a process through which something becomes different in location.

Trucking is reserved for something else.

So, why not use airplane.

From my perspective, once again, what you wrote is NOT an argument. What you are writing are, to me, desperate attempts to find and say absolutely any thing which you hope or believe would back up and support your already held assumptions and beliefs, which you are holding onto as strongly as you can because for them to NOT be right would mean that 'you', literally, are WRONG.

By the way, you are accepting that events do not lay at the same point but different points, on a line so-called whatever. Is that true?

YES, in a sense. But for the sake of this discussion, and where you lay, and stay, in this discussion, then just accept my answer as being wholeheartedly YES, (for now).

To me, there is change.

You see and/or say that change is caused by 'time'.

Whereas, I see and say that there is nothing physical about 'time', and from what I have observed so far 'time', itself, is nothing more than just a term used for or when describing the difference between two perceived distinguished points, or events. I also see and say that 'change' is caused by physical things interacting, or re-acting, with each other.

I can PROVE what I say and back it up and support it with EVIDENCE, through both scientific methods and through sound and valid arguments. Through a logically reasoned discussion this can be shown

Whereas, you have absolutely NOTHING at all.

You obviously have not yet formed any 'argument' that even resembles being logical and/or reasonable, let alone sound and/or valid. You also have absolutely NO evidence for your claim, or none that you have yet provided so far.

[commonsense]

If there is a thought about a word called 'time', and/or, there is a thought about what the word 'time' relates to, or some thinking occurring about what 'time' is actually, then do you agree that all of that exists in 'concept'?

If no, then how are you defining the word 'concept' here?

If yes, then do I still need to explain further?

To me, the word 'time' was thought up to explain the difference between two points like, for example, the two different points on the shadow of a stick as the earth span, relative to the light from the sun.

The word 'time' then just became the word to describe the measuring between to different agreed moments of when the earth is in relation to the light of the sun, for example, "daytime" and "nighttime".

The word 'time' then became associated with where exactly are 'we', and our our "EXACT" position, in relation to the the light of the sun.

The word 'time', then became associated with events, and thus changes.

The word 'time', then became associated with, "What is the time?", in relation to events and what is occurring.

Then, 'What is 'time' actually?' was wondered.

Now, when this is written, because the word 'time' is to closely associated with changing events, some people actually BELIEVE, with absolutely NO evidence, that 'time' is an actual physical thing, which causes things to happen.

Although the order of things I just wrote may not be exactly right, what can be seen is it is not the case that 'time' MAY exist in concept. But, actually DOES exist in concept.

Obviously the word 'time' exists, and 'what time is' is wondered. So, 'time' exists, and, exists in concept.

I just say 'time' exists in concept ONLY. I say this because from what I have OBSERVED there is NO actual thing as 'time', other than in thought and that is expressed in spoken and written WORDS, ONLY.

When, and IF, ANY one brings ANY thing along, which SHOWS that 'time' is some actual physical thing, which causes change, itself, to happen or occur, then OBVIOUSLY I will OBSERVE some thing different than I do now, when this is written.

(I could explain further, in more detail, or in another way is so liked).

Thank you. Very well put. I thought as much, however I was at a loss when it came to expressing it.

Now, it seems to me that if it is said that time exists only as a concept, then it would be implied that time does not exist as a physical thing. How say you on this?

I am not sure what, "How say you on this?", means?

Is that question in relation to your previous sentence, and are you asking me some thing like, 'How would I say, or express, that sentence?"

If that is some thing like what you are asking me, then I would say; If time exists only as a concept, then that means 'time' does not exist as a physical thing.

To me, if it is said that time exists in concept only, then it is not implied that time does not exist as a physical thing, but rather it is the case that time does not exist as a physical thing.

Or, have I completely misunderstood what you were getting at?

I apologize for being obscure. I was using “How say you?” as an idiom, or more likely as a colloquialism, to mean, “What would you say in response (to the immediately preceding sentence; I.e. to the poorly referenced ‘this’ which I haphazardly intended to point to the immediately preceding sentence).” In the future, I will try to be more explicit and less idiomatic, if you have no objection to my doing so.

By revealing examples of what words you would use to express what I was trying to say, you have given me a small glimpse into how you might agree or disagree with the claim that time is not physical. Please tell me more about your thoughts on this claim.

[bahman]

Why would you be happy to hear some thing, which, to you, is completely NOT even possible?

What does the word 'argument' mean to 'you', "bahman"?

Also, being 'happy' has NO relevance to being 'open'.

Here is 'an' argument, which is NOT 'my' argument.

Tell me if it works or not, "bahman".

Events apparently do not lay at one point (events are not simultaneous), at least in "our" reality.
Therefore, events lay on different points, on a line, so-called change, (or just "not-time").

Change by definition is a process through which something becomes different.

Agreed.

Greate.

By the way, you are accepting that events do not lay at the same point but different points, on a line so-called whatever. Is that true?

YES, in a sense. But for the sake of this discussion, and where you lay, and stay, in this discussion, then just accept my answer as being wholeheartedly YES, (for now).

I call whatever time.

You see and/or say that change is caused by 'time'.

I didn't say so. I said that time allows change to happen.

Whereas, I see and say that there is nothing physical about 'time', and from what I have observed so far 'time', itself, is nothing more than just a term used for or when describing the difference between two perceived distinguished points, or events. I also see and say that 'change' is caused by physical things interacting, or re-acting, with each other.

I can PROVE what I say and back it up and support it with EVIDENCE, through both scientific methods and through sound and valid arguments. Through a logically reasoned discussion this can be shown

Whereas, you have absolutely NOTHING at all.

You obviously have not yet formed any 'argument' that even resembles being logical and/or reasonable, let alone sound and/or valid. You also have absolutely NO evidence for your claim, or none that you have yet provided so far.

We will reach to that point.

[Age]

Change by definition is a process through which something becomes different.

Agreed.

Greate.

By the way, you are accepting that events do not lay at the same point but different points, on a line so-called whatever. Is that true?

YES, in a sense. But for the sake of this discussion, and where you lay, and stay, in this discussion, then just accept my answer as being wholeheartedly YES, (for now).

I call whatever time.

You can call 'whatever' whatever you want to, but just remember that that does NOT make it true, right, nor correct.

You see and/or say that change is caused by 'time'.

I didn't say so. I said that time allows change to happen.

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?

Whereas, I see and say that there is nothing physical about 'time', and from what I have observed so far 'time', itself, is nothing more than just a term used for or when describing the difference between two perceived distinguished points, or events. I also see and say that 'change' is caused by physical things interacting, or re-acting, with each other.

I can PROVE what I say and back it up and support it with EVIDENCE, through both scientific methods and through sound and valid arguments. Through a logically reasoned discussion this can be shown

Whereas, you have absolutely NOTHING at all.

You obviously have not yet formed any 'argument' that even resembles being logical and/or reasonable, let alone sound and/or valid. You also have absolutely NO evidence for your claim, or none that you have yet provided so far.

We will reach to that point.

What point?

[Age]

Thank you. Very well put. I thought as much, however I was at a loss when it came to expressing it.

Now, it seems to me that if it is said that time exists only as a concept, then it would be implied that time does not exist as a physical thing. How say you on this?

I am not sure what, "How say you on this?", means?

Is that question in relation to your previous sentence, and are you asking me some thing like, 'How would I say, or express, that sentence?"

If that is some thing like what you are asking me, then I would say; If time exists only as a concept, then that means 'time' does not exist as a physical thing.

To me, if it is said that time exists in concept only, then it is not implied that time does not exist as a physical thing, but rather it is the case that time does not exist as a physical thing.

Or, have I completely misunderstood what you were getting at?

I apologize for being obscure. I was using “How say you?” as an idiom, or more likely as a colloquialism, to mean, “What would you say in response (to the immediately preceding sentence; I.e. to the poorly referenced ‘this’ which I haphazardly intended to point to the immediately preceding sentence).” In the future, I will try to be more explicit and less idiomatic, if you have no objection to my doing so.

Please do not apologize for just using terms in your way.

I have no objection to any thing you do. You are absolutely free to do whatever you so wish to do. I just find speaking, especially in a world wide forum, with the most clearest and most direct terms, and in a completely honest way, in relation to what one actually means. I think this is the best, simplest, quickest, and easiest way to be better understood.

By revealing examples of what words you would use to express what I was trying to say, you have given me a small glimpse into how you might agree or disagree with the claim that time is not physical. Please tell me more about your thoughts on this claim.

Instead of me just providing more and more thoughts on that claim, how about if you go over again what I have written so far on this issue, and especially over my writings you asked me to write, and then you tell me what you do not fully understand in them and why not, and/or just ask me some specific clarifying questions?

Then I will be much more knowledgeable in what to write next. See, I might write more on parts of my claim but they might be the parts you already know and/or accept.

[bahman]

Agreed.

Greate.

YES, in a sense. But for the sake of this discussion, and where you lay, and stay, in this discussion, then just accept my answer as being wholeheartedly YES, (for now).

I call whatever time.

You can call 'whatever' whatever you want to, but just remember that that does NOT make it true, right, nor correct.

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

You see and/or say that change is caused by 'time'.

I didn't say so. I said that time allows change to happen.

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.

Whereas, I see and say that there is nothing physical about 'time', and from what I have observed so far 'time', itself, is nothing more than just a term used for or when describing the difference between two perceived distinguished points, or events. I also see and say that 'change' is caused by physical things interacting, or re-acting, with each other.

I can PROVE what I say and back it up and support it with EVIDENCE, through both scientific methods and through sound and valid arguments. Through a logically reasoned discussion this can be shown

Whereas, you have absolutely NOTHING at all.

You obviously have not yet formed any 'argument' that even resembles being logical and/or reasonable, let alone sound and/or valid. You also have absolutely NO evidence for your claim, or none that you have yet provided so far.

We will reach to that point.

What point?

To the point that we agree that I am right.

[commonsense]

I am not sure what, "How say you on this?", means?

Is that question in relation to your previous sentence, and are you asking me some thing like, 'How would I say, or express, that sentence?"

If that is some thing like what you are asking me, then I would say; If time exists only as a concept, then that means 'time' does not exist as a physical thing.

To me, if it is said that time exists in concept only, then it is not implied that time does not exist as a physical thing, but rather it is the case that time does not exist as a physical thing.

Or, have I completely misunderstood what you were getting at?

I apologize for being obscure. I was using “How say you?” as an idiom, or more likely as a colloquialism, to mean, “What would you say in response (to the immediately preceding sentence; I.e. to the poorly referenced ‘this’ which I haphazardly intended to point to the immediately preceding sentence).” In the future, I will try to be more explicit and less idiomatic, if you have no objection to my doing so.

Please do not apologize for just using terms in your way.

I have no objection to any thing you do. You are absolutely free to do whatever you so wish to do. I just find speaking, especially in a world wide forum, with the most clearest and most direct terms, and in a completely honest way, in relation to what one actually means. I think this is the best, simplest, quickest, and easiest way to be better understood.

By revealing examples of what words you would use to express what I was trying to say, you have given me a small glimpse into how you might agree or disagree with the claim that time is not physical. Please tell me more about your thoughts on this claim.

Instead of me just providing more and more thoughts on that claim, how about if you go over again what I have written so far on this issue, and especially over my writings you asked me to write, and then you tell me what you do not fully understand in them and why not, and/or just ask me some specific clarifying questions?

Then I will be much more knowledgeable in what to write next. See, I might write more on parts of my claim but they might be the parts you already know and/or accept.

Age, you have written that it is the case that time does not exist as a physical thing. This is the claim that I believe, but it is also one wherein I cannot see any reason why it is correct.

You’ve said that 'time' is a 'thing' not in the sense of it being a physical or tangible thing, but in the sense of 'time' just being a name, which describes and/or defines the measurement of change. ‘Time’ is a thing that exists in concept only.

I fully agree, but, as I indicated, I don’t understand what makes this so.

You explained that from what you’ve observed, there is no such thing as 'time', other than in thought, which is expressed in spoken and written words only.

I’m not sure that this is solid evidence that time is not also physical. Just because a thing has not been experienced doesn’t mean that it can’t be experienced ever.

You wrote that if and when anyone brings along anything which demonstrates that time is also a physical thing which causes change to take place, then you would experience something different than what you have observed until now.

This makes some sense, however the absence of a thing doesn’t prove the thing doesn’t exist.

Beyond the difficulty I have, not with accepting that time is only a concept, but with showing evidence to disprove time’s physicality, there’s the possibility that someone could make an argument for time being an actual physical thing.

I suppose one could argue that time is material because it can be measured and because it is a measurement per se. Time is measured by clocks and is employed to measure change.

We don’t, of our own senses, experience ultrasound yet there are physical devices that can detect and quantify ultrasound. The case is similar for infrared and ultraviolet light. These are actual physical things.

[Age]

Greate.


I call whatever time.

You can call 'whatever' whatever you want to, but just remember that that does NOT make it true, right, nor correct.

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?

I didn't say so. I said that time allows change to happen.

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.[/quote]

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.

We will reach to that point.

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?

[Age]

I apologize for being obscure. I was using “How say you?” as an idiom, or more likely as a colloquialism, to mean, “What would you say in response (to the immediately preceding sentence; I.e. to the poorly referenced ‘this’ which I haphazardly intended to point to the immediately preceding sentence).” In the future, I will try to be more explicit and less idiomatic, if you have no objection to my doing so.

Please do not apologize for just using terms in your way.

I have no objection to any thing you do. You are absolutely free to do whatever you so wish to do. I just find speaking, especially in a world wide forum, with the most clearest and most direct terms, and in a completely honest way, in relation to what one actually means. I think this is the best, simplest, quickest, and easiest way to be better understood.

By revealing examples of what words you would use to express what I was trying to say, you have given me a small glimpse into how you might agree or disagree with the claim that time is not physical. Please tell me more about your thoughts on this claim.

Instead of me just providing more and more thoughts on that claim, how about if you go over again what I have written so far on this issue, and especially over my writings you asked me to write, and then you tell me what you do not fully understand in them and why not, and/or just ask me some specific clarifying questions?

Then I will be much more knowledgeable in what to write next. See, I might write more on parts of my claim but they might be the parts you already know and/or accept.

Age, you have written that it is the case that time does not exist as a physical thing. This is the claim that I believe, but it is also one wherein I cannot see any reason why it is correct.

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.

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.

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?

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'.

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.

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. What 'time' is alleged to cause or allow has already been explained, so 'time' is NOT needed like that. Why the concept 'time' came into existence as a concept can and has been explained.

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.

You’ve said that 'time' is a 'thing' not in the sense of it being a physical or tangible thing, but in the sense of 'time' just being a name, which describes and/or defines the measurement of change. ‘Time’ is a thing that exists in concept only.

I fully agree, but, as I indicated, I don’t understand what makes this so.

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.

It is like saying, "I do not understand, what makes the claim that unicorn does not exist as a physical thing, so. You also can not see any reason why this is correct as well, but this one does not give you any issue at all, does it?

If your answer is no, then this is because NO one is telling you that unicorn is real and exists, like you are being told about 'time'. But just because people tell you some thing is true, then that does not make it true. If what you were told is true, then there would be some sort of male figure, (with a beard for some unknown reason), who created EVERY thing.

As I say to just find and SEE the Truth of things is to just LOOK FROM thee Truly OPEN Mind, and THEN use the brain and the memories within that to VERIFY the Truth or Falsehoods of things. But what most people do is LOOK FROM the brain first, and especially from what is held within that as being already assumed and/or believed to be true. For example, you are looking at this 'time' being physical or not from the already gained and stored information within the brain, which is telling 'you' that 'time' IS A PHYSICAL THING. Now, WHERE and WHY did this assumption that 'time' is, MUST BE, or is MEANT TO BE a physical thing notion/concept come from? Is it because it is actually True or just because you have been TOLD "it is true"? Also, why do 'you' NOT assume the same with 'time' as you do with 'unicorn'. The evidence for both of them being NOT physical is EQUALLY the EXACT SAME, but WHY is one in far more contention than the other? Is it solely because of what you have been previously told and/or read, and which is now stored in thought, as memory, somewhere, and comes out and through as being either assumed or believed to be true, or both?

You explained that from what you’ve observed, there is no such thing as 'time', other than in thought, which is expressed in spoken and written words only.

I’m not sure that this is solid evidence that time is not also physical.

What I have observed is NOT solid evidence nor just even any evidence at all for any one "else". Only what 'you' have observed "yourself" is absolute and True evidence, for 'you', and REALLY that personally observed/experienced evidence is the ONLY One that 'you' would be best to rely on.

Also, you appear to have quoted my words very close to EXACTLY has I would have written them, so I appreciate this MORE than you would even imagine now. But notice how, if that quote is correct, I wrote, "From what I have observed ...", which to me MEANS that that is NOT absolute evidence of any thing at all. I am just expressing the views I have, from what I have observed. Obviously we can and do observe things that are obviously NOT true at all, for example, we observe the sun revolving around the earth.

Just because a thing has not been experienced doesn’t mean that it can’t be experienced ever.

This is EXACTLY 100% very True from my perspective also. But to reaffirm this, then one has to be reminded that a unicorn may also be experienced.

I am NOT and NEVER will even suggest, let alone say, that 'time' being discovered/experienced as a physical thing one day is just not possible. But I can only express the views I have at the particular time I have them, and I like to express the views I have are ONLY because of what I HAVE ALREADY observed/experienced, which, obviously, does NOT include what i WILL observe/experience in the future.

I also like to express that what i HAVE ALREADY observed/experienced hitherto has CERTAINLY not been the absolute Truth of things. For example, i have observed and experienced living in a very war-torn, greedy, pollution-riddled, and stressful world where the actual Truth is need not HAVE TO, nor does any future human beings HAVE TO also. Just because I observed and experienced this type or world just NOT mean that a Truly better world could not come about where completely other new things are being observed, and experienced.

You wrote that if and when anyone brings along anything which demonstrates that time is also a physical thing which causes change to take place, then you would experience something different than what you have observed until now.

That sounds like some thing that i would have written.

This makes some sense, however the absence of a thing doesn’t prove the thing doesn’t exist.

I hope you are COMPLETELY CLEAR that I do NOT and have NOT disagree with this at all.

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.

Beyond the difficulty I have, not with accepting that time is only a concept, but with showing evidence to disprove time’s physicality, there’s the possibility that someone could make an argument for time being an actual physical thing.

The last part of this is very true. The second last part, however, I wonder WHY there is some sort of concept that there HAS TO BE showing evidence to disprove 'time's' physicality? Does there HAVE TO BE the showing of evidence to disprove unicorn's physicality?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Why is the showing to disprove of one's physicality wanted but not of the other one?

Why can people just not keep LOOKING AT ALL things from a Truly OPEN perspective, and then just relay or express only that, what they have personally observed and/or experience.

For example, I have consistently and continually been told that 'time' is an actual thing that exists, and that God exists also, but from what I have observed and experienced I have NOT been informed of how they even could possibly exist, let alone of being informed of how they actually are existing, and/or do exist. Even with ALL of the clarity I have sought from them nothing has been provided. Therefore, from what I have observed, and/or experienced, I have only SEEN how 'time' and 'God' exist, from the actual things that I have personally observed and experienced in My Life, which by the way IS and obviously would be VERY DIFFERENT from every one "else". Just to be forewarned, HOW I have observed that 'time' and 'God' do actually exist, may be VERY DIFFERENT and some times COMPLETELY OPPOSITE from how "others" SEE or BELIEVE them to exist or not.

I suppose one could argue that time is material because it can be measured and because it is a measurement per se. Time is measured by clocks and is employed to measure change.

But what EXACTLY are clocks measuring?

Is it 'time' or is it 'some thing else'?

I have already explained what I have observed/experienced in regards to what 'time' is actually measuring, from my perspective. I have also already explained what I have observed/experienced, in regards to what the 'measuring', itself, is actually based off of or from, from my perspective. (Obviously you may not have seen these previous explanations though). Although I have in this thread, if I recall correctly, mentioned some thing about how the word 'time' is just a word to describe the actual measuring, of what some thing (incorrectly? called "time").

You say here that you suppose one could argue that time is material because time can be measured, and, because time is a measurement per se. Now, i have found that there is not much use imagining or supposing some thing if it is in relation to what "another" may or may not be able to do. If 'you' can not do it, and as of NOW no one has been able to do it, then just maybe it could not be done at all.

If, for example, one could argue that time is material, then if they could do it, then, as they say, just do it.

Also, is 'time' itself material. Just because some thing material is being measured, then that does not instantly mean that that material thing is 'time', itself. As I have already explained is what is being measured is the length or distance between two agree upon points of events. So, what is in essence being measured is the physical world, itself, which is not generally known as 'time', itself.

Remember, one has to argue, soundly and validly, BEFORE they could jump to the conclusion, which you have here, that; "Time is measured by clocks and is employed to measure change".

The wrongness in your "conclusion" here is SHOWN by the contradiction in your conclusion. Clocks were created (employed) to measure change, BUT, that in NO WAY infers that it is 'time', which is being measured. It appears that we both AGREE that change occurs, and that clocks measure this change, correct?

Now, until some one, any one, actually comes forward with how 'time' is a physical/material thing, which could be measured, then we are just stuck with, at the moment anyway, with only being able to observe, experience, and SEE that human beings invented and created clocks to measure the actual physical, material things that we can observe, experience, and SEE changing, and as of now, when this is written, the word for that 'measuring' of the change in physicality, is to me anyway, just known as or is called 'time'.

We don’t, of our own senses, experience ultrasound yet there are physical devices that can detect and quantify ultrasound.

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

The case is similar for infrared and ultraviolet light. These are actual physical things.

If you are saying this to explain to me that there are physical things, then I already KNOW there are physical things.

If you are saying that there are physical things that 'you', "yourself", do not sense, then okay, so be it.

But saying 'time' is or could be a physical thing is like saying 'distance' is or could be a physical thing also. If any one wants to say either or both of these are physical things, then just show me how they are, or how they could be, physical things. There is nothing difficult, hard, nor complex here.

Either they are or are not physical things.

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.

[bahman]

You can call 'whatever' whatever you want to, but just remember that that does NOT make it true, right, nor correct.

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?

I didn't say so. I said that time allows change to happen.

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?
[/quote]
Please look. Change is the result of events happening sequentially. For that, you need a set of points to accommodate different events. This set of points is so-called time. No time leads to no points, leading to the impossibility of change. You need time to have change.

[commonsense]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’?