Nowhere357

Given that we are talking about the nature of time, I think it would be closer to truth to say that "the ability to move around the other three dimensions leads to a concept called time". Analogy: things don't exist because we see them; we see them because they exist. By stating "time gives me the ability..", you seem to give time the quality of a force - but there are only four known forces, and their existence is what causes movement.

It seems to me that in a way, we directly experience through our senses matter/energy and even space - but to notice time requires memory. That is, time is not fundamental - it is a concept built on the or out of the fundamentals. But perhaps a similar argument could be made for the nature of space, as you point out. I think I should quit talking and start reading.

I am interested in the articles you mentioned, but I have no subscription to Nature. Look for my pm.

paul30

Dear Stickman:

Thanks. Yes, time does not exist.

As for our inability to see time--and the difficulty this presents--well, there are plenty of things we cannot see that we are pretty sure exist, like X-rays and atomic nuclei.

No. The problem is partly semantic. Time is not a thing but a description of what we perceive. It is a shorthand we use to describe certain perceptions--perceptions of change and apparent regularity.

The non-semantic part of the problem is whether the changes always proceed according to some internal schedule, which does not vary with our perception of them.

I imagine they do. But this simply means that time, like space, is a relationship; and that means that change happens according to the structure of matter and energy.

"Time" is a convenient word for us; but it is not a thing but a description of many other events. It is therefore not really needed.