What exactly is time?
Does it really march on, as a soldier?
Can it really slow down and speed up, depending on its mood?
Can a clock really control its flow?

And...

...does it really continue forever into the depths of either direction: of
the past or the future?

Finally...

...what are its implications for us?

On Jan 6, 3:58 pm, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote:

There are two distinct views on the meaning of the word time.

One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the
universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence, and time
itself is something that can be measured. This is the realist's view,
to which Sir Isaac Newton subscribed, and hence is sometimes referred
to as Newtonian time.

An opposing view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual
structure (together with space and number) within which sentient
beings sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the
intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this
second view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows",
that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This
view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, in
which time, rather than being an objective thing to be measured, is
part of the measuring system used by humans.

On Jan 6, 6:58 pm, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote:

That's a **really** good question, Mark....

Intuitively, without any esoteric, theoretical, physics' theories, the
intangible aspects of "time" (using a standard dictionary's primary
definition of time: "a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in
apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present
to the future) appear to have some of the same characteristics as the
concept of "integers". Both "time" & "numbers" would appear to be
infinite (another intangible concept) in both directions.... What's to
stop a person from subtracting one more minute from any starting
point??? Or adding???

This creates issues in the "real world", as vast cosmic galaxies can't
have been hurtling through space indefinitely. I already know the
"physics" solution is to re-define "time" in terms of "space" (which
has both tangible and intangible aspects)..

On Jan 6, 7:11 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

"Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59fb05d6-9073-42de-a6f2-2d5ad8fe9ddc@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

"kevirwin" comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b475752f-1dfa-4133-9ebd-680bc8762f95@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

The first understanding of time is as duration. We have a sense of
duration that is the primary and the most direct knowledge of time.

It should be noted that this (primal, intuitive, a priori, sense,
qualia, etc.) of time does not require motion. The sense of duration can
persist even without consciousness of anything else.

It exists, or we, who exist and are conscious, could not have knowledge
of it.

The measurement of time would also not make any sense: i.e., it would be
absurd to measure what does not exist.

The measurement of time is not time.

Motion, though frequently used to define time, is a 'second' derivative
of the concept of time that also requires a 'second' derivative of the
concept of space.

To understand motion requires a first derivative of time, and of space,
which is the measure of duration and distance as qualitative senses of
comparison: i.e., short, long. longer, that provides a sense of change.
The second derivative is of beginning, extent or duration, and end,
(i.e., The limits, or markers, of change) which provides a means of
quantitative measurement of time, space, and motion.

"Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13o2qpapjcol1b9@corp.supernews.com...

Time is simply a mental construct to alow our mind to function sequentially.
We talk of the age of the universe and measure it in relation to movements
of our insignificant planet around a third rate star in an even less
significant galaxy.How arrogant (but cute) of us :-)

"kevirwin" comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b475752f-1dfa-4133-9ebd-680bc8762f95@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

As opposed to the tangible aspects?

On Jan 7, 8:58 am, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote:

Time cant be poked with a stick, therefore its man made, its a
relational concept and is used to measure duration and that is all it
is.

Being *man made* does NOT mean it doesn't serve a useful purpose for
man's understanding of reality, sensory reality.