None. “The rest for sake of required character.”
What kind of thing would you define it as?
What are the options?
Time is perceived because there is motion, change in the universe. If the universe ceases to expand and everything comes to a grinding halt, time ceases to exist, because there is no change anymore.
There are various and depends on your definition. Try putting it into words?
faster as we age
I think that motion is possible because there is time.
They are inseparable.
But we do perceive it—we see things change.
Pregnant women give birth.
Leaves bud softly green in the spring, get bigger and darker during the summer, then change color and drop in the autumn.
The sun and moon rise (to our way of speaking) and set.
Our loved ones age and die.
We don’t feel the passage of time, but we observe it.
Right. There is a unity behind everything, where it all comes together. This is the point I was trying to make in saying that time is a human expression of something that doesn’t really exist. (Look at it with God’s eyes, to the extent possible).
The term"time" is shorthand for a set of phenomena. I’m guessing that humans don’t have the capacity to fully understand all that is involved. Our senses and our brain which processes input have evolved what is necessary to keep us alive. I think there are likely vast numbers of phenomena that we do not have the capability to discern or process fully, if at all.
This! Time is not an entity or being, but rather “the measure of the change in things.”
So, it’s not a ‘variable’ or an ‘entity’; we do not perceive it directly, since it does not have individual existence. Rather, it is the way to explain our ability to detect change.
They are separable. You could have a variable, like position, and a change in the variable. Speed is
the ration of change over time elapsed. Therefore time is needed as a separable variable for calculation of speed.
We experience time. Have you ever been in a doctor office waiting.
These are all changes which are not possible without time. I have an argument for that. Consider a change in a system, S->S’. These states should be in different point related to a variable otherwise state of affair is ill-defined. You however need a duration between two points otherwise change does not take place. This variable is therefore time.
We of course feel time.
No. Time is not measure of change. Time is a variable which without it change is not possible.
Time of course have individual existence. I have an argument for that. Consider a change in a system, S->S’. These states should be in different point related to a variable otherwise state of affair is ill-defined. You however need a duration between two points otherwise change does not take place. This variable is therefore time.
On one hand: Aristotle’s assertion that time is a measure of change.
On the other hand: @STT’s assertion that time is not a measure of change.
Hmm… to which do I ascribe greater credibility…?
Did you read my argument?
The first time you made it and I rejected it? Yes.
(Aristotle, among others, discussed the same question about the notion of change, as well as changes in process, as well as the question of “time as an instant”. Read up, my friend. There’s no need to re-invent the wheel all over again. )
And where is your argument?