Is Time Merely Constant Change?

[Outlandish_Existence]

I can no longer see time. All I recognize is the morphing and changing of energies/masses/matters. This concept of time we have is slowly deteriorating from my mind. There is no time, all things are just constantly changing? Nothing ever really leaves us... and nothing is ever really born new in terms of energy. So all that we have is all that we have and it never goes anywhere except for changing into differenent physical, dimensional, and material states? So everything is not really passing... only changing. Time will never leave us, we must learn to leave time.

 

[Tournesol]

I can no longer see time. All I recognize is the morphing and changing of energies/masses/matters.

To change is to be in different states at different times.

 

[RAD4921]

Philosophers have debated for thousands of years as to whether time really exist or not and the topic comes up often in this forum. I just saw a show on PBS called "The Examined Life' in which the subject was the validity of time. I couldn't agree with you more. I think time is an illusion and since time has such an intimate relationship with space, I believe space is an illusion as well. Time, as we measure it is just a measurement of movement so I believe motion is an illusion as well. I believe the universe is dimensionless and it is a closed universe. Like Hawkins once said the universe is "finite but unbounded". The fact that black holes cruch time and space down to nothing gives me evidience of my theories of a dimensionless universe. This along with quantum interconnectedness/ The concept of universal wholeness points to a universe where geometry and dimensions are abstract concepts. The map of the territory but not the territory itself.

 

[octelcogopod]

Time is a subjective thing.

We have of course created "our time", the one the brain creates automatically because it stores memories.

As for objective time, that's an answer I will leave over to the scientists.

 

[Tournesol]

Like Hawkins once said the universe is "finite but unbounded".

That doesn't mean dimensionless.

The fact that black holes cruch time and space down to nothing gives me evidience of my theories of a dimensionless universe.

Novel.

If I crunch a chip down to nothing, does that
mean chips don't exist ?

(crunches chip).

 

[loseyourname]

I've never understood the appeal of this question to people. Is length an illusion? What does that really ask? Length is a property of physical objects in that each and every one of them has spatial extent. Each and every one of them also has temporal extent, which means they can be measured not only with how long they are in space, but how long they exist in time.

The Hundred Years War, for instance, occurred in England and France over a 116 year period. Spatially, it had an amorphous extent that cannot strictly be referred to in terms of length and breadth, but if you want to speak of maxima only, then it had a spatial length and breadth, as well as a height. It also had a temporal extent, of 116 years. When we ask whether time is an illusion, what are we asking? Is this extent real? What the heck does that mean? Between the beginning and the end of the war, the Earth orbited the sun 116 times; that's all the statement means.

That's what time is. It is not illusory to say that the Earth revolved around the sun 116 times between the beginning and end of the war; it's a factually correct statement. What is the difference between reifying time and reifying "change" but not calling it time? A physical object need not change to have temporal extent, so it seems to me that the only difference is that they do not really refer to the same thing. Nonetheless, they are both properties of objects, not objects themselves, so if we reify one, why not the other? If we simply want to say that time is not fundamental to the universe in that the universe could exist without any passage of time, fine, but human intelligence is not fundamental to the universe either, and neither are human personalities or human bodies. Does that mean there is a meaningful sense in which we do not exist?

 

[octelcogopod]

Excellent post lyn.
But, if nothing in the universe moved at all, would it have a temporal extent?
Or is the temporal extent of a static object relative to the fact that other objects around it change, thus we conclude that the static object also has time?

It seems to me that the lower we go in scale, the more time matters.
For instance, a ball can sit in the backyard all winter, never moving, but a lot of particles in the ball move, thus it is not a static object, it just appears to be from our scale.

So, it appears that the true temporal extent of an object is determined by its complete absence of movement, on any scale.

Thus we can say that any change equals time, it is only on different scales we can say that time does not equal change.

But then again we have the problem of WHY things change in the first place.
Why does anything move, regardless of scale?
And what is the pace of this movement?
To me this seems to point to something else.

 

[Mickey]

I don't understand the appeal either, lyn. I truly believe that we should examine questions to see if they're interesting before we even think about the value of the answer, much less what that answer might be. This question is so uninteresting to me that it seems like one that only someone retreating from reality would find interesting.

Confront reality and ask the bold questions instead, unafraid of what the answers might be. What is time? Then move on to other bold ones.

Is our perception of time misleading? I think this one is interesting, because it yields more interesting questions depending the answer. If yes, how? How much? In what way? Why? If not, why not? What if it was?

Answers to the illusion question on the other hand are just a solitary dead end. If it's an illusion, we are all fooled by some mystical jumbo maya. If it's not an illusion then our laws of physics seem to contradict our everyday experience, effectively alienating ourselves from understanding them.

Work on developing questions deserves just as much attention as work on finding answers.

 

[Tournesol]

If it's not an illusion then our laws of physics seem to contradict our everyday experience, effectively alienating ourselves from understanding them.

It is a myth that physics in general suggests there is no time. Different
theories say different things.

 

[Mickey]

It is a myth that physics in general suggests there is no time. Different theories say different things.

I didn't mean to suggest that. QM and GR each paint a picture of time that is not exactly recognizable in our everyday experience, though. To say that our everyday experience of time is therefore an "illusion" wrongfully cheapens the experience and alienates ourselves from understanding either QM or GR phenomena.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

But then again we have the problem of WHY things change in the first place.
Why does anything move, regardless of scale?
And what is the pace of this movement?
To me this seems to point to something else.

This is precisely where I have established myself. WHY is change even occurring? What initiated it? And is it truly ensuing? To be universally and existentially extrospective... doesn't the universe appear to be static? As no energy is leaving and no new energy can be created. In a broader perspective; nothing is the only thing actually changing. I desire a deeper understanding than that of which I already know. Thank you for all of the replies, they were beautifully written and I appreciate the energy exerted. I do recognize that what I am trying to define is not coming off with 100% clarity. I am not 100% certain how to explicate it at the current instant.

We will never know what came before, because before never existed. Can we pinpoint the very start? With that said; Is there a before, and will there be an after? Being that time is absent or co-dependent of existence. Sometimes I feel as if we are already in heaven/hell(it's up to us to create), and eternity grabs at me. Excuse my religious terminology... I hope my opinion is not objected.

 

[RAD4921]

Dimensionaless universe

That doesn't mean dimensionless.



Novel.

If I crunch a chip down to nothing, does that
mean chips don't exist ?

(crunches chip).

I got to admit that calling these ideas "theories" was bit extreme. At best, these ideas are philosophical speculations. Most of my ideas of a dimensionless universe comes from the book "The End of Time:The Next Revolution in Physics" by physicist Julian Barbour. The book is endorsed on the back cover by the well known physicist John A. Wheeler.
I am also big on David Bohm's holographic model of the universe that states each part contains the whole. I know these ideas seem counterintuitive to everyday expereince but the eastern mystics often describe having a timeless, spaceless experience of consciousness during deep meditation.
Collective human knowledge is so ignorant of what the truth really is so anyones philosophy is just as valid as anyone elses.

 

[ghostmonkey]

I found some time beneath a rock...

I can no longer see time.

I personally lost time in Northern Ontario, standing amidst the granite boulders. Now I can't find it anywhere. I've even gone so far as to make a bold declaration that a second of time is no more than the passing of roughly 0.464 equatorial kilometers. I even find the notion of the atomic clock ludicrous, what with its circularity: a second is equal to the duration of 9,912,631,770 periods...blah blah blah...of the cesium 133 atom, which, of course, goes through roughly 9,912,631,770 cycles per second in a sufficient magnetic field.

Which means that this can be rewritten to say that the cesium atom goes through roughly 9,912,631,770 of these periods in the relative passing of 0.464 equatorial kilometers. Where is time?

 

[Tournesol]

Barbour's Platonia isn't Dimensionless, it is the set of all 3D configurations of matter. That is different to the set of 2D configurations or
4d configurations.

 

[tarbag]

I can no longer see time. All I recognize is the morphing and changing of energies/masses/matters. This concept of time we have is slowly deteriorating from my mind. There is no time, all things are just constantly changing? Nothing ever really leaves us... and nothing is ever really born new in terms of energy. So all that we have is all that we have and it never goes anywhere except for changing into differenent physical, dimensional, and material states? So everything is not really passing... only changing. Time will never leave us, we must learn to leave time.

I am completely all right with you.
Precisely it is well my problem and what I want to understand. I think it has neither creation of space there, nor creation of time,they are only an illusions.
What was really created with the big-bang it is well the matter and energy.
For more precision I give an example:
Supposing that there is creation of two elementary particles only at the beginning (big-bang) with uniform translatory movement in the two opposite directions according to one alone dimension. In this case the parameter of space is the distance between the two particles and time is inversely propotional to their speed of distancing one compared to the other . In this situation it is not necessary to create seperately the time and the space.
Time is like the integer number. They are in our minds only
I summarize:Space, time and the numbers can never exist independently of the matter.

 

[pallidin]

I don't see why some have a problem with the concept of "time"

Can "time" be completely defined? Not yet, but neither is gravity. So do we dismiss both due to a lack of complete understanding?

Look, time is an attribute of "change", and EVERYTHING changes; either with respect to itself or with respect to an outside frame-of-referance. This is an immutable aspect of reality.

The arbitrary parameters we use to perceive, recognize or otherwise quantify that aspect of "change" is what we call "time"
Without change, "time" is irrelevant.

 

[tarbag]

I don't see why some have a problem with the concept of "time"
.

Our problem with time resides in its use in relativity. It is difficult to imagine a relative time. As it is difficult to imagine the fact that two clocks moving one compared to the other do not measure same time.This concern obliges us to redefine the concept of time.

 

[Mickey]

This concern obliges us to redefine the concept of time.

Not completely. Time is the same thing it always was.

 

[Doctordick]

Philosophers have debated for thousands of years as to whether time really exist or not and the topic comes up often in this forum.

Yes, I have noted that. My opinion is, if things can change state (i.e., there are things which are considered to be the same things but are not absolutely identical), then time exists as time is nothing more or less then a reference to specific different states.

We have of course created "our time", the one the brain creates automatically because it stores memories.

Or rather, because your mental concept of reality considers specifically different things to be the same thing at a different time: i.e., things can change state and still be the same thing.

That doesn't mean dimensionless.

You seem to set great stock in what Hawkins says. I wouldn't call that an honest scientific approach.

Length is a property of physical objects in that each and every one of them has spatial extent.

Can you prove that assertion or is it really the fact that your mental concept of "a physical object" that includes "spatial and temporal extent"? Isn't change in position and time just another way of considering specifically different things to be the same thing in a different state? Aren't we really talking about a data compression mechanism here?

But then again we have the problem of WHY things change in the first place.

If we don't allow any change in any of the "the components" of our knowledge, we lose a very powerful mechanism of data compression. WHY do things change? Because the idea is quite convenient to making sense of what we know. A lot more convenient then considering every instant you are aware of to be described as a totally different case having utterly no resemblance to any other.

In fact, I have suggested many times that "AI" people should consider a data compression program which makes every discription of what is known (the information the system has to work with) expressed in terms of elements of other discriptions which are repeated often enough to warrant reference rather than repetition. With the volumes of information which can be processed today, such a system might display some subtle emergent phenomena.

Philosophers have debated for thousands of years as to whether time really exist or not and the topic comes up often in this forum.

Yes, I have noted that. My opinion is, if things can change state (i.e., there are things which are considered to be the same things but are not absolutely identical), then time exists as time is nothing more or less then a reference to specific different states.

We have of course created "our time", the one the brain creates automatically because it stores memories.

Or rather, because your mental concept of reality considers specifically different things to be the same thing at a different time: i.e., things can change state and still be the same thing.

That doesn't mean dimensionless.

You seem to imply that Hawkins could not be wrong. I don't know that you should believe that.

Length is a property of physical objects in that each and every one of them has spatial extent.

Can you prove that assertion or is it really the fact that your mental concept of "a physical object" that includes "spatial and temporal extent"? Isn't change in position and time just another way of considering specifically different things to be the same thing in a different state?

Aren't we really talking about a data compression mechanism here?

But then again we have the problem of WHY things change in the first place.

If we don't allow any change in any of the "the components" of our knowledge, we lose a very powerful mechanism of data compression. WHY do things change? Because the idea is quite convenient to making sense of what we know.

Confront reality and ask the bold questions instead, unafraid of what the answers might be. What is time?

Well, I have answered that question on a number of occasions without receiving any logical refutation (emotional refutation, yes; logical refutation,no). Time is a parameter we apply to our knowledge: the past is what we know, the future is what we do not know and the present is the boundary. What we know changes and "t" is a parameter we use to specify a specific change in "the past" (what we knew) and presumed specific changes in "the future" (what we will come to know).

It is a myth that physics in general suggests there is no time. Different theories say different things.

Einstein's theory presumes there is no time (no change) as his representation assumes time is a coordinate. By the way, it is exactly this lack of representation of change which leads to the well known conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The only solution to the difficulty they have managed to come up with is the idea of multiple universes which, by the way, the existence of which is undetectable. That's a rather extreme solution for a scientist isn't it? Quite analogous to God, another solution which is undetectable. Who says modern science is not a religion?

To say that our everyday experience of time is therefore an "illusion" wrongfully cheapens the experience and alienates ourselves from understanding either QM or GR phenomena.

There is a great difference between QM and GR "phenomena" (specific mathematical ways in which things change) and classical QM and GR "theory" (reasons why those specific mathematical procedures work). The first is very accurately known; the second is complete hypothesis.

We will never know what came before, because before never existed. Can we pinpoint the very start?

We can only know what we know and nothing more. Everything else is hypothesis: i.e., an explanation of what we know in terms of things we presume must be true. In order to understand what that means, you have to understand what an explanation is. My claim is that "an explanation" is a data compression mechanism which allows us to generate expectations in accordance with what we know: i.e., explain the past. Of course, I am a certified crack pot!

Collective human knowledge is so ignorant of what the truth really is so anyones philosophy is just as valid as anyone elses.

Now I would have to seriously differ with you there. If the explanation is to be useful, it must have two very important qualities: first, it cannot give different answers to the same question (a common fault in most religious explanations which often yield different answers depending on your specific approach to the question) or it simply does not yield reasonable expectations for the future (what we do not know) and, secondly, any explanation may be ranked in terms of the details with which it explains things. Essentially the statement that they are all "just as valid" shows lack of examination of the question.

Where is time?

It's in your head man!

I summarize:Space, time and the numbers can never exist independently of the matter.

And, exactly how does "matter" elude this argument. Exactly how do you define "matter": i.e., what is it?

Can "time" be completely defined? Not yet, but neither is gravity.

Well the scientists say it is "what clocks measure" and I have given my definition above. I hold that my definition is complete at least with regard to explaining physics. Of course, once again, I am a certified crack pot!

This concern obliges us to redefine the concept of time.

With this I would agree. But it seems few other people would agree.

Not completely. Time is the same thing it always was.

Yeah, but we could use a good definition, otherwise we really don't know what we are talking about!

Just my two sense! (I couldn't resist.)

Have fun -- Dick

 

[tarbag]

And, exactly how does "matter" elude this argument. Exactly how do you define "matter": i.e., what is it?

The matter is composed of elementary particles. This elementary particule is managed by one of the four forces at least. It can be converted into energy of radiation.
Time cannot be converted into another thing. It One cannot convert integer numbers into matter or energy.
The matter does not resemble time nor the space. The time cannot be quantified in elementary something. It is continuous.

 

[Doctordick]

The matter is composed of elementary particles. This elementary particule is managed by one of the four forces at least. It can be converted into energy of radiation.
Time cannot be converted into another thing. It One cannot convert integer numbers into matter or energy.
The matter does not resemble time nor the space. The time cannot be quantified in elementary something. It is continuous.

You have made a great many assertions here with no defense at all and I have no option except to conclude that you have not thought anything out. You apparently merely believe that what you believe is correct. That is a religious response and not at all scientific.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[tarbag]

You have made a great many assertions here with no defense at all and I have no option except to conclude that you have not thought anything out. You apparently merely believe that what you believe is correct. That is a religious response and not at all scientific.
Have fun -- Dick

When you doesn't have answers It is not worth while to discredit the answers of the others.

Give us the definition of the matter if you have it. What is the energy? What is the time ?
thus give us the good answer?

Matter from :http://www.answers.com/topic/matter
Material substance that constitutes the observable universe and, together with energy, forms the basis of all objective phenomena. Atoms are the basic building blocks of matter. Every physical entity can be described, physically and mathematically, in terms of interrelated quantities of mass, inertia, and gravitation. Matter in bulk occurs in several states; the most familiar are the gaseous (see gas), liquid, and solid states (plasmas, glasses, and various others are less clearly defined), each with characteristic properties. According to Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, matter and energy are equivalent and interconvertible (see conservation law). END
the matter really exists since one can define it clearly. Time is like space and number, They are characteristics of the matter invented by the human brain.

 

[Tournesol]

Our problem with time resides in its use in relativity. It is difficult to imagine a relative time. As it is difficult to imagine the fact that two clocks moving one compared to the other do not measure same time.This concern obliges us to redefine the concept of time.

I don't see why relative time should be more difficult to imagie than
relative space.

 

[tarbag]

I don't see why relative time should be more difficult to imagie than
relative space.

What do you mean by relative space? If you want to say the distance between two points, this is independent of the selected reference frame. The distance is an invariant in classical mechanics.

 

[Canute]

"If time depends on an entity,
Then without an entity how can time exist?
There is no existent entity.
So how can time exist?"

This comes from Nagarjuna's 'Mulamadhyamakakarika' (Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way). In this view time would depend on the existence of entities, as has been suggested here by a couple of people. As no such entities exists, nor does time.

This has implications for motion and change. On motion he argues that if motion exists there must be sometime at which it exists. Motion requires a change of position and a change of position must occur over time. But the present has no duration. So if motion were to exist it would have to exist either in the past or the future. You can see where he's going here - he concludes, after dealing with the possible objections, by saying:

"Neither an entity nor a non-entity
Moves in any of the three ways.
So motion, mover
and route are non-existent."

For Nagarjuna there is no time and no motion and no entities, nothing really exist and nothing really happens. Of course, he doesn't mean that nothing exists and nothing happens, but rather that none of these things exist inherently, they are empty of essence, epiphenomena of a conceptual kind. They would be epiphenomenal on what is changeless. (Zeno argued for this changeless substrate from the absurdity of our concept of motion, using arguments similar to Nagarjuna's).

Just one point of view.

Canute

 

[Jack Bauer]

Time does not exist like some Aristotelian Form but is valid as a method of organizing events -- A happened "before" B but "after" C, etc. In the same way Left and Right do not exist in some independent sense but are valid decriptors of spatial location relative to a two-handed observer. Similarly Up and Down (etc.)

 

[Doctordick]

Tarbag, the most enlightening thing I can say to you is an answer I gave to someone else who was a quite rational person.

The more knowledge you acquire, the more certain you are of your position and can convincingly argue back, rather than be silenced by someone more erudite but wrong.

Of course it doesn't mean I'm always right but at least thoroughness can convince me either way.

If you really are interested in being absolutely certain of your position the only path is to never presume your explanations of anything are correct. You should think of explanations as stories (like "how the leopard got its spots") which contain procedures for determining what to expect. If they work, they work; if a more concise "story" which works as well or better arrives on the scene, drop the old one. But don't ever believe either of them are "right"; that is the only sure way to be wrong.

Give us the definition of the matter if you have it. What is the energy? What is the time ?
thus give us the good answer?

"Matter" I don't care to define. Time I define to be a parameter used to refer to changes in my knowledge of what is. I define the past to be what I know, the future to be what I do not know and the present to be the boundary; thus the parameter t can be used to refer to specific changes in what I know or what I expect to know. Energy is a conserved quantity which allows shift symmetry in the parameter t (i.e., the fundamental consequence of "conservation of ignorance"). You need to read my paper http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm if you want to understand me. I am presuming a teacher of physics knows enough logic and mathematics to follow that paper if he were interested.

Time does not exist like some Aristotelian Form but is valid as a method of organizing events -- A happened "before" B but "after" C, etc. In the same way Left and Right do not exist in some independent sense but are valid decriptors of spatial location relative to a two-handed observer. Similarly Up and Down (etc.)

You are absolutely correct and your comment can be extended to many other phenomena. I quote a comment I posted to another thread today.

You are quite correct. In the same vein, everyone seems to miss the fact that "every" physical measure (as opposed to selfAdjoints reference to Lebesque measure which is an analytic concept) must be established via references to defined "physical" phenomena internal to the universe under consideration. That fact has some very profound consequences usually missed by everyone.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[tarbag]

Time I define to be a parameter used to refer to changes in my knowledge of what is. I define the past to be what I know, the future to be what I do not know and the present to be the boundary; thus the parameter t can be used to refer to specific changes in what I know or what I expect to know.

Thus time exists in your mind only. Since it is a plurality of informations ordered ones after the others. This order is well a reality but its representation with an independent parameter l (t) is just a mathematical tool like an integer number.

 

[Tournesol]

What do you mean by relative space?

Waht did you mean by relative time?

 

[tarbag]

Waht did you mean by relative time?

If one definite time, separating two events, as being the number of events between them, (one can use the needles of a clock to count the number of the events), the occur of these two events is independent of the selected reference frame. If the appearance of these two events depends on the speed of the selected frame time is quite relative.
The clock does not have an influence on the appearance of these events.¶

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

I don't believe that the existence of "intelligent conscious"(for lack of more specific terms because I am tired) entities causes time. Only the perception of time/change viewed from those entities is what is observed. In actuality, time/change will happen whether we cease to exist or not. Where did evolution go? At some point there must have been no "life" in the universe. It didn't just pop into existence in an instance of instant spontanaity. Yet perhaps this is what the religions try to explain to us. The universe without life has no bearing of time since there is no consciousness to experience it. I'd have to disagree though, change/time always occurs, it's only the observation that ceases to exist.

 

[Doctordick]

Thus time exists in your mind only.

That is exactly what I am saying.

Since it is a plurality of informations ordered ones after the others. This order is well a reality ...

You are apparently presuming that the order you put upon these elements of information is a fact of reality. This, I am afraid, is something you cannot prove.

... but its representation with an independent parameter l (t) is just a mathematical tool like an integer number.

Any finite set (such as C whose elements are the sets B) can be ordered. It is your mental model of reality which presumes that this collection of finite B's which go to make up what you actually know are members of an infinite set which form a continuous stream B(t). What I show is that the shift symmetry of such a perspective requires your expectations (which you should understand also become a continuous function of that continuous parameter t) to obey the differential relationship that the partial with respect to t must vanish.

Likewise, in your attempt to explain C, you will recognize (or one could say, take notice of) patterns within those B's (the changes in what you know) which seem to repeat. Once you recognize these elements of your experiences they become a central element of your understanding. Once again, you will presume the existence of these elements within that continuous t. However your understanding proceeds, it will involve reference to those recognized elements. And once again, being finite (anything you know must be finite otherwise you couldn't know it), those references with the B(t)'s can be ordered and your mental model will presume that your understanding could involve additional cases of such patterns within that order of which you are not aware. Once again the index on that set of references (within a successful mental model) becomes a continuous variable and once again the existence of shift symmetry yields the fact that your expectations must obey another differential relationship. What I am getting at is the fact that we should all be very careful about our definitions. It is quite easy to produce multiple definitions with inconsistent overlap.

When one designs an experiment, one must be careful to assure that the result is not predetermined by definition: that is, that one is actually checking something of significance. A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill. If one begins that experiment by defining downhill with a carpenters level, one has made a major error. They have clearly predefined the result of the experiment as downhill has been defined to be the direction water runs (the bubble being the absence of water). In such a case, it is rather a waste of time to finish carrying out such an experiment no matter how well the rest of the experiment is designed. It should be clear that to do so is nothing more then checking the consistency of one's definitions.

The issue of the above example is that, before performing any experiments, one can not just presume they "know" what they are talking about but must very carefully define exactly what they mean by the terms they use. In the above example, one must first carefully define "downhill" and then consider all the consequences of that definition. To do otherwise is to just be sloppy! And people are often quite sloppy when it comes to their beliefs.

My presentation (in using the undefined elements A, B, C and D) makes establishing the definitions part of the problem to be solved. My equation is nothing more but an internal consistency constraint on the definitions of those elements.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[paigetheoracle]

Without motion time cannot exist, for there is no changed viewpoint to be percieved. This is also demonstrated by emotion - if you don't react to something then it changeless. Likewise depth of field (see Gregory's 'Eye and mind') cannot exist without movement to tell you that what you see is not one complete thing but made up of independent items (Blind people whose sight is restored have problems for this reason). Think also of holograms - without motion or the illusion of it, it couldn't work. If you cannot see round an object, you have no evidence that it is not flat or part of the background.

Talking of time and emotion - it seems to speed up when we're excited and slow down when we're bored, indicating time is alterable through response and is a measurement of rapid change or slowed down change.

 

[Canute]

Yes, but likewise without time motion and change cannot exist. It seems to me that either we must say that time, motion and change all exist inherently or that none of them do.

 

[RAD4921]

In man’s original view of the world, as we find it among the primitives, space and time have a very precarious existence. They become “fixed” concepts only in the course of his mental development, thanks largely to the introduction of measurement. In themselves, space and time consist of nothing. They are hypostalized concepts born of the discriminating activity of the conscious mind and they form the indispensable coordinates for describing the behavior of bodies in motion. They are therefore, essentially psychic in origin. ---Carl G. Jung


http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010912a.html