I like McTaggart' mind-dependent view that temporality is contradictory, just an appearance or an illusion and that there is no such thing as time. Is the past the only 'reality' and if so, since it is the past, how can it be real as it is, well, past. And if we cannot live in the future because it is not here yet, all we have is the present, which does not contain any properties because it is the past. Whether the arrow of time is real or not, it cannot be analysed favourably without some contradiction.

I define Time as “change in now”. — guptanishank

This may not be correct. Consider the possibility that now never changes, it is always the same, and what is changing is the physical world. Now we have a physical world which is changing relative to the unchanging now. What constitutes now is that it is a division between future and past. (I see you never mentioned this fundamental aspect of time in the op.)

In the physical world there is a future, and the future is forced to become the past, the static now is what the future is being forced through, transforming it into the past. The questions of "what is time?" now become what is this force; what causes the future to become the past; how does now transform the future to the past; and what does this transformation consist of.

If we start with the last question, we can analyze the difference between future and past, to proceed toward a resolution of the other questions.

The questions of "what is time?" now become what is this force; what causes the future to become the past; how does now transform the future to the past; and what does this transformation consist of. — Metaphysician Undercover

The question is about time and as it is a dimension time can exist without any forces but not the other way around.

If now is considered as a division between the future and the past, then you'd have to define the "future", and the "past".

So you can only define it on "Time", or "Now". I argue that "now" is more fundamental, and "time" should and could be defined on it, instead of going the other way around, and defining "now", on time or other factors. It would be much easier to explain things, because philosophically, you have defined something on something more fundamental. Of course, it is possible to first define "time", and then find a complicated way of defining "now".

At the end of the day, any N number of hypothetical scenarios can happen with "time" or "now". But, suppose you have to answer both the questions. What is now? What is time?

You can only experience "now". So if "now" did not change, there would be no past or present.

Yeah, this is not a new subject. Other people have done a plethora on this and your interest may have been piqued which is great, but you cannot write a thesis without first reading primary and secondary sources. Perhaps start with McTaggart. Or maybe just this.

my interest was piqued when I heard Dr. Richard Muller, had formed a theory of now dependent on time, and I thought that it would be impossible to define now on time, because time had more assumptions in it. It would take a perfect model.

I think it's a philosophical mistake to do so. Time is currently considered one of the basic fundamental dimensions in the theory of relativity.

Why not explain that? Explain Muller' theories on universal simultaneity and the arrow of time through entropy and why you have found it to be a philosophical mistake. It is your responsibility to adequately guide us through proper questioning of themes that is not so broad as 'what is time'. Muller among many other scientists sold themselves by marketing a sophomoric book that explains the physics behind time for a mass audience, otherwise it would have been published as a scientific journal article.

Anyway, if time exists in a potentially arbitrary or dimensionless state that couples with various forces ('activated by space' so to speak) than I still find it interesting that time itself does not actually contain any properties but is rather a non-physical component that traffics movement.

Let's say an object has been defined under one assumption, vs an object defined under two assumptions, then you cannot define the first one on the second, because you cannot un"assume", something. It does not matter what math you put under the idea. He would not give an explanation of now, from assuming time on entropy/causality.

This is why, I think he's making a logical mistake.

I am not entirely aware of the rest of his theory, however, I will admit that. The topic has just piqued my interest, it might take me sometime to read all the stuff Prof. Muller has written.

Which, was one of my reasons of discussing it here. So I could perhaps know where to look next, and at what.

Some details, on Richard Muller's new paper. It's not a theory, but a philosophy.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-opinion-of-physicists-on-Professor-Richard-Mullers-paper-%E2%80%9CNow-and-the-Flow-of-Time%E2%80%9D

Let’s start with the problem that the paper tries to solve. This is an old one (at least a hundred years old, and in various forms much older) and is often referred to as “The Problem of Time”. There are technical formulations of it that crop up in attempts to create a quantum theory of gravity, and there are also some very conceptual formulations, such as the form in which it’s brought up in the paper. There the problem is stated as follows

… we can stand still in space but not in time; time inexorably flows. The rate of flow depends on the velocity of the local Lorentz frame and on the gravitational potential. Yet this description of the relative changes in the rate of flow does not address the key disparity that time flows yet space doesn’t.

(Muller & Maguire, 2016 p.1)

That is, in the space-time framework in which we formulate General Relativity and similar theories, there is no “becoming” in which instants of time succeed one another. This misses an essential feature of time and as such, it is not clear that the mathematical representation of time is a complete one. Certainly (as Muller & Maguire note) a mere negative sign in the metric (the distinction between time and space co-ordinates in flat spacetime) does not capture this basic difference between our experience of time and of space.

Quoting from the link. I did not write this. It's too long to paste it completely here, I think.

The question is about time and as it is a dimension time can exist without any forces but not the other way around. — TimeLine

A "dimension" is a conceptual construct, as is "force". I do not think that the concept of "force" relies on the concept of "dimension", because human beings had an understanding of force before they created dimensions. Also, I would say without hesitation, that human beings had an understanding of force before they had an understanding of time.

But if you want to talk about some natural, real thing which these concepts refer to, we need some definitions, because I think that the consensus in physics is that "time" doesn't refer to any real thing, just like "dimension" doesn't refer to any real thing.

If now is considered as a division between the future and the past, then you'd have to define the "future", and the "past". — guptanishank

Correct, the past refers to things which have already occurred, The future refers to things which have not yet occurred.

You can only experience "now". So if "now" did not change, there would be no past or present. — guptanishank

I disagree with this. Experience is always of the past. What you have experienced is always in the past, and if you try to speak about, or even think about what you are experiencing now, the experience which you are thinking about, or speaking about is in the past. It really doesn't make sense to say that you experience "now" because by the time you say that, it is in the past. Therefore experience is of the past, not now.

No we experience now.
The experience is definitely of the past, but there would be no way to recognize the past from the future or anything else if now stopped.

You would only experience a singular moment.

You are still defining the past and future on "now". You'd have to define them on time, to define now, otherwise the definition is circular, if you are trying to define now on time.

What is time?
What is “now”?
I define Time as “change in now”. Now is the moment we are experiencing constantly. — guptanishank

I generally agree with your (paradoxical) formulation of time as the 'change in now,' but I'd like to put a different spin on it. In my view we have to get behind the scientific concept of time. This scientific concept is arguably derivative. Why?

What is it to be there? What is it to read this sentence? It is a movement toward completion. The meaning gathers itself up toward the period. Time is most intimately a feeling-tinted engagement that waits for or moves toward a desired future. The future exists now as the how of the now. But this how of the now is also the past. What we want from the future and how we move toward it is a function of the past. 'We' are time, in a certain sense.

Something that might help here is this quote (falsely?) attributed to Einstein:

When you sit with a nice girl for two hours you think it’s only a minute, but when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. That’s relativity. — not sure, really

This hints at our more direct experience of time. We want something to arrive. We work at something, trying to finish it. As social creatures, however, we had to institute certain signals. We all meet for this or that task at sunrise or when our shadows are of a certain length. So already we find our more personal tasks (and more personal sense of time) interrupted by what we have to do, what one has to do. This is social time or the time of we. This social time is still mixed in with the local culture, maybe the bell of a particular church, or Kant on his stroll. Social time is still connected to purpose or care. It is still human, though depersonalized.

Science completes this depersonalization. It gives us the image of a de-humanized flow of nows. This flow of nows is questionable, however. The famous ontological crisis in mathematics was largely about the tension between logic and our intuition of continuity. The pure now is (roughly) a real number, to the degree that we can be strict about an instantaneous now. But I think this infinitely thin theoretical now is a bad approach to time. It's a useful fiction that covers over our genuine experience of time.

In short, we tend to assume without questioning that physics time is metaphysical time. But metaphysical time is perhaps misleading, because it may be that metaphysics 'betrayed' the 'realest' or 'truest' form of time long ago in its obsession with eternal objects.

I generally agree with your (paradoxical) formulation of time as the 'change in now,' — 0rff

It's not paradoxical.

The thought of time brings me to the question could someone change their "past" by merely constructing another one? If I were to cut off those I've known my whole life, write a daily journal on my new "past" experiences, speak in a new accent, dress differently, at what point did I alter my past? If I believe that I am who I am and I have always been who I am, all memories altered by the telling of my constructed life story, who am I? Which is the lie? What if I have lived longer in my constructed persona than I have my original? They say your memories are as relieable as eye witness testimony, so would changing them make them real? It could also mean you're crazy but hey, you're the master of your time, which makes you the master of nothing.

Do you not see how meagre such a reply is? I sketched for you a theory of time (Heidegger's, roughly) and you balk at 'paradoxical' even though I was essentially agreeing with you.

What I had in mind was the problem with the instantaneous now. As you may know, the invention of calculus involved reinvigorated Zeno's paradoxes. What is an instant? Can we really think of time this way? If time is a continuum, then it's far from trivial. We open an old can of words, the problem of capturing the continuum in a logic that is made of discrete symbols. This is not a practical problem, but then we use floating point numbers in our computers. So the continuum is only a guiding, intuitive idea or phenomenon.

But let's say that we can make this idea clear. Then a new problem arises. There is no time for change in an instant. Let f(t) be the state of object. If we understand change as the non-equality of f(x) and f(y) at two times x and y, then clearly we can't put x and y in the same instant unless x = y. But then f(x) = f(y) and we don't have change.

In short, the now only makes sense as a mini-continuum, a piece of the flow. We can try to describe how humans experience time 'originally' by (with difficultly) looking non-theoretically or rather less-theoretically at our own intimate experience. The foundation of this experience is (arguably) care. We give a damn. We try to make some things happen and avoid other things. We notice change. We seek change. We await change. The invention of abstract, scientific time comes fairly late in the game. We had to institute this time. But we didn't start from nothing. As social beings, we already knew how to institute cues like church bells or to respond to cues like the sunrise. Before electric light, the light of the day was an important resource that we took into account as we arranged our efforts. 'Get up. Get moving. We're burning daylight.'

The strategy here is to trace the concept back to something that is more or less irreducible, which is to say our primary pre-theoretical experience. What makes this difficult is our immersion in useful artificialities that hide the 'how' of our own lives from us behind the 'what' of educated but stultified common sense.

But let's say that we can make this idea clear. Then a new problem arises. There is no time for change in an instant. Let f(t) be the state of object. If we understand change as the non-equality of f(x) and f(y) at two times x and y, then clearly we can't put x and y in the same instant unless x = y. But then f(x) = f(y) and we don't have change. — 0rff

So there must be a minimum time taken for us to realize that now has changed, or the instant has changed.

The practical problems do not as such concern me. Mathematics fails to capture the full essence of some phenomenon, especially if the phenomenon is qualitative.

I apologize if the reply seemed meagre. It was all I could think of at the time.

We notice change. We seek change. We await change. The invention of abstract, scientific time comes fairly late in the game. We had to institute this time. — 0rff

I think is a good point. This is our limitation. It is hardly appropriate to ask the Universe as to care about it. The now simply changes and we notice it. At all times.

We notice that one moment at all times. The other moments are lost in the past. Anything that would attempt to define time mathematically otherwise, would be trying to capture that past.
At this point the role of the arrow of causality or arrow of time comes into account.

So, time currently can be said to be comprised of two factors, one now, the other causality.
I wish to point out that causality is not needed per se.

It is natural to think that when quantifying a qualitative phenomenon, somethings are lost in the process.

Regarding your earlier reply, where you point out that now could be a real number.
I think your approach is correct, but we are looking for continuity there. What way is there to know if indeed time is continuous, at all points, if all we can do is observe the now, and some data from the past?

So there must be a minimum time taken for us to realize that now has changed, or the instant has changed. — guptanishank

Yes, I agree. But I don't have in mind a minimum of physicist time. I mean a minimum of 'primordial' time (which makes physicist time possible.) Since this primordial time is not well known (it's a concept from Heidegger), it's good enough to leave it a minimum of ordinary or physics time.

Mathematics fails to capture the full essence of some phenomenon, especially if the phenomenon is qualitative. — guptanishank

Yes, that was actually my central point. The normal understanding of time is taken from physics. But physics uses real numbers to model continuous quantities. These real numbers arguably don't capture the phenomenon or direct intuition of continuity. Most will agree that time is qualitatively continuous, but this continuity is only the beginning. This is still a depersonalized notion of time, even if it gets the flow right.

I apologize if the reply seemed meagre. It was all I could think of at the time. — guptanishank

No problem.

The now simply changes and we notice it. At all times. — guptanishank

From my point of view, we always live the change of the now. And sometimes we live the change of the now by noticing the change in the now. For the most part the how is concealed by the what. We are immersed in our doings, in taking care of things. We don't notice the time pass as we talk to the pretty girl (as in that quote.) We notice the girl. But if we text her after a date to feel out how the date went, we sure notice the time it takes her to reply. Time stretches, becomes 'visible.' Or we who are time stretch.

The other moments are lost in the past. — guptanishank

I know what you mean. There's a basic truth in this. But would you not agree that the past also 'haunts' the now? We see the present in a way that is shaped by the past. We see the future in a way that is shaped by the past. In a sense we are the stretch or movement of time between the past and the future, sometimes mundanely just the stretch between the hot unfolded towel from the dryer and the not quite as hot folded towel added to the stack. Or as I mentioned in my first post: consider the experience of reading these sentences. Is this not a movement of meaning that includes suspense?
To be clear, I'm still agreeing that time is the change in the now, but we could also identity the now with this change, this movement. The now is deeply dynamic and elusive. Metaphysics tends to cover up this dynamic, elusive now. It wants to grab it and staple it down and make it a thing for theory. It (metaphysics) doesn't want to be sucked in to the flow of time. It doesn't want to be one more human past trying to leap beyond itself. It wants to sit outside of this movement like god. But even I am playing the game (and so are you) when we try to describe the unchanging structure of the now as pure change, pure movement.

Regarding your earlier reply, where you point out that now could be a real number.
I think your approach is correct, but we are looking for continuity there. What way is there to know if indeed time is continuous, at all points, if all we can do is observe the now, and some data from the past? — guptanishank

My suggestion is that physics already understands time as a real number (with possible exceptions for the higher level physics I haven't studied). In my view, this involves a imperfect projection of the intuitive continuum. For me this is a derivative form of time. The time that I consider most real is the time that you and I are. We live that time, so we have direct access to it. If we ignore this direct access, it's because we are fascinated by the possibility of some theoretical, metaphysical time. We assume unquestioningly that time is conceptual. But another view understands time to be the 'there' in which concepts exist --which is to say within the embodied world-entangled dynamic fields of passionate meaning that we always already are.

This is just a way of looking at things that I find fascinating. This more or less a paraphrase of my interpretation of Heidegger (a difficult but extremely fascinating philosopher.) If any of this sounds good, I recommend his 80 page book The Concept of Time.

This is just a way of looking at things that I find fascinating. This more or less a paraphrase of my interpretation of Heidegger (a difficult but extremely fascinating philosopher.) If any of this sounds good, I recommend his 80 page book The Concept of Time. — 0rff

I agree with most of what you wrote.
My main issue is with causality. I consider it an extra unneeded assumption, in the definition.

I will try and read the book. Thank you.

No we experience now.
The experience is definitely of the past, but there would be no way to recognize the past from the future or anything else if now stopped. — guptanishank

Look what you are doing. You say that experience is of the past, and you could not differentiate between past and future if there was no now. So your conclusion of "now" is a logical conclusion derived from these premises. I experience past. There is future. Past and future are not the same. Your conclusion of "now" is not based in experience it is derived from deduction. What if there is no difference between past and future? Then your argument is not sound, and you cannot claim a "now".

You are still defining the past and future on "now". You'd have to define them on time, to define now, otherwise the definition is circular, if you are trying to define now on time. — guptanishank

No, past and future are not defined by now, you have this backward. "Now" is deduced from the assumed difference between past and future. If there is a substantial difference between past and future, then there must be a division between them. That division is called "now". We observe that in every aspect of living our lives we act and think as if there is a real difference between past and future. Past things cannot be changed, but looking toward the future we can act to influence what happens, whether it is something to be avoided or to be encouraged. So, based on these two premises, if there is a difference between past and future, then there is a now, and our observations that there is such a difference, we conclude that there is now.

So now is defined by past and future, not vise versa. Time is something completely different. It has to do with our observations of change.

Look what you are doing. You say that experience is of the past, and you could not differentiate between past and future if there was no now. So your conclusion of "now" is a logical conclusion derived from these premises. I experience past. There is future. Past and future are not the same. Your conclusion of "now" is not based in experience it is derived from deduction. What if there is no difference between past and future? Then your argument is not sound, and you cannot claim a "now". — Metaphysician Undercover

I would say it is based on both experience and deduction.

One does not negate the obvious on hypothetical grounds.
The way you are thinking of now, is the intersection of the past and the future.

Think of it like an experience creating the past, and giving us a continuous expectation of the future.
We experience now at all times, and it leaves a memory of the past.

No, past and future are not defined by now, you have this backward. "Now" is deduced from the assumed difference between past and future. If there is a substantial difference between past and future, then there must be a division between them. That division is called "now". — Metaphsician Undercover

The task is to define both now and time.
You have already defined now on the "past", and the "future".
This was your definition of the "past" and the "future".

Correct, the past refers to things which have already occurred, The future refers to things which have not yet occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover

already occurred indirectly refers to now. The complete sentence being already occurred compared from "now".
same with your definition of future.

So overall your definition is circular, because now depends on past and future, and past and future depend on now as well.
Circular definitions as you know are absurd.

already occurred indirectly refers to now. The complete sentence being already occurred compared from "now".
same with your definition of future. — guptanishank

No, there is no reference to now in "already occurred". As I said, you are deucing now from "already occurred", by saying that "already occurred" must be relative. It is not spoken as relative, it is spoken as absolute. So it is only with the addition of the premise that "already occurred" must be relative, that you produce the deductive conclusion that "all ready occurred" refers (indirectly) to "now". That is why you even admit that the reference to now is indirect.

So overall your definition is circular, because now depends on past and future, and past and future depend on now as well.
Circular definitions as you know are absurd. — guptanishank

So there is no circularity in this description. "Now" is deduced from an understanding of past and future, while "past" and "future" are produce from inductive reasoning concerning observations of experience.

If you come to see that this is not circular, and accept the definition, then we can move onward to see how "time" is deduced from "now". But there is no point if you cannot get beyond the idea that defining "now" based on our experience of past, and anticipation of future, is circular. It is not circular because if you just start with the assumption of "now" you have no way to deduce a past and future from this assumption

No, there is no reference to now in "already occurred". As I said, you are deucing now from "already occurred", by saying that "already occurred" must be relative. It is not spoken as relative, it is spoken as absolute. So it is only with the addition of the premise that "already occurred" must be relative, that you produce the deductive conclusion that "all ready occurred" refers (indirectly) to "now". That is why you even admit that the reference to now is indirect. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is where you are making a mistake. The past you define as events which have already occurred.
Already occurred from where? From now.

Every definition is relative. There are no absolutes. In the end we assume something. Something as basic as truth(for example) and build on it.

This is where you are making a mistake. The past you define as events which have already occurred.
Already occurred from where? From now. — guptanishank

What do you mean from where? I mean they already occurred here. I remember events which have already occurred, and anticipate future events. This is from my perspective. That's what experience is, from my perspective. Everything which anyone ever understands is from one's perspective. The "now" only enters into this as a conclusion. Since I assume a difference between future and past, I conclude a now which coincides with my perspective.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/already

already is a comparison.

Time is the relativistic distance between when two events are experienced.

By who? It's inadequate to define time. Plus distance is only applied for space. How are you defining distance for time.

A "dimension" is a conceptual construct, as is "force". I do not think that the concept of "force" relies on the concept of "dimension", because human beings had an understanding of force before they created dimensions. Also, I would say without hesitation, that human beings had an understanding of force before they had an understanding of time.

But if you want to talk about some natural, real thing which these concepts refer to, we need some definitions, because I think that the consensus in physics is that "time" doesn't refer to any real thing, just like "dimension" doesn't refer to any real thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I clearly missed this, one of the perks of using my phone most of the time.

In the Newtonian sense, indeed net force is conceptual, but we are speaking on a much larger scale and the "power" here - the energy - despite the potential that existence is void of any acceleration and that time enables the (mass?) of the universe to expand, needn't require two masses unless time is, well, a mass. That's just awkward. That is why I said that time is a dimension, a fourth dimension to be precise, and I say that because there is in some sense a capacity - perhaps ontologically - to locate a what or that we are capable of describing it. We are within it, our frame of reference.

I agree though that if time is a physical entity fundamental to the fabric of our existence it would require something more, something we cannot really give. Hence why McTaggart is pretty cool.

Plus distance is only applied for space. How are you defining distance for time. — guptanishank

In the spacetime model, the temporal dimension is distance just like the other three. There is physical distance between any two events, and that distance is temporal only if the two events are inside their mutual light cones. It is spatial only if the two events are outside those cones.

This definition/description does not seem to require causality?

Being is Time X-)