Sure, we can experience length and width and depth without measuring it, yet we still measure things by comparison (this thing feels longer than that thing). To use Aristotle's understanding of time, which is outdated (and Aristotle was wrong on so many other things) is laughable. We've had scientists come along and provide a better explanation of time since then (does Einstein ring a bell?). We measure change by comparing one change to another. We don't measure time. We measure change. Time is the measurement of change.

We now know that time is relative. More accurately, change is relative. Time is what we call the measurement of change. Asking things like, "How much time has passed?" is asking for a measurement of change. You're basically asking "How much did the position of the clocks' hands change during the change I experienced?"

I think where I disagree is with your definition of time. Time can exist without any measurement, that is, we can imagine a universe in which there is no intelligent life; and as such, we know that there would be no measuring of time, and yet time would still exist, and as the primary property of time, change would also exist. Moreover, for us to be able to measure change, change would have to exist prior to the measuring. Change doesn't co-exist with the measurement, that is, you wouldn't say that you have no change until you measure it - of course not, we observe the change, and then we produce an arbitrary form of measurement to account for change within our everyday lives. — Sam26

No, change can exist without measurement. Time is simply another change. Measurements are comparisons of the same type of thing. We measure length by comparing it to the length of a ruler. We measure change by comparing it to the change of another system. Yes, time is arbitrary. Change isn't. That is the difference.

Yes, time is arbitrary. Change isn't. That is the difference. — Harry Hindu

The unit of time may be arbitrary, but the EM frequency that excites caesium atoms isn't.

We've had scientists come along and provide a better explanation of time since then (does Einstein ring a bell?) — Harry Hindu

The idea that Einstein provides a "better" explanation of time is what is laughable. You define "better" in relation to what, more useful, or more truthful?

We measure change by comparing one change to another. We don't measure time. We measure change. Time is the measurement of change. — Harry Hindu

Of course we measure time. Do the words "hour", "day", "year", have no meaning to you? These refer to units of time. You can validate that unit of time by referring to a physical change, but this does not mean that the words refer to the physical change rather than the unit of time. And, in referring to those physical changes, you will see that each of those units of time is measured by those physical changes.

We measure change with time, yes, but as a said, any measuring tool must be itself measurable or else it is meaningless. So if we take time, and use it to measure change, as you suggest, we must also be able to measure time or else "time" is just a meaningless word. Then all of our measurements of change, since they are measured with time, are also meaningless.

I don't see how that is different than what I said.

Of course we measure time. Do the words "hour", "day", "year", have no meaning to you? These refer to units of time.

You can validate that unit of time by referring to a physical change, but this does not mean that the words refer to the physical change rather than the unit of time. And, in referring to those physical changes, you will see that each of those units of time is measured by those physical changes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure they mean something to me, just as inches, meters and light-years mean something to me. They are units of measurement. Hours, days, and years are all units of measurement, too, not units of time.
An hour is the change of position of the small hand of clock. Days and years are changes in the position of the Earth.

We measure change with time, yes, but as a said, any measuring tool must be itself measurable or else it is meaningless. So if we take time, and use it to measure change, as you suggest, we must also be able to measure time or else "time" is just a meaningless word. Then all of our measurements of change, since they are measured with time, are also meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, we can measure a meter by using inches and measure light-years by using kilometers. Again, all we are doing is comparing things of the same type (length, distance, or change). Measuring time is comparing different changes. You never measure time. You measure change.

Sure they mean something to me, just as inches, meters and light-years mean something to me. They are units of measurement. Hours, days, and years are all units of measurement, too, not units of time.
An hour is the change of position of the small hand of clock. Days and years are changes in the position of the Earth. — Harry Hindu

OK then, what does a metre, or an inch, mean to you if it is not the length of some thing? And what does an hour mean to you if it's not the length of some thing?

Sure, we can measure a meter by using inches and measure light-years by using kilometers. — Harry Hindu

But we do not measure using inches, we measure using a measuring instrument with one inch increments marked on it.

Measuring time is comparing different changes. You never measure time. You measure change. — Harry Hindu

That's not true at all. For example, the rotation of the earth is my measuring stick, it provides me with one day increments. I count the rotations, one, two, three, four, five, and conclude that five days have passed. I have measured time, five days. I am not comparing different changes. I am observing one particular change which I assume to be constant, and I am using that change to measure time. To verify or falsify my assumption that the change is constant I may compare it to other changes. This validates the accuracy of my measurement, but it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not I am measuring time, it relates to whether or not my measurements are accurate.

The idea that Einstein provides a "better" explanation of time is what is laughable. You define "better" in relation to what, more useful, or more truthful? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not Einstein, the evidence. Relativity is the most accurate description to date within this domain.

How so? How is relativity a description? What does it describe, and why do you claim that it is the most accurate description of that thing?

, scientific models are descriptions (contrast with prescriptions). Evidence is the justification. I don't really think it's reasonable to ask for a tutorial on relativity here; there's plenty good material (including on the Internet), that you can read up on. If you find these models wrong, then feel free to write your objections down, and post (perhaps in a new opening post, depending). Meanwhile, relativity isn't controversial or anything.

Meanwhile, relativity isn't controversial or anything. — jorndoe

Relativity certainly isn't controversial, but it is problematic. To be a bit more precise, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics render each other problematic.

I know the special theory of relativity quite well. Your claim is that "relativity is the most accurate description to date within this domain". Which domain is that? If you think that it is the most accurate description in the domain of time, then I think that this is quite clearly a false statement. Within the domain of time, we describe things as past, present, and future. The present is understood as the point of division between the past and the future. Special relativity asserts that there is ambiguity with respect to this division between past and future. Any description which introduces ambiguity to a point which was previously clear, cannot be considered to be more accurate. Therefore relativity is not the most accurate description in this domain.

It's not ignored - it's translated into the third person without changing its truth.

So, if you or @Metaphysician Undercover think there is something captured by the A-series but not by the B-series, set it out; but if all you have to say is "you lose the tense", then you have nothing to say.

I'm sorry, I don't see the difference.

How so? How is relativity a description? What does it describe, and why do you claim that it is the most accurate description of that thing? — Metaphysician Undercover

How can you ask such questions? Again, it seems you do not understand physics.

So, if you or Metaphysician Undercover think there is something captured by the A-series but not by the B-series, set it out; but if all you have to say is "you lose the tense", then you have nothing to say. — Banno

Perhaps you have not followed McTaggart's argument? The A-series claims there are objective, changing properties of events: they go from future, become present, and then drift into the past. In the A-series, true statements about the future, may become false statements.

Give me an example, so we can be clear about the argument.

So, if you or Metaphysician Undercover think there is something captured by the A-series but not by the B-series, set it out; but if all you have to say is "you lose the tense", then you have nothing to say. — Banno

I don't general discuss time in these terms, A-series, and B-series. I think "series" already implies an unjustified assumption, as we seem to experience time as continuous, not as a series. I find that past present and future are much more useful descriptive terms when discussing time.

How can you ask such questions? Again, it seems you do not understand physics. — Banno

A description implies that there is something real which is being described. Jorndoe stated that relativity provided the most accurate description in "this domain". I understand that most physicists do not believe that time is something real, so I was asking jorndoe what is the thing, "in this domain" which is being described by relativity.

I understand that most physicists do not believe that time is something real, — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you? How odd.

Give me an example, so we can be clear about the argument. — Banno

Do I really have to cut and paste from the many articles that explain the difference between A-series and B-series?

The A-series is tensed and ordered. The B-series is un-tensed and ordered. The C-series is un-tensed and unordered.

Do you even know what McTaggart was arguing towards?

Do you even know what McTaggart was arguing towards? — tom

Oh, yes.

Give me an example of an A-series, true statements about the future, that becomes false.

Do you? How odd. — Banno

Yes, I've read that in quite a number of different places. I thought it was odd too when I first came across this. Why do you think that it is odd?

Oh, yes.

Give me an example of an A-series, true statements about the future, that becomes false. — Banno

Give me a statement that demonstrates you know what McTaggart was arguing towards.

The macro-domain, @Metaphysician Undercover, as opposed to the micro-domain of quantum mechanics, as mentioned by . Much effort has gone into and is going into unification.

Quote from the opening post:

(An odd but seldom noticed consequence of McTaggart's characterization of the A series and the B series is that, on that characterization, the A series is identical to the B series. For the items that make up the B series (namely, moments of time) are the same items that make up the A series, and the order of the items in the B series is the same as the order of the items in the A series; but there is nothing more to a series than some specific items in a particular order.) — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTArg

The macro-domain, Metaphysician Undercover, as opposed to the micro-domain of quantum mechanics, as mentioned by ↪tom. Much effort has gone into and is going into unification. — jorndoe

OK, so back to my questions then. What is it within the macro-domain, which relativity is supposed to provide the most accurate description of?

Quote from the opening post:

(An odd but seldom noticed consequence of McTaggart's characterization of the A series and the B series is that, on that characterization, the A series is identical to the B series. For the items that make up the B series (namely, moments of time) are the same items that make up the A series, and the order of the items in the B series is the same as the order of the items in the A series; but there is nothing more to a series than some specific items in a particular order.) — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTArg — jorndoe

Um, the whole point of A-Theory vs B-Theory is that the series are the same. "Odd but seldom noticed"? I don't think so.

so we are just going to play sillybuggers?

Here’s how the conversation should have gone: you say “the cat was on the mat yesterday”. I say that is exactly the same as “the cat was on the mat on sunday 26th”. Then you explain why they are different.

If time is the same for the universe, then how does any of the guys here explains "the effect of the twins " according to Einstein's theory??

OK, so back to my questions then. What is it within the macro-domain, which relativity is supposed to provide the most accurate description of? — Metaphysician Undercover

The (macro) evidence is what relativity describes most accurately to date. Samples:

Tests of general relativity » Perihelion precession of Mercury
Gravitational lens
Global Positioning System » History
Error analysis for the Global Positioning System » Relativity

I know the special theory of relativity quite well. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's more, has references: Theory of relativity

If you find these models wrong, then feel free to write your objections down, and post (perhaps in a new opening post, depending). — jorndoe

(If possible, I'd prefer this thread not to go full metal anti-science.)