Events would be mental snapshots, or categories, of the continuous flow causation. Minds break up the analog signal of the world into binary bits that are meaningful to our goals. The separation/discontinuity only exists in our minds.

If this is the case, it does have an effect on the argument, because it would indicate that the perspective of the conscious human being spans numerous instants of time. If consciousness were restricted to one instant, the present instant, then we would observe a succession of instants. To get the "blur effect", the conscious being must be observing numerous instants in what appears (from the perspective of the consciousness) as "at the same time". The consciousness is observing numerous instants "at the same time", and is incapable of detecting the division between them.

Imagine a single photograph represents your conscious instant of visual perception. You put your finger in front and left of your nose and move it to the right. Say, during that motion you were conscious 5 times, so there are 5 of those photographs or frames, but you are only ever aware of a single one at any of those conscious instants, so how do you perceive motion / time?

First frame shows the finger on the left. Time passes until the next frame and this first picture fades, say 50%. Second frame then shows the finger a bit to the right, but “underneath” is still visible that first frame. Time passes, picture fades, third frame shows three fingers, and so on...

So you see, we do actually perceive multiple time points simultaneously even if we are aware only at time separated single instants in time, but with the constant refresh rate that is sufficient to precisely judge the speed and consequently the time. In fact, I do not see there can be any other way to explain the motion blur effect, so likely this is the best theory on the subject, if there are any other theories at all.

That is the theory of time known as eternalism. — aletheist

Hi aletheist!

No. I am using the Block-universe illustration as a metaphor in trying to describe Mc Taggart's view that present tense of Time is an illusion, and paradoxical. And as such, thinking of how small that interval of time actually is (Planck time if you like), when looking at it graphically from the Block-universe illustration. (That slice of time as it were.)

Considering then, how small the-now really is, aren't we referring to intervals and duration of time itself, not the phenomenon of change in and of itself, correct?

For instance, you and I discussed time zones being an arbitrary measurement of time. Ok we agree. And we certainly have a general understanding of Einstein's Relativity and the associated fluctuations in time thereto. So, how can time really help us here? How should time really exist?

All we do know for sure is, that change exists. For example, we know consciousness requires change for it to cognize. We know giving birth requires change for its existence. And we also know that nature requires change for it to even exist, and function properly. But the distinctions of Time (past, present, future), is what we are trying to reconcile, with change.

And so in the context of change, my concern is how the present tense effects that ongoing change, that appears to be logically necessary. I think that change has effects on the present; the present doesn't effect change. Conscious thought and the process of cognition has proved this.

Consider a flow of water from a hose or the flow of electromagnetic waves. Then consider that we ride that flow. What if the flow stops? What happens to the present tense of existence then? Does it cease to exist?

If the present moment is static, how can it even exist? I believe that is what the video was trying to illustrate. It was trying to show the present is simply trying to divide past from future.

We know from physics that space and time are considered to be continuous. I submit, we now need to focus our thought on change. The phenomenon of change; of being, of becoming, of cognizing.

Again, the subject matter is very intriguing, however, my philosophy is to look for paradox. When I find paradox, I know truth exists.

Imagine a series of instantaneous photographs to be taken. Then, no matter how closely they follow one another, there is no more motion visible in any one of them than if they were taken at intervals of centuries.
— Peirce, c. 1895

Apparently not true, as explained in my previous post. Perhaps if there were video games and virtual reality in 19th century Pierce would know what memory buffer and consciousness is, so we should forgive him for being wrong and you should stop quoting him, if for nothing else than just because he’s not speaking proper language of today, but even generally it’s all just self-refuting gibberish.

Events would be mental snapshots, or categories, of the continuous flow causation. Minds break up the analog signal of the world into binary bits that are meaningful to our goals. The separation/discontinuity only exists in our minds.

That's fine, except for Zeno's paradoxes. The world seems to be digital at the bottom of it, and if we are to believe in contemporary physics, that is exactly what “Planck scale” tells us. But people just don’t like it, for some reason. Is there anything wrong with the digital universe?

No, I think there is evidence from quantum physics which indicates that time is likely composed of discrete units. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the Planck time is the duration required for light to travel the Planck length in a vacuum, and the Planck length is the distance below which our current physics equations are no longer valid. In other words, I understand them to be mathematical limitations on marking and measuring time and space, not real properties of continuous spacetime.

If "S is P", and "S is not-P", are real applicable descriptions of the world and they may be true or false, then within any lapse of time both of these may be true. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the principle of contradiction is that they cannot both be true at the same determination of time. However, each can be true at different determinations of time, as long as there is a determination of time in between--what I have been calling an event-lapse--at which neither is true.

At the beginning of the time lapse one is true, and at the end of the time lapse the other is true. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, before the event-lapse one is true, and after the event-lapse the other is true. Again, during the event-lapse neither is true.

If time is truly continuous, and any determination of "now", "this time", or "that time", necessarily designates a duration of time, then within that time period the law of non-contradiction will be violated because there will be change within that time lapse. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, continuous change during a lapse of time does not violate the principle of contradiction; it only violates the principle of excluded middle, which is true only of absolutely determinate--i.e., unchanging--states of things.

But now we have a division between our descriptions and logical assessments of the world (the world can be described by true and false propositions), and what we truly believe the world is like (such descriptions cannot describe the world). — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we must conclude that classical logic is not universally valid, because the principle of excluded middle is not strictly true:

The principle of contradiction is more elementary than that of excluded middle, so that we may begin by considering the consequences of the former while leaving the latter out of account. — Peirce, 1881

The two principles of contradiction and excluded middle do not stand at all upon the same plane ... what concerns us now is that certain rudimentary forms of reasoning, embracing all those that the traditional logic has handed down to us, depend only upon the impossibility of a fact's being both true and false, and remain equally sound arguments, if we suppose that some things are neither true nor false. — Peirce, 1881

To speak of the actual state of things implies a great assumption, namely that there is a perfectly definite body of propositions which, if we could only find them out, are the truth, and that everything is really either true or in positive conflict with the truth. This assumption, called the principle of excluded middle, I consider utterly unwarranted, and do not believe it. Still, I hold that there is reason for thinking it to be very nearly true. — Peirce, 1893

No doubt there is an assumption involved in speaking of the actual state of things ... namely, the assumption that reality is so determinate as to verify or falsify every possible proposition. This is called the principle of excluded middle ... I do not believe it is strictly true ... It is convenient, not only in a practical but in a philosophical sense, to commence with the study of arguments which assume such an absolutely determinate state of things, without ourselves asserting that such a state is quite realized. — Peirce, 1893

Triadic Logic is that logic which, though not rejecting entirely the Principle of Excluded Middle, nevertheless recognizes that every proposition, S is P, is either true, or false, or else S has a lower mode of being such that it can neither be determinately P, nor determinately not-P, but is at the limit between P and not P ... Thus the Triadic Logic does not conflict with Dyadic Logic; only, it recognizes, what the latter does not ... Triadic Logic is universally true. But Dyadic Logic is not absolutely false ... — Peirce, 1909

As these quotes indicate, Peirce rather remarkably anticipated what we now call intuitionistic logic, which omits both excluded middle and double negation elimination, as well as three-valued logic. In fact, he developed a rudimentary truth table for the latter more than a decade before Lukasiewicz and Post. The "lower mode of being" in the last quote corresponds to an existential subject in a state of change, rather than a prolonged state of things.

Therefore we need an objective, scientific definition, supported by empirical observation. Since we notice that the past is substantially different from the future, we can produce a much more objective definition by defining the present as the division between past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but all empirical observation is ultimately phenomenological observation that is always and only happening at the present. We cannot observe the past or the future; we can only remember the past and anticipate the future, which is how we tell them apart. It is perfectly consistent, then, to define the present as both the determination of time at which anything is present to the mind and the indefinite lapse that is later than the determinate past and earlier than the indeterminate future.

However, once we assume a real objective boundary between future and past, then we have real division within time, and we can no longer assume time as continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I hold that the "real objective boundary between future and past" is a continuous portion of time (lapse), rather than a discrete limit in time (instant). The past is indeed distinct from the future, but the present moment--at which an indefinitely gradual state of change is always being realized--is not sharply distinguishable from the immediately past and future moments.

If reality consists of "events", then there is necessarily separation between the individual events, and it is impossible that time is continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but I never claimed that reality consists of individual events; that is essentially McTaggart's view, contributing to his assessment that time is unreal. Instead, reality consists of states of things--both facts and events realized at continuous lapses of time--which we abstract from it when we signify them with propositions:

A state of things is an abstract constituent part of reality, of such a nature that a proposition is needed to represent it. There is but one individual, or completely determinate, state of things, namely, the all of reality. A fact is so highly a prescissively abstract state of things, that it can be wholly represented in a simple proposition, and the term "simple," here, has no absolute meaning, but is merely a comparative expression. — Peirce, 1906

The only absolutely determinate--i.e., unchanging--state of things is the totality of what has been realized in the past, and even that is always growing in the present as new states of things are continuously realized.

Of course he made assumptions, as all of us do.

I repeat, Zeno did not make any assumptions, and if you again disagree without actually saying what assumption do you think he made I will conclude you are a robot programmed to waste time.

If they were "all one and the same concept," then we would not have three different terms for them.

How did you arrive at such an obviously false conclusion?

I acknowledge that analog and digital loosely correspond to continuous and discrete, respectively; but again, infinitely divisible is not synonymous with continuous.

So instead of 5 minutes googling and looking up a dictionary you decided to hold on to your personal imaginary language and keep talking gibberish. Please, what is your definition of “continuous”, and where did you find it?

I think there is evidence from quantum physics which indicates that time is likely composed of discrete units — Metaphysician Undercover

But our perception of things in consciousness deny p and -p, no? (Conscious and subconscious mind working together apprehending past present future.)

The modern inclination is to affirm that activity is real, states are artificial descriptions, — Metaphysician Undercover

And are those artificial descriptions time itself?

I am using the Block-universe illustration as a metaphor in trying to describe Mc Taggart's view that present tense of Time is an illusion, and paradoxical. And as such, thinking of how small that interval of time actually is (Planck time if you like), when looking at it graphically from the Block-universe illustration. — 3017amen

As should be abundantly clear by now after my various responses to @Metaphysician Undercover, I believe that any conception of the present as a discrete instant, or even a definite interval, is false. In other word's McTaggart's model of time as a series of individual positions is indeed unreal, because time itself is not like that.

All we do know for sure is, that change exists. — 3017amen

Yes, but time is precisely the aspect of reality that makes this possible.

But the distinctions of Time (past, present, future), is what we are trying to reconcile, with change. — 3017amen

In my view, the past does not change, while the present is always a state of change.

I think that change has effects on the present; the present doesn't effect change. — 3017amen

I would suggest saying instead that the present is when all change is happening. The present is not a thing that affects other things or is affected by them, it is a general determination of time, which is a real law that governs the changing of things.

What if the flow stops? What happens to the present tense of existence then? Does it cease to exist? — 3017amen

That would indeed correspond to the hypothetical completion of all time, when everything is in the past and therefore absolutely determinate, such that no further change is possible. In other words, not only would there be no future as the growing block theory posits, but also no present.

Again, the subject matter is very intriguing, however, my philosophy is to look for paradox. When I find paradox, I know truth exists. — 3017amen

By contrast, I tend to look for ways to resolve paradoxes, but I try to acknowledge and accept them when this is unsuccessful.

Yes, but time is precisely the aspect of reality that makes this possible. — aletheist

That's an interesting statement! That begs at least one question, does change precede time?

present is not a thing that affects other things or is affected by them, it is a general determination of time, which is a real law that governs the changing of things. — aletheist

It doesn't seem to be correct, we just discussed that time is arbitrary viz time zones, etc. No?

contrast, I tend to look for ways to resolve paradoxes, but I try to acknowledge and accept them when this is unsuccessful. — aletheist

Indeed, but unresolved paradox or otherwise brute mystery tells us something.

Imagine a series of instantaneous photographs to be taken. Then, no matter how closely they follow one another, there is no more motion visible in any one of them than if they were taken at intervals of centuries. — Peirce, 1895

Apparently not true, as explained in my previous post. — Zelebg

The key words here are "imagine," "instantaneous," and "one." This is a thought experiment, since no real camera can take an instantaneous photograph; and even though a real photograph of something moving can have blurs in it due to the duration of exposure, there is still no motion visible in that one image. The same is true of any one frame of a video.

I repeat, Zeno did not make any assumptions, and if you again disagree without actually saying what assumption do you think he made I will conclude you are a robot programmed to waste time. — Zelebg

Which one of his paradoxes would you specifically like to discuss as relevant to the thread topic?

Please, what is your definition of “continuous”, and where did you find it? — Zelebg

Google says "forming an unbroken whole; without interruption," so nothing about being infinitely divisible. Again, the rational numbers are infinitely divisible, yet not continuous. For me, infinite divisibility is just one of five properties that are jointly necessary and sufficient for true continuity; here is how I am presenting them in a forthcoming journal paper:

• Rationality - every portion conforms to one general law or Idea, which is the final cause by which the ontologically prior whole calls out its parts.
• Divisibility - every portion is an indefinite material part, unless and until it is deliberately marked off with a limit to become a distinct actual part.
• Homogeneity - every portion has the same dimensionality as the whole, while every limit between portions is a topical singularity of lower dimensionality.
• Contiguity - every portion has a limit in common with each adjacent portion, and thus the same mode of immediate connection with others as every other has.
• Inexhaustibility - limits of any multitude, or even exceeding all multitude, may always be marked off to create additional actual parts within any previously uninterrupted portion.

The application to time is that the portions are lapses, the limits are instants, and the one general law or Idea to which every lapse conforms is an indefinitely gradual state of change.

All we do know for sure is, that change exists. — 3017amen

Yes, but time is precisely the aspect of reality that makes this possible. — aletheist

That's an interesting statement! That begs at least one question, does change precede time? — 3017amen

Since this is The Philosophy Forum, I feel the need to be pedantic and point out that begging a question is a logical fallacy, a form of circular reasoning; it involves assuming that which one is trying to prove. What I take you to mean is that this raises or prompts at least one question, and the answer depends on how we define the terms. What do you mean by "change"? by "precede"? by "time"?

The present is not a thing that affects other things or is affected by them, it is a general determination of time, which is a real law that governs the changing of things. — aletheist

It doesn't seem to be correct, we just discussed that time is arbitrary viz time zones, etc. No? — 3017amen

Again, how we mark and measure the passage of time is arbitrary, but time itself is real (in my view).

By contrast, I tend to look for ways to resolve paradoxes, but I try to acknowledge and accept them when this is unsuccessful. — aletheist

Indeed, but unresolved paradox or otherwise brute mystery tells us something. — 3017amen

Paradoxes are one thing, but I agree with Peirce that we should be very reluctant to accept anything as a "brute mystery" and give up on finding a rational explanation for it. As he put it:

Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy,
Do not block the way of inquiry. — Peirce, 1898

P.S. Is there a reason why you keep splitting up your replies into multiple posts? If you do not mind, I would appreciate it if you could group them together instead, as I have been doing.

I feel the need to be pedantic and point out that begging a question is a logical fallacy, a form of circular reasoning; it involves assuming that which one is trying to prove. What I take you to mean is that this raises or prompts at least one question, and the answer depends on how we define the terms. What do you mean by "change"? by "precede"? by "time"? — aletheist

No. It's not a logical fallacy. Instead, it's an Existential question about Time and change.

If you are unable to answer the questions, just say so, it's ok and quite acceptable.

Perhaps another way of thinking about those questions, in a similar context is (going back to the video), in your view, is every moment present? In other words, if change is an ongoing part of existence, and time and space are continuous, does that not render static phenomena non-existent?

If there is any truth to that, then perhaps change itself, is paramount over the human construct of time. Change precedes time, much like the existential ethos of: existence precedes essence.

Isn't that one unresolved paradox associate with time? So, the question is, which came first, change or time?

Which one of his paradoxes would you specifically like to discuss as relevant to the thread topic?

Any, and that you do not "see” that makes me think you are a robot, but explains why you can not infer continuity and infinite divisibility are one and the same concept.

Google says "forming an unbroken whole; without interruption," so nothing about being infinitely divisible. Again, the rational numbers are infinitely divisible, yet not continuous.

So you see, there is more than one word or phrase describing the same concept, some more, some less specific, and focusing on different aspects.

When talking about continuity of time and space, the aspect of continuity that is important is ‘infinite divisibility’, which is more than obvious from Zeno’s paradoxes.

For me, infinite divisibility is just one of five properties that are jointly necessary and sufficient for true continuity; here is how I am presenting them in a forthcoming journal paper:

Rationality - every portion conforms to one general law or Idea, which is the final cause by which the ontologically prior whole calls out its parts.
Divisibility - every portion is an indefinite material part, unless and until it is deliberately marked off with a limit to become a distinct actual part.
Homogeneity - every portion has the same dimensionality as the whole, while every limit between portions is a topical singularity of lower dimensionality.
Contiguity - every portion has a limit in common with each adjacent portion, and thus the same mode of immediate connection with others as every other has.
Inexhaustibility - limits of any multitude, or even exceeding all multitude, may always be marked off to create additional actual parts within any previously uninterrupted portion.

The application to time is that the portions are lapses, the limits are instants, and the one general law or Idea to which every lapse conforms is an indefinitely gradual state of change.

Uhh. There can either be a finite number of successive points in time between now and then, or the number is infinite. That is all, pick one:

A.) time is continuous / analog / infinitely divisible
B.) time is discrete / digital / consist of finite intervals

No, the Planck time is the duration required for light to travel the Planck length in a vacuum, and the Planck length is the distance below which our current physics equations are no longer valid. In other words, I understand them to be mathematical limitations on marking and measuring time and space, not real properties of continuous spacetime.

That is fine, except for Zeno. Those paradoxes are still very relevant in the deepest metaphysical sense, they are exactly the test you need to apply on your conclusions, so it's something you really need to consider far more extensively as you seem to not be aware of them at all.

It's not a logical fallacy. Instead, it's an Existential question about Time and change. — 3017amen

You completely missed my pedantic point. You said "begs the question" when you meant "raises the question" or "prompts the question."

In other words, if change is an ongoing part of existence, and time and space are continuous, does that not render static phenomena non-existent? — 3017amen

Yes, in my view any instantaneous state of things is an artificial creation of thought for the purpose of describing reality, not a constituent of reality itself.

If there is any truth to that, then perhaps change itself, is paramount over the human construct of time. — 3017amen

Again, I deny that time is merely a human construct.

So, the question is, which came first, change or time? — 3017amen

"Coming first" already implies temporal precedence, so it presupposes time, but my guess is that what you have in mind is logical priority. It might help to rephrase the question another way: Which is more plausible, change without time or time without change? I lean toward the latter; if there were no time, how could there be any change? We can imagine an unchanging state of things persisting through time--in fact, we routinely identify prolonged states of things by attributing properties to substances that persist through time--which suggests that time is more fundamental than change.

Which one of his [Zeno's] paradoxes would you specifically like to discuss as relevant to the thread topic? — aletheist

Any, and that you do not "see” that makes me think you are a robot — Zelebg

You claimed that Zeno makes no assumptions in any of his paradoxes. I am inviting you to choose one of them that you believe is most relevant to the thread topic, and then demonstrate that it requires no assumptions.

When talking about continuity of time and space, the aspect of continuity that is important is ‘infinite divisibility’, which is more than obvious from Zeno’s paradoxes. — Zelebg

I disagree, all five properties that I identified are important--jointly necessary and sufficient, as I said before.

There can either be a finite number of successive points in time between now and then, or the number is infinite. That is all, pick one: — Zelebg

Positing points already presupposes discreteness, even if there were infinitely many of them. Again, the rational numbers are infinite but not continuous, and I would say the same even of the real numbers, although most mathematicians since Cantor would disagree. If something is truly continuous, then it is not composed of points, although the number of points that we could theoretically mark on it is not just infinite, but exceeds all multitude.

Those paradoxes are still very relevant in the deepest metaphysical sense, they are exactly the test you need to apply on your conclusions, so it's something you really need to consider far more extensively as you seem to not be aware of them at all. — Zelebg

Okay, please educate me. Show me how one of Zeno's paradoxes applies to what I have presented in this thread so far. I am actually well aware of them, but it is always possible that I have missed something.

I lean toward the latter; if there were no time, how could there be any change? We can imagine an unchanging state of things persisting through time--in fact, we routinely identify prolonged states of things by attributing properties to substances that persist through time--which suggests that time is more fundamental than change. — aletheist

Well, that would contradict your statement earlier when you said that placing a phone call through different time zones was an arbitrary use of time. No?

Well, that would contradict your statement earlier when you said that placing a phone call through different time zones was an arbitrary use of time. No? — 3017amen

No, I never made any such statement. Here is what I actually said (in another thread):

The fact that an east coast clock reads three hours later than a west coast clock is an arbitrary convention of how we mark and measure time, and reflects nothing about the real nature of time itself. — aletheist

Nonsense, time zones are arbitrary human constructs for marking and measuring time. The east coast is not three hours in the future relative to the west coast. — aletheist

Frankly, I do not understand why you keep bringing up this particular example as if it were relevant to the thread topic. Why exactly do you think that it contradicts my suggestion that time is more fundamental than change?

Positing points already presupposes discreteness, even if there were infinitely many of them.

Is one second of time infinitely divisible or not?

Okay, please educate me. Show me how one of Zeno's paradoxes applies to what I have presented in this thread so far. I am actually well aware of them, but it is always possible that I have missed something.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

-- "Because many of the arguments turn crucially on the notion that space and time are infinitely divisible, Zeno was the first person to show that the concept of infinity is problematical."

Is one second of time infinitely divisible or not? — Zelebg

Sure, but when you mark an instant to divide one second, you get two half-second lapses; and when you mark two more instants to divide those, you get four quarter-second lapses; and so on ad infinitum. In other words, we artificially insert discrete instants to create the parts, which are always continuous lapses.

Kant squarely hit the nail on the head when he said that every part of a lapse of time was a lapse of time. But here as in many parts of his philosophy, Kant did not quite understand himself, and imagined that in saying that every part of a time is a time he had only said that time was infinitely divisible. He spoke wiser than he knew. To say that every part of time is a time is to say that time contains no absolute instant, no exact date; for such instant, or date, would be an ultimate part of time. — Peirce, 1903

https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/ — Zelebg

Thanks, but that article discusses at least ten different paradoxes. Please stipulate which one you believe is most relevant to the thread topic and supposedly involves no assumptions whatsoever.

"Because many of the arguments turn crucially on the notion that space and time are infinitely divisible, Zeno was the first person to show that the concept of infinity is problematical." — Zelebg

I suspect that much will hinge on how "infinitely divisible" is defined in the selected paradox; i.e., what assumptions are involved in how it treats continuous time.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

-- "In the Achilles Paradox, Achilles races to catch a slower runner—for example, a tortoise that is crawling in a line away from him. The tortoise has a head start, so if Achilles hopes to overtake it, he must run at least as far as the place where the tortoise presently is, but by the time he arrives there, it will have crawled to a new place, so then Achilles must run at least to this new place, but the tortoise meanwhile will have crawled on, and so forth. Achilles will never catch the tortoise, says Zeno."

As for discrete positions in space, if there was two galaxies or two asteroids roughly (roughly) in line with each other (hypothethical situation) and at at same time they were moving in opposite directions (roughly parallel to the original line that they form with each other), the speed with which they are moving and the distance traveled would be proof that discrete positions in space are not artificial creations.
— christian2017
The motion is real, but speed and distance are measurements facilitated by marking positions and instants, and then comparing them with arbitrary unit intervals. — aletheist

Did you see the example, how does that not prove that discrete positions in space are not a reality? Do you have a counter example? Relative time and relative positions are two different concepts. You might try to say that because time is relative that space is relative but it might seem counter-intuitive to you but that is not the case and certainly not in the strictest sense. Once again, do you have a counter example or perhaps you can use my example and show that is doesn't prove that there are absolute positions in space. Believe it or not but i am being very open minded about this.

As for McTaggart, i guess i'll have to read a 10 page essay to see how i feel about that paradox and then one month later, hypothetically me and you might (might) have a conversation about this subject.

I lean toward the latter; if there were no time, how could there be any change? We can imagine an unchanging state of things persisting through time--in fact, we routinely identify prolonged states of things by attributing properties to substances that persist through time--which suggests that time is more fundamental than change. — aletheist

This is confusing. You were saying on the one hand change is subordinate to time, yet on the other hand you are saying time is an arbitrary construct. So which is more real, change or time?

And I'm saying time is subordinate to change. Meaning, change occurs naturally in the phenomenal world we just arbitrarily project the human construct of time measurement to it. And of course you agreed with the notion of arbitrary time measurement in the phone call-time zone example. Do you see where the confusion is?

for McTaggart, i guess i'll have to read a 10 page essay to see how i feel about that paradox and then one month later, — christian2017

This is just a 3-min. synopsis of the illusion/paradox particularly related to past present and future/ McTaggart Example: is the present really real.

https://youtu.be/vh-IW9Y1htA

And I'm saying time is subordinate to change.

Problem is that it is not saying much, if anything at all. I could say time and change are two sides of the same coin. And now what? Can either be proven, or does it anyhow actually matter, at all? What is the purpose of making such a statement?

It would infer the likelihood that time is more arbitrary than not, no?