I do not believe we have come anywhere close to understanding time. The fact that we think time is linear when everything else in the universe appears not to be, suggests that we have got it wrong. It is possible that time doesn't even exist at all as a scientific concept, other than as a means of our limited brains to order our experience. If all our experiences were written down on pieces of paper and thrown into a room, we would not be able to make sense of them. So we might decide to file them in an arbitrary order so we can better access them. Maybe that is what time is - a filing system for experiences that actually all happen instantaneously.

Indeed. U=IR. I is time dependent. PV=nkT. Dynamical balance — Schootz1

:up:

Regarding time without direction (pre-Big Bang), can you elaborate some behavioral details? For example, do past-present-future evolve simultaneously?

No, it doesn't, but a difference is not necessarily a change. Existing at both times precludes changing from one time to another. — Luke

Motion is necessarily what this horse did in 1878:

...whether the horse "exists at both times" (whatever "both" means) or not.

However, this change in time is required by the definition of motion: "change in position over change in time". So where is the change in time that is required in order for you to say that O moves? (Also, where does O move from/to?) — Luke

The change in time is from t=1 to t=2. O moves from (1,1) to (2,1). The answer still won't change if you ask again.

I think you overlooked the word "was". — Luke

I think you overlooked the word "is". If you're speaking at t=3, both t=1 and t=2 are in the past. You're making the claim that the past changes; in particular, you're saying that O moves through time. So when you're speaking at t=3, according to you, O is neither at t=1 nor is it at t=2 (just as that horse is nowhere on that track in 2022). The word "was" doesn't help; "was" is just the word normal people use to talk about something in the past. You are claiming the past changes; and the manner of change is such that there's nothing there any more. Everything moved to the present. So what then is the truth bearer of facts about the past, if there isn't anything in the past? What is the thing that "was" at (1,1) at t=1, at the time you're speaking being t=3, if nothing is at t=1?

...whether the horse "exists at both times" (whatever "both" means) or not. — InPitzotl

You don't know what "both" means?

Let's be clear: are you advocating a four-dimensionalist, eternalist view of time where time is a space-like dimension, and where all past, present and future times exist, or not?

The change in time is from t=1 to t=2. — InPitzotl

I don't see how you reconcile this with your assertion that "O's being at (1,1,1)" and "O's being at (2,1,2)" are both true. If the change in time is from t=1 to t=2, then is the statement of "O's being at (1,1,1)" true when O is at t=1 but false by the time O changes to t=2? If not, then how can you say that O changes in time from t=1 to t=2? Isn't your claim that O exists at both t=1 and at t=2?

You're making the claim that the past changes — InPitzotl

No, the present changes.

The word "was" doesn't help; "was" is just the word normal people use to talk about something in the past. — InPitzotl

"Was" is a word people use to talk about something which is presently in the past. You also used the word "was" in the exchange that I quoted and replied to.

So what then is the truth bearer of facts about the past, if there isn't anything in the past? — InPitzotl

I believe that our present evidence, theories and statements are the truth bearers of facts.

Otherwise, there is also the growing block theory of time, which posits that both past and present exist and that new things come into existence as the present moves forward in time.

You don't know what "both" means? — Luke

You're picking out the wrong thing. And yes, what does "both" mean here? We have a horse moving in 1878. We can pick out pairs of frames, but that horse isn't "here" in 2022 according to you. 1878 was a long time ago.

No, the present changes. — Luke

The present is the year 2022, at the time of this writing. All frames in this video are in 1878. That horse is long gone in 2022.

Let's be clear: are you advocating a four-dimensionalist, eternalist view of time where time is a space=like dimension, and where all past, present and future times exist, or not? — Luke

Not necessarily eternalist. I'm advocating past facts don't change. You're by contrast advocating that they both do and do not: "O was at (1,1) at t=1" but "O is not at t=1". O changes time, from past to present, but still has a past location at past time t=1.

I don't see how you reconcile this with your assertion that "O's being at (1,1,1)" and "O's being at (2,1,2)" are both true. If the change in time is from t=1 to t=2, then is the statement of "O's being at (1,1,1)" true when O is at t=1 but false by the time O changes to t=2? — Luke

No. t=1 to t=2 being a change in time is not describing O's being; t=1 to t=2 is a change in time per se. We could have O's that don't exist at t=1 and exist at t=2; that's creation. If an O exists at t=1 and not at t=2, that's destruction. But t=1 to t=2 is still a change in time. It's over that change in time that a moving object changes position. You're injecting O's being being dragged along through time into your reading of the phrase, but that's not what the phrase means.

No, the present changes. — Luke

It's not just that Luke. You're not just talking about time changing. You're talking about O's being at a particular time changing... you're specifically arguing about O "changing time", presumably changing into the present.

I believe that our present evidence, theories and statements are the truth bearers of facts. — Luke

That's not enough. How can an object move if it can't be in some place at all in the past, and how can it be in some place in the past if all objects are only in the present? And that's just the starters... wait a blink, and that very question gets re-asked about the past.

And yes, what does "both" mean here? We have a horse moving in 1878. We can pick out pairs of frames, but that horse isn't "here" in 2022 according to you. 1878 was a long time ago. — InPitzotl

As the horse is now dead, I would say that the horse no longer exists. Alternatively, an eternalist would say that the horse still exists in 1878, and that dinosaurs still exist at the time they existed and that the future now exists in its entirety, too. Given that you claim the object, O, exists at both t=1 and at t=2, then you seem to be leaning towards eternalism. "Both" simply means that the object exists at t=1 and at t=2.

Maybe this will help:

There are different ways to oppose presentism—that is, to defend the view that at least some non-present objects exist. One version of non-presentism is eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist. According to eternalism, non-present objects like Socrates and future Martian outposts exist now, even though they are not currently present. We may not be able to see them at the moment, on this view, and they may not be in the same space-time vicinity that we find ourselves in right now, but they should nevertheless be on the list of all existing things.

It might be objected that there is something odd about attributing to a non-presentist the claim that Socrates exists now, since there is a sense in which that claim is clearly false. In order to forestall this objection, let us distinguish between two senses of “x exists now”. In one sense, which we can call the temporal location sense, this expression is synonymous with “x is present”. The non-presentist will admit that, in the temporal location sense of “x exists now”, it is true that no non-present objects exist now. But in the other sense of “x exists now”, which we can call the ontological sense, to say that “x exists now” is just to say that x is now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers. Using the ontological sense of “exists”, we can talk about something existing in a perfectly general sense, without presupposing anything about its temporal location. When we attribute to non-presentists the claim that non-present objects like Socrates exist right now, we commit non-presentists only to the claim that these non-present objects exist now in the ontological sense (the one involving the most unrestricted quantifiers).

The present is the year 2022, at the time of this writing. All frames in this video are in 1878. That horse is long gone in 2022. — InPitzotl

I could quibble that all frames in this video were photographed in 1878. We clearly still have those frames (now) in 2022, making the YouTube video possible.

Anyway, according to you, does the horse still exist (in the ontological sense)?

I'm advocating past facts don't change. You're by contrast advocating that they both do and do not: "O was at (1,1) at t=1" but "O is not at t=1". O changes time, from past to present, but still has a past location at past time t=1. — InPitzotl

You appear to be accusing me of a contradiction, but those statements are entirely consistent: The object was at t=1 and is not (presently) at t=1. The latter statement ("O is not at t=1") need not be read tenselessly.

O changes time, from past to present, but still has a past location at past time t=1. — InPitzotl

I reject the claim that O "still has a past location at past time t=1" at any time after t=1.

But t=1 to t=2 is still a change in time. It's over that change in time that a moving object changes position. — InPitzotl

I wouldn't consider it a moving object unless it changes its spatiotemporal location. Given that the object always exists in all of its spatial locations (including x=1 and x=2), and at all of its temporal locations (including t=1 and t=2), then how does it change its spatiotemporal location? In what sense does it move?

You're injecting O's being being dragged along through time into your reading of the phrase, but that's not what the phrase means. — InPitzotl

And you're rejecting O's "being dragged along through time" from your reading of the phrase. O's "being dragged along through time" is precisely what motion is. What else could it be? Motion is a type of displacement. No object is ever displaced on the four-dimensionalist view because all objects forever remain at every place and time of their existence. Therefore, no object is ever in motion.

No, the present changes.
— Luke

It's not just that Luke. You're not just talking about time changing. You're talking about O's being at a particular time changing... you're specifically arguing about O "changing time", presumably changing into the present. — InPitzotl

According to presentism, the only time that exists is the present time and the only objects that exist are those that exist at the present time.

I believe that our present evidence, theories and statements are the truth bearers of facts.
— Luke

That's not enough. How can an object move if it can't be in some place at all in the past, and how can it be in some place in the past if all objects are only in the present? And that's just the starters... wait a blink, and that very question gets re-asked about the past. — InPitzotl

I think a presentist can say that there were objects in the past, even if there are no objects [in the ontological sense] in the past now. A presentist can say that an object was in the past and that it changed from t=1 to t=2. I don't believe an eternalist can say the same and remain consistent with their eternalism.

Time is something that happens and it can be measured. but so is a hole.

Time dilation is where everything gets silly. You can't dilate a measurement. Space and matter are the things in question. Time does not dilate. It's absurd. Think about it.

Time has a duality. One one side is the perception of time which requires the ability to hold memories (to be conscious) as without memory we have no recollection of the past and if we have no accessible past we cannot anticipate a future by proxy. In this case the only thing to exist is the present moment which would be meaningless because what is the present without the past and future to give it reference?

So in essence memory is a prerequisite for conscious/aware beings. Consciousness cannot exist without the acquisition and documentation (writing down/recording/memory) of experience.

On the other hand we have objective time - the thing we measure objectively by quantifying it with frequencies (orbits, tides, seasons, day and night, hours, minutes and seconds etc) the rhythm of vibrations of quartz clocks, the swing of a pendulum.

Both aspects of the passage of time are mutually dependent. We cannot acknowledge cycles/frequencies/repetitions (the objective measure of time) without memory (subjective/a product of awareness) Otherwise each cycle would be a "first encounter" with no reference to a previous one.

The difference between simultaneity and chronology is our existence as objects - matter. Energy travels at the speed of light; where space contracts so much, and time dilates so much that everything happens simultaneously (as a singularity - with no distinction between beginning and end, no distance, no start or end.)

On the other side of this duality is existing as matter (which cannot travel at the speed of light). Therefore it must experience change/rate, and thus chronology; cause and effect are separated rather than simultaneous and the same.

So the ability to be conscious and have memory depends on being physical objects. Memory/documentation/recording cannot occur in pure energy as its massless and non physical and doesn't experience time. Memory must be recorded on a stable unchanging objective physical medium which does experience time - something that doesn't travel at the speed of light.

Physical matter exists in a perpetual physical present so for matter alone time might not be a fundamental component.

Perception of time requires consciousness and understanding information first is required. Information exists as brain state and brain state is the physical brain AND its mental content. Mental content, being emergent from the physical brain, is where time perception exists, as you were explaining.

Regarding time without direction (pre-Big Bang), can you elaborate some behavioral details? For example, do past-present-future evolve simultaneously? — ucarr

I think past-present-future evolve simulateneously, through deceleration away from/ in reference to - the speed of light (where past-present-future are one and the same/simultaneous/singular). That's relativity for you.

Only objects experience time (can be changed/are subject to transformations from one physical state of being to another).

Because of that a past (A state), present (B/current state) and (C anticipated/predicted) future state can be observed in objects in motion. The easiest of which to predict would be a simple linear movement from A through B to C, but as we know things can also move in revolutionary/circular, and pendular motion. Oscillations. That's a little trickier to predict for us which consider time to typically only operate in a linear fashion.

This can be done by other objects (ones that observe - for example humans, with the condition that conscious awareness requires memory).
Without memory, we cannot acknowledge change in reference to something pre-recorded/stored.

Physical matter exists in a perpetual physical present so for matter alone time might not be a fundamental component.

Perception of time requires consciousness and understanding information first is required. Information exists as brain state and brain state is the physical brain AND its mental content. Mental content, being emergent from the physical brain, is where time perception exists, as you were explaining. — Mark Nyquist

Yes quite right. Non-conscious matter in theory wouldn't "experience" the passage of time but conscious matter (people) do experience time as its perception requires awareness.

However that would leave us with a conundrum if we stop there. Because if only matter can undergo change (time), unlike energy at the speed of light, and only conscious beings like us can perceive that change, when does consciousness emerge from unconscious matter and become "animate" as we are?

I think the key to accessing a possible answer to that is to not consider memory as explicit to/strictly confined in the "human brain", but rather simply the storage of information in something physical (matter), that can be rearranged and processed through time (reviewed)

Well when we consider memory in this definition, we can appreciate consciousness in a new way - a continuum all the way from "potential energy" at the speed of light (unconscious), deceleration into matter (the first recording/memory/storage of energy) as well as the beginning of time and the continued generation of information (change) - a very primordial consciousness.

Then organisation of this stored information (memory) takes place (gravity) and diversification of that information through processing (birth of new elements in stars, thus new molecules), new cycles (tectonics, ocean currents, tides, seasons etc) and evolution of that stored information (memory) of those systems all the way up into life and further towards humanity.

All the while the capacity for condensed and ever more efficient computations - manipulations of stored/memorised/encoded information is pressured by evolution and our consciousness ("human self awareness") as we know it emerges.

You might be referring to what physicists term physical information and you should not mix definitions. Physical information has gotten into general usage as something unintended by physicists. It's not a property of the physical matter itself but associated with the matter in the mind of the observer. This might not be your fault at all since many physics articles are written by non physicists who don't understand the issue.

You might be referring to what physicists term physical information and you should not mix definitions — Mark Nyquist

Why not. Are we not made from physics? We are physical. The information we hold in our brain is as much stored in the physical (anatomical synapses) as any information in the objects/ physical world we see around us.

To split physics information from biological information or chemical information is to randomly assert that we are separate from physics which I think is a pretty unreasonable conclusion.

It's only useful to segregate for the purpose of specialisation in that discipline but all human disciplines of observation of the universe (be it scientific, philosophical, spiritual, medical or social/political) are not discrete. We have huge overlap of our disciplines with one another otherwise technological information could never influence medical, scientific could never influence philosophical and so on.

Big picture, little picture, macroscopic, microscopic, it's just on the order of scope/magnitude. All information (of whatever quality/content) is connected.

If it wasn't we would just be in separate innumerable multiverses that have no connection or sense to one another

Physical information has gotten into general usage as something unintended by physicists. It's not a property of the physical matter itself but associated with the matter in the mind of the observer. This might not be your fault at all since many physics articles are written by non physicists who don't understand the issue. — Mark Nyquist

I hear what you're saying and from the perspective of a specialist that has narrowed, strictly defined and specified their line of thinking and empirical evidence a great deal to be on the frontier of that specialty, it seems incorrect to overlaps departments of knowledge.

We love to categorise and make discrete so we can better apply constants with one another and find novel outcomes.
But just as the electromagentic spectrum can be quantized into discrete packages (photons) let us not forget its wave duality - the fact that is is at the same time a spectrum that is not discrète.

So information can be packaged and solid and particulate , but it can also be fluid and miscible. Like water. Science likes to control information by giving it parameters, taoism acknowledges the flow and interconnectedness of things

Ok, you have wand, you aim at things, magic sparklers fly out and your name is Tinker Bell from my perspective.

Ok, you have wand, you aim at things, magic sparklers fly out and your name is Tinker Bell from my perspective — Mark Nyquist

That's fine. You seem to prefer discretion and finitude than open flow and infinities. I think you would make an excellent specialist in a field. Are you a specialist in some discipline?

Don't get me wrong I love to particularise and define things too. It definitely has its advantages. Science is an incredible tool for understanding. But so is intuition and open, creative lateralised thinking.

You may see it as hocus pocus. I see it as a duality. Both are correct depending on perspective and they can be overlapped or kept separate in whatever way you see fit.

I am just pointing out a human tendency to bestow "information" on physical objects.

I am just pointing out a human tendency to bestow "information" on physical objects. — Mark Nyquist

Oh yes we definitely bestow information on objects. That's our "meaning" for them right? It's characteristics (form, texture, appearance, how it "feels" to us) and its purpose (sentimental value, usefulness, how it behaves) - "Qualitative information".

We "know" physical objects through how we interpret and formulate this meaning for them.

The meaning can change from useful to useless, from beautiful, precious to worthless and ugly, disposable, ignorable.

Not only do we have the information we apply to them (their relative meaning or quality to an individual) but they have innate information (that which science elucidates - "Quantitative information" - its mass, component atoms, density, luminosity, heat, caloric content - the energy contained in joules, its gravitation, the wavelengths of light it absorbs and releases.

So information about the same object in question can be qualitative (subjective meaning/information ) and quantitative (discrete, objective, universally measurable meaning/information).

In that way the information we have for any given object is a). Open to interpretation/possibility (waveform) and finite and precise (particulate)

As quantum physics suggests. Conscious decision has influence on the outcome for the information received from an object. Consciousness I believe is universal and fundamental, how we decide to use and interpret it is up to us as observers, we can quantise everything or qualify everything. We ought to do both simultaneously though I guess, to get the "full picture".

Hence the original post I have on the big bang and its relationship to consciousness which prompted our conversation with one another.

You're always free to object or point out the flaws. To consider it hocus pocus. I welcome the debate. I learn from you as much as you learn from me. The basis of philosophical debate I would imagine.

I can see the image change, but as it has been stated multiple times already, that perception requires time.

However, from a meta perspective, if we can imagine such, then the image is what it is, all at once. There is no happening per se, e.g. no changing. It's just a static image beyond any possible perception.

Why can't both be true?

Why can't both be true? — Watchmaker

Correct indeed.

Duality my friend. Things can be one and separate simultaneously, depending on where we choose to discriminate, to draw a boundary, to place limits. Those limits are always movable. Wave, particle, potential, actual, false, true, real, ideal.

Its a matter of perspective

That's simple enough to grasp.

It definitely appears to be a duality of sorts. Does this relate in any way to dualism, the idea that the physical and mental are distinct substances?

It definitely appears to be a duality of sorts. Does this relate in any way to dualism, the idea that the physical and mental are distinct substances? — Watchmaker

I would say yes in a once sense and no in another (Duality again see? Haha)

In the yes sense: mental energy (electrical impulses that make up thought-scape) has the capacity to behold ideals, new concepts, new ideas, new innovations, an imagination, dreams and ambitions: things that are not "physical" and don't have a strictly physical counterpart in reality.

Yet.

"Yet" being the key word. As any thought, idea or concept, emotion or personal expression (mental) can be made physical: articulated, demonstrated, written down, painted, invented/constructed, argued, portrayed in media: films, literature, scientific reports, etc to make that mental into something tangible - something physical and thus appreciable by others. Communication - the Bridge between the mentalscape and physical landscape of existence.

In the no sense: the mental is a product of physical processes: the brain is organic, chemical and electrical in nature, it can only absorb, process and modulate, amend, adapt, recreate, reformulate physical observable/empirical/pre-existing information from its environment through the various senses.

Duality in this sense pertains to the border of self: "I/me" vs. "other". I exist as a product of the environment around me and a creator of the environment around me simultaneously.

A "two-way" information exchange between my memory and active interactions going on in the external world that I can observe and either make memories from or ignore/not focus on and dismiss or forget.

In this way I shape not only my self identity but also the external world relative to me simulatenously. If I identify as a pessimistic/cynical person I will perceive the external world as thus, devoid of magic, pointless, uninteresting, skeptical, unimaginative, overly binary, purely rational, just mechanistic and objective.

If I on the other hand if identify myself as positive/inspired/optimistic I interpret the external environment thus - a magical place full of potential, the fantastical , mysterious, creativity, imagination, irrationality, pure energy and intuition.

This is the inherent Duality of relativism. I think overly engaging in either front is detrimental: if we fixate on the optimistic side/the ideal - we are all hippy-flippy, erratic and rely too much on intuition, if we fixate on the rational we purge ourselves of all ability to be creative, we accept what is the case will always be the case which is depressing and leaves us helpless, impotent to do anything new.

We must consider Duality as a balanced system, an equilibrium - and in that case there is both rational and irrational things in the external environment as there is equally in the internal environment, the mind.

As above, so below, as outside, so within.

I hope this explains dualism more robustly. If you have anything to suggest, contradict don't hesitate to do so :)

In truth, the discussion should have finished at @jgill's $\frac{\delta x}{\delta y}$ — Banno

Time and energy are related by observing that, as in space, moving at a fixed rate requires no energy. Whereas if one accelerates by applying a force time will speed up for a stationary observer. So in a peculiar sense physical acceleration accelerates time as well. :chin:

:up: Math to the rescue ... again!

Change — Gnomon

Can you elaborate further on, how shall I put it?, the relationship betwixt time and change.

In truth, the discussion should have finished at @jgill's δxδy — Banno

I've never studied math beyond basic trig. I've only touched on a little calc.

I assume that this person's math proves that the image we're discussing changes over distance, from right to left, with no respect to time.

As it has been stated before several times, that is true...but only If we take all perception out of the equation. Once perception is introduced, then change only has meaning in the context of time, e.g. it takes time for my eyes to scan the image and process changes in the patterns.

Can you elaborate further on, how shall I put it?, the relationship betwixt time and change. — Agent Smith

I can if you'd like Agent Smith. :)
Change requires the "energy" to do it, and the "time" for it to get done.
Change exerts change on everything around it but itself because the only way change could change itself is to become "unchange" .

Mind boggling contradiction here I know.
That's where time sweeps in to rectify it.

Change acts from a timeless state (speed of light). Here in the timeless state change is constant in its quality to change things around it.
Those things around it exist in time. They have duration, transformation etc. Hence why they can be changed. They are temporal existents.

So in conclusion time is the medium that divides the cause (change with its fixed quality to cause) and that which is subject to it/acted upon (fixed quality to be effect).

Hope this clears things up.

Change requires the "energy" to do it, and the "time" for it to get done.
Change exerts change on everything around it but itself because the only way change could change itself is to become "unchange" .Change acts from a timeless state (speed of light). Here in the timeless state change is constant in its quality to change things around it. — Benj96

Since this is a philosophy rather than a physics forum, I thought I’d throw in some ideas on time from a few philosophers.

Kant attributed to Newton the notion that space and time are absolute qualities of the world , and to Leibnitz the idea that space and time are only relational qualities of matter. Kant argues instead that the quality of change you describe is an idea of the mind rather than an absolute or relative property of nature. Time is the form of inner intuition. Everything we will ever perceive will be perceived as being in time.

“ Now what are space and time? Are they actual entities? Are they only determinations or also relations of things, but still such as would belong to them even if they were not intuited? Or are they such that they belong only to the form of intuition, and therefore to the subjective constitution of our mind, without which these predicates could not be ascribed to any things at all?”(Critique of Pure Reason)

Henri Bergson argued: “duration is a principle of qualitative differentiation in a heterogeneous multiplicity.

“The concept of quality, in opposition to quantity, is not sufficient to understand nature. Both concepts lack what the other has. Pure qualities are perfectly individual but are not connected to each other (CII 430-435). This is why qualitivism leads to Leibnizian idealism of monads without windows, according to Bergson. Quantities, on the contrary, are related to each other but to such a degree that they do not have an individuality or inner principle. Bergson wants to avoid both (monadological) idealism and mechanism by understanding nature as “both participating in extension and force, in quantity and quality” (CII)”


Alfred North Whitehead followed this line of thinking further.
“The rejected Newtonian doctrine of simple location dovetails with the conception of space and time in terms of external relations, that is, the conception of space and time as absolute ‘immovable’ containers external to and unaffected by the things located in space and time (see Newton’s Scholium cited in PR 70). By understanding
spatiotemporal relations as external relations, Newton develops a “ ‘receptacle’ theory of space–time”
(PR 70)—which, for clarity’s sake, should not be confused with Whitehead’s later notion of ‘the Receptacle’.

Understood as such, space and time are ‘empty’ forms (PR 72) that merely ‘accommodate’ bodies, without affecting or being affected by what they accommodate. Mirroring the two inseparable aspects of the doctrine of internal relations, Newton’s externality of space and time entails, first, that bodies enjoy an independence from their spatiotemporal relations and are ‘simply located’, and, two, that space and time remain unmovable and unmodified by the extension of bodies.

Rejecting Newton’s doctrine, Whitehead takes precisely the opposite stance; Of the ‘Receptacle’— which in Adventures of Ideas is his concept referring to “the general notion of extension” (AI 258; see also AI 192)—he says: “It is part of the essential nature of each physical actuality that it is itself an element qualifying the Receptacle, and that the qualifications of the Receptacle enter into its own nature.” (AI 171) In other words, the fact that “the relata modify the nature of the relations” (AI 201) entails that extension as the “primary relationship” (PR 288) between actual occasions, is modified by these occasions. “

Kant attributed to Newton the notion that space and time are absolute qualities of the world , and to Leibnitz the idea that space and time are only relational qualities of matter — Joshs

I think Kant and Leibnitz were both correct. Because Kants notion of time and space being absolute (controlled for/assumed constant) gives access to the formulation of Newtonian physical equations. Which have very good predictive value.

Until, Einstein revealed leibnitz's view as on a par in terms of importance, that relative motion of matter in space-time are relevant. That time behaves differently for objects at different speed. Which again has good predictive value.

So it seems that time has a Duality. When we objectify it as a quantitative constant it allows us to observe the Newtonian physical qualities and behaviours of the universe.

When we do not fix it as a quantitative constant but rather a quality which is "perceived" by a physical observer, we open up to the special relativistic character of time, something that experientially based can pass at different rates for different observers based on speed.

It doesn't seem sensible to allow for such a contradiction regarding a phenomenon. But I use the analogy of two people staring at the number 69 on the floor.
One argues that it says "69" and the opposition on the other side states that it clearly reads "96".

Both are absolutely correct in their perception of the number from their relative viewpoints as anyone else would be if they assumed the same positions relative to the number.

But the truth is that this is a dualistic setup. Where an observer has more than one rationalisation available to them despite the fact that it negates the other, despite them being equal and opposite.

Newton described that every action has an "equal and opposite reaction" ironically including his choice to formulate newtonian physics, its equal and opposite being relativistic physics later elucidated by Einstein. Both highly intelligent scientists in their own right.

The contradiction can be created by assuming only one is correct, and removed by understanding why they are both correct yet different, by encapsulating them in a greater set of truths.