I don't think an "always-existing reality" makes any sense from the perspective I described. If it is necessary that there is always a future before there is a past, this implies a point in time when there was a future, but no past. This would indicate that no time had passed at that point, thus signifying a beginning of time.

To say that if there is a future, there is necessarily a past, or vise versa, if there is a past there is necessarily a future, is a conclusion not supported by any logic. So we must allow for the logical possibility of a future without a past, and a past without a future, which would represent the beginning and ending of time. Now, when we bring this into the context of real physical existence, we see that any physical event has a future (is possible) before it has a past (is actual), as I described above. So putting time in relation to physical existence in general, we can say that physical existence had a future before it had a past, and this would represent what we apprehend as the beginning of time.

Of particular importance is the past (before) in the sense that for any given moment in time, we can always inquire "and before that?" This line of questioning is an ad infinitum process as must be clear to you by now. — TheMadFool

To look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective. Our perspective is always the present. And from the perspective of the present, the future is always before the past. Here's an example. Today is our perspective, and this is November eighth. Tomorrow is November ninth, and it is in the future. November ninth is in the future before it is in the past. Likewise, all things are always in the future before they are in the past, so the future is really before the past. How something will be is always prior to how it actually has been.

It is only when we remove the present as the proper temporal perspective, and place things in a temporal order, like a chronological order, saying that one thing is before the other, in that chronological order, that we produce the illusion that a past event is before a future event. But this is a manufactured model, and it is faulty in that sense, because it does not portray the true relation of past to future, by portraying the existence of the event in the future as prior to its existence in the past

If so, time must be extend to infinity into the past for there seems to be no real reason, at least I can't think of any, not to ask, "and before that?" Now, if time is real then it implies an infinite past but the universe is in the present moment as I write this. In other words, the universe has experienced, gone through, infinite time. But, infinity can't be experienced for, by its very nature, it can't be completed and if the past is infinite as it must be (if time is real) then that would imply a completed infinity. This only because we assumed time is real, an aspect of reality the mind didn't invent. Ergo, time is not real. — TheMadFool

When the present is established as the proper temporal reference point, it doesn't make sense to say that there could be an infinity of past time. This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. Time cannot pass, and create a past, unless there is future which is ready to move into the past. So prior to there being any past time, there must have necessarily been a future. Something must have been available to move into the past. This implies that it is impossible for the past to be infinite because it is necessary that there was always a future prior to any past. Therefore the past is limited in this way.

I was approaching it from the perspective of a queue, a line, as it were. Two trees would always form a line, a straight one but that's beside the point. The two trees can be viewed to be a sequence in terms of relative distance from X, the closer one being first and the farther one being second. A queue, a line of trees?! Ordering in space?! What are your thoughts on that? — TheMadFool

The point I was making is that with only spatial reference, which tree is first and which is second, is completely arbitrary. You might add an additional spatial point, and say that relative to this point, one tree is closer and the other further, but this does not justify handing priority to one over the other. That the closer one is "first" and the further is "second" is not justified from a spatial perspective.

Ask you why the closer is first and the further is second. Maybe you can get to the closer one before you can get to the further, but that means your designation of "first" is based in time.

Too, there's a sense in which the two trees are at the same time just as a queue can form at 12:00 AM but there's a first person and a second person in the queue. I suppose the idea is to force X to think about an aspect of reality different from space. — TheMadFool

Again, "a first person and a second person in the queue" is a temporal reference. It refers either to the temporal order by which they assembled, or the temporal order by which they will be served.

Care to expand on this a bit? What means you by "arbitrary", "subjective", and "objective passing of time"? As far as I'm concerned, all I want to achieve is to construct a plausible theory on the origins of the concept of time. I think secondary features like "subjectivity", "objectivity" come later and can be safely ignored. Unless, of course, you feel that they're relevant in which case you'd need to give me more to go on. — TheMadFool

Imagine your two trees at two different spatial locations. To say that one is the first and the other is the second is a completely arbitrary designation. If you add a perspective, and say that you base first and second on this perspective, then your designation is subjective. The only thing which can make your designation of first and second into a true objective determination, is to provide a real, objective passing of time, and base "first and second" in this passing of time.

Do vague platitudes count as lies or truths? Vague platitudes is the language of politicians and lawyers. When you learn how to twist words to mean almost anything, then you can always assert plausible deniability later. — Harry Hindu

Vague platitudes are neither truths nor lies. But some people speak intentional lies, and Trump does it all the time. That's what sets him apart from other politicians. You cannot characterize what he says as "spinning the truth" because he speaks in outright lies.

A discussion on space seems necessary first. Imagine X, an early human, trekking through the African savannah. The savannah are vast stretches of grassland with a few scaterred trees here and there. So, X, walks and comes across a tree, no fruits but still a tree. Then he continues along for another mile or so and then he encounters another tree - this one has fruits. In essence, he's met two trees and assuming he knew how to count up to two - it's said that early math began with the ability to count up to two - and assuming he was capable of ordinal math [the ability to order, sequence, as like first, second, etc.], X would've ordered the trees as such: first tree, no fruits; second tree, fruits. This ordering, this sequencing, must be contextualized, it requires a...dimension. The dimension in which the trees are first and second is space. — TheMadFool

Actually, the ordering described here as "first" and "second" is temporal rather than spatial. The one tree is first and the other is second because that is the temporal order in which the person encountered them, according to the person's approach from a particular direction. "First" and "second" is always based in a temporal priority, and can never be based in a "spatial dimension" because such a designation (first and second) with only spatial reference would be completely arbitrary, or subjective, depending on the perspective.

There is a problem which manifests from the modern tendency to portray time as a spatial dimension, and that is that temporal priority becomes an arbitrary, or subjective designation. You can see this in Kenosha Kid's threads where it is argued that time is reversible. Modeling time as a dimension of space robs us of the capacity for an objective concept of "priority" because such a designation become arbitrary, rather than being based in an objective passing of time.

However, the tree and the fruits haven't moved at all - they were there, they're still where they were. Ergo, X concludes, the sequence/order has nothing to do with space. In what context is the order/sequence of the fruits' condition occuring? In other words, in which dimension is the order/sequence of the ripening of the fruits taking place? Time. X has now developed the concept of time. — TheMadFool

There is no sense in asking "in which dimension is the order/sequence of the ripening of the fruits taking place?", because dimensions are the property of space, and as described above, the concept of "space" does not provide us with the principles required for an objective concept of "ordering". Therefore we must allow that temporal ordering, and "priority" in general, cannot be properly conceptualized if we think of time as a dimension of space.

How Trump garnered a significant portion of the Christian vote is very telling of the state of Christianity in America... too many years of the likes of Billy Graham and Oral Roberts.

Democrats lie. Republicans lie. Thinking one does it more than another is just a reflection of your indoctrination. — Harry Hindu

No, really, some people lie more than others. There is actually such a thing as counting a person's lies. And Trump has pushed the volume meter to levels which we couldn't imagine, even from the most dishonest politicians.

I have regained faith in humanity. — NOS4A2

No need to reiterate, we already know how your faith lies.

Wealth allows one access to quality foods, preventative health regimes (exercise programs, equipment, etc), adequate housing, clothing, as well as allowing restorative downtime. — Book273

It is only extreme poverty which denies people quality food and adequate shelter. Generally the lack of proper nutrition is the product of other factors. I believe that eating quality foods is more a matter of attitude and priority, and this makes it more of a psychological issue rather than a financial issue. Sure there are people at the fringe of society who are incapable of buying healthy food, but if they were not actively seeking a healthy diet, and you gave them some money, this would not incline them to seek a healthy diet. The majority of those who do not eat healthy, buying low price, low quality, or for whatever other reason, do so as a matter of choice. Their priorities are elsewhere.

I assume these descriptors would be based on the perspective of society, rather than on those committing said actions? — Book273

No, it's a matter of personal choice, therefore the judgement of good and bad is based in one's own perspective. So, for example, if an individual hears about a party taking place, but knows from one's own perspective of good and bad, that it is not good to attend that party because there may be COVID transmission there, the individual might still choose to attend that party. This would be a matter of shirking one's moral responsibility.

I seek specific clarification of subjective terms as I have been gifted (my perspective on it anyway) with a profound ability to not relate to societies accepted norms. I understand that they are accepted norms, I just have no idea why, so I ask what are often perceived to be offense questions. They are not meant to be offensive, but to allow a greater understanding of another's perspective. — Book273

What you ought to recognize about what I am saying, is that it does not matter whether one's judgement of good and bad is based in "accepted norms". An individual is free to act in accordance with, or in discordance with what one believes is good and bad, based in ones own reasoning. And this is what I mean when I say "people will give up moral responsibility", when a person acts in discordance with what one believes. In the particular example I replied to, what is the case is that people know, and believe, from their own sense of moral responsibility that gathering is not a good idea because it puts the health of numerous people at risk. But if others start gathering, they see this as an accepted norm, and therefore relinquish their own sense of moral responsibility (go against one's own belief) because others are. It's a sort of herd mentality, which inclines one to dismiss one's own moral sense of good and bad because others are behaving in a different way, which produces the illusion that this is an accepted norm.

Define " Moral responsibility" please. I would like your definition as I am curious regarding what it encompasses. Thanks. — Book273

OK, I've got the quote here:

It's an interesting experiment, how so many people will give up moral responsibility at the drop of a hat, for the sake of insignificant pleasure. It seems like if one individual person does not follow the rules, for the sake of "freedom", then the next will see this transgression as an excuse not to follow the rules, quickly producing a cascade, until a large portion of society falls into that hole. Monkey see monkey do. — Metaphysician Undercover

This was in response to M of S's description of how people sort of give up on physical distancing practices, suddenly, seemingly altogether en masse. "Moral responsibility" here would refer to one's apprehension of being liable for one's own decisions as to good and bad actions.

Low socio-economic status results in a generally less healthy lifestyle
...

The poor are always hit harder than the wealthy. — Book273

I do not think you have made an appropriate generalization here, Book273. Health cannot be tied to wealth in this way. Wealth can buy treatment is about as far as we can go.

Define " Moral responsibility" please. I would like your definition as I am curious regarding what it encompasses. Thanks. — Book273

Can you provide the context please?

I'm guessing it's not a joking matter.

I believe that only about have the eligible voters voted last election. Trump got roughly half the votes. This would indicate that his support has gone from one quarter of the eligible population to one third, over his time in office. Unbelievable, America on self-destruct.

These do not look probable to change, in terms of random deviations in a non-biased model, with the remaining votes in question (though it is possible). — boethius

You haven't followed the mail-in vote saga have you? Trump encouraged his supporters to vote in person on election day, insinuating that he would declare mail-in votes as invalid. Biden supporters with respect for COVID distancing practices were more inclined toward mailing in. The result is a huge disproportion of Biden votes in mailed in votes, now being counted, especially evident in Pennsylvania.

Well Trump's gonna contest the results in with his 6-3 SCOTUS and hopes they're as eager to dismantle democracy as he is. If enough people think he actually won then he thinks he could get away with it. — Mr Bee

I think he plays more to his base group of supporters, looking for an uprising from them, by insinuating illegal activities such as voting after the deadline, adding stacks of illegitimate ballots, etc.. That's why his go-to phrase is they're trying to "steal" the election.

I would say your experience consists only of some present. Your memories and expectations are experienced in the present, and they don't necessarily reflect accurately what you did experience in the past or what you will experience in the future. — leo

When you sense something, isn't the thing sensed, in the past by the time that it is sensed? This is how we came to know that light moves faster than sound. You see something in the distance, then the sound of that follows. But still, light takes some time, so the thing seen (experienced) is in the past by the time that it is experienced.

So I think it's not just a matter of saying our memories and anticipations are actually occurring at the present, I think our experience is really of the past and of the future. Think of anticipation in general. It is a natural instinct to expect the future. How could you anticipate unless you somehow knew there is a future. And how could you know there is a future unless you somehow were experiencing it.

Well what if all moments in time exist concurrently, and we only see a tiny portion of it as we're traveling along? — leo

This would make sense, but it requires a mechanism which propels one along through time. So when you think about it, it makes a lot more sense to conceive of actual time passing in an active world, then to conceive of a mechanism propelling human beings through a static world. Consider all the scientific evidence which indicates that time was passing and things were changing prior to the existence of human beings. How does it make sense to think that the physical world was arranged in such a way so as to make it appear to us like time was passing and things were changing before human existence, but things were really static without some conscious being, actively being propelled through this simulation? And now, if you accept that this is a simulation, and change was not really occurring, you need to explain this mechanism which is exclusive to the human being, and propels the human being through this fixed world.

Of course the idea that people don't say who they are going to vote when polled is a genuine factor. — ssu

A Trump supporter lying about who they will vote for, just to fuck with the pollsters? No! That could never happen.

From our point of view we only experience a portion of the present, which is itself an extremely small part of all that it, was and ever will be. — leo

This depends on how you define "the present". I would define it as the division between past and future. It seems evident to me that my experience consists of some past and some future, so I would say that my experience encompasses all of the present, and also some past and some future. But if you define "the present" as consisting of an extended period of time, then it is likely that we only experience a part of the present. So to resolve this question as to "truth", there is a requirement to determine exactly what the present is.

I would say an eternal, infinite consciousness would experience it all at once forever. — leo

This appears to me to be an incoherent statement. "Consciousness" and "experience" are specific to the way that we experience time. To talk about a consciousness experiencing all of time at once doesn't really make any sense. Consider what it would be like if what we experienced as a thousandth of a second in time, would consist of the physical changes of a billion years. We don't notice the changes of a thousandth of a second because they go by so fast. So all the things which happen to the earth, the solar system, and the entire universe, in a billion years, would not be noticeable to this consciousness because they go by so fast. Now extend this to all of time. Everything which happens throughout the entirety of time would not be noticeable because it zooms by too fast. How does it make sense to talk about a scenario like this?

There are two very distinct uses of "eternal". One refers to existing forever, infinite temporal existence. The other refers to existence outside of time. Aristotle demonstrated that the first, infinite temporal existence, is a faulty concept. Following this, Christian theologians accepted the second meaning, "outside of time" as the description of the eternality of God. What exactly is meant by this is a subject for speculation.

Trouble is, your claims are without proportion. — tim wood

Proportion is irrelevant. Whether you are talking about a huge portion of time, or a very small portion of time, there is still a duration, and therefore no such thing as a point which marks what time it is when this duration is passing. Therefore referring to a portion of time as a point in time such as 2:00 cannot be a true reference, no matter what the proportion is.

Of course there is a two o'clock, and with all the furniture that implies, and true and meaningful in its context for its purposes. — tim wood

Why do you insist on denying the truth? "Two o'clock" is just a name you use, which has no real reference. There are conventions for the usage of that name, but there cannot be anything specific which the name refers to, or else it would lose its universal applicability. The reason why I can say it is two o'clock where I am, and you can also say that it is two o'clock where you are, and it can be two o'clock all over the place, is that "two o'clock" does not refer to anything real. Have you not yet grasped this fact, that assuming particular points in time is just a convention of convenience? The only implied furniture is a mountain of conventions, which no matter how high that mountain is, only amounts to conventions without any real thing corresponding to the usage.

If there was nothing eternal, then “nothing is eternal” would be eternal... — leo

This claim does not seem to be based in any logic. If it is true that there is nothing which is eternal, this makes the statement "nothing is eternal" true. It does not make the statement "nothing is eternal" eternal. In fact, that would contradict the premise that there is nothing which is eternal.

This goes beyond statements. — leo

Well no, it doesn't really get beyond statements, because your claim is that a statement, "nothing is eternal", is something which is eternal. But you have provided nothing to justify this claim. And, it actually contradicts the stated condition "if there was nothing eternal".

But when a physicist talks of "excitations" of a field that's a different matter, and one that is highly intriguing. — jgill

This is just the physicist's way of saying we know there's some energy there but we don't know what form it has.

And in any case it started, so it must have started at some time. — tim wood

This is an unjustified assumption. Any existing thing, or event such as your "appointment", requires a confluence of numerous things coming together in unity. Not one of those, individually, can mark the beginning of the specified occurrence, and a judgement as to when they become unified as one event, to mark the beginning of that event, would be arbitrary.

When does your doctor's appointment begin? When the doctor asks the receptionist to send you in? When the receptionist signals to you? When you enter the examination room? When the doctor enters the room? When the doctor speaks to you? I don't think the doctor's billing practise is sufficient to justify a supposed beginning to your appointment.

Step up and tell us what you mean! — tim wood

I think it's pretty obvious what I mean. By the time you say "it's two o'clock", it's past two o'clock, unless you say "it's two o'clock" before it's two o'clock. If you do not see the truth to this obvious fact, or desire to deny the obvious truth, for some unknown reason, then I'm afraid I cannot help you to understand the reality of time.

If, on the other hand, you want to understand the reality of time, then you ought to be able to quickly recognize the fact that there is no such thing as a point in time, which we can say corresponds with "what time it is". "What time it is" does not indicate a point in time, it indicates a period of time, and that period cannot have boundaries marked as points, because the points are not real. So we ought not use the phrase "what time it is", as if it refers to a point in time. There is no empirical evidence to suggest points in time are real.

Or are you lost in Zeno-esque confusion. — tim wood

It appears like you are the one lost in such confusion, claiming that 2:00 could refer to an actual point in time, when there are no such points in time. Assigning numbers to time in this manner is just a convention of convenience which has no bearing on the reality of time.

I can; I did. Ergo, you are wrong. — Banno

Yes sir, President Trump, when you make a statement and insist that it's the truth, and it must be the truth, because you spoke it, and therefore anything to the contrary is false, I will have great respect for the truth of that statement.

Senility

It's six o'clock. It is true that it is six o'clock.



Now, it's one past six. It is no longer true that it is six o'clock.

Sometimes truth changes. — Banno

You cannot make truthful statements like that about time. By the time you say "it's six o'clock" that time has past. And, as Einstein proposed, what time it is, is relative to your frame of reference, so there is no such thing as the truth about what time it actually is.

The size and power the U.S. govt. has accumulated over the years and the way theyve handled that power as a means to divide us and pit us against each other is the greatest misdeed of them all. — Harry Hindu

It's not the "U.S. govt." (governing system in place) which commits the misdeeds, it's the individuals and groups of people involved in governing who do that. Some of these people have a divisive attitude, some have a unifying attitude. It's not fair to class everyone who is involved in governing as actively using the power derived from the governing system, in a divisive way.

Please dont call yourselves "progressives" if your voting for the old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years. Dont complain about systemic racism and white privilege and then go vote for the old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years. Dont expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you do such things. — Harry Hindu

Huh, that's an odd portrayal of me that doesn't even come close to reality, so I'll just ignore the rest of your post.

I know very little about quantum physics, even as a mathematician. Philosophical speculation may easily drift into Quantum Mysticism. I prefer to leave the subject to trained physicists, but I realize it's such fun to discuss it it's hard to resist. — jgill

Why would quantum mysticism be better addressed by trained physicists than by trained mystics?

However since retiring I have had time to consider other models such as "Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics" and find myself increasingly drawn to the conclusion that Physics is a flawed mirror. One that we need to understand before we can move on and be at peace with both Science and ourselves. — Chris1952Engineer

There is clearly a fundamental flaw in one of the foundational propositions of modern physics, Newton's first law. This law, the law of inertia, states a taking for granted of the temporal continuity of physical existence. An external force is required to change the internal constitution of a physical object. But if we desire to account for the reality of free willing human beings, we need to repeal this law and consider the opposite condition, that a force is required to maintain the temporal continuity of physical existence. In theology, this force which maintains temporal continuity is known as the Will of God. In understanding the need to assume the reality of this force to account for the temporal continuity of physical existence, we can understand that the temporal continuity described as inertia, is the result of an active internal force, rather than something passive requiring an external force to interfere. This accounts for the observed fact that true change comes from within.

In reality, the temporal continuity which is described by the law of inertia, and which we have come to take for granted as a brute fact, through the acceptance of this law, is not a demonstrable necessity. Therefore the temporal continuity of physical existence which we know and observe ought to be considered as a contingency. It is contingent on the internal force, inhering within every physical body, which maintains the coherency of that body. Until we replace the law of inertia with a proper understanding of this internal force (The Will of God), which acts consistently through the passage of time to maintain the coherency of physical existence, physics will always be fundamentally flawed.

I like that phrase "stimulus-independent thinking" - think about what you are doing and seeing and avoid absent minded thinking. — unenlightened

I agree, to be attentive requires a certain will to be so, one might even call this an effort. But watch out for what follows, when it comes to understanding effort may have a negative effect.

Well, doing something requires that you be attentive and concentrate on what you are doing. But understanding is not really a case of doing something, it's a passivity. So if you start making an effort to understand, as if you are making an effort to do something, the effort will go toward something which is not really understanding, and this will actually be a distraction which prevents understanding. The focus and attentiveness which is required for understanding is completely different from the focus and attentiveness which is required for doing something, understanding being something other than doing something.

I like this one:

"I understand intellectually, but I cannot put it into practice," which means, really, that you do not understand. — Krishnamurti

When we make effort to learn things, we memorize, principles, rules, orders, mathematical operations, etc.. We memorize all these things, to be able to recall them, know them, and we can actually use them in the conventional ways, without even understanding them. It's like when people talk, and say things without really understanding what they're saying. It's a matter of being able to repeat, mimic, or copy, without understanding the meaning of what is being copied.

As if you wouldnt be focused on Trump Jr. as evidence that Trump is incapable if Trump Jr. had a similar story being circulated. — Harry Hindu

Why focus on, or even look for possible misdeeds of Trump Jr., when one just needs to look at the President himself, to be overwhelmed.

if they're dead, then what we have is resurrection. — tim wood

Perhaps those doctors, who bring them back, like to think highly of themselves.

Best I could tell he's a sincere guy who has learned and skillfully articulated some insightful ideas (very similar to JK). And then a bunch of people who want a leader gather around and start chanting, "You are holy, you are wise, you are our teacher, our leader" etc. And being human, who can resist? — Hippyhead

Do you see the need for humility? The moral strength of the human being lies in the capacity to say no.

Another paper by Cramer (Foundations of Physics, 1973) specifically treating the arrow of time: — Kenosha Kid

However, there is an alternative approach which, while not in the mainstream
of contemporary theory, represents an effective way of preserving the intrinsic
time symmetry of the relativistically invariant wave equations and thereby
avoiding the ad hoc insertion of an arrow of time into the formalism. — John Cramer

Does this man seriously think that the insertion of an arrow of time is "ad hoc"?

Fart jokes have a long history. Socrates compared the philosopher to a midwife, assisting in the conception. Sometime the supposed conception turns out to be flatulence.

But what happens? Typically all that happens by this process is that the person's self identity changes from something like "I am a smart person" or "I am a sad person" to something like "I am a holy person". Some see "holy" as being a more appealing identity than smart or sad, so such a process can be popular. — Hippyhead

The better term here, rather than "I am holy", might be "I am pious". "I am holy" implies I am of great perfection and I ought to be revered, while "I am pious" implies that I have great respect for something more perfect and higher than myself.

Fart jokes wouldn't be helpful to such business agendas. — Hippyhead

Jokes go a long way in the business agenda. Ask the author of "Up your bottom line".

Whatever the case may be, if there are two mathematically different universes then detection is when a trace effect is left on the interface between the two universes. But quantum time must be in the equations somewhere. — EnPassant

The difficult challenge would be to establish the mathematical axioms required to relate the two distinct universes. How we apprehend free will becomes an important issue with much significance because if a free willing living being can make radical changes to the physical universe at a moment in time, this implies that the continuity of the physical world, as time passes, is not necessary. If this continuity, described by Newton's first law, is not necessary, then we must consider it possible that the entire physical universe is recreated at each moment of passing time, as free willing beings have the capacity to influence or interfere in this recreation.

If the continuity of time is denied in this manner, it is necessary to assume quantum time as the base of the physical universe, producing the illusion of continuous temporal existence through a succession of discrete units. However, there is still the matter of in between the discrete moments, as the in between is when real change, free will acts, and real "becoming", changes which are inconsistent with the continuity of the discrete moments in time, occur. Because "becoming" is represented as what is between the states of existence, it has traditionally been portrayed as unintelligible. However, we could gain some insight into it if we could determine the real discrete moment of time, as the fundamental unit of physical existence, rather than the the proposed Planck time which is not based in an understanding of any real wave, pulsation, or vibration.

So, what is happening here is that an n-dimensional event in quantum spacetime is projected onto the surface of a 4-dimensional physical spacetime. Say n = 10. This means 6 dimensions of information are lost because a 10 dimensional event is compressed into 4 dimensions. — EnPassant

I'd prefer to refer to what you call the "n-dimensional" as non-dimensional. Dimensions are how we understand and represent physical space. It doesn't really make sense to try and understand the non-spatial type of event in terms of dimensions. However, since it is an event, it is temporal. But this means we need to divorce time from its status as the fourth dimension of space, allowing for non-dimensional activity, and perhaps consider that the existence of time is prior to the existence of space, as evidenced by your description of this event, causing an effect in dimensional space.

1) Understanding is made of thought.

2) Thought is the source of suffering. — Hippyhead

Haven't we discussed this already? If not, you should take a good look at your proposed causal order. Clearly, suffering is prior to thought, as animals suffer before they learn how to think. So if one is the source of the other, suffering ought to be considered as the source of thought.

If I put it negatively, psychologically, I might say that the past is trauma, the present is pain, and the future is fear. Or in more neutral terms, the past is knowledge, the present is sensation, and the future is imagination. I would rather view the present as the container of past and future than the divider. The past as memory and record, the future as plan and intention, and habit the thread that joins them. — unenlightened

I generally agree with the description here, but I don't see how the present can contain the past and future, so I wouldn't agree with calling it the container of these. Instead of saying the past is knowledge and the future is imagination, I'd say that we relate to the past through knowledge, and we relate to the future through imagination, leaving a real past, and a real future which are independent of my relationship to them. This makes my presence more like something contained by the past and future, rather than the container of them, keeping me humble.

On closer examination though, it seems like I'm only contained, or constrained by the past. Imagination, plan and intention, which is how I relate to the future, allows me some degree of freedom from that containment. The degree of freedom which I actually achieve is somewhat dependent on how I apprehend my habits, which is how I relate to the present. I can see my habits as the past constraining me to act in a particular way. But, on the other hand, I can see the future as open possibilities, and I can shape my habits toward obtaining my goals. The former is "practice" in the general sense of the word, carrying out an action in an habitual way. The latter is "practice" in a stricter sense of the word, meaning to develop a skill.

But what about 'quantum time'? If the mathematics that describe change in the quantum world are different from the mathematics of change in the physical world then are there not two (space)times? Quantum time and physical time? Are the mathematics of quantum change sufficiently different from relativity to justify the idea that quantum particles live in a different spacetime? — EnPassant

This is a problem which Kenosha Kid did not seem to want to acknowledge in the other thread. I presented it as a need for two distinct concepts of space. You present it as a need for two distinct concepts of spacetime. Kenosha seems to think that the problem can be resolved by allowing for time reversal, but that's naivety.