Hi John,

Thanks for commenting. It's never a bother to hear your opinion. I'm sorry if I've ever given you the impression that it has been. If I haven't been able to properly respond to your comments in the past, it was simply because the Earth spins around every twenty-four hours, rather than thirty-six or fifty or whatever it would actually take for me to get to everything I'd like to get to in a day.

I don't know that I've ever said anything directly about your view of time, so I thought I'd try to give you a bit of a response to some of the points you bring up. First of all, saying that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the Earth rotates seems to me like a Wheelerian participatory way of thinking. I personally think the passage of time is more fundamental, and has nothing to do with our Solar System, although that's a good reference point; i.e., I don't agree with your apparent view that the Earth's rotation *causes* time to pass, but think the two coincide.

Now, regarding either the idea that the future becomes the past as time passes, or the idea that the past becomes the future: this is a common view that's taken up by "blockers" who use it in order to find inadequacy in a presentist position on temporal passage. But at it's heart, this is a five-dimensional way of thinking of becoming, which seems flawed from the get-go *because* it already views all of eternity in a sense as *existing*, and then restricts that view to a supposed present that moves through it.

As I've tried to bring out in my essay (it may help as well if you read through to the end of my first response to Israel on July 5, above), existence of anything adds a temporal dimension above and beyond the dimensions of the thing. The conception of all eternity existing adds a fifth dimension to the four dimensions of space-time, and it's this sense of existence that allows us to think of change within space-time, such as future becoming past, etc. And beginning from this view, a lot of philosophers go on to show that a description of temporal passage like the one you've given just imposes a lot of superfluous structure, so as opposed to "resolv[ing] the issues with time", I think it really does just muddle the concept up enough, leading to enough of a false conception of existence, to enable people to construct a reasonable argument *against* temporal passage.

When you say, "there is no universal flow of time" I have to take you to mean, from the surrounding text, that there is no universal perception of the flow of time. Because actually, "there is no universal flow of time" is inconsistent with "there is a universal present because there is only what exists..." By "what exists", I have to assume you mean a three-dimensional Universe that exists. If that's the right clarification of what you've written, then I agree with you.

Except I don't think that is quite your meaning, because you *are* talking about a probabilistic future existentially, as something that becomes the (existential) determined past.

Anyway, when you speak of "no need for blocktime", I'm not sure that you understand that the view has been taken as logically necessitated by other views that I'm not certain you disagree with. And just to be sure: I'm arguing for a very similar viewpoint as you, I think, but I'm doing so through analysis which takes into account various relevant aspects of the problem, rather than simply stating an opinion. I could tell you my opinions as well, and tell you that they make perfect sense because they do to me, but without offering any sort of analytical argument that considers the relevant aspects of the problem and either fits them into that view or argues why they're wrong, that isn't anything more than the trivial statement of opinions. I think that's probably where you're running into problems with others, as you've indicated that people have considered your opinion unproven or trivial. Because until you provide reason to support your claim that the Earth's rotation causes tomorrow to become yesterday, it'll remain just an opinion.

I hope this helps. You seem frustrated about not being taken seriously. I assure you that I'm just as frustrated. It's hard to get anyone to take one's ideas seriously. I don't think you've ever taken my ideas seriously.

If you do want to discuss any of this further, please feel free and I'll do my best to respond.

All the best,

Daryl

Daryl,

Thank you for responding so thoughtfully. I am a bit defensive because I suppose it doesn't seem complicated to me, though I suppose I've made it complicated by covering all bases. I only use the earth rotating as an example of what amounts to motion creating a clock. We naturally think from one day to the next, yet the actual physical process is a star shining on a rotating planet, creating a series of events and dissipating them as well. There are lots of similar clocks, such as the cycles of the moon, or the revolution of the earth around the planet. These are their own clocks, yet we cut and paste to make them all seem part of a singular flow, such as adding days to months to make 12 of them match a year, leap days, etc.

I would say I am a "presentist," except the idea of the present is time based and there is the assumption of it being a point, but there is no point because the activity does not freeze. I simply see space as occupied by activity and time is a way to measure it, just like temperature. There are lots of scalar measures which I consider falling into the category of "temperature." For example, employment statistics amount to a scalar of human activity and so are an economic temperature reading. We could no more describe physically extant reality without the effect of temperature, anymore than we could without the effect of time, yet we understand temperature is an effect of this activity, not the basis for it, because temperature is not the basis for narrative and cause and effect logic, as time is.

I'm not saying time isn't real, anymore than I would argue temperature isn't real, only that it is effect, rather than cause.

The reason I keep emphasizing how as an emergent effect, it is simply the resolution of potential by the actual events, such that while the cat's future is indeterminate, its continued existence or demise is due to what physically happens, which becomes a matter of historical record, not any extant future or past.

As to why I keep emphasizing this future becoming past, just for a moment consider Julian Barbour's winning entry in the Nature of Time contest; After pages of arguing time does not exist, he then concludes by using the principle of least action as a way to derive units of measure. "You choose in U two points - two configurations of the universe." "For this extremal curve, and in general for no other joining the fixed end points, the particles obey Newton's laws with the emergent time defined by (3). This is a timeless law; it determines a path, or history, in U . The key thing is that no time is assumed in advance. A time worthy of the name does not exist on any of the non-extremal curves. Time emerges only on the extremal curves."

Now consider this [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1480]entry[/link} in last years contest, Machian Time Is To Be Abstracted From What Change? by Edward Anderson. Anderson happens to be a FQXI large grant winner on the subject of time. From the abstract; "It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things." Ernst Mach [1]. *What* change? Three answers to this are `any change' (Rovelli), `all change' (Barbour) and my argument here for the middle ground of a `sufficient totality of locally relevant change' (STLRC) giving a generalization of the astronomers' ephemeris time."

Now you will notice that they don't view time as fundamental or even real, it seems, in Barbour's case, yet both view what to be most important, in Barbour's words, "worthy of the name," is the "measure of change!" In other words, in order to have something to calculate and treat as a dimension, it is the measure from one event to the next that matters, past to future, not the actual physical process creating that change, ie. the physical occurrence of events, by which they go from being in the future to being in the past. It would as if we viewed the reading on a thermometer as being more real than the thermodynamic activity being measured.

Hopefully this is more clear.

Dear John,

Thanks for clarifying. I have a much better idea of your position on time now, and I do mostly agree with it. Since you've indicated that you have trouble getting people to discuss the matter with you, I have some suggestions that you're free to take or leave. First of all, if you don't think the Earth's rotation causes time to pass, then you shouldn't use the word "because". You could use "as", or, since that is sometimes used in place of "because", "while" might really be the best.

But in the end, what you're doing is working out a well-oiled statement of your view, and I think simply stating that view might be the wrong way to get people to start discussing it with you. Your statement comes across as a simple doctrinaire assertion, and I know you have reasons for thinking these things, so I'd recommend starting a discussion by stating those reasons in context, rather than just your conclusions/overall opinion on the matter of time, which really doesn't provide an opening for discussion. When you state an opinion without apparent cause, and without any reasoning, whether anyone agrees with it or not, it's difficult to know how to respond, and I suspect most just won't (and you've indicated that they don't).

And finally, most importantly, while a number of people *will* agree with this position to some extent or other (as I said, I mostly do), you do need to recognise, and you need to learn to appreciate, the reasons why many people think that this basic idea of the functioning of time simply can't be correct. The most significant obstacle in the matter is surely relativity, but there are obstacles related to quantum theory, for example, *even though quantum mechanics has been historically based on a classical conception of time*. For an example of how someone might respond from that perspective, you could look at Ken Wharton's responses to me over on his essay page.

The bottom line in all of this is *reason*. If you want to convince someone that the way you view time is correct, you need to provide reason why conclusions they've drawn from physical theory could be in error, or could be interpreted another way and remain consistent with empirical evidence. For example, prior to the discovery of relativity, the ticking of clocks in all inertial frames was thought to be absolute; but Einstein showed with simple thought experiments (e.g., the one that I've used in my essay) that if the speed of light is to be constant in all inertial frames (as empirical evidence suggested) this simply can't be the case. The irrefutable reason is that the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is longer than its legs. If you're arguing in favour of presentism, amongst other things you do need to explain the flaw in Einstein's reasoning. There is no other way to convince people who've reasoned that, according to relativity, presentism is wrong.

I hope this helps. Maybe I should add that when I say I mostly agree with your position, the reason I don't completely agree with it is that I think temporal passage is a more fundamental aspect of reality that doesn't result from continuous change, or the motion of things that exist. I think change *can* occur because time passes, and that the order of that passage has to do with a very basic metrical structure--namely, the fundamental symmetry of nature. So about the order, or consistent measure of temporal passage, I don't personally think that it can be *caused by* relative change, although it's certainly evident *through* relative change. For an insightful discussion, I'd recommend reading the part of St Augustine's Confessions that deals with time. I think it's book 11. I think his discussion of the duration of syllables really illustrates this.

Best wishes,

Daryl

Daryl,

Thank you for the advice. I do get stuck in a rut on occasion. I recognized this as I made my first post and that was why it came out as it did. It was a bit of a broadside to the conversation you were having and deserved to be dismissed on procedural grounds alone. Otherwise I do try to tailer the argument to the points people raise. For instance, I think there is still some distance between your position and mine.

" I don't completely agree with it is that I think temporal passage is a more fundamental aspect of reality that doesn't result from continuous change, or the motion of things that exist."

Now if I thought in terms of sequence, rather than action, I would agree with you. Duration is a very real effect. As even Barbour states it, "from one configuration state of the universe to the next."

That is why I think making the point that it is not the present moving from one event to the next, but one event dissolving, as another comes into being, is important. That way, duration is not simply the space between two measurement points, but the very dynamic of change itself. What is occurring in the present, with the specific points of reference as fairly arbitrary.

To go back to the sun; Our concept of the analog clock evolved from the sundial. On this clock the hands represent the present moving from one unit of time to the next, around the face of the clock, just as the shadow moves around the dial. When it became a mechanical instrument on a wall, naturally the movement of the hand reflects the movement of the sun from the northern hemisphere, going left to right across the top.

Yet the reality is that it is always the present and it is the motion of the earth which creates the impression of the sun rising to the east and setting to the west.

So just as it is both the sun and the present which appear to move, it is actually the earth and the events which do move, spinning west to east and coming into form and fruition and then to fade.

I'm not sure you are seeing this, because it does contradict in a most fundamental way our physic sense of moving through and along time and it is only when we are old and have given up any sense of control over our destiny, that we can really sense time moving through us. I, for reasons of lack of control at an early age and subsequent loss of confidence in the way society seems to be going, developed some sense of my vegetative side at an early age.

Dear John,

Believe me that I do understand what you are saying. In fact, this is why I'd urge you to giving up thinking of events as things that "become" or "dissolve" or anything at all like that. Instead, I think the distinction needs to be made between what it means for something to "exist" and what it means for something to "happen". I've tried to state my position as being that the Universe---everything; which is only three-dimensional---exists. And I emphasize the word "exists", because that's where the fourth dimension enters into the description. I think that existence is a well ordered, measured duration that gives rise to the well-defined metrical structure of space-time. And what is space-time in this view? It is the set of "events", "happenings", "occurrences", that "take place" in the Universe as it exists. When we begin to think of events as "existing", we start sneaking a fifth dimension into our conception of reality, because indeed, the idea of the events of space-time as "existing" is a five-dimensional concept, just as the idea of the three-dimensional bodies in the Universe all existing is a four-dimensional concept. That's why I think your idea of events dissolving isn't the right way of looking at it. Something has to exist to dissolve. I think it's best to think of the whole three-dimensional world as existing---i.e., enduring with objectively well-defined order---and then think of events as the things that happen in it as it exists.

I hope that helps you to understand my views better.

Best regards,

Daryl

  • [deleted]

  • Post #68

Daryl,

Rather than try to convince you that it is just stuff happening in space and time is an effect of it, because duration is that train running through your head and you are not getting off into a non-linear situation, how about I just bat a question in your general direction; What are "dimensions?" Do they underlay reality as some aspect of a platonic mathematical structure, or are they a conceptual tool we first used to describe space because it takes three coordinates to locate a position and have since applied to other logical projections?

Necessarily I view it as the second, that dimensions model space about like latitude, longitude and altitude model the surface of the planet.

Since we exist as points in space and thinking requires distilling out the salient points of any feature, it made sense to think of space as this coordinate system. So we then exist in this coordinate system and experience a series of events, as our point of reference relates to its dynamic environment. This sequence then becomes the vector of time, or narrative, as it is historically known,

As a physical model of reality it has some problems, since every point experiences its own narrative dimension and space from different points of reference. Now we are in a somewhat advanced stage, in which all these individual time vectors are plotted out in the four dimensional geometry of spacetime, like a novel with multiple plot lines. The problem is that to make it work, the entire dynamic function and any sense of a universal present has had to be removed, leaving blocktime, as though the entire novel and every event in it are sitting there on the shelf for eternity.

Is there another way to do this? I propose we simply have space as an infinite void and because it has no physical attributes, is necessarily inert. This can theoretically be measured by centrifugal force in space, since the rate of rotation by a frame against inertia can be measured. In this space is a convective cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass. Time only emerges from this action when we put reference points in this activity and can chart and model sequence, because there is no past or future, so no duration from one to the other.

Regards,

John

Thanks for the question, John!

Recall from Tom's essay last year:

"Only with the development of analytical geometry were we able to identify relations between numerically distant points and a local coordinate system." Similarly, only through the development of relativity theory have we been able to accurately identify the relationship between different events and a local space-time metric. Space-time specifically has four-dimensional Lorentzian metrical structure. As I said, I don't think time is just an effect of things happening in space, because space-time does appear to have this objective metrical structure, through which events are just as well ordered in time as they are in space. While I naively define my notion of "existence" as another dimension in my concept of an n-dimensional thing that exists (i.e., I think that's an (n+1)-dimensional concept), I think this is a more formal definition.

You asked "Is there another way to do this?" and I think the Machian spirit of relativity needs to be completely abandoned and replaced by a Newtonian one. I think all that needs to be done is to adopt an objective cosmic rest-frame, as per the evidence, and interpret relativistic solutions geometrically, keeping consistent track of that, rather than in the usual abstract topological way, which considers that the coordinates have no immediate metrical significance.

I know we disagree on this one point, but I can see that our views are otherwise in agreement, as we both think all that's real is three-dimensional space that exists. Perhaps I, more than you, consider space-time as an accurate description of the events that occur in space, though. With this in mind, my question to you is: are you able to appreciate anything about the arguments in my essays that are meant to support this view over the interpretation that relativity most objectively implies a block universe view of reality?

By the way, thanks for the discussion! I've been enjoying it.

Daryl

Daryl,

I'm not doubting that spacetime provides an accurate "placement" of the events that occur in space. What it misses is that foundational dynamic which creates the change being measured in the first place.

And that space(sans time) is the objective cosmic restframe.

It is just that I do lean toward the Machian view, that it is only the motion of the activity, not a Newtonian underlaying "flow" of time.

If we accept dynamical activity in space, it provides the change without any additional dimensionality. Otherwise what is the physics of a flow from past to future, presumably along the vector of possible events, whether deterministically singular, or the multiworlds of potential options? Doesn't this imply some form of blocktime, in which the potential of these events are some form for the energy of what is present to fill, like banks of a river to guide the water? Otherwise without that fifth dimensional guide, it is just the changing/evolving forms of the energy, resulting in a probabilistic future, a dynamic present and a determined past.

You are welcome and thanks for accepting my logic at face value.

John

Dear John,

Sorry for the delay. Of course I agree with your second and third sentences, and I'm glad that we're clear on the first.

It's actually that first point that convinces me that absolute duration has to be a fundamental property of the Universe, just as Newton defined it. Without that basic bit of structure, I don't think it would be possible to describe the speed of light as being the same value in all inertial frames of reference, etc. I think the background structure is necessary to recover the consistent ordered measure that we perceive in reality.

I really do recommend reading the time part in St Augustine's Confessions, because I think he really hit the nail on the head on this point in particular. His discussion of whether a day would seem as long if the Sun were to complete its orbit in half the time, and his discussion of the different lengths of syllables, I think really drive this point home.

Best regards,

Daryl

Daryl,

What if you have space as an absolute reference frame, in which the speed of light is the limit at which all mass constituent energy has been converted into velocity? Then any clock, being a measure of internal motion, is reduced by a comparable amount, as its velocity is increased, such that any clock moving above absolute inertia will record time at a slower rate, thus making the speed of light comparable in any frame. A way to theoretically measure this would be that since gravity and velocity slow the clock rate, if we were to distribute clocks in various positions and action around in space and could measure their rate to near infinite precision, the fastest clock would the closest to universal inertia. That way it would be due to the interaction of space and energy, with time as effect.

I should read alot more, but the whole time and focus thing.... This contest is currently taking much of what I possess of both.

Daryl,

One point to consider is that the vector, duration, is a measure of activity. You are starting the measure at one point in the process, such as the top of a cycle and finishing it at a following point, so what is being measured is an aspect the activity as it occurs. You are not moving along that vector, rather it is occurring. This is very similar to what we measure with temperature, a scalar quantity of activity. Think about how these two are similar to frequency and amplitude.

Dear John,

It seems to me what you're really proposing is that 3D space, or the Universe--which we both agree constitutes all of reality--has absolute properties relating to motion, etc., of the things in it, and that time passes when those things move.

Aside from your thinking that this motion, etc., could actually be the cause of time's passage, I agree with this, inasmuch as I think of 3D space as being real and having certain such properties relating to its existence. In fact, I'd almost be willing to say that as long as we can agree that these properties conspire to produce space-time, as the well-ordered metical description of events that occur in the Universe as it exists, then I'm less concerned about whether the measured passage of time should be chalked up to motion and all that, or absolute passage. That's not to say that I'm not interested in what the actual cause is, but that simply for practical purposes I'm glad that you seem to agree with me that the Universe must have some fundamental property that leads to consistent temporal passage, so that it's not all just willy-nilly.

But with that said, I'm only *almost* willing to agree that the motion of things through the Universe would cause time to pass in this very consistent, uniform manner, because I just can't get past feeling that nothing could ever move about and conspire to be the cause of anything if it didn't *exist* in the first place. And that sense of existence--of things in space simply enduring, regardless of whether they *remain* (in time) in one place--is what I see as a fundamental aspect of change, rest, the passage of time, and the occurrence of all events.

I'm not thinking of this as some vector projected into some aethereal dimension, but simply as an absolute passage of time that's taking place everywhere throughout space consistently, and in such a manner that the local passage of time that occurs when things move about through space in time, is less than the absolute passage, in a geometrically well-defined way.

If you think of the barograph example in my last essay, there really isn't any vector of flow through anything, but just an ordered duration of space and everything in it. And the way space-time fits into that picture, as it's being physically traced out onto a sheet of paper that scrolls along beneath the barograph pens, is very much like your idea of an uncertain future becoming a certain past. If we strip away all the unreal paper, etc., in that second dimension, leaving only the things that exist in space, there's no vector; there's just space, existing, with time passing in an ordered way.

But anyway, I think you do agree with most of this. The only difference that I'm seeing is that I think things first of all have to exist if they could ever move, etc., whereas you're wanting the motion of things to be the fundamental cause of their existence. It seems like a real chicken-and-egg problem to me.

Cheers,

Daryl

Daryl,

"The only difference that I'm seeing is that I think things first of all have to exist if they could ever move, etc., whereas you're wanting the motion of things to be the fundamental cause of their existence."

I would certainly admit to a materialist instinct. The problem is that if they are not moving, these apparently very small constituent particles are not connecting and so there is no larger emergent reality. If you simply freeze motion absolutely, down to the quantum level, reality as we know it would simply vanish, even if the dynamic energy were converted to mass. M=E/c2

One thing to keep in mind about temperature is that these particles, atomic, molecular, workforce, planetary, etc. are trading energy around, so it is not simply a statistical average, but a localized entropic state. Think Bose-Einstein state. Think flocks of birds swarming and swirling.

Now think of what I said about time and temperature as frequency and amplitude. Consider that you can't have one without the other, or they would be a multiple of zero. Now consider this in terms of my prior point about how freezing motion would effectively erase reality. If you have a temperature of absolute zero, or time as a dimensionless point, you essentially multiply reality by zero. So, yes, I very much agree time is an essential feature of reality, but as a measure of the change.

What spacetime does, is correlate measures of duration with distance, using light as the medium. Could we do the same with ideal gas laws and argue volume and temperature are really just different parameters of the same space? Expand the volume and the temperature will drop and vice versa. The premise of the cosmic background radiation is based on that.

As for the barograph, remember the needle, representing the dynamic moment, stays in one place, while it is the paper, representing the changing circumstances, which go past the needle. This is how the process of time is actually working, underneath our quite natural constant anticipation of the future. If the clock worked like that, the hand would remain motionless and the face would turn counterclockwise, like it is the sun that stays rooted and the earth that rotates. Like the paper, the past is physically unreal, but it is conceptually emergent.

"... Like the paper, the past is physically unreal, but it is conceptually emergent."

John, I'm really glad you've understood my example so well! I think that fits in with your view so well, as that last paragraph illustrates.

I'm just not there with you on the chicken and the egg thing, but I do think it's a worthwhile problem to think about, and I think you're asking interesting questions (e.g., I do think time would pass if everything were perfectly still, but it would be impossible for everything to be perfectly still, so there's no way of verifying that. On the other hand, there's always *something* in motion, so why not suggest as you do...).

In the meantime, however, I think it's good to be mindful of the more immediate problem, that most people think there can't be an objective Now, and that reality consists of the past, present, and future, without objective distinction. I think we have to get through on that point first, and start making headway from there, before it will be possible to answer these more fundamental problems.

Daryl,

Consider for a moment that it would be every bit as conceptually difficult to imagine nothing moving, as it would no passage of time. Life and imagination depend on both, not to mention temperature.

As for getting others to consider this, I think it will be a matter of when the time is right. Yes, string and M theory and susy are starting to look shaky and they are the upper floors of this edifice. I think over the next several years, not only will a lot more, such as Big Bang cosmology and all the associated patches start to be questioned, but there will build a social reaction within the field, as recent and new graduates understand raising significant questions about where it is going will determine their futures. FQXI has certainly circled around the issue of time since it started and I see it as the essential issue. As I pointed out in the 7/9; 3:57 post, the measure of duration is incorporated into this 4 dimensional geometry that is supposedly causal, allowing expanding universes, etc, but it would be like treating a temperature reading as more fundamental than the actual thermodynamics.

No telling who will get any recognition for this, so it seems we just have to keep chipping away and see what the non-linear results will be.

I do think though, we can put time entirely in the category of effect, if we think of it in terms of change.

Regards,

John

Daryl,

I was looking at your title again and I thought I'd point out that unlike a ruler, a clock has two parts, hands, representing present and face, representing events, so one is the denominator and one is the numerator. With the current system, the events are the denominator and thus the present is factored into them, therefore each event is its own present, but if we look at it the other way, with the present as the denominator, then the events have to be factored into that and there is only one present in which all events either manifest, or don't happen.

Ah, John that's where I have to strongly disagree. I think it's conceptually very simple to think of nothing moving, but it's impossible to imagine nothing existing. Even thinking of a single slice, an instant, in all of eternity, brings up thoughts of it as existing in my mind. I actually think that's where all the trouble in understanding the block universe model comes in--because it's impossible to think of without surreptitiously imagining it in some sense as existing. In contrast, it's incredibly simple to think of something as just existing, not moving at all through space. I can think of a rock, or whatever. I know that that rock is full of atoms and subatomic particles that *actually* are moving, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm able to naively think of it as being completely still.

The best way I think I've ever heart the passage of time expressed was by Seneca:

"Our bodies are hurried along like flowing waters; every visible object accompanies time in its flight; of the things which we see, nothing is fixed. Even I..., as I comment on this change, am changed myself. This is just what Heraclitus says: 'We go down twice into the same river, and yet into a different river.' For the stream still keeps the name, but the water has already flowed past. Of course this is much more evident in rivers than in human beings. Still, we mortals are also carried past in no less speedy a course;... the universe, too, immortal and enduring as it is, changes and never remains the same. For though it has within itself all that it has had, it has it in a different way from that in which it has had it; it keeps changing its arrangement."

It's worth reading a couple of times to understand how he's using the river metaphor. It's at best a loose comparison, because time doesn't actually flow through any existing space like a river does. The river *mostly* provides a useful means of recognising the passage of time, because the water is moving, so it's obviously changing. But the same passage is still there in all things, with the same measure, no matter whether they're moving or not.

Therefore, when you conclude with "I do think though, we can put time entirely in the category of effect, if we think of it in terms of change" I just have to completely disagree, because the passage of time lies at the heart of change. Nothing can change if it doesn't exist. As for the title, time *is* the denominator of existence, because to *exist* is to be somewhere over a period of time. Whether that "somewhere" is changing as time passes or not, the thing is existing; and in your view and mine, *absolute time* passes everywhere with the same measure, whether or not local measures of time pass differently due to a body's arbitrary motion through space. That time, *absolute time*, is the denominator of "existence", and all the events that occur just happen, and all information simply comes into existence or fades from it as time passes.

I forgot to add, at the end of the first paragraph: I can think of *something* as being completely still, and by superposition I can imagine an entire universe in which nothing at all is moving. With no photons moving about, nothing would be seen, etc., etc., but that doesn't change the fact that I can imagine it, whereas I simply can't think of anything at all without thinking of it in some sense as existing.

Actually, I can say that better--about the quote, I mean. It's worth reading a couple of times in order to see that he is using the river example in two ways. He himself is using it as a metaphor for the flow of time, and he says that's how Heraclitus uses it---but he doesn't, does he? Heraclitus is using the river as a benchmark for recognising temporal passage, because of the fact that it *is* changing. Every time we go down to the river it's obviously changed; it's different. But what Seneca notices, which was surely Heraclitus' point, although we've only got the fragment, is that *everything* is changing in the same way: it's all existing, whether it's moving or not; and that sense of "change" is uniform--the even passage, or duration, of absolute time.