Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?

Easy, easy on the ism's. Simplicity...simplicity is what it is all about, not complexity. We must find a simple description of reality that reveals reality for what it is but does not lock us into space and motion as typically conceived.

You have a nice conceptual model...but now you need to close the loop and bring it back onto itself. There is no grandfather paradox because the universe is in decay or shrinkage and that slight decay points time in the right direction.

Decay time is simply a notion that closes the universe. Decay determines all force and is the arrow of time. Decay also is the ultimate clock that tells us when it is all over.

We observe past times only as fossil objects that tell us time. That means that the past is only a memory and not really a timeline of possible futures. We think of time as continuous, but we only sense time delays for objects and from those time delays, we predict the universe.

Steve you wrote "We observe past times only as fossil objects that tell us time. That means that the past is only a memory and not really a timeline of possible futures." Yet Steve, as we form our present experience from the sensory data we receive, it is, while still in the environment, the pre-written future. Data that can become present experience but not yet received. So both past in the sense that the substantial events have occurred and are no more but not yet observed and so not yet present experience and not yet memory. There might be a Supernova event but we would not experience it until the sensory data reaches the Earth. This also allows non simultaneity of events, one observer can receive sensory data before another. So what is past for one may yet still be the pre-written future of another. Think of a thunder storm for near and far observers.

The order actualization, data, manifestation, memory is important.

I'm not sure what you mean by decay or shrinkage or closing the universe. There is no stopping it. The Object universe in motion continues in motion. Certainly there is ongoing change giving the foundational passage of time but it is as much re-organisation as dis-organisation, assembly as much if not more than dis-assembly and destruction as can be seen in the complexity and scale of the structures within the visible universe and life on Earth.

There are two imaginary arrows of time as I see it neither correlated with decay. The one that is the sequence of change of the Object universe from oldest to youngest iteration. The youngest in the sequence of configurations being where change happens, the causality front. This one is the actual changes of the relations between matter (and particles) of the Object universe giving new configurations which is an irreversible arrow of time.

The other imaginary arrow is the experienced arrow if time which is at its most basic the order of receipt of sensory data from which experience is fabricated, though the brain does adjust the timing of the outputs from the accumulated data to give consistent causality stories. ( As described by David Eagleman.) This arrow is theoretically reversible if the speed of the observer exceeds the speed of production of the sensory data. I suggested an experiment using sound and microphone bullets as proof of principle in my essay. With data receipt in reverse the output experienced would be reversed. Of course this is not travelling back in time as the reversal experience happens within the uni-temporal Object universe with unchanging passage of time.

Thank you for appreciating the "conceptual model", I call it an explanatory framework as it gives a structure within which physics occurs. Reality in the context of Physics - Webs (Realityinphysicswebs.com)

There are many possible futures and not just one pre-written future.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 28, 2015 @ 08:14 GMT: "As we form our present experience from the sensory data we receive, it is, while still in the environment, the pre-written future. Data that can become present experience but not yet received."

This is a perspective or a different point of view. An object can appear quite different from different perspectives and to different people. Those differences include differences in time delay, but there still is no path to a past event and therefore there is no grandfather paradox.

"So both past in the sense that the substantial events have occurred and are no more but not yet observed and so not yet present experience and not yet memory. There might be a Supernova event but we would not experience it until the sensory data reaches the Earth. This also allows non simultaneity of events, one observer can receive sensory data before another. So what is past for one may yet still be the pre-written future of another. Think of a thunder storm for near and far observers."

You seem to say that time exists without objects, but you can only know about time through objects. Time is what you sense about an object and so you necessarily only sense the past since that is how an object is put together. We predict the future based on a superposition of possible futures for an object.

"I'm not sure what you mean by decay or shrinkage or closing the universe. There is no stopping it. The Object universe in motion continues in motion. Certainly there is ongoing change giving the foundational passage of time but it is as much re-organisation as dis-organisation, assembly as much if not more than dis-assembly and destruction as can be seen in the complexity and scale of the structures within the visible universe and life on Earth."

The single dimension of atomic time is completely reversible and it is that reversibility that confuses a foundational passage of time. In our practical world, there are plenty of arrows that point time for us and so we never are confused about the direction of time. The earth rotates at once per day and that rotation period slows by 0.28 ppb/yr and so the day provides our period and its decay points us to one of many possible futures.

To close the universe, time needs both the cycle of the day and its very slow decay as well. The universe of objects are always changing and motion emerges from some of those changes.

"There are two imaginary arrows of time as I see it neither correlated with decay. The one that is the sequence of change of the Object universe from oldest to youngest iteration. The youngest in the sequence of configurations being where change happens, the causality front. This one is the actual changes of the relations between matter (and particles) of the Object universe giving new configurations which is an irreversible arrow of time."

You and I are both growing older and our time arrows are directly correlated with decay. Growth from birth occurs before we eventually decay with age, and that theme replays again and again as a part of the overall decay of matter. Matter bonds to other matter and those bonds release light in the overall decay of matter that is what drives the universe to one of its many possible futures.

"The other imaginary arrow is the experienced arrow if time which is at its most basic the order of receipt of sensory data from which experience is fabricated, though the brain does adjust the timing of the outputs from the accumulated data to give consistent causality stories. ( As described by David Eagleman.) This arrow is theoretically reversible if the speed of the observer exceeds the speed of production of the sensory data."

Once again, these are just issues of perspective and do not violate any causal principle. An object can grow by accumulating matter or it can shrink by losing matter, but the overall time arrow is never confused if we have a universe in slow decay.

Steve thank you for your reply.

I agree that there is not just one pre-written future. The pre-written future refers to the EM and other sensory data within the environment that must first be received by an observer in order to fabricate present experience. However this explanatory framework does not suppose that that data got into the environment at the beginning of time and lasts there perpetually. Instead there are actualized substantial bodies in the foundational reality from which EM radiation is emitted or reflected which are the Source for the pre-written future data pool. There is also an unwritten future, that breaks the complete determinism of block time type models. The Future is a concept of events and things existing beyond what is and what is occurring Now. In this explanatory framework it is unwritten, which is to say does not exist. As there is only what exists at uni-temporal Now, the future is entirely open as regards the arrangements and relations that might evolve. The constrains being the laws of physics and how they pertain to the existing structure, the forces within it and momentum across the sequence of changing configurations.

You wrote "You seem to say that time exists without objects, but you can only know about time through objects." I'm sorry if I somehow gave that impression. There are two different kinds of time that are of prime importance. One is passage of time due to change in configuration of the Object universe, absolute same time everywhere in the Object universe.That requires objects in order to be a configuration of them. The other is perceived passage of time from the receipt of sensory data, which is relativistic, as it takes different times for sensory data to arrive according to position and relative motion compared to the source/s. This time also requires Source objects to provide the sensory data, as it was not all put into the universe at the beginning of time.(Sensory data can be provided as signals such as TV and VR and the observer can use that data source to create the observed manifestations.But these signals too were not placed in the environment at the beginning of time but have required the existence of substantial matter for their creation.)

Steve,

I think your choice of the word decay gives an overly bleak connotation which may be unintentional. The growth arrow and the "decay" arrow are pointed in the same direction one might say. Creative process can be both additive and subtractive, though additive processes may be more easily likened to growth they can also add to increasing malfunction of complex organisms. Such as addition of methyl bonds to DNA, Advanced Glycation End products cross linking proteins and addition of tangles and plaque to brains. These are chemical processes like any other but which result in outcomes that are not beneficial. I would say the gradual creation of a non viable organism from a viable is not decay but just the result of creative processes with a result we dislike, ageing and eventual death.

You wrote " An object can grow by accumulating matter or it can shrink by losing matter, but the overall time arrow is never confused if we have a universe in slow decay." With uni-temporal time whatever happens whether an additive or subtractive process it alters the configuration of the universe and becomes part of the new existing configuration. Even if a part of the arrangement reverts to a former arrangement it is always a part of the new youngest configuration of the Object universe. This gives one way only foundational unitemporal OR-Time.

As usual, you are much better attuned to the subtleties of language than am I. Decay is a harsh word, but I have not yet found one better.

Both gravity and charge forces are attractive and together they result in the decay of matter into light. The decay of the universe is simply a reflection of the overall attraction of matter to itself. The fusion of hydrogen into helium is a part of life and the gravity containment of hydrogen enables that thermal energy.

It seems really crazy to have a universe that is obviously accretive and then have it expand because of the Hubble red shift. Instead, I prefer a different interpretation for the Hubble red shift and therefore a shrinking or decaying universe.

Preceding decay is always growth and that is the cycle of life...growth and decay. However, the driving force for both growth and decay has to be decay because decay provides the attractive driver for all force.

Hi Steve,

thank you for further explaining your use of the word decay. Do you mean it to refer just to getting light from matter? Work in energy out? You wrote "Preceding decay is always growth and that is the cycle of life...growth and decay. However, the driving force for both growth and decay has to be decay because decay provides the attractive driver for all force." Can you explain this some more? All force?

You wrote"It seems really crazy to have a universe that is obviously accretive and then have it expand because of the Hubble red shift. Instead, I prefer a different interpretation for the Hubble red shift and therefore a shrinking or decaying universe." Your own interpretation of the Hubble red shift would be interesting to hear.

As I see it: The expanding universe that is observed is an emergent fabrication from received sensory data it is not the substantial universe existing -Now. The visible universe is Image including optical distortions, and artistic renderings. For very distant parts of the image the substantial Source objects no longer exist. So there is no physical relationship between the source object and receiver. What does exist is the relationship between the near EM and receiver. The Earth and Hubble are not stationary but in motion rotating and orbiting the Sun and moving with the solar system. That combined turning and orbiting motion makes me think that they are always moving away from the sensory data that is approaching, the receivers are not stationary. Though it feels stationary to us the Earth is moving very fast relative to the Sun. That makes more sense to me than all of the stars moving away.It should be possible to calculate whether that works. Perhaps the calculation has already been done. It would be interesting to me to know if that possibility has already been ruled out.

A few thoughts: The red shift may have to do with the rotations of the Earth and Hubble,altering the relationship to the incoming data. The greater red shift of galaxies outside the milky way could be due to the speed of the Earth's rotation with the Milky way. With each increase in scale there is more motion of the receiver to incorporate. The increasing apparent expansion of the (visible) universe could be due to the increase in speed of the Earth with changing relationship to the rest of the mass within the galaxy.

Decay really has two components for light and for all objects as well; what is called homogeneous decay is a pure dephasing process while inhomogeneous decay is an energy transfer or loss from a state.

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 2, 2015 @ 08:13 GMT, "Thank you for further explaining your use of the word decay. Do you mean it to refer just to getting light from matter? Work in energy out? You wrote "Preceding decay is always growth and that is the cycle of life...growth and decay. However, the driving force for both growth and decay has to be decay because decay provides the attractive driver for all force." Can you explain this some more? All force?"

You are referring here to energy loss type of decay, but with a closed universe, energy or matter can not be lost or decay inhomogeneously. Pure dephasing occurs with transfer of phase alone and a laser pulse trapped in a cavity can seem to disappear due to pure dephasing. As long as the phase memory persists, that pulse can reappear if the conditions are right for rephasing and this technique is used all of the time in NMR spectroscopy with radiowaves. It is also used with visible light and lasers as well.

You do ask really good questions and I realize now that I have not made this simple notion very clear for civilians who are not well versed in spectroscopy.

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 2, 2015 @ 08:13 GMT, "You wrote 'It seems really crazy to have a universe that is obviously accretive and then have it expand because of the Hubble red shift. Instead, I prefer a different interpretation for the Hubble red shift and therefore a shrinking or decaying universe.' Your own interpretation of the Hubble red shift would be interesting to hear."

Closing the universe with a universal decay necessarily means the very slow variation of a set of constants as we look back in time. Early galaxy appear red shifted because c, h, and alpha all varied together and of course, looking back in time, there is more mass in those distant galaxies as well. Ironically, though, gravity and charge forces are weaker in the early universe despite there being more mass.

The notion of a variation of constants over time is then consistent with the Hubble red shift, but such a theory must be consistent with the observed variation of alpha, the fine structure constant. Alpha does appear to vary looking back in time, but it is actually alpha^2 that science measures in distant galaxy spectra, not really alpha. Suffice it to say, I have addressed the variation of alpha as well in my matter time theory.

The variation of these constants looking back in time means that the universe itself acts like a spherical lens and distorts the apparent sizes of distant galaxies. Just like gravitational lenses change how distant galaxies appear by gravitational time delay of light, the lens of universal time delay also distorts the apparent size of the early universe.

A subject worth discussion, is the question of what `now` means, in relation to the nature of time.

Hi Akinbo,

Yes, we are permanently in the `now`.

"Can `now` cease to exist?" No.

The Earth has been around for a long time. The whole of that time, it`s been in the `now`.

There is no such `thing` as time. We can look at `now`, as `nothing`, rather than as a situation of `time passing`.

What is really going on, is that duration is elapsing.

Jim,

"Can `now` cease to exist?" You said No.

If the Universe perishes in a Big Crunch, will there still be a 'now' after the event?

Before the universe emerged from nothing in a Big bang, was there a 'now'?

Unless you are of the view that the Universe is eternal, I believe 'now' can perish.

Regards,

Akinbo

Time is an emergent property of change, and change is built into the equation.

The Universe is an iterated function system (IFS), and it is the iteration process that generates change. One cannot undo change any more than one can undo an iteration. This is the reason for the "arrow of time". This is the reason for evolution. Time is an emergent property of change and endless undoable change is built into the equation. That is it. Mystery solved.

Hello dear Ms Fractalwoman,

Could you develop please a little,Id like to know more if you want well.

Do you consider this time like irreversible linked with the entropical Arrow of time respecting our second law of thermodynamics or reversibleconsidering the mathematical extrapolations of geometrical algebras breaking our symmetries?

Regards

The only way to look at it is philosophically. It will not make any sense to say it's emergent. That's just a fancy way of not knowing.

So philosophically, If God decides to create beings to share in his existence he might want them to *Grow instead of just *Know.

There might not be a reason for Time if we just Know everything. But to have Thoughts move and build in a physical world that moves- with things to discover that can be stored in memory as to draw on them and formulate ideas....well thats a reason for Time. Especially a blank slate--- a mind designed to bring forth Questions, Premises, so conclusions can be made, stored, and brought forth again to be combined with other conclusions in order to form even more complex ideas and if the person is not crippled by Bias.....Truth.

None of this is possible without free will. We collect, accept or reject, collect, store, grow and repeat until we are the person we chose to be. Time allows us ultimately reveal ourselves but it also allows us to change

Let us just assume that time is a property in our universe. We can look at time as entropical , perception in our brain, measurements in atomic clocks, relativistic as per Einstein, absolute as per Newton etc. But what is real time ? Measurements of time by atomic clocks does not qualify time. Satellite time is not earth based lab time and we require GPS correction. But do you believe time dilates or rather tuned atomic clocks just vary their ticks/frequency due to change of gravity/reference frame. Here time is dilating or our measurement is dilating? We say time is a measurement between two events. Here comes the question of rate of flow from one event to another event. Event is changing due to a entropy gradient as cause and effect is a new event. Here the rate of flow may vary if the gradient pressure varies as we see in flow of water. If nothing changes in this universe, then does it mean that time stops or flows . Is there any universal absolute time or even multi- universal absolute time? We sometime perceive time differently. A week on vacation at a sea resort goes quickly than a week in a sea voyage. All matter and material in our universe is in motion and there is no absolute rest. As such we may not know absolute time , but that does not mean absolute time never exists. Therefore we have to be happy with only reflections of absolute time in various perspectives of entropy or relativistic or in our perception or in measurement by atomic clocks etc etc. When reality is impossible in a universe of reflections which is a variable from point to point ,then I do not know what can be done except imagining an absolute time.

There is a paper posted to ResearchGate.net and to Academia.edu that reports the identification of the basis of time in the universe. The paper provides the answers to the questions, What is time?, Why does time occur?, and Why does time have the specific qualities that it has?

People have been wondering about the nature of time for thousands of years. Nevertheless, no one has ever been able to find the basis of time in the universe. There is a specific reason for this--it is not possible to discover what time is by examining the observable qualities of time.

Trying to find the basis of time by way of the qualities of time is a top-down process. The problem is that those qualities do not reveal what time is or why it occurs.

I did not find the basis of time intentionally. I was not then working on the question of time. Rather I was studying space, specifically the continuing-existence of space. (This is the continuing-existence of space as measured by a clock, not the extension of three-dimensional space as measured by a ruler.)

While looking at space, I came upon the basis of time unexpectedly--by way of a bottom-up approach.

My work involves developing methodology for discipline-spanning transdisciplinary understanding that enhances communication between the disciplines. To develop the methodology it is necessary to examine and compare the real-world subject matters of the various disciplines.

When listing the intrinsic qualities of the continuing-existence of space, for transdisciplinary purposes, it became evident that these qualities of an aspect of space were the same as the qualities that can realistically be attributed to time.

In the universe, spatial-continuing-existence plays all the roles of time, and is thereby the basis of time in the universe

Spatial-continuing-existence is time due to the general role of spatial-continuing-existence in the universe. This role is a consequence of the role in the universe of space itself.

In the real-world, space can be observed to exist as extensional three-dimensional immaterial place. Spatial-place provides an existential-context, a place-to-be, for all that exists. For example, matter occupies, exists in, spatial-place. The three-dimensional extensional qualities of matter occupy the three-dimensional extension of spatial-place.

Continuing-existence is a form of change. The general role of spatial-continuing-existence is that it provides an existential-context, a place-to-occur, for all forms of change. All forms of ongoing change occur in concert, simultaneously, with the continuously ongoing change-existential-context provided by the continuing-existence of the spatial-place in which those changes are occurring.

The reason I keep referring to the universe, and to roles in the universe, is because the discussion here, and in the paper, is not about concepts. It is about the reality-referents of concepts. It is not about the concept of time. It is about time itself. Concepts are recognized to be mental tools that are used by the mind to achieve understanding of the world outside the mind, outside the brain.

Regards,

Vincent Vesterby

thegeneralist@themoderngeneralist.com

ResearchGate: The Identification of the Intrinsic Nature of Time

Academia: The Identification of the Intrinsic Nature of Time

Cannot get the links to work. will try again.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299437469_The_Identification_of_the_Intrinsic_Nature_of_Time

https://www.academia.edu/21710898/The_Identification_of_the_Intrinsic_Nature_of_Time

Regarding the flow of time, Davies is correct, time does not flow.

The analogy between a flowing river and time probably originated because it was recognized that both the river and time are cases of continuous ongoing change.

This analogy, however, introduces a significant confusion because the ongoing change of flowing involves movement of matter, but the ongoing change of time does not involve matter or motion. Flow and time are significantly different forms of change.

With the flowing river part of the analogy there is the river flowing along between its banks. There is a specific place on the bank, usually with a person standing there watching the river flow by. In the analogy the place where the person is standing represents the present, where the water is currently flowing by. The water upstream represents the future because it has not yet reached the person on the bank. The water downstream from the person represents the past because it has already passed by the person.

In the analogy, the water is flowing with respect to a specific location on the bank. The flow upstream is the future because it has not yet arrived at the specific location on the bank. The flow currently passing by that location is the continuously changing present. And the flow downstream is the past because it has passed that location.

This analogy is clear--the water flows with respect to a location on the bank which represents the present.

Davies gives a confused misinterpreted version of the analogy. He said, "In other words, it [the water] moves with respect to time."

That is wrong. It completely confuses the point of the analogy. But it does give Davies the opportunity to say, "But time can't move with respect to time--time is time."

This sophistry is Davies' way to eliminate the concept of time as a flowing form of change (which is a valid objective).

The problem here is that Davies does not know what time is, why time occurs, or why time has the specific qualities (properties) that it has, such as what kind of change time is. He does not know what constitutes the basis of time in the universe.

The important point here is that it is necessary to know what kind of change time is in order to know why time is not a flow.

Davies' comments about why time is not a flow are speculation.

_________________________________________________________________

Recognition of the basis of time in the universe--recognizing what time is--removes the need for speculation, and makes it possible to understand what kind of change time is.

The use of the type of transdisciplinary methodology that results in multi-discipline-spanning understanding and that enhances communication among the disciplines revealed the basis of time in the universe from a bottom-up approach. Using transdisciplinary methodology to investigate the intrinsic nature of space revealed that the intrinsic qualities of the continuing-existence of space are the same as the qualities that can be realistically attributed to time. It became evident that spatial-continuing-existence plays all the roles in the universe that are commonly thought of as temporal roles.

(This is the continuing-existence of space as measured by a clock, not the extension of three-dimensional space as measured by a ruler.)

Spatial-continuing-existence, was being studied and described before it was realized that it was the basis of time.

When the realization occurred that spatial-continuing-existence was the basis of time, it became evident why the basis of time in the universe had not been previously recognized. Viewing the known qualities of time does not lead to the understanding that spatial-continuing-existence is that basis. The basis of time could only be discovered inadvertently, by a bottom-up approach, by studying the basis and describing it, and only then recognizing that it is the basis.

Once it is known what time is, what form of ongoing change it is, then it is possible to understand why time is not a flow.

Spatial-continuing-existence is the form of change by which time occurs. So what kind of change is continuing-existence? Why is continuing-existence a form of change?

This is a form of change that is not much discussed.

(The following discussion is not about concepts. It is about the reality-referents of concepts. It is not about the concepts of space or spatial-continuing-existence. It is about space itself and spatial-continuing-existence as they exist as intrinsic qualities of the universe. Concepts are recognized to be mental tools that are used by the mind to achieve understanding of the world outside the mind. The discussion avoids abstraction and all forms of speculation from presuppositions and assumptions to hypotheses and theories.)

The human visual sense has evolved such that it can detect the presence of space.

When looking at space, it can be seen that space is there, and that it continues to be there.

It can be observed that spatial-continuing-existence is a continuance of being-there.

Continuing-existence is a form, a type, of continuance.

All forms of continuance have parts, for example, a limited form of continuance has a beginning part, a middle part, and a final part, as occurs with a broom handle from the upper end down to the lower end, or as occurs with a single rotation of the earth.

The parts of a continuance occur sequentially, each part occurring after the previous part and before the following part.

_________________________________________________________________

With the case of the broom handle, all the sequential parts are there together--it is possible to see them all together at the same time, the full length of the handle.

Each part is individually unique--the upper part, the middle part, and the lower part--each sequentially different from a following part or from a prior part.

With the broom handle, the parts are sequentially different, coexistent, and constitute a situation of coexistent-sequential-difference.

With the case of the rotating earth, the sequentially occurring parts of a rotation are not there together--it is not possible to see them all together at the same time, the full rotation from beginning to end.

Each part of the rotation--the first part, the middle part, and the final part--is individually unique, sequentially different from a following part and from a prior part.

With the rotation of the earth, the parts are sequentially different, are not sequentially coexistent, and constitute a situation of noncoexistent-sequential-difference.

_________________________________________________________________

With the coexistent-sequential-difference that exists along the handle of a broom, there is difference from place to place, but there is no occurrence of change.

With the noncoexistent-sequential-difference that occurs from part to part with rotation, the difference that occurs does so in the form of change.

As with rotation, flow and spatial-continuing-existence are cases of noncoexistent-sequential-difference in which the difference that occurs does so in the form of change.

_________________________________________________________________

When observing the broom handle--the full length of it, all the coexistent parts simultaneously--there is no ontological difference occurring, no existential changes occurring. All the parts are sequentially there together, and they remain there together.

When observing rotation, flow, and the continuing-existence of space--the noncoexistent sequence of the parts--ontological difference occurs, existential change occurs. The parts occur noncoexistently, and are not there together.

When the current part is there, the previous part no longer exists and the following part has not yet come into existence.

The part of the rotation, the flow, or the continuing-existence of space that is occurring currently is noncoexistently distinct from the part that occurred just previous.

The current part of their noncoexistent-sequential-difference did not yet exist when the previous part was occurring.

Now, as the current part exists, it is newly existent.

As the rotation continues, as the flow continues, as space continues to exist, there is continuously new part of those cases of ongoing continuance--new part of ongoing noncoexistent-sequential-difference--new part of the ongoing rotation, new part of the ongoing flow, new part of the continuing-existence of space.

Change is the occurrence of something which is existentially new--the coming into existence of something that is existentially new.

_________________________________________________________________

The occurrence of new part of noncoexistent-sequential-difference is the occurrence of change.

With the cases of rotation and flow it is new part of ongoing motion of matter--rotating matter of the earth and flowing water along the river channel.

Space, however, is immaterial. As a foundational component of the universe, space exists as the infinite three-dimensional extension of immaterial place.

(The attribution of a material basis for space is anthropomorphism--humans have a material basis. The attribution of any quality or property of substantiality or matter to space is also anthropomorphic. Anthropomorphism is disallowed in science and the philosophy of reality, the philosophy of that which exists.)

Neither matter nor motion play any roles in the existence or qualities of space or in the continuing-existence of space.

The basis of the noncoexistent-sequential-difference of spatial-continuing-existence is different from the basis of the noncoexistent-sequential-difference of flow and rotation.

_________________________________________________________________

In conclusion:

Both flow and spatial-continuing-existence are cases of continuous ongoing change.

Both are cases of noncoexistent-sequential-difference.

Both have the occurrence of new part of the continuous ongoing change, new part of their noncoexistent-sequential-difference.

They are different in what it is that constitutes the continuous ongoing change.

With flow it is ongoing motion, which involves a role for matter--it is matter that moves.

With spatial-continuing-existence it is continuing-existence, which involves a role for space--space exists and continues to exist.

Flow and spatial-continuing-existence are different in what constitutes new part.

With flow it is new part of ongoing motion.

With spatial-continuing-existence it new part of that ongoing existence.

_________________________________________________________________

Existing as the infinite three-dimensional extension of immaterial place, space provides an existential-context, a place-to-be, a place in which to exist, for all else that exists.

The three-dimensional extension of immaterial spatial-place provides an existential-context for the three-dimensional extension of matter.

Spatial-continuing-existence provides an existential-context, a place-to-occur, for all other forms of change.

Spatial-continuing-existence provides an existential-context for the continuing-existence of matter--the continuing-existence of an object occurs concurrently, simultaneously, with the continuing-existence of the spatial-place the matter occupies.

The continuous ongoing change of spatial-continuing-existence provides an existential-context for the continuous ongoing change that occurs with flow.

By providing an existential-context for all forms of change, spatial-continuing-existence plays throughout the universe all the roles of time.

The relation between time and flow is that time provides the existential-context in which flow occurs.