Time?

[Your Computer]

Just because we are unable to talk about a rate of flow of time does not mean that time does not flow at all. Or maybe time is standing still while we (our consciousness) are moving along it (we are moving towards the future rather than the future coming towards us). When you look out of the window of a moving train and observe fields rushing by you ‘know’ that they are standing still and that it is the train that is moving. Likewise, we have the strong subjective impression that the present moment (what we call now) and an event in our future (say next Christmas) move closer together. The time interval separating the two moments shrinks. Whether we say that next Christmas is moving closer to us or that we are moving closer to next Christmas amounts to the same thing: we feel that something is changing. So how come most physicists argue that even this idea is not valid?

Strange as this may sound, the laws of physics say nothing about the flow of time. They tell us how things like atoms, pulleys, levers, clocks, rockets and stars behave when subjected to different forces at certain instants in time, and if given the status of a system at a particular moment the laws of physics provide us with the rules for computing its likely state at some future time. Nowhere, however, do they contain a hint of flowing time. The notion that time passes, or moves in some way, is completely missing in physics. We find that, like space, time simply exists; it just is. Clearly, say most physicists, the feeling we have that time flows is just that: a feeling, however real it may seem to us.

What science is unable to provide at the moment is an explanation for where this strong sense we have of passing time and a changing present moment comes from. Some physicists and philosophers are convinced that there is something missing in the laws of physics. I will not go as far as to say that I subscribe to this view, but I do believe we will only make progress when we have a better understanding of how our own consciousness works, and hence why we feel the passage of time.

I should mention that no less an authority than Einstein himself held the view that the flow of time is illusory and even expressed it when trying to console the bereaved widow of a close friend of his, stating that she should take comfort in the knowledge that the present moment is no more special than any other in the
past or the future; all times exist together.

Some of the things you've mentioned i've already dabbled on years ago, specifically when trying to construct God's perception of time for myself. For that reason i am able to recognize where you are coming from. Nevertheless, even if measurement is subjective, that measurement comes from what exists. From this is where the confusion comes from, for a connection is made between something subjective and something objective. Sure, you could continue onward and go as far as to say that the only thing that exists is what is perceived, therefore denying everything except your own existence. But at some point you would have to recognize that either you are self-limiting or something external to you is limiting you (paradoxes form only from the former). However you define this limitation is only my concern insofar as it relates to me.

You cannot claim that time exists outside of our perception yet talk like the only reason it exists is simply due to our perception if you seek to remain logical. While it is possible to move along something that is stationary, how would you show that time is stationary? If time allows for physical events, then it follows that time has to be in motion in order for matter to be in motion. If time can remain stationary while events still occur, then you would have to recognize that time is not a restriction on reality and that time's existence is not necessary. So what would be of time then? Why claim time exists then?