grok wrote:
>
> As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]>
> mounted the barricade and roared out:
>
> > The problem with so called "time dimensions", is that they lack
> > underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
> > physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental
> > construction we call time, at the physical level.
>
> 'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are.
> It is an
The motion of matter in space is not time, but, erm, the motion of
matter in space(whatever they are.)
> emergent phenomenon. You start there.
You can call it that way, if you like. But certainly it is not
necessary. Moreover, it is prone to confussion, because the expression
'emergent phenomena' is frequently used to talk about and characterize
things or phenomena that you really don't understand.
Time is a consequence, a result, of movement.
>
> To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this
> relation of matter
> and space into something it is not.
You're right, and I'm doing the opposite: showing the abstract character
of physical time, and trying to understand and layout the ways and means
by which we started to attribute reality('reify', as you say) to
something that hasn't.
>
>
> -- grok.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
