Time for change

Below are the three notions that, together, show time is merely an intermediary word – an abstract, or a shorthand – and is hence very simple to explain: –

1. This is the only assertion made in this paper. It’s very simple; and thus far no-one has ever proven it wrong. It is this – the ONLY empirical evidence we have of ‘time passing’ is change (events) happening – quantum and compound events. Change events happen; Time doesn’t cause them (energy differential does), it just calibrates how long they take. Ask Aristotle.

2. There are TWO core dictionary definitions of time: –

a) The dimension of change

b) The ‘flow’ of change.

These definitions are subtly but crucially different, and are explained more fully later.

3. Period(or interval or duration) appears to justify the ‘existence of time’; after all period is defined as a ‘division of time’. Here we show that period and interval are definable in terms of change-events only. (For some people it’s “persistence” that is the sticking point…it expresses the same condition as interval, and is also deconstructed below – see persistence) And once you have defined period in terms of change, time itself becomes redundant. This is the tricky, slippery, but crucial piece to understand; but it wiles away time.

The above three points, taken together, determine that time can always be expressed explicitly in terms of something else – change. If this is so, them Time ceases to be a fundamental objective – it’s a useful abstract. Everything can be explained outside of the need for the word time [and so ‘puff’’ – time disappears].

For what else other than change is there to indicate time? Without change there is no time.