Here’s a longish but interesting post (from another forum I visit) that may be helpful to some here.  He has a slightly different take on time than my position (time is change and change is time) but not significantly.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=27137&findpost=458309#post458309

the PC apeman - 23 August 2007 11:29 AM

(time is change and change is time)

Interesting you bring this up, I’ve been thinking about this lately. Trying to distinguish the two, and I keep coming the thought that they may be the same.

Oh, geez.  I thought this thread might be interesting, but I see it’s just a replay of the free-will vs determinism kind of thread with questions of semantic super-hyperprecision. 

If we accept only the present then we must all become theists because none of the wonderful complexity of our world could have developed over time.  Therefore, they must be being designed and constructed every instant by an omnipowerful god. 

Occam

Occam - 23 August 2007 04:31 PM

Oh, geez.  I thought this thread might be interesting, but I see it’s just a replay of the free-will vs determinism kind of thread with questions of semantic super-hyperprecision. 

If we accept only the present then we must all become theists because none of the wonderful complexity of our world could have developed over time.  Therefore, they must be being designed and constructed every instant by an omnipowerful god. 

Occam

i thought this was the thread to discuss what time it was in the north pole.

Occam - 23 August 2007 04:31 PM

If we accept only the present then we must all become theists because none of the wonderful complexity of our world could have developed over time.  Therefore, they must be being designed and constructed every instant by an omnipowerful god.  Occam

Why must the world have to develop over “time”. Why can’t it just be in a contstant state of change happening in the present?

He goes off on one at the end, but okay up to a point.  He seems to confuse Einstein with someone who knew everything.  See also Einsteins relativistic interpretation of simultaneity (google it if you don’t have a physics book handy).  The guy who posted this also describes something that is a physical thing and kind of tries to deny that it’s a physical thing.  He also doesn’t really seem to fully understand the representational nature of Cartesian coordinates and mistakes space-time (a perfect valid model) for something it isn’t.

narwhol - 23 August 2007 05:37 PM

He goes off on one at the end, but okay up to a point.  He seems to confuse Einstein with someone who knew everything.  See also Einsteins relativistic interpretation of simultaneity (google it if you don’t have a physics book handy).  The guy who posted this also describes something that is a physical thing and kind of tries to deny that it’s a physical thing.  He also doesn’t really seem to fully understand the representational nature of Cartesian coordinates and mistakes space-time (a perfect valid model) for something it isn’t.

Who are you talking about when you refer to “he”? Also, who is “the guy who posted this”? The lack of clear representation in these statements made your post hard to follow.

apologies.  I was talking about the guy who posted the forum entry that the link that apeman added points to.

narwhol - 24 August 2007 12:36 PM

apologies.  I was talking about the guy who posted the forum entry that the link that apeman added points to.

ah, ok. Thank you for clarifying.