Alright. Just a few thoughts now, Mr. Homer.

1. Are you a strict materialist? Before you disturb me asking what that means (even as evident as the meaning is) it simply means someone who believes that only physical (material) things exist.

2. Is time a physical (material) thing?

Deep Sight:

Alright. Just a few thoughts now, Mr. Homer.

1. Are you a strict materialist? Before you disturb me asking what that means (even as evident as the meaning is) it simply means someone who believes that only physical (material) things exist.

No, not really because we have certain abstractions like mathematics and logic which are not physical but generally do lead to true conclusions.

Deep Sight:

2. Is time a physical (material) thing?

Yes time is physical.

thehomer:

No, not really because we have certain abstractions like mathematics and logic which are not physical but generally do lead to true conclusions.

Mathematics is still a physical object. The "concept" of Mathematics which is what we are really talking about, occupies a certain region in the brain which itself is a physical object. People mistake the inter subjective consensus that most humanity has for the subject with some sort of metaphysical transcendence. What I mean to say is that, most people can easily agree on mathematical principals even if they are somewhat arbitrary, because consistency matters. The same is true for science.

However, this not the case with religion and faith in general.

Idehn:

Mathematics is still a physical object. The "concept" of Mathematics which is what we are really talking about, occupies a certain region in the brain which itself is a physical object. People mistake the inter subjective consensus that most humanity has for the subject with some sort of metaphysical transcendence. What I mean to say is that, most people can easily agree on mathematical principals even if they are somewhat arbitrary, because consistency matters. The same is true for science.

However, this not the case with religion and faith in general.

I don't think mathematical laws etc exist somewhere in the brain. And the fact that the brain is physical doesn't mean that the conclusions arrived are also physical. Actually, numbers, logic etc are transcendent because one can imagine that even in a universe without humans, they would still be true.

thehomer:


Yes time is physical.

Thank you. You say that Time is physical. Surely you are aware of the properties of matter: namely matter -

1 - Has weight

2 - Occupies Space

Please can you tell me whether Time has weight.

Can you also share with me what other properties of physical things that time has, inorder to qualify it as a physical thing.

Keep your answers short and simple as usual please.

While you are at it, remember that matter also consists of particles such as atoms molecules, etc. Please indicate what particles time is made of.

Matter further exists in states, namely - solid, liquid, gas, plasma, Bose–Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates and quark–gluon plasma.

Can you indicate which physical state time qualifies as.

thehomer:

I don't think mathematical laws etc exist somewhere in the brain. And the fact that the brain is physical doesn't mean that the conclusions arrived are also physical. Actually, numbers, logic etc are transcendent because one can imagine that even in a universe without humans, they would still be true.

"Mathematical Laws" are still concepts born from the observation of events in Universe i.e memories(not saying that is necessarily a bad thing). The conclusions arrived upon by the brain, are concepts\memories(physical objects) stored there within of corresponding objects that exist outside of it. For example, if I asked you to identify a number you would need to point to physical objects such as the symbol "1" a grouping of physical objects. If I asked you to identify logic, you would need to reference a series of events such as falling to the ground after jumping. The concept inside the brain would be meaningless otherwise. Mathematics and Logic are things we have an inter-subjective consensus. What the two concepts describe is the consistency that most everyone has in terms of our observations/memories of the Universe. That is why they are amazing tools that work well and are accessible to almost anyone.

Also I agree that time is a physical object, as well as events. I believe deepsight has a differing if not limited definition of what a physical object is. It would be wise for both parties to present there definitions of what it means to be physical before discussion moves further. My definition, a physical object would be simply defined by something that can be observed/experienced in some way and can be defined by said observation/experience. That is not to say that a-physical objects do not exist(if they exist). They would simply be unobservable/undefined, and any statements about them beyond these are meaningless.

Idehn:

My definition, a physical object would be simply defined by something that can be observed/experienced in some way and can be defined by said observation/experience.

Well we can all rest assured that that is certainly not the definition profferred by science.

If you seek to prove otheriwise, please show me any peer-reviewed source corroborating your assertion.

Both you and Mr. Homer seek to rely on science: it is therefore most unbecoming and even somewhat duplicituos to suddenly revert to absolutely non-scientific definitions of what physial things are - in a desperate bid to assert that Time is a physical thing.

We all know the properties of matter -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

If Time is Physical Matter, show me what properties of matter that Time has!

I.E - Does it have weight and volume, does it consist of molecular particles, etc.

Simple!

No need to run about in circles fabricating patently unscientific definitions of physical matter.

@Iden,

Idehn:

My definition, a physical object would be simply defined by something that can be observed/experienced in some way and can be defined by said observation/experience. That is not to say that a-physical objects do not exist(if they exist). They would simply be unobservable/undefined, and any statements about them beyond these are meaningless.

I beg to differ. I think your definition is not very scientific. Certain things like emotions, feeling, and even intuition can be observed and experienced. Does this make these things physical? This is just my humble opinion. I don’t claim to be an authority in science, so pardon me for questioning your definition

Deep Sight:

Thank you. You say that Time is physical. Surely you are aware of the properties of matter: namely matter -

1 - Has weight

2 - Occupies Space

@Deepsight
You are slightly off with your first premise (Has weight). Replace it with “has mass”. Physical objects can be weightless; weight actually has more to do with the environment of the object than the object itself. I.e. an object on earth weighs differently than it would on the moon; yet the mass of the object remains the same.

And weight and mass are two different things, although they are related.
But I get your argument.

@Deepsight and thehomer.

Both of you are slightly off on the issue of whether time is a physical object or not.

Time (scientific time) can be regarded as physical, not necessarily a physical object but it is a behavior of physical objects, a behavior of the physical world. Strictly speaking in scientific terms, Time is a dimension of motion. Scientific time is related to motion, motion of the physical universe; hence scientific time is a physical quantity, [/b]same is applicable to Temperature, Current, resistance, capacitance, and etc.

[b]Scientific time is a physical phenomenon; it is a physical quantity.

Thank you all.

justcool:

@Iden,
I beg to differ. I think your definition is not very scientific. Certain things like emotions, feeling, and even intuition can be observed and experienced. Does this make these things physical? This is just my humble opinion. I don’t claim to be an authority in science, so pardon me for questioning your definition

I have to say it is a most un-scientific definition indeed - specially created to suit his preconceived notion.

@Deepsight
You are slightly off with your first premise (Has weight). Replace it with “has mass”. Physical objects can be weightless; weight actually has more to do with the environment of the object than the object itself. I.e. an object on earth weighs differently than it would on the moon; yet the mass of the object remains the same.

And weight and mass are two different things, although they are related.
But I get your argument.

Yes, thank you, i refer to mass.

Mr. Homer/ Idehn - Show me please what "mass" time has? ? ? ? ?

Deep Sight:

Thank you. You say that Time is physical. Surely you are aware of the properties of matter: namely matter -

1 - Has weight

2 - Occupies Space

Please can you tell me whether Time has weight.

Can you also share with me what other properties of physical things that time has, inorder to qualify it as a physical thing.

Keep your answers short and simple as usual please.

I should clarify by saying that time has a physical basis.

Deep Sight:

While you are at it, remember that matter also consists of particles such as atoms molecules, etc. Please indicate what particles time is made of.

Matter further exists in states, namely - solid, liquid, gas, plasma, Bose–Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates and quark–gluon plasma.

Can you indicate which physical state time qualifies as.

Matter is not the only example of physical constructs.

thehomer:

I should clarify by saying that time has a physical basis.

What is this? ? ? Now you are beginning to become totally incoherent and contradictory.

I asked you if time is a physical thing. You responded in the affirmative. Now you revert to "clarify" that it has a "physical basis." Which is it, for Jupiter's sake, Mr. Homer?

I did not ask you for the basis of time. I asked you if time is physical. If it is physical, please identify its physical properties, simple, Mr. Scientist. That should not be too hard for you!

thehomer:

Matter is not the only example of physical constructs.

Please oblige us with examples of non-material physical things then.

While you are at it, do not be clever-by-half. Who talked about physical 'constructs.'

Deep Sight:

Well we can all rest assured that that is certainly not the definition profferred by science.

If you seek to prove otheriwise, please show me any peer-reviewed source corroborating your assertion.

Both you and Mr. Homer seek to rely on science: it is therefore most unbecoming and even somewhat duplicituos to suddenly revert to absolutely non-scientific definitions of what physial things are - in a desperate bid to assert that Time is a physical thing.

We all know the properties of matter -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

If Time is Physical Matter, show me what properties of matter that Time has!

I.E - Does it have weight and volume, does it consist of molecular particles, etc.

Simple!

No need to run about in circles fabricating patently unscientific definitions of physical matter.

This is in addition to what justcool stated
You are mistaken in thinking that only matter is physical.
Let me respond with a few questions to demonstrate this. What is the mass of the electromagnetic wave that vibrates at 500 terahertz with a wavelength of 400 nanometres?
Do you think gravity is physical? What is its mass? What is its molecular particle?
Do you think magnetism is physical? What is its mass? Does it have molecular particles?
So you need to realize that the fact that something is physical or has a physical basis does not mean it must be matter.

To respond to the other part about how we know that time is physical or at least has a physical basis, I'll refer you to the effects of relativity which show that time, like mass and electromagnetic waves, is affected by gravity.

justcool:


Scientific time is a physical phenomenon; it is a physical quantity.

Phenomenon? Is time observed to "happen?"

I think not. Time does not "happen" in the sense that phenomena are observed to.

2. The term 'physical quantity" really refers to measurement standards by which physcal elements/ phenomena can be measured. So to the extent that people can measure velocity against time, then that will make time a quantity. But this by no means renders time itself physical.

Deep Sight:

What is this? ? ? Now you are beginning to become totally incoherent and contradictory.

Please point out the contradiction. You shouldn't just hurl accusations left and right.

Deep Sight:

I asked you if time is a physical thing. You responded in the affirmative. Now you revert to "clarify" that it has a "physical basis." Which is it, for Jupiter's sake, Mr. Homer?

It has a physical basis.

Deep Sight:

I did not ask you for the basis of time. I asked you if time is physical. If it is physical, please identify its physical properties, simple, Mr. Scientist. That should not be too hard for you!

The basis is intricately linked to its physical manifestations.

Deep Sight:

Please oblige us with examples of non-material physical things then.

While you are at it, do not be clever-by-half. Who talked about physical 'constructs.'

Answered. I am talking about physical constructs due to its implication in understanding what I mean when I'm referring to something as being physical.

thehomer:

This is in addition to what justcool stated
You are mistaken in thinking that only matter is physical.
Let me respond with a few questions to demonstrate this. What is the mass of the electromagnetic wave that vibrates at 500 terahertz with a wavelength of 400 nanometres?
Do you think gravity is physical? What is its mass? What is its molecular particle?
Do you think magnetism is physical? What is its mass? Does it have molecular particles?
So you need to realize that the fact that something is physical or has a physical basis does not mean it must be matter.

Physical things consist of matter and non-matter.

When energy acts on physical things there can be physical movement or reactions of varied kinds and this may result in phenomena which may be classed as non-matter.

•   Wind can be felt on your skin and you can see the wind move branches of trees. But wind itself it not matter. It is the movement of air, which itself is matter.

•   Electricity is similar. You can see the result of electricity at work - a light bulb lighting up for example and you can feel electricity  as an electric shock. But electricity is just the the movement/flow of an electric charge - it is not matter itself. It is the movement of matter (electrons).

•   Sound is the result of air movement against your eardrum and not matter itself.

•   Your shadow

•   Gravity.

•  A flame or fire can also pose difficulties. The smoke that rises up from the fire or flame contains vaporized gases and small particles and therefore contains matter. But the fire and flame themselves, the light and heat emitted, are energy, not matter.

So if Time is physical then it must be matter or non-matter. You have conceded that it obviously cannot be matter, very good.

Can you demonstrate that time exhibits the properties of non-matter?

Idehn:

"Mathematical Laws" are still concepts born from the observation of events in Universe i.e memories(not saying that is necessarily a bad thing). The conclusions arrived upon by the brain, are concepts\memories(physical objects) stored there within of corresponding objects that exist outside of it. For example, if I asked you to identify a number you would need to point to physical objects such as the symbol "1" a grouping of physical objects. If I asked you to identify logic, you would need to reference a series of events such as falling to the ground after jumping. The concept inside the brain would be meaningless otherwise. Mathematics and Logic are things we have an inter-subjective consensus. What the two concepts describe is the consistency that most everyone has in terms of our observations/memories of the Universe. That is why they are amazing tools that work well and are accessible to almost anyone.

The problem with attempting to map these constructs to the physical brain apart from the fact that we really do not understand much about it is that a one to one mapping of objects and concepts to the brain is simply unfeasible because there wouldn't even be enough space to map the numbers that we can reference. This is why I see the brain more as a tool that processes and interprets data coming in.

Idehn:

Also I agree that time is a physical object, as well as events. I believe deepsight has a differing if not limited definition of what a physical object is. It would be wise for both parties to present there definitions of what it means to be physical before discussion moves further. My definition, a physical object would be simply defined by something that can be observed/experienced in some way and can be defined by said observation/experience. That is not to say that a-physical objects do not exist(if they exist). They would simply be unobservable/undefined, and any statements about them beyond these are meaningless.

Yes this is quite true but a phenomenon being physical and another being a physical object I think generally encompass related but different constructs.

thehomer:

Please point out the contradiction. You shouldn't just hurl accusations left and right.

You first stated that Time is a physical thing. Then resiled from that to state that well, it merely has a physical basis.

It has a physical basis.

Does this then mean that whilst it has a physical basis, it is not itself physical?

The basis is intricately linked to its physical manifestations.

Be direct. You are dancing about stating that Time has a physical basis, physical manifestations etc.

I never asked you the answers to such questions.

I asked you and I ask you again if TIME ITSELF is a physical thing.

Deep Sight:

Physical things consist of matter and non-matter.
When energy acts on physical things there can be physical movement or reactions of varied kinds and this may result in phenomena which may be classed as non-matter.

•   Wind can be felt on your skin and you can see the wind move branches of trees. But wind itself it not matter. It is the movement of air, which itself is matter.

•   Electricity is similar. You can see the result of electricity at work - a light bulb lighting up for example and you can feel electricity  as an electric shock. But electricity is just the the movement/flow of an electric charge - it is not matter itself. It is the movement of matter (electrons).

•   Sound is the result of air movement against your eardrum and not matter itself.

•   Your shadow

•   Gravity.

•  A flame or fire can also pose difficulties. The smoke that rises up from the fire or flame contains vaporized gases and small particles and therefore contains matter. But the fire and flame themselves, the light and heat emitted, are energy, not matter.

So if Time is physical then it must be matter or non-matter. You have conceded that it obviously cannot be matter, very good.

Can you demonstrate that time exhibits the properties of non-matter?

Non-matter.

Deep Sight:

You first stated that Time is a physical thing. Then resiled from that to state that well, it merely has a physical basis.


Does this then mean that whilst it has a physical basis, it is not itself physical?


Be direct. You are dancing about stating that Time has a physical basis, physical manifestations etc.

I never asked you the answers to such questions.

I asked you and I ask you again if TIME ITSELF is a physical thing.

Ok. I'll play along since it seems you do not wish to realize when one wishes to be as accurate as they currently be. It's physical.

justcool:

. . . .
@Deepsight and thehomer.

Both of you are slightly off on the issue of whether time is a physical object or not.

Time (scientific time) can be regarded as physical, not necessarily a physical object but it is a behavior of physical objects, a behavior of the physical world. Strictly speaking in scientific terms, Time is a dimension of motion. Scientific time is related to motion, motion of the physical universe; hence scientific time is a physical quantity, [/b]same is applicable to Temperature, Current, resistance, capacitance, and etc.

[b]Scientific time is a physical phenomenon; it is a physical quantity.

Thank you all.

I've stated previously that when I'm speaking of time, I'm referring to it as in the field of physics.

thehomer:

Non-matter.

1. Non-matter are the direct results of the effect of one physical agent or the other.

NON MATTER EXISTS ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE INTERACTION OF PHYSICAL THINGS.

Can you state what physical things interact to create time?

2. Non matter are all observable. You can see and feel fire as well as wind. You can see your shadow. You can feel gravity and magnetism. Just where does anybody ever see or feel time.

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

YOUR scientific time is a measuring system. Thius referring to it as non-matter would be as absurd as referring to Farenheit or the centimetre as non-matter. No matter how many people have said such, it thus remains absurd.

In this i would want you to recognise that a measurement is not the same thing as the thing measured. For example, I am six feet tall does not mean that 6 feet = Mr Deep Sight. Six feet is a mere measurement of Mr. Deep Sight.

What does your unit of time actually measure. If you can reflect on this, you will begin to understand my concerns.

This may help you -

Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[3][4] Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a film strip, spread out across the time line. The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Deep Sight:

1. Non-matter are the direct results of the effect of one physical agent or the other.

NON MATTER EXISTS ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE INTERACTION OF PHYSICAL THINGS.

Can you state what physical things interact to create time?

This is why I preferred to say it had a physical basis. Consider this. What physical things interact to create space?

Deep Sight:

2. Non matter are all observable. You can see and feel fire as well as wind. You can see your shadow. You can feel gravity and magnetism. Just where does anybody ever see or feel time.

You can feel magnetism? You must be a special fellow. Do you not feel the passage of time? Have you noticed your sleep wake cycle? Your watch? What you need to realize is that time is "detected" by events that occur at regular intervals.

Deep Sight:

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

YOUR scientific time is a measuring system. Thius referring to it as non-matter would be as absurd as referring to Farenheit or the centimetre as non-matter. No matter how many people have said such, it thus remains absurd.

In this i would want you to recognise that a measurement is not the same thing as the thing measured. For example, I am six feet tall does not mean that 6 feet = Mr Deep Sight. Six feet is a mere measurement of Mr. Deep Sight.

What does your unit of time actually measure. If you can reflect on this, you will begin to understand my concerns.

This may help you -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

You still wish to play around with ambiguity. Think of it. Is temperature physical? Is it matter or non-matter? This was why I said long ago that I was referring to time in the sense that it is used in physics. If you wish to play with the philosophical concepts of time. That's fine but I simply do not wish to do that if we are attempting to speak objectively about the universe.

thehomer:

This is why I preferred to say it had a physical basis. Consider this. What physical things interact to create space?

I don't believe that space is created.

Otherwise you will have to answer that age-old question - into what is space expanding?

You can feel magnetism? You must be a special fellow.

Of course. Have you ever worn magnetic-sole shoes? Or placed your little finger in between two repulsing magnet ends. Of course it is felt.

Do you not feel the passage of time? Have you noticed your sleep wake cycle? Your watch? What you need to realize is that time is "detected" by events that occur at regular intervals.

I feel events happening. That is not the same thing as time.

Deep Sight:

I don't believe that space is created.

Otherwise you will have to answer that age-old question - into what is space expanding?

Good this is why I have said previously that time is intricately linked with the universe. If you disagree then you will have to answer these questions. Is space physical? Is it made up of particles?

Deep Sight:

Of course. Have you ever worn magnetic-sole shoes? Or placed your little finger in between two repulsing magnet ends. Of course it is felt.

Yes it is felt by some animals but not humans (except of course in those with metallic implants). In the case of the shoes, what you feel is the shoe not magnetism. Placing your finger between magnets will not enable you feel magnetism since your finger does not contain the required material.

Deep Sight:

I feel events happening. That is not the same thing as time.

The interval between events is what we record as time using materials with regularly repeating signals.

@Deepsight,
We've already agreed that time in science is different from the lay man's conception of time or the "real time."

What's the point quarreling with science over their conception? You made a good point that perhaps science should invent another word for their phenomenon and leave the word "Time" alone. Why still quarrel? What you perceive as time is not what science refers to when they talk about time; it's not what thehomer talks about when he refers to time.

I repeat: Real Time, the lay man's conception of time, is non-physical, it has no beginning, neither does it have an end; it existed before the entire creation came into being. Science at the moment is confined to the physical, which is a very small part of the entire creation. Science cannot rise above the physical, and hence cannot rise above the entire creation. Hence science can never grasp Real Time. Only in man’s intuition can he perceive, although to a limited extent, what time is.

You cannot force science to perceive something that is beyond its scope; neither can you re-define scientific concepts for science; science has already defined its concepts.

In science time is physical.

Deep Sight:

Phenomenon? Is time observed to "happen?"

I think not. Time does not "happen" in the sense that phenomena are observed to.

I used phenomenon in a philosophical sense. Not all phenomena are observed in the sense that you mean. Phenomena can be experienced too. It can also be used in place of “concept.”

Deep Sight:

2. The term 'physical quantity" really refers to measurement standards by which physcal elements/ phenomena can be measured. So to the extent that people can measure velocity against time, then that will make time a quantity. But this by no means renders time itself physical.

Yes it a quantity; but a physical quantity. Scientific time is a measurement of duration of physical events in the physical realm. This measurement is or duration is different in all parts of creation. Thus one can say spiritual Time(The speed of events in the Spiritual realm) or one can say physical time(The duration of events in the physical realm) Actually all these are perceptions of Time, or measurements of durations of events, not the real Time.

Real Time cannot be measured, it stands still. It is the consequence of God. Actually only God knows exactly what Time is.

Deep Sight:

Well we can all rest assured that that is certainly not the definition profferred by science.

If you seek to prove otheriwise, please show me any peer-reviewed source corroborating your assertion.

Both you and Mr. Homer seek to rely on science: it is therefore most unbecoming and even somewhat duplicituos to suddenly revert to absolutely non-scientific definitions of what physial things are - in a desperate bid to assert that Time is a physical thing.

We all know the properties of matter -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

If Time is Physical Matter, show me what properties of matter that Time has!

I.E - Does it have weight and volume, does it consist of molecular particles, etc.

Simple!

No need to run about in circles fabricating patently unscientific definitions of physical matter.

First Deepsight, that is not what the peer review process is used for. Second, Science first and foremost is about what is measurable. The measurements are used/understood within a mathematical framework which is also necessarily informed by observation. Both math and science are validated through measurement/observation, otherwise they would be meaningless. Look up any peer paper and read the theory and how it is COMPARED to the observations. If theory(science + math) does not correlate with observation than the theory is wrong in some way. A good example of this is the "Ultraviolet Catastrophy" which is part of the reason quantum mechanics was born. That is why within a Scientific/Mathematical framework, I defined objects in that way.

Again, I think you are working with a simplistic definition.  Being physical is more than just having mass or being tangible. It also includes interaction which, by the way, like having mass MUST be observable/measurable/quantifiable in some way. If you are asking if time is composed of matter I would say no. However, the same is true for the particles known as photons and yet you would not dare say it is not a physical object. Would you say that the Earth is less physical than the Sun, because it has less mass/volume and fewer particles?

Hi, Justcool.

justcool:

@Iden,
I beg to differ. I think your definition is not very scientific. Certain things like emotions, feeling, and even intuition can be observed and experienced. Does this make these things physical? This is just my humble opinion. I don’t claim to be an authority in science, so pardon me for questioning your definition

@Deepsight
You are slightly off with your first premise (Has weight). Replace it with “has mass”. Physical objects can be weightless; weight actually has more to do with the environment of the object than the object itself. I.e. an object on earth weighs differently than it would on the moon; yet the mass of the object remains the same.

And weight and mass are two different things, although they are related.
But I get your argument.

@Deepsight and thehomer.

Both of you are slightly off on the issue of whether time is a physical object or not.

Time (scientific time) can be regarded as physical, not necessarily a physical object but it is a behavior of physical objects, a behavior of the physical world. Strictly speaking in scientific terms, Time is a dimension of motion. Scientific time is related to motion, motion of the physical universe; hence scientific time is a physical quantity, [/b]same is applicable to Temperature, Current, resistance, capacitance, and etc.

[b]Scientific time is a physical phenomenon; it is a physical quantity.

Thank you all.

Yes they are all physical objects. Emotions and intuitions are physical processes that occur in the brain, which at the very least, can be measured/observed by an organism actions. With sufficient technology and study one day, we may even be able to quantify how sad someone is(like to the point of suicide)  just by observing brain patterns. Physical objects are known through observation and measure. How, can you know what you have never experienced/observed/measured in any way?

The "concepts" of Time/Space, which is what we are talking about here, exist within our brains and are born from observations change in other physical objects/events. That is not to say they are objects/events themselves.

thehomer:

The problem with attempting to map these constructs to the physical brain apart from the fact that we really do not understand much about it is that a one to one mapping of objects and concepts to the brain is simply unfeasible because there wouldn't even be enough space to map the numbers that we can reference. This is why I see the brain more as a tool that processes and interprets data coming in.


Yes this is quite true but a phenomenon being physical and another being a physical object I think generally encompass related but different constructs.

I agree that it is not feasible, but that does not necessarily mean that is not what is happening. However, I suspect (don't hold me to this too much ) that a certain amount of mapping occurs, and then during thought the constructs/concepts interact to form new concepts. The bad ones are that run contrary to observation are thrown out while the good ones are retained. However like implied, more understanding of the brain is still necessary before we can say such things with confidence.

To your second point, I think there is room to distinguish physical events and physical objects, however I tend to think of them under the same umbrella. Sort of like how a rectangle is not a square but a square is a kind of rectangle.