Quote Originally Posted by Sageous View Post
You're saying that movement is really the same as time?
Well, not exactly the same as... that's a bit of an oversimplification so I could express it in one word. To define it better for the sake of clarity, I'd say that time is necessary in order for motion to be possible. Using only the 3 spacial dimensions you can define only a static universe. For a universe with motion, you must include the 4th dimension - time. This is what I was getting at by bringing up the whole 4th dimension thing.

I completely agree that the human conceptualization of time marked a gigantic step foward for us from animals who can't consciously think about it in the abstract and so can't plan for the future or make sense of the past but can only react in the moment prompted by memory and instinct. The human concept of time is a tremendous milestone in our development. But, like language, it's only a symbolic conceptualization.

I don't really know a better way to define time itself. But think about what would happen if you could freeze time, or speed it up or run it backwards. I know, totally theoretical situations, if any such thing would really happen we'd be frozen or sped up or whatever right along with everything else so we wouldn't be aware of anything happening, but imagine standing outside of time. If you freeze time nothing can move - there can be no life. Without duration, there can't be thought, since thought requires movement of electrons. Maybe duration is a better term than movement. But honestly I think movement gets more to the heart of the phenomenon of time. The terms aren't completely identical, but movement is utterly dependent on time.

But I'm using too many words again. Guess I need to stop.