So what exactly is time?

velocity x distance

>>534690
That depends on your metaphysics my friend. Either it's relational or substantial, depending on how one views the ontological status of spacetime. Relativity demonstrated that absolute time does not exist outside of an individual's reference frame, but it did not probe its structural nature. Presentism, Eternalism, or the block universe are all viable options.

>>534720
>presentism
>a viable option

>>534690

Time is an illusion your brain creates out of its inability to perceive everything at once.

>>535044
I've seen some interesting defenses of presentism, but I will admit that relativity points more towards eternalism or a block universe

>>534690
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPDZrae3xl8

File: Kant.jpg (21KB, 250x360px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

21KB, 250x360px

Ask this man.

>>534690
>time
A human perception of forever.

File: 250px-Schopenhauer.jpg (13KB, 250x298px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

13KB, 250x298px

Nothing

To "be" and to "do" are the most fundamental concepts of nature and thus cannot be broken down into more fundamental concepts, just described. To "be" something and "do" is to have changed and to have "been" something. If the most fundamental thing to "be" "does" something (changes), but does not continue to change, it might as well have never changed because what has "happened" must have been "determined". You can not determine what "happened" from an unchanging item because change bears "empirical evidence" that something "was". (A changed thing must go to the next stage of change for the observer to determine the past's existence; observers determining also requires change. This is a logical feedback loop broken by the following). Because of the most fundamental logic from the most fundamental ideas, the most fundamental thing must change and then never stop changing (doing), else it is effectively nothing and the past is destroyed. Since the determination of the observer that something "was" is an arbitrary idea because we have no definition of "observer", we must assume that for things to continue to "be", a force must be capable of determining everything that logic can determine. My theory is that things that "are" enforce themselves and determine themselves as if solipsism were true, everything unobserved would disappear and the things wouldn't work. The most fundamental thing must continuously change while the whole apparent universe is self aware in a way. Thus we secure time, through things being and doing, continuing to do and determine that it has done.

Time is fluid, continuous change/doing, and the definition of "change" is fundamental at the base.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 1747x2586px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

2MB, 1747x2586px

>>535050

But your brain is itself an object within time, so its existence as a physical, spatiotemporal organ pressuposes the very thing (time) that you're trying to explain by it.