Time happens to all of us instantaneously.
Time Has Come Today
Their way can’t put it off another day
I don’t care what others say they say we
Don’t listen anyway time has come today, hey
My tears have come and gone oh, Lord I got to run
I got no home no, I have no home
Now the time has come nowhere (place) to run
Might get burned up by the sun but I’ll have my fun
By tumbling tide and my soul has been psychedelicized
Time has come today Time has come today
The Chambers Brothers is a soul-music group, best known for its 1968 hit record, the 11-minute long song “Time Has Come Today”. The group was part of the wave of new music that integrated American blues and gospel traditions with modern psychedelic and rock elements. Based on their Southern roots, the brothers brought a raw authenticity to their recordings and live performances that was missing from many other acts of that era. Their music has been kept alive through heavy use in film soundtracks
About Time according to Quoro
“Time and space are non-matter existences. They don’t exist in physical state. Therefore, unlike matter existence, they don’t have physical properties. And they cannot have interactions with matter existence.”
I disagree. That doesn’t have the ring of experiential truth. I’m not discussing space, but time is something that I experience. It’s not the same way as wind, where we see the effects, but not the wind. I feel time passing, I see the results and sometimes I can see the future effect (not always).
“Time has no dimension. Space only has three dimensions. No more. Time cannot be incorporated into space to form a dimension.”
I disagree. The certainty shown by these statements automatically places them as suspect.
“Time is measurable but measurable does not mean tangible — non-matter existence cannot be tangible, only matter existence is tangible.
And due to we only can measure time with matter movement process, so regardless how accurate this measurement can be, it is still a relative reference for time. It is the same case for space on this issue.
Non-matter existences are intangible, therefore they cannot be proved directly but they only can be proved indirectly by matter existence:
There is no way to prove the existence of space but the matter exists and moves within it; there is no way to prove the existence of time but the matter existence and movement process elapses with it.”
I agree. This is a very rational observation.
“Non-matter existences are self-evident; because you only can prove them with the existence of matter existence and due to matter existence is always changing so this proof is intrinsically relative to approximate the absolute existences of the non-matter existences. But if you take the relative proof of the non-matter existences as the proof of the relativeness of the non-matter existences that is wrong — the matter existence is used for approximating the measurement of the non-matter existences but the absoluteness of the non-matter existences is not depending on the relative approximation of the matter existence.”
I don’t know if I agree or disagree. I confess that I could not completely follow the argument.
“And an object moving through the spatial dimension is not the same as a process elapses through time. An object cannot move through time, while a process cannot move through space. Time only can be related to process, space only can be related to object. Use other expression: Time has nothing to do with object; space has nothing to do with process.”
Again, this might be true, but the assertion is too absolute.
“Unlike space, Time has no dimension, it only has a direction. And it is one way direction — irreversible process.
When we travel, we travel through space. We cannot travel through time — it is physically impossible. It is the process of our travel elapsing through time irreversibly into future.
Time and space are different and independent non-matter existences that cannot interact or incorporate with each other. The intrinsic property of space — dimension, cannot be applied to time, and vice versa for the one way direction of the time.”
I disagree, we are not completely sure that there is no interaction. At this point in time, most theories say there is no interaction.
“Space is three dimension that allow matter to exist and move within it, but time has no dimension therefore matter cannot exist and move in it but the process of the matter existence and movement elapses with the direction of time irreversibly.”
I disagree. I don’t know that space makes the determination that matter exists. I don’t know that time has no dimension, it might be measured in the future.
“And due to space and time are non-matter existences which are the absolute existences that can be used as the only absolute reference frames for matter existence. But due to matter existence is always changing, it cannot be used as absolute reference frames for anything — regardless it is for matter existence or non-matter existences.”
“Matter reference frames are intrinsically relative. Matter existence only can be used as relative reference frames.
When matter existence is being used for measuring the space and time, they are the approximation of the absoluteness of the non-matter existences.
So the approximation of the absoluteness of the non-matter existences works as the approximation of the absolute reference frames for matter existence.
There are only three existences in this world: space, time and matter (matter is the abstract term for mass with regard to all its existence states, energy is not substance but the existence states of mass).”
I disagree. The certainty of words like ’only’, makes this statement suspect.
“So, if you messed up the concepts of the space, time and matter, you can get nothing right because there is nothing else left in this world.”
I totally agree. In general, theories of existence have built in ‘mysteries’ that should be considered, ‘certainty’ is impossible.
“That is where modern physics start to get into astray.
The social cost is enormous, especially at the moment of human future crisis.”
I agree. We often get things wrong, and there are consequences.
The simple definition of time, should have a simple answer. The fact that there isn’t a simple explanation is inconvenient for us, but forcing reality into our own narrative is laughable. Again, there are things we don’t yet know, perhaps there is more unknowing than knowing. Things will change and we should be comfortable with that without declaring absolutes before their time. At best this can only be a guess.