The quale of time, ...?

[Amorphos]

The quale of time, ...?

Does a clock tell the time or does the mind? Weather or not there is some overall thing in the physical world which is time [as like times arrow], to us, in our experience there is.

In experiments two clocks are positioned one higher than the other, over a period of time one clock starts telling a different time to the other, this due to the effects of gravity on the two objects.
Cant we just say that; a, ‘some things go faster than other things, as relative to the given forces and their own momentum/forces’? they move in time itself ~ if it is a thing, or in a relativistic manner if relativity is something which changes time? …and is not simply ‘a’.

Cut to the chase; time is a mental experience, as like vision and sound, time is a quale? It only exists as that, but possibly doesn’t exist et al in the physical world.
If there is something in the physical world which is time [I am unsure what time as a dimension means, surely that has to be something more than merely a measure], I’d still maintain that time as we experience it is a mental quale.

------------------------------

On another level [if you wish to explore] we could ask; if time is a mental quale then what is it in terms of the non mental universe? Kinda like how in my ‘three boxes conundrum’ I hoped to define colour [and some information types] as a mental quale but which are not defined by that alone nor in the physical. The third class of things.


.

[volchok]

Michio Kaku: Believe it or not, a clock on your head beats at a different rate than a clock on your foot. We can now measure this and it has practical importance as well. First of all, Einstein said that time is a river. It's a gigantic river were all swept up in the river of time and it can speed up and it slows down. For example, on the moon; did you know, that time beats faster on the moon than it does on the earth and we can measure this? On Jupiter, time beats slower on Jupiter that it does on the Earth. So time beats at different rates. When an object moves very fast, time slows down inside that rocket that is moving very fast. If that rocket is then placed on the Moon, time beats faster. So we have to do competing effects. This has a direct implication with regards to your cell phone.

Your cell phone has GPS which allows you to locate objects on planet Earth by focusing in on satellites orbiting the planet Earth. Satellites travel at 18,000 mph if they’re in lower earth orbit; therefore time slows down for those low-lying satellites. But if satellites go farther and farther away, gravity gets less and less and less so time speeds up. So in outer space we have two competing effects. Fast satellite slowdown in time, very faraway satellites speed up inside and in fact, at one radius you could calculate time beats exactly at the same rate as it does on the planet earth. So what does it mean? Your GPS system would totally fail without Einstein's theory of special and general relativity.

This also means that the top of your head because it is farther from the center of the earth, beats at a faster rate... time beats at a faster rate then your feet. So you can actually show that even within your own body now—our instruments are so accurate—that you could show within your own body the fact that time beats at different rates within your own body.

[Amorphos]

So; “some things move faster than other things, as relative to the given forces and their own momentum/forces”

Does that mean there is something called time.

Or more to the actual point of the thread, does that mean time is a quality of mind based on its sensory input. You wouldn’t experience the time changes in the rocket ship until you got outside and met your descendants all grown up.

[Jamazing]

In my humble opinion, time is an abstract concept created to rationally organize thoughts and events on a personal and social level; to establish a point to point reference used to communicate with others.

Clocks and other measuring devices are used to calculate this abstract concept. I have no problem with these devices, in fact they are very necessary for human interaction, but they are not founded in the concrete reality of the universe. Math is abstract in that it is our way of understanding reality, it does not dictate but defines. Time does not have these qualities, it is not defining reality, it is our own way of putting experiences together in our own mind.

[Amorphos]

In my humble opinion, time is an abstract concept created to rationally organize thoughts and events on a personal and social level; to establish a point to point reference used to communicate with others.

A mental quale then.

Clocks and other measuring devices are used to calculate this abstract concept. I have no problem with these devices, in fact they are very necessary for human interaction, but they are not founded in the concrete reality of the universe. Math is abstract in that it is our way of understanding reality, it does not dictate but defines. Time does not have these qualities, it is not defining reality, it is our own way of putting experiences together in our own mind.

Well the clocks are moving so that motion is time, but time itself is not something ~ apparently. I would think that to have motion you require the dimension to move in, but I would think there has to be something with gives motion; time.

However I doubt if that time is the same thing as our mental experience of time, hence time to us is a mental quale.

Perhaps time and energy in essence are the same thing.
Or
There is only time and it is the thing we call energy. Matter could be information moving with time.

[Moreno]

The quale of time, ...?
.

One possible answer is that time passing is a quale, which is a little different than saying time is a quale. To say time is a quale is a bit like saying length is a quale - not that I want to close a book on that argument except provisionally. So we have a subjective experience of 'moving' through time and 'change' when in fact stuff is just there, already finishing. Instead of traveling through space, over the length of some table, say, we 'travel' through time, or really our limited perspective (locked in a seeming now) 'travels' through time, forward, and notices 'changes', when in fact it is just like seeing more of the table, we see 'the future'. So 'time passing' and changes are really similar to qualia, but time is objective, its just not what we think it is.

[Amorphos]

One possible answer is that time passing is a quale, which is a little different than saying time is a quale. To say time is a quale is a bit like saying length is a quale - not that I want to close a book on that argument except provisionally. So we have a subjective experience of 'moving' through time and 'change' when in fact stuff is just there, already finishing. Instead of traveling through space, over the length of some table, say, we 'travel' through time, or really our limited perspective (locked in a seeming now) 'travels' through time, forward, and notices 'changes', when in fact it is just like seeing more of the table, we see 'the future'. So 'time passing' and changes are really similar to qualia, but time is objective, its just not what we think it is.

Interesting answer. Maybe dimension generally is a perception [if e.g. the holographic principle is correct], but yes that’s something of a digression from the point ~ maybe.

In fact going on what I get from your post, its seems strange that we consider things in terms of time, we could easily perceive a mass of things being discovered and not in time. By ‘already finishing’ I assume you refer to perception as being at the end of the line [of sensory input], or at least being subjectively distinct from the world. All of which further reiterates the point of time being a strange qualia.

Is the subjective time we perceive [the quale] the same as objective time out there?
isn’t the universe in a continuum ~ I digress as that’s a long debate which ends up at the something from nothing debate.
.

[Frankenstein]

Has anybody defined the term "time" yet? If they haven't then we might be getting ourselves in trouble. Surely there are more ways to record time, rather than subjectively, unless we take a Berkelian method of enquiry here. He claimed both primary and secondary qualities can be collapsed into what Locke called Secondary qualities. Then we are completely stuck in our heads; if this is one's starting point then yes, time is purely a subjective mental construct-- i think. Hoowever, if we can measure change "out there" during certain intervals, what's to say that is not "time"? So now we have an objective, and subjective way to measure said "time".

Furthermore, quale is a sort of sensation. Can we call time a "sensation"? Now we are getting deep into our first axioms we decide to take. Are we going to have our heads to far in the clouds? Our heads to deep in the sand?

[Amorphos]

if we can measure change "out there" during certain intervals, what's to say that is not "time"? So now we have an objective, and subjective way to measure said "time".

Here I am not going to entertain idea about everything being subjective, so we cannot know what’s out there [we have many posts on that and its become irrelevant to me at least]. I will just jump straight to the idea that the brain is a worldly instrument designed by nature to interact with and understand nature, so yes it can know what’s out there.

I’d say change is time, somehow we have to find a way to embed it into energy forces and matter, for me we must consider time, energy and matter at once ~ within the same thing [I‘d say that means energy and matter are aspects of time and information].

Lets now say we have some sense of an objective time [or jump to that regardless], and the brain is made of the same stuff though translates the objective time into subjective time.

So now we can get onto what that subjective experience means as a perception [arent all perceptions kinds of mental qualities?]…

----------p2---------------------------------------------

Furthermore, quale is a sort of sensation. Can we call time a "sensation"? Now we are getting deep into our first axioms we decide to take. Are we going to have our heads to far in the clouds? Our heads to deep in the sand?

It should be illegal for philosophers to stop! Lol
Hmm, well colour is a sensation in our experience but also a quality without sensation in and of itself.
Thoughts and perceptions equally aren’t all sensations, we can think conceptually, linguistically or in terms of visualisation ~ these are not sensations.

However, time is when considered a sensation - no? when we are not really thinking about it, then the quality of time is kinda there in the background, and hence not a sensation. There are probably many ways we can think without noticing time e.g. meditation, sleep.

Hmm it does get a bit deep doesn’t it, maybe consider this latter part of the post before we worry about objective time ~ which is possibly irrelevant anyway.


.

[lizbethrose]

Quale is something felt--what seems to be. Please correct me if I'm not accurate in my definition.

There are several kinds of time--time as precise measurement of movement of planets and stars within our observable universe--astronomical time. (Atomic clocks, by the way, recently added a 'leap' second to 'time' in order to make up for the lag in the earth's rotation.) There's human time that I call 'invented time.' How much time have I spent composing this response--how much time do I need to cook food for my family, how much time will it take to run my errands? There's also Nature's time--or seasonal time. When do plants go dormant, an animal grow a thicker coat or go into hibernation? When do they all awaken again and start to grow, shed, or molt?

If time is a river, is it a placid river or is it a river with rapids, eddies, and/or quiet whirlpools?

Does time need dimension? If so, isn't that spacetime?

I'm not questioning you, my friend. It's just that your topic raises these questions in my mind.

[Amorphos]

Liz

Quale is something felt--what seems to be. Please correct me if I'm not accurate in my definition.

I agree, but as above would add that quale are not always sensations.

If time is a river, is it a placid river or is it a river with rapids, eddies, and/or quiet whirlpools?

I’d say all of those things in different areas. The time as a river analogy infers that the river itself is some manner of universal time [perhaps like light is used to base relativistic measures off of]. Equally in MWI [multiverse theory] it appears that at a quantum level the entire universe is measured ~ all pathways found, such that like a thick sheet of paper being split in two, other universes are created. This surely means that at that juncture time is universal, an entirety in some manner.

If there is an arrow of time + relativistic time, then our interpretations of the passage of time may be both. We experience it reletivistically in the changes, but also holistically in the general passage of time. Both of these are experiences of time just the same as our vision of the world is our experience of light, so that experience of time is subjective and qualaic surely?

Does time need dimension? If so, isn't that spacetime?

It needs a measure, but I don’t understand how it is the measure?

Question me all you like, you always do it politely and in a way which expands the topic = debate.

_

[lizbethrose]

In all my questions, one thing is common--time is measurement of some sort. This why the leap second was added to the atomic clock to compensate for earth's rotational bobble (probably due to the molten core of the earth slowing its rotation.) Time is also movement, as we all know. However, time isn't an object. Can only objects have qualia?

I find it difficult to think of time as a mental quale, if qualia are specific properties of 'things,' because you cannot touch, see, or feel the mind any more that you can time. Besides, does a tree have a 'mind' that tells it when to go into hibernation? But couldn't you say that the quale of time is movement but the movement isn't necessarily movement from past to future. This is difficult to try to verbalize, so please forgive me if I bumble. All things on earth move through time--from the past into the future. But I think we also move in time. Our sun and all the other observable stars are also moving through space. We can see that movement; we use time to measure that movement. Does that make sense?

Time then becomes measurable because of movement. Here's where I start to wonder if I'm simply playing word games.

If a 'thing' can be measured, does that give it dimension? Time can be measured.
If a 'thing' has motion, does that give it entropy? ??? Matter has dimension and entropy--Does time? Time has measure-ability and motion without mass, so there is no entropy. And so I go around in circles.

Time is still a something with some dimension and motion. The effects of time are inherent in all 'things' on earth--beyond the effects of time, there are genes within living things on earth that act as signals--to grow, mature, reproduce, go into hibernation, wake up, die, morph (through evolution) into something better able to sustain life within changing environments. All that activity has time as a basic.

See why it's difficult to put into words?

[Amorphos]

liz

In all my questions, one thing is common--time is measurement of some sort. This why the leap second was added to the atomic clock to compensate for earth's rotational bobble (probably due to the molten core of the earth slowing its rotation.)

When we are measuring one thing against another then it is relative, what happens when we are not doing that? ..universal time?

Time is also movement, as we all know. However, time isn't an object. Can only objects have qualia

I don’t think mind is an object either [I could say there are no objects but that’s quite another debate]. Objects - frequencies, inform the mind by taking info from source a to the brain at point b, but it is the mind which understands what that info means. Somehow when collocative info [from the material world] meets mental info, that’s when quale arise.
So no I don’t think objects have qualia, its only when they communicate that they do. Hmm but even then the quale only arise in our minds.

if qualia are specific properties of 'things,' because you cannot touch, see, or feel the mind any more that you can time.

I’d say you cannot touch, see or feel physical objects, you can only feel mind [and hence time in that sense] and what affects are made upon it.

couldn't you say that the quale of time is movement but the movement isn't necessarily movement from past to future.

No I would say that time is only experienced from past to future & as ‘now’. backwards if going forwards facing the opposite direction, nothing goes backwards, even if you could go back in time, you would be travelling forwards [though I don’t think that’s possible].

But I think we also move in time. Our sun and all the other observable stars are also moving through space. We can see that movement; we use time to measure that movement. Does that make sense?

Yes it makes absolute sense, if we take the whole package at once, all the stars and planets in the universe, then weather or not they are moving reletivistically in respect to each other, they are also moving along in time. We can watch the stars and observe this.
that’s what I meant earlier concerning the universal clock/time.

If a 'thing' can be measured, does that give it dimension? Time can be measured.
If a 'thing' has motion, does that give it entropy? ??? Matter has dimension and entropy--Does time? Time has measure-ability and motion without mass, so there is no entropy. And so I go around in circles.

If we rename all the factors and rework them into a single thing, it all becomes elastic; to get 3D measurement, something has to travel in time to create size by distance ~ to form into an object/matter.
We could say energy and more force are time, or time is the function ‘to move’ [1] or ‘to make move’ [2] [1= energy/matter, 2 = forces]. I cant help but think there is just one thing that we can call time or energy in dimensions [which don’t exist as such, are not somethingness].

Time is still a something with some dimension and motion. The effects of time are inherent in all 'things' on earth--beyond the effects of time, there are genes within living things on earth that act as signals--to grow, mature, reproduce, go into hibernation, wake up, die, morph (through evolution) into something better able to sustain life within changing environments. All that activity has time as a basic.

Right! So now we can add information into the mixture, it decides how the time/energy/force entity configures itself into given forms. So everything we have so far is all within a singleness of nature, and one which eventually becomes all of life, and all the info in the universe.

Interestingly, this requires information prior to taking form from nothingness, yet that cannot be collocative info as that relies on an object to interact with to form its informational constitution.
So now we have;

Information [non physical] > the energy/time/force; entity of >
Multiply, then you get collocative information [e.g. DNA is a form of ‘collocative’ pattern type info, that’s what I mean by the term] via the interactions.


_

[Moreno]

Has anybody defined the term "time" yet?

I worked with a definition of time in my post.

I can't say I have any clear belief what time is, but I explored one way of looking at time, and not one I came up with.

[Joe Schmoe]

Time for me, is progression.

It is the process of an instant of reality, being continually surpassed by a new instant. I believe time itself, is absolute. What I mean by this, is that the rate that one instant is surpassed by the next instant, is nonfluctuating.

Where confusion arises, is when the affect of time (progression) appears different amongst objects. This does not contradict time being absolute. An explanation -

Two clocks are trying to measure time. Both are affected differently by the process of time. The pendulum on Clock A, is swinging more frequently than that of Clock B. Does this mean that time is relative? No. It means that the affect of time is relative.

If I put my hand on the pendulum of Clock A, and swing it rapidly. Time is not moving faster, we're just getting a measurement that isn't consistent. Me pushing a pendulum is an oversight when it comes to the accuracy of Clock A's ability to measure of time.

Just because our ability to measure time ain't so flash, doesn't mean that time isn't real or constant.

[Amorphos]

moreno
I worked with a definition of time in my post.
I can't say I have any clear belief what time is, but I explored one way of looking at time, and not one I came up with.

joe
Time for me, is progression.

I like to think of it as a kind of propulsion, it is within the context of mass and energy driving it or is the driving force of that. equally it is also without, driving the entire mass of the universe. so I think in our own terms we kind of agree here.
Its also unlimited, but that’s quite another debate.

I think we feel both, and that is the qualia of time for us, relative and general. At least that’s how I experience it, don’t you?

I think that if you or something else moves the pendulum on the clock, then time for it has sped up.

[Joe Schmoe]

I like to think of it as a kind of propulsion, it is within the context of mass and energy driving it or is the driving force of that. equally it is also without, driving the entire mass of the universe. so I think in our own terms we kind of agree here.
Its also unlimited, but that’s quite another debate.

I think we feel both, and that is the qualia of time for us, relative and general. At least that’s how I experience it, don’t you?

I think that if you or something else moves the pendulum on the clock, then time for it has sped up.

I don't believe time is relative. I believe time is a constant and along with all other dimensions. The affects of time, are relative to environment, but time itself is beyond the environment. It governs the environment, and therefore, can't be within it's scope.

In the example I gave, I was trying to say the exact opposite of what you said about time. Time is constant, the affects of time however, are not. When a pendulum moves faster than another pendulum, it is because it us under different affects. The affects themselves, are not time, but a product of time.

[Amorphos]

When a pendulum moves faster than another pendulum, it is because it us under different affects.

Agreed, but don’t those other affects include time? It is having an effect on all things, no.

[Joe Schmoe]

If we say time is constant, as I do, it's direct affect on everything is constant and equal. I must go back to my definition of time as being "the process of an instant of reality, being continually surpassed by a new instant." All we have, is now. This instant. We have memory of the past, but that exists within this instant, not the past.

A true reflection, that there was a past, is that there is a present. But since time is truly infinite, along with all other dimensions, past and present are kind of like lines in the sand. If you slowed down the progression of time, what would be different for us? I say nothing, because the affect of time is constant. Our experience of reality is like constant snapshots, and the rate of these snapshots, is dependent on us, as if we were a camera and had a certain amount frames per second (seconds being another line in the sand). There's actually an infinite amount of instants that unfold between each snapshot that we're aware of. However, since all that is relevant, is the moments in reality when something in the universe has altered.

If I draw two lines in time, how many times, (that is such a profound word to me right now. When you 'times' something, you get an instant, and you repeat it), can I divide that area? If I continue this process until there is no difference between the two innermost opposites (slices), what is the point of continuing to divide the area? One could say that there's equality in both sides, and that this is the smallest thing that is relevant to us. A question is, how long is that area of time? It could be said to be static in itself, because nothing in this instant fluctuates. Why does anything fluctuate, when it can be divided into an area of stasis?

I don't know why on the smallest relevant scale, an instant is surpassed by another instant. All I know is that I've equated this process, with 'Time'. Why does our existence go at the rate it does, because we only have a certain number of FPS, and completely disregard so many instants in between.

I hope I've answered the question in there, ..somewhere...

EDIT: Oh, yeah. I know my conclusion. It is the contents of reality, that experience time, because time applies to reality itself, and through reality, all that inhabit reality. That's why time is constant, because it's applied once.

(If I read these posts 10 years younger, I'd think this guy was on so many drugs. It's true to an extent... The drug of life, in all it's forms.)

[Frankenstein]

if we can measure change "out there" during certain intervals, what's to say that is not "time"? So now we have an objective, and subjective way to measure said "time".

Here I am not going to entertain idea about everything being subjective, so we cannot know what’s out there [we have many posts on that and its become irrelevant to me at least]. I will just jump straight to the idea that the brain is a worldly instrument designed by nature to interact with and understand nature, so yes it can know what’s out there.

I’d say change is time, somehow we have to find a way to embed it into energy forces and matter, for me we must consider time, energy and matter at once ~ within the same thing [I‘d say that means energy and matter are aspects of time and information].

Lets now say we have some sense of an objective time [or jump to that regardless], and the brain is made of the same stuff though translates the objective time into subjective time.

So now we can get onto what that subjective experience means as a perception [arent all perceptions kinds of mental qualities?]…

----------p2---------------------------------------------

Furthermore, quale is a sort of sensation. Can we call time a "sensation"? Now we are getting deep into our first axioms we decide to take. Are we going to have our heads to far in the clouds? Our heads to deep in the sand?

It should be illegal for philosophers to stop! Lol
Hmm, well colour is a sensation in our experience but also a quality without sensation in and of itself.
Thoughts and perceptions equally aren’t all sensations, we can think conceptually, linguistically or in terms of visualisation ~ these are not sensations.

However, time is when considered a sensation - no? when we are not really thinking about it, then the quality of time is kinda there in the background, and hence not a sensation. There are probably many ways we can think without noticing time e.g. meditation, sleep.

Hmm it does get a bit deep doesn’t it, maybe consider this latter part of the post before we worry about objective time ~ which is possibly irrelevant anyway.


.

Is time something that is "intelligible"? For if it is then wouldn't it be under the surname of an "idea", rather than a quale? Furthermore, if time exists external to ourselves, then in that mode of existence, the quale would merely be the effect of time imposing itself on us.

If time is external to us: To say time is "quale" may be analogous to saying that the sun is a sunburn.
If time is subjective: To say time is "quale" may be analogous to saying that you can "feel" an idea, like Pi, or infinity.

Objections?

[lizbethrose]

I think y'all are thinking about human, or 'created' time--the elapsing of time we can observe and that we wade through. That 'time' remains relatively constant and, imm, has qualia--measurability, observability. and so on.

Time, in special relativity, however, isn't constant. As a 'body' approaches the speed of light, time slows. Would it mean, then, that, if a body reaches and/or exceeds the speed of light, time ends?

"Warp speed, Mr. Sulu!"

[Amorphos]

If time is external to us: To say time is "quale" may be analogous to saying that the sun is a sunburn.
If time is subjective: To say time is "quale" may be analogous to saying that you can "feel" an idea, like Pi, or infinity.

Well time probably doesn’t exist as a thing, but we experience it as a thing.

Time, in special relativity, however, isn't constant. As a 'body' approaches the speed of light, time slows. Would it mean, then, that, if a body reaches and/or exceeds the speed of light, time ends?

Does time slow or do things slow? If things then go faster why does time go slower, I don’t get how time itself ‘is something’ that is somehow within things going slower or faster, what does that mean?

[lizbethrose]

If time is external to us: To say time is "quale" may be analogous to saying that the sun is a sunburn.
If time is subjective: To say time is "quale" may be analogous to saying that you can "feel" an idea, like Pi, or infinity.

Well time probably doesn’t exist as a thing, but we experience it as a thing.

Time, in special relativity, however, isn't constant. As a 'body' approaches the speed of light, time slows. Would it mean, then, that, if a body reaches and/or exceeds the speed of light, time ends?

Does time slow or do things slow? If things then go faster why does time go slower, I don’t get how time itself ‘is something’ that is somehow within things going slower or faster, what does that mean?

Time slows. Volchok quoted Michio Kaku, a physicist and one of the co-theorists of the string theory. He's made science understandable through broadcast media and books and is a great scholar. But I don't understand why he posits the idea of infinity as an impossibility. Or perhaps, I simply don't understand him.

I'll try to explain as I image it: Scientists know about and have observed black holes. Black holes have, in theory at least, enormous gravitational pull in a pinpoint of spacetime. This gravitational pull slows time as it speeds up the movement of particles captured by the gravitation of the black hole. Now, as I visualize it, the gravitation is still there, but the only particles left are those at the edges of the hole so it starts to devour those edges, causing the black hole to implode into itself. If Newton's law is correct and every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the force of the gravitational pull will force and equal and opposite expulsion of the gathered matter--a singularity. Time then begins for the expelled matter. Could this be the meaning of infinity?

Time is an illusion for some. It has no substance and, so, it can't be seen or touched--You can't capture time in a bottle, as Jim Croche sang. But you do feel the effects of time. This is human and earth nature's time. Spacetime is different. Spacetime causes the fabric of the universe to stretch and contract. If time is a part of the fabric, it also contracts and expands around the objects moving through it--the stars and planets. To me, that means each object in space has its own time, depending on its mass and the gravitational pull of its star.

I can't go any further than that. If I could, I'd understand the theory of special relativity--which I don't. I can only take the tiny bits and pieces which I think I understand and attempt to put them together into a, hopefully, plausible whole that helps me understand the world.

[Amorphos]

Liz

This gravitational pull slows time as it speeds up the movement of particles captured by the gravitation of the black hole

I can understand gravity slowing time because it can slow particles and objects. I cant understand it speeding up the movement of particles, AND slowing down time ~ kinda like an anti-momentum. That would make time ‘something’ like a force [like gravity].
I guess that’s what it does though, so time is something ~ where people are always saying things like; ‘time does not exist until you look at your watch’ [which makes it a qualia].

So if time exists does that mean that our perception of it is not a qualia, but the perception of time as a thing which is making effect upon the mind? …there is no subjectivity to it.

I would imagine that even if objective time exists, our perception of it comes through the filter of the brain. The experience of time is thus not the experience of objective time!

[lizbethrose]

Liz

This gravitational pull slows time as it speeds up the movement of particles captured by the gravitation of the black hole

I can understand gravity slowing time because it can slow particles and objects. I cant understand it speeding up the movement of particles, AND slowing down time ~ kinda like an anti-momentum. That would make time ‘something’ like a force [like gravity].
I guess that’s what it does though, so time is something ~ where people are always saying things like; ‘time does not exist until you look at your watch’ [which makes it a qualia].

So if time exists does that mean that our perception of it is not a qualia, but the perception of time as a thing which is making effect upon the mind? …there is no subjectivity to it.

I would imagine that even if objective time exists, our perception of it comes through the filter of the brain. The experience of time is thus not the experience of objective time!

My science is very faulty since I'm simply explaining my imaging--okay? Sound is a wave; light is composed of both waves and particles--at least the last time I read about it. You can't 'see' sound except with an oscilloscope; you can't 'see' the particles in light without instrumentation. Yet you experience both sound and light because various locations in you brain have developed to process those senses. Are sight and sound subjective because the experience of them are processed by your brain? You can't hold light--touch, or 'feel' it--you can't hold, touch, or feel sound.

Why can't time be the same sort of 'thing?' Every cell in your body experiences time--that's why we grow older. The cells within annual plants feel time--they grow, flower/fruit, produce seed, and die. Time is different for a perennial plant. Their genes tell them to repeat their life cycles year after year until they become 'too old.' Then they, too, die.

This is all 'our time,' which can be measured given our instrumentation--clocks and our bodies. Spacetime is also measured by the devises and tests developed by quantum mechanics. I can't explain the duality of spacetime because I'm not sure there is a duality--I still have a lot to learn.

I've said all I can about the subject.