What is Time?

If plank state 1 is followed by plank state 2 without apparent rhyme or reason and that negates a meaningful concept of time

you've created an untestable theory because it's possible laws exist that just can't be understood.

This seems to suggest the only reliable description of time requires a conscious observer, right?

Interesting post and well explained.

Maybe we, as humans, are simply overcomplicating something very fundamental. Time is inherent to reality, like space. We call it 'spacetime' for a reason. Time can be viewed as a 'dimension' but it is not a dimension like height, depth, or width. For example, we know that time slows down when you travel at extremely high speeds, or when the gravitational pull becomes supermassive.

You are spot-on with your dissections of subjective and psychological time.

We still do have a 'sense' in this regard, we know how long we've slept (generally), but while asleep, we are not conscious, so we do not experience time. Yet, time always is. Time is just like space and life: it just is.

Sometimes, there is truth in simplicity.

Time is ordered succession.

If everything changes, there is nothing to tie one moment to another; time would fall apart if it was just one damn thing after another. Everything is tied together by order, and kept distinct by change, and this is the nature of space-time.

As you prepare for the next pull, which kind of time are you experiencing? Subject or objective?

Neither. I experience psychological time only.

Space and time, along with what they contain, are not things, or properties of things, in themselves, but belong merely to the appearances of such things...space (and time too...), along with all its determinations, can be cognized by us a priori, for space, as well as time, inheres in us before all perception or experience as a pure form of our sensibility and makes possible all intuition from sensibility, and therefore all appearances.

Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror:What a biologist familiar with the facts of evolution would regard as the obvious answer to Kant's question was, at that time, beyond the scope of the greatest of thinkers. The simple answer is that the system of sense organs and nerves that enables living things to survive and orientate themselves in the outer world has evolved phylogenetically through confrontation with an adaptation to that form of reality which we experience as phenomenal space. This system thus exists a priori to the extent that it is present before the individual experiences anything, and must be present if experience is to be possible.

Quite oppositely, time is needed for any change, as I argued in the OP.

This seems to suggest the only reliable description of time requires a conscious observer, right?

What do you think of Bertrand Russell's views on time:

Time is a unit of measurement. Pretty much it.

What do you think of Bertrand Russell's views on time:

Subjective time is a substance:

2 By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties.

I sent the document you linked to my Kindle. Thanks.

Our mind was born into a place with time (and space) therefore time was a priori to mind.

Not according to Kant, and I have some sympathy with his way of seeing things. In my interpretation of what he said, time is something we bring to the world.

Time is a unit of measurement. Pretty much it.

Yet everyone on the team anticipates the same moment in time.

Perhaps the only reason we recognize time as a separate entity is because it has a direction - past to present to future.

In general, the laws of physics do not require or specify this directionality.

As I understand it, the explanation for this lack of symmetry is the second law of thermodynamics. Closed systems tend to develop from conditions of lower entropy to higher.

Quite oppositely, time is needed for no change.

The infinite regress argument about subjective time requiring itself to change is intriguing, though it leans heavily on a metaphysical notion of the mind as a primary mover. I’d challenge the assumption that time must be a substance at all. Many physicists and philosophers argue that time might emerge from relationships between events rather than existing as an independent entity.

Your thought experiment is clever for illustrating our inability to perceive subjective time directly. I think this would be a fascinating topic to expand with perspectives from process philosophy or modern physics.

You seem to have smuggled in the concept of substance here. Does substance describe a thing, something that has objective existence?

Or is substance a substance of mind, or intellect, or something immaterial?

Does something exist if it is an invention of thought?

Yet everyone on the team anticipates the same moment in time.
— frank
Each person in the team has access only to his or her psychological time. As I argued in the OP, we cannot experience subjective time since we don't have any sensory system for it.

I have an argument for it. Please read it and tell me what you think about it.

It is of the utmost importance not to confuse time-relations of subject and object with time-relations of object and object;

It will be seen that past, present, and future arise from time-relations of subject and object, while earlier and later arise from time-relations of object and object.

In a world in which there was no experience there would be no past, present, or future, but there might well be earlier and later

So why do they pull at the same time?

The passage of psychological time is the same for all of them.

There are three types of time, namely subjective time, objective time, and psychological time.

So even the “succession” of object-object time isn’t as fixed as it seems. It raises fascinating questions about whether time is a fundamental feature of the universe or a mental construct tied to consciousness

Subjective time is a substance:

P1) Subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in a physical#1 (please see the Argument below)
P2) Any change requires subjective time (please see the Argument below)
C1) Therefore, we are dealing with an infinite regress since subjective time is required to allow a change in subjective time (from P1 and P2)
C2) If so, then there must exist the Mind that is a substance#2 with the ability to experience and cause subjective time
C3) So, subjective time is a substance

Subjective time is a redundant concept.

Kant's transcendental philosophy includes a well-known perspective on subjective time and its mode of existence.

P1) Subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in a physical (Consider an electron as an example of a physical)

I can agree that there is objective time and psychological time, but I am unsure that there is subjective time.

P1 - Objective time is inferred to exist in the world.
P2 - Psychological time exists in the conscious mind, in that we are conscious that at one time we were driving in the city and at another time we were walking through a forest. As you say, "We, however, experience the passage of psychological time".
P3 - The conscious mind is a physical substance that changes with objective time.

P4 - If there was a subjective time, it would exist in the conscious mind.
P5 - At one moment in objective time, subjective time cannot change.
P6 - Between two different objective times, subjective time would change.
C1 - But as you say "We, however, cannot experience the subjective time since we exist within each instant of it"
C2 - We can experience psychological time and we can infer objective time, but as we cannot experience subjective time, then the concept of subjective time becomes redundant.

Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time… measurement presupposes duration, but duration ultimately eludes measurement ~ Evan Thompson, Who Really Won when Bergson Debated Einstein

Let me consider your argument in P4. It implies that if subjective time exists, it would be contained within the conscious mind, as though it’s something that is "added on" or superfluous. However, subjective time is likely inseparable from the experience of being conscious.

In fact, Kant demonstrated that without subjective time there could be no coherent experience of existence or consciousness.

Our internal experience of "flow" and "duration" is directly related to the notion of subjective time. It is not something that can be reduced to a mental state or an objective process, but constitutes a fundamental dimension of the conscious experience of continuity, memory, and change.

Space and time are pure forms of intuition that enable the possibility of our being able to have experiences. But what kind of experiences is he referring to?

In other words, the mathematics that describe change, is time (spacetime as far as physical time is concerned).

“Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct.

Sometimes, there is truth in simplicity.

The mental time (subject-object) contains a past, present, and future, due to our experience and memory. The essence of physical time (object-object) is succession; therefore earlier and later.

For example, there is no "now" unless someone is experiencing it, and there is no "past" unless someone is remembering it. It's kind of hard to articulate, but do you get the gist of it?

Objective time and psychological time are sufficient. Subjective time is a redundant concept.

As I mentioned in the OP, any change requires time, whether it is physical or mental. In the first case, we need subjective time, and in the second case, we need psychological time. Subjective time is caused by the Mind (capital M), whereas psychological time is caused by the mind.

There is the question as to how "subjective time" relates to time.

We have a memory of driving through the city and we are aware of presently walking through the forest. But even our awareness of presently walking through the forest is a memory, because the transfer of information from the forest to our mind is limited by the speed of light.

Therefore, the conscious mind is always comparing two memories, the memory of driving in the city and the memory of walking through the forest. The conscious mind is aware that these two memories are different, and the conscious mind understands that memories that are different have different "times".

Yet, as the clock only exists in the "now", the conscious mind can only exist in the "now". As you wrote about the clock “Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct". Exactly the same applies to the mind, such that “Each successive ‘now’ of the conscious mind contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct".

The conscious mind, which only exists in the "now", can compare two memories, which also only exist in the "now". The conscious mind can be aware that these memories are different, and this difference is labelled as "time".

For the conscious mind, "time" is something that can only exist in the "now" as a difference in memories, which also can only exist in the "now".

In effect, a difference in memories that are both in the "now" can be labelled "a change in time".

Subjective time in the conscious mind is something that can only exist in the "now".
a day ago

there is no 'objective time' per se - time itself is inextricably linked to the subjective awareness of it

If 'now' is defined as the moment information reaches our senses (say light beams from various sources coincide with your position in space) we can define now in terms of information being at a certain point in space. But what if nobody is there to know the information (light beams) is reaching that point in space? The light beams still arrive so do they constitute a 'now'?

@Number 2018 - Evan Thompson points out Bergson’s position regarding a relation between subjective and objective times: “Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct.......................Clocks don’t measure time

The problem with defining "now" as the moment information reaches our senses is the use of the word "moment". "Moment" assumes the existence of time, which "now" specifically excludes.

The definition of "now" cannot include the word "moment".

You are correct that no measurement exists outside of conscious temporary awareness. However, Bergson did not completely reject objective time. He differentiated between 'measured time' and 'lived time,' arguing that time cannot be fully captured by concepts or categories alone. Instead, there is likely a complex interplay between these two forms of time.

The argument you provided suggests that the conscious mind exists only in the "now," comparing two memories that are themselves always part of the present moment. However, subjective time refers to a flow of past, present, and future that are inextricably interconnected.

But what if nobody is there to know the information (light beams) is reaching that point in space? The light beams still arrive so do they constitute a 'now'?

On its way to the eye, the photon passes through every point between the object and the eye, of which there are an infinite number. As the photon can only be in one place at one time (ignoring complexities of quantum mechanics), at each point the photon passes through, it exists in the present time, it exists in the "now". Either there are an infinite number of "nows" between the object and the eye or there is only one "now", where the photon happens to be at any moment in time.

That picture of the photon passing through every point on a classical trajectory assumes a deterministic path and a continuous sequence of objective instants.

How exactly does a person connect an objective past to an objective present if not by a memory that exists in the objective present?

At the moment I hear the clock strike for the fourth time, I have the memory of hearing the clock strike for the first time. When I hear the clock strike for the fourth time, for me, this is my "now". My memory of hearing the clock strike for the first time is also in my "now". In my "now" are both the memory of the clock striking for the first time and hearing the clock strike for the fourth time. The relation between the memory of the clock striking for the first time and hearing the clock strike for the fourth time comprises my awareness of subjective time. But this subjective time only exists for me in my "now", meaning that my subjective time is an instantaneous thing that requires no objective time at all.

in order for the mind to have a consciousness of a subjective time, how exactly does the mind connect an objective past to an objective present?

1) Do people exist in both the objective past and objective present, thereby allowing them
an awareness of the flow of time?

2) Does the person only exist in the objective present, the "now", but their mind is able to go back to an objective past, thereby allowing them an awareness of the flow of time?

How exactly does a person connect an objective past to an objective present if not by a memory that exists in the objective present?

The three modalities of time are really one. One cannot isolate any one modality and speak of it as such, for this analytically carries along with it the other two..............It is also what can properly be called metaphysics, simply because this apriority is not witnessable empirically, quantitatively. It is "about" the world", yet it is apriori!

But this subjective time only exists for me in my "now", meaning that my subjective time is an instantaneous thing that requires no objective time at all.

The argument you provided suggests that the conscious mind exists only in the "now," comparing two memories that are themselves always part of the present moment. However, subjective time refers to a flow of past, present, and future that are inextricably interconnected.

Subjective time highlights the mind’s role in constructing and experiencing temporal flow. Hume and Bergson used the example of a clock to show how subjective time allows the mind to transcend a fleeting, current moment of experience. You are correct that all mental operations, including memory, occur within a single moment of objective time. However, the contents of memory do not coexist in the same way that physical objects like furniture in my room do. Instead, memories form an evolving, continuous whole possessing all dimensions of time.

"In the century since 1922, the conceptual distance between the German physicist and the French philosopher seems to have shrunk."

Why should it be that because a photon's path through space and time is unknowable to an observer, that its path is not spatially and temporally objectively deterministic?

A photon of light leaves the Andromeda Galaxy and enters a person's eye 2.537 million light-years later.

The photon must have had a path, because it made its way from the Andromeda Galaxy to the Earth, even if the path cannot meaningfully be assigned by an observer.

You write that the three modalities of time, the past, the present and the future, are really one, and are to be understood within metaphysics, about the world yet outside the world.

I suggested that my subjective time only exists in my present.
But this subjective time only exists for me in my "now", meaning that my subjective time is an instantaneous thing that requires no objective time at all.

The implication is that the photon didn’t have a determinate path until we made a measurement.

Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. To illustrate his idea, he devised what he calls his "delayed-choice experiment," which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment.

The double-slit experiment is a famous quantum physics experiment that shows that light exhibits behaviour of both a particle and a wave. In a new paper, researchers claim they’ve proven the experiment wrong, and that light is just a particle. Instead of light also being a wave that interferes with itself they say that there are both light photons and dark photons. Let’s take a look.

Gerard ‘t Hooft won the Nobel Prize in 1999, and the recent Breakthrough Prize, for his work on the Standard Model of Particle physics. He also thinks that quantum mechanics is nonsense. Indeed, he has an alternative theory for quantum mechanics that he says is how the world really works. This theory has been almost entirely ignored by physicists. Which is unfortunate, because he predicts a limit for what quantum computers can do.

Yes, but when you speak of 'now' you are simply localizing subjective time, and the concept remains abstract. Analysis shows that what we call 'now' is really an ecstatic relation between temporal categories and there "really" is no boundary at all.

New research has found that meditation can change the way that we perceive the passing of time. Researchers published new findings in the journal PLoS One. The studies found that mindfulness meditation increased happiness, decreased anxiety, and also changed people’s perception of time.

If my "now" can never be in the past and can never be in the future, does this not mean that my "now" is a distinct boundary between my past and my future?

It is beyond my comprehension that in a Universe 93 billion light years across that has existed for around 13 billion years, the determinacy of the path of photons throughout this Universe is dependent on a few scientists making measurements on the 3rd rock from the Sun.

Rather, your now always already IS the past and future.........So recollection is the ecstatic unity of the recalled, being recalled in the forward looking of the present event, an event that is continuously on the threshold of anticipating what comes next...................................They are closer to Meister Eckhart's "On Detachment"

You should also know that God has stood in this unmoved detachment from all eternity, and still so stands; and you should know further that when God created heaven and earth and all creatures, this affected His unmoved detachment just as little as if no creature had ever been created.

Therefore, if a man is to be like God, as far as a creature can have likeness with God, this must come from detachment.

What if reality is not completely determined by physical principles?

subjective duration of time exists in a single objective moment of time.

For me, philosophically, an interesting question not raised by Thompson's article is how we are able to subjectively feel the duration of time within a single momentary objective instant of time.

For man, unlike God, recollection and implication can only exist in the present, can only exist in the "now".

If man can only exist in the present, in the "now", yet can think about recollections from the past and can think about implications concerning the future, then these recollections of the past and implications concerning the future must also exist in the present, in the "now".

You say "your now is always already in the past and future". Perhaps, however, it is more the case that "your past and future is always in your now"?

It is not that the present is a dimension of time: the present alone exists. Rather, synthesis constitutes time as a living present, and the past and the future as dimensions of this present”

It is not that the present is a dimension of time: the present alone exists.

In Bergson’s example, when the mind contemplates the sounds of the four o'clock strikes, each stroke or excitation is logically independent of the others.

Unlike any mere memory of distinct elements, we contract them into a living temporal flow that is dynamic and continuous, differing from a mechanical sequence of moments...Both do not simply register a sequence of discrete sensory inputs but synthesize time, creating a continuous living flow.

But yes, you nearly have it here: "these recollections of the past and implications concerning the future must also exist in the present, in the "now"," but for one important matter: The now cannot be understood as a place where all things temporal intersect or settle.

But doesn't that mean that it is in the present where all things temporal (recollections, implications, the "now") intersect or settle?

Depends on what you mean by 'present'

One asks how subjective duration relates to objective instant.

Perhaps in order to answer this question, we should take on board Husserl's concept of phenomenological reduction. We should attempt a meditative approach, fully grounded in the present, absent of any preconceptions from our past and absent of any implications about our future.

The question is, does this make any difference in one's (genitive) "objective" time? This analysis of time, Bergson (haven't read), Deleuze, Husserl (The Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time) , does invite a violation, if you will, of objective familiarity, such that time as sequential events yields to the more basic analysis.

I don't understand Deleuze's explanation of "synthesis". On the one hand, the present alone exists. On the other hand, within this present there is a "temporal flow".

How can there be a flow of time within a single moment in time?

Then the world is turned upside down as one encounters Kant's Copernican Revolution.

1) This present indeed corresponds to an instant in objective time—the “now” that can be measured.
2) Yet, this present is not simply that isolated instant. It is formed through the passive synthesis of past and future moments, which are contracted and integrated into it. The synthesis constitutes a continuous temporal flow within the present; it is making it not just a single point but a dynamic duration where moments are interconnected and experienced as a unified flow of time.

The problem is in part discovering necessary connections between different contents.

However, this is a different problem to the metaphysical problem as to how a duration can exist in an instant.

You might want to read the Transcendental Deduction in the Critique of Pure Reason for a close look at the way Kant thinks. It has to be understood that whatever one can say about objective time presupposes subjective time.

I am conscious of my existence as determined in time. All time-determination presupposes something persistent in perception. This persistent thing, however, cannot be something in me, since my own existence in time can first be determined only through this persistent thing. Thus the perception of this persistent thing is possible only through a thing outside me and not through the mere representation of a thing outside me.

Anyway, in the everyday sense of the terms, things are taken differently in different contexts, but Heidegger does ontology, which is meant to be the analytic context where things are understood in their "equiprimordiality"

All time-determination presupposes something persistent in perception. This persistent thing, however, cannot be something in me, since my own existence in time can first be determined only through this persistent thing.

What is perceived is change, not persistence..................................But it may be the case that this persistence is only within me, and projected onto the outside, creating the illusion of a thing outside me.

It is not the case that I see a tree and a moment later I see the same tree, but rather I see a tree persisting through time.

But I only exist at one moment in time, meaning that I can only be conscious of my present, my "now".

That is what I dispute (ie, I see a tree persisting through time). We can only see at the moment of the present, so that there is something there which persists through time, a tree in your example, is a conclusion drawn with the aid of memory.....................That's not true (ie, I can only be conscious of my present), because we have memory. So we are conscious of the past. Also, we anticipate the future, so we are conscious of the future too.

A clock shows 2pm and then the clock shows 3pm. There is a physical change in what the clock shows.

You say that physical change requires subjective time, and subjective time is caused by the Mind.

In what sense is the physical change in the clock first showing 2pm and then showing 3pm caused by the Mind?

The mind not only causes subjective time but also causes the physical (this is discussed in my other thread here), so it is no surprise that there is synchrony between the passage of subjective time and changes in physical.

Since the moment we first clocked the first moment,
We touched infinitely in all directions, before and forever after, all at that first instant of time.

A moment of time, since it is “of time” must have some duration, and once you have a duration you see the infinite.

So, taking for granted that it takes a few brief moments to say the word “instant”, then the moment “instant” is said, we have a duration long enough to find infinity.

I can understand the existence of an experience is due to the change in state of physical, in that the existence of my experience of sorrow is due to the change in the physical state of my dog from living to dead.

I would argue that perhaps you have this backwards. I think of time as a unit of measurement for change. If nothing changes, there is no way to tell time.

I would argue that perhaps you have this backwards. I think of time as a unit of measurement for change.

If nothing changes, there is no way to tell time.

It seems to me that we exist at one moment in time, including our mind and brain, as well as everything else in the world, including trees, tables and chairs.

That being said, I also feel that I am conscious of the persistence and duration of time. This raises the mysterious metaphysical problem of how a duration of time can exist at a moment in time. Kant thought it could, and he called it the Transcendental Unity of Apperception.

I believe we actually perceive motion, activity, and this requires temporal duration, therefore we do perceive duration. I think that the "moment in time" is an artificial construct.

Also, I think that when you speak of your awareness of an event which just happened, as part of your experience of the present, I think you need to include your awareness (anticipation) of an event which is about to happen, as part of your awareness of the present.

How can I perceive a duration if I exist within this duration?

But if I existed within a duration, then my awareness, which has a duration, cannot be aware of its own duration. My only awareness could be of a timelessness.

Why not? You have a multitude of senses, a brain, and all sorts of tools within your body, which could enable you to experience the very duration which you live in. Your question is like asking how can I experience the same world which I exist within?

I exist within a world of trees and mountains, but I am external to these trees and mountains.

The problem arises when I am not external to what I experience.

Can an experience experience itself. Can a thought think about itself.

Can a duration be aware of its own duration?

You're really not making sense Russel. People are not external to their experiences. Experience is an intrinsic aspect of being a human being. It doesn't make sense to talk about experiences which you are external to, or which are external to you.

Trying analogies: i) can one hand wash itself, ii) can a snooker ball at rest start to move without any external force, iii) can the mind be conscious of its own consciousness, iv) can something arise from nothing, v) can there be an effect without a cause, vi) does an evil person think that they are a good person.

Suppose I experience an object moving from right to left.

However, if "my experience" is internal to "me" but separate to "me" then this is the homunculus problem

Therefore, "my experience" must be "me", in that I am my experiences rather than I have experiences.

But that means there exists only one thing, "me" This one thing can be called either "me" or "my experience", as they are one and the same thing.

My question is, accepting that one thing can be aware of a second thing, how can one thing be aware of itself?

This takes me back to my analogies, how can one hand wash itself.

How can a single thought think about itself?

How can a single thought that has a duration think about its own duration?

No, my experience is not "me", it is a part of me, just like my heart is, and my brain is, except it is a different type of part of me, a different category.

So "an object moving from right to left" is not what you experience, it's an interpretation of a part of your experience, what you saw, heard, etc. The interpretation itself is another part of your experience.

I believe we actually perceive motion, activity, and this requires temporal duration, therefore we do perceive duration. I think that the "moment in time" is an artificial construct.

My experiences being a part of me suggests that "I" could exist without them. But is this true?

I am still interested in how we are able to perceive duration.

It is true, however, that if I did exist at one moment in time, I could compare my memory of the object being to the right at time 2pm and being to the left at time 2.05. This would allow me to perceive that there had been a duration of time.

I can judge a duration from the viewpoint of one moment in time, but how can I judge a duration when I am part of that duration?

I believe we actually perceive motion, activity, and this requires temporal duration, therefore we do perceive duration. I think that the "moment in time" is an artificial construct.

"Judge" is a much better word to use here than "perceive".

Without events (in a completely empty universe) what would the meaning of space be?
Without events in relations to each other how would we measure, experience or conceive of space?

Many physicists and philosophers argue that time might emerge from relationships between events rather than existing as an independent entity.

If I exist within a duration of time, how can I know that I exist within a duration of time?

As I said, it's basically the same way that you can know anything about the environment which you live in.

You can be an extreme skeptic, and deny that you can know anything, but what's the point?

I know about my environment because I can see trees and mountains. But my experience of temporal duration only exists in my mind, and is not something that I can see in my environment.

Therefore, I cannot know about temporal duration in the same way that I know about my environment.

A sceptic may deny that trees and mountains exist in the world. However, a sceptic cannot deny that they experience a sense of temporal duration.

Even for the sceptic, there is a difference between what exists in the mind and what exists outside the mind.

The problem here seems to be that you are not allowing that seeing activities qualifies as evidence of seeing temporal duration, yet you do allow that seeing something relatively static, an object, qualifies as evidence of seeing objects like trees and mountains.

I believe we actually perceive motion, activity, and this requires temporal duration, therefore we do perceive duration. I think that the "moment in time" is an artificial construct.

I am assuming by temporal duration we mean that time itself cannot be reduced to a moment in time. As the Planck length is the smallest measurable unit of length, there is a smallest unit of time. ie, a duration.

I look at the world and can see a tree, static at one moment in time.

However, I believe that we approach this from different philosophical positions. I assume that you support Direct Realism (though I may be mistaken), whereas I support Indirect Realism.

Therefore, if time itself is actually continuous, without moments, yet our measurements of time are dependent on the use of such moments, then our measurements are fundamentally flawed, because they employ a concept which is not representative of time in reality.

If activity requires passing time, and there is no passing time in a moment, you would not be able to determine whether the tree is static or active without watching it for a duration.

This makes no sense to me.

This is the same problem with space as there may be with time.
The Planck length is the smallest unit of length, approximately equal to 1.616 x 10^-35 meters.
In a sense, our measurements of both space and time may be fundamentally flawed, in that, as there is no position in space, there may be no moment in time.

This is the same problem with space as there may be with time.

These are simply units of measurements, not ultimate bounds in a some philosophical sense. If you were to ride on that photon as it traverses a Planck length, time would vanish completely for you......................I have wondered why certain physical facts about time have not entered into these discussions.

Space has always been considered infinitely divisible and thus continuous throughout the western philosophical traditions beginning with the ancient Greeks......................However, this notion of space has also been questioned and challenged since the very beginning. Zeno of Elea, a disciple of the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides who denies the reality of motion, was the first and foremost (at least that we know of) to disturb our notion of space with his famous paradoxes.

Therefore, Einstein’s theory of relativity, although forever changed our conception of space, time, and motion, still leaves the continuity of space untouched.

I don't think these two are similar at all. When we look at things in space, we see all sorts of boundaries, the edges to objects, etc., but we do not find any such boundaries in time.

And the point?

The spatial boundaries are determined by empirical principles, while the temporal boundaries are stipulated arbitrarily.

The spatial measurement is not arbitrary..................The temporal measurement is completely arbitrary.

Nevertheless, things in space have definable position, even if moving, and that provides the basis for spatial measurement. On the other hand, the points in time which serve as the boundaries for measurement are totally arbitrary.

There is a temporal duration between C and D. This temporal duration is also real, and therefore also not arbitrary.

(ignoring any debate in quantum mechanics)

As I explain, that duration is arbitrary...The length of the duration is the product of choice in an absolute sense

However, I don't understand why one cannot equally say "therefore it's time cannot be arbitrarily chosen, there are real temporal parameters which limit the truth, and restrict the designation of time". When observed, as this particle can only exist at one time, its time has not been arbitrarily chosen.

I still don't see the difference you are trying to explain, in that distance is not arbitrary yet duration is arbitrary.

Neither are arbitrarily chosen. The position is the position I observe it to be at, and the time is the time I observe it to be at.

Einstein's theory of relativity has changed our conception of space, time and motion, but does not refer to whether space is continuous or not.
Therefore, Einstein’s theory of relativity, although forever changed our conception of space, time, and motion, still leaves the continuity of space untouched.

As the metaphysical reality of the Planck length is problematic, whether space is infinitely divisible or not, the same seems to apply also to time, whether time is infinitely divisible or not.

What would those real temporal parameters consist of? If you think about it, they are all reducible to relative positions. So your starting point, t1, is completely arbitrary. You choose a specific position, and begin. The time itself has nothing within it to indicate to you what position is the starting position.

I am not sure philosophical discussions of time and space which precede our modern physics and which choose to ignore the seeming implications are relevant or reliable.

There is clearly process and change in the universe....................All our measures of time depend on some other process, the earth moving around the sun...........................So it would appear there is no absolute time, and time is an abstraction from change.

The most productive path for the TOE (theory of everything) or Universal Field Theory would seem to be some form of Quantum Gravity (loop, string, etc.)........................This would imply that neither time nor space are continuous but both would have some kind of discrete quantum formulation....................No dimensionless points and no instants of zero duration.