There seem to be two major theories currently.
The theory that the vast majority of people have naturally come to accept because it's the most sensible from a simplified and personal perspective is that time is constantly flowing in all places continuously ― beginning to end.
The less known and accepted theory is that every point in time exists simultaneously. To understand this, one can compare the universe to a DVD, Blu-Ray, etc. Any and all points within the movie exist on that disc simultaneously. It's simply a matter or rewinding or fast-forwarding to reach that point, and yet it moves in a coherent path on its own.
What is your view on the subject?
[spoiler]I'm writing a paper on this for my English Composition course in university. Could anyone provide links to good articles representing both sides of this debate?[/spoiler][spoiler]inb4[b]few[/b]replies[b]because[/b]stupid[b]people[/b]
inb4[b]religion[/b]versus[b]atheism[/b]
inb4[b]op[/b]is[b]imposter[/b]
inb4[b]op[/b]cant[b]inb4[/b][/spoiler]
-
Edited by Martin Septim: 4/21/2015 11:25:05 PMWe see a bunch of different things in the world and we want to describe the differences between them, so we invent distance to describe their shape and size in relation to one other, weight to describe their mass in relation to one other, and time to describe how they change in relation to one other. Is this description an illusion? In a way. But also in a way not. An inch is not real, but the space which an inch represents is real. See what I mean? Things change, that's real. But 'time' as a separate thing which makes other things change? No that's not real. It's all together, not fragmented like we think into 'time' and 'space' and such; that's just our filing cabinet of a brain's way of sorting the world.