The Infiniteness of Time

[RJG]

Talking about "2D planes 'changing into' 3D objects" and so on is talking about an abstraction--a mental construction that we've created.

That's different than talking about what the world is like independent of us, isn't it? I thought we were talking about real time, not an abstraction or our conception of it.

? -- Which of our thoughts are NOT a mental construction/abstraction/conception? -- Everything we know is a mental construction/abstraction/conception.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In the 4D block universe of "spacetime" there is not 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. There are four equal dimensions of spacetime. Each dimension is dimension of spacetime.

You can imagine drawing a line through that 4D block universe of spacetime and call that drawn-on 1D line the axis of time. But there are infinite different 1D lines that you could draw on, each possible 1D line just as worthy of being called the axis of time, which is the sense in which not only is (1) time relative but also it is the case that (2) the difference between timeness and spaceness is relative, analogous to the difference between hereness and thereness. Fundamentally, according to Einstein's physics, space is time, and time is space, and in that way there is no space and not time but just a singular spacetime.

What is space from one reference frame is time from a different reference frame, with neither one being objective more correct, analogous to how what is 'here' from one reference frame can be 'there' to another reference from. In Einstein's physics, it's not just time and space that are relative, but also timeness and spaceness.

In Einstein's physics, from the self-referential perspective of something moving in spacetime, everything moves through spacetime at the same speed (C, the constant), and thus from the self-referential perspective it sees itself as moving only through one dimension at the speed of C (i.e. each thing sees itself as moving only and always through time at the speed of C and thus not through space at all) and sees everything else either moving through space at the speed of C but not time at all, or moving through a mixture of space at sub-C levels and time at sub-C levels such that movement through space and the movement through time equal C, which is really just a way of saying that shortest point through spacetime is a line. Time is just the dimension in space that happens to be parallel to a chosen reference line. One experiences one's own line through spacetime as a special line, the line of time, but the timeless of that 1-D line as opposed to any other 1-D line is arbitrary and relative. Your 1-D line of time is different than my 1-D line of time through spacetime. There is no objective 1D line of time in 4D spacetime. There is no objective way to say which three dimensions of the 4D block universe are the three dimension of space as opposed to time. In other words, there are infinite ways to slice it up into 3D frames.

So, you are not necessarily denying the existence of time itself, but instead denying any objective orientation of the axis/dimension of time. Correct? In other words, time is relative to the viewers position in this universe?

I am denying the existence of time.

An axis of time is (or at least would be) an orientation to the would-be block universe. Once you have an axis of time, and thus in other words a way to distinguish which dimensions are space dimensions and which dimension is the time, then ipso facto you have have time.

But there is no objective time.

There is no real time. And there is no object time-ness (versus space-ness).

There is in a sense the concept of relative time, but that is inherently conceptual and relative to a chosen axis of time (a.k.a. a "reference line", a "world-line", or a "reference point").

In analogy, this is like if I ask you to geometrically graph the position of pool balls on a pool table using a rectangular sheet of white paper, using a horizontal x-axis and vertical y-axis. The pool table has a wider side and a thinner side. You can choose to make the thinner side the X-axis graph or you can choose to make it the Y-axis. The same goes for the other side. (Technically, you don't just have two options, but infinite options because any line could be drawn through pool table and treated as the X-asix, such as making the X-axis on your graph run diagonal on the table.)

Thus, the pool table does not have an objective X-axis or an objective Y-axis. Those are self-referentially relative conceptual constructs, essentially projected onto the reality that is the unchanging pool table. That projection is inherently transcendental to the pool table. You can change which axis you treat as the X axis, which would change your graph drastically, but the pool never changes.

Treating a dimension or axis in the 4D block universe as being "time" or otherwise different or special than the other three is like drawing an X-axis or Y-axis on the pool table, it's an imaginary, arbitrary, and self-referentially relative.

The horizontal-ness of the X-axis versus the Y-axis is not real. In that way, horizontal-ness and vertical-ness are not real.

In the same way, time-ness and space-ness are not real. They are inherently arbitrary and/or transcendental conceptualizations projected onto a (possibly) 4D reality. Fundamentally, just as the pool table you choose to graph with a horizontal/x-axis doesn't actually have horizontal of its own, neither does the timeless block universe, meaning physical reality itself.

Einstein's physics don't work unless the apparent seeming difference between time and space is rejected (and thus time-ness and space-ness are rejected and rendered as relativistic conceptual fictions), even though space, time, space-ness, and time-ness, like Flat Earth Theory, match our day-to-day lives and intuitions.

There are four equivalent dimensions in Einstein's timeless block universe, not three equivalent dimensions plus one special dimension.

That line that seems special to one human in spacetime is different from human to human, such that what would seem like space to one human can seem like time to another and vice versa, and neither is right or wrong because there is no time or time-ness. This is the same way that what would seem like the front-back dimension versus the left-right dimension to a flat-lander living on the of the pool table would be self-referentially relative and fundamentally an illusion of conceptualization. It's a projection the horizontal-ness and vertical-ness. There is no objective leftness and rightness, no objective vertical-ness and horizontalness, and no objective time-ness and space-ness. In Einestein's physics, there is a 4D unchanging timeless block universe.

Time is not real. Time-ness is not real. And likewise space and space-ness aren't real either.

I do believe something that we might be able to call "conscious presence" is real, which indeed raises many questions and mysteries that I do not have the answers to and choose to remain agnostic about, not the least of which is what it even means exactly to use the word "presence" (i.e. a here and now in time-less space-less 4D spacetime).

However, many of those mysteries and questions can be side-stepped or even wiped away if for the sake of argument at least we assume that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful I don't actually assume that to be true, but I am more than happy to continue the discussion under that premise for the sake of argument, if not just for the sake of simplicity and focus.

If we assume consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful, AND accept Einstein's physics (i.e. the timeless 4D block universe), then it is arguable that "conscious presence" does not exist or arguably cannot exist (e.g. it could be argued to be a misuse of the word presence).

If we assume consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful (which are not things I actually believe), then it seems to me the only reasonable conclusion is that change is not real, and thus in a way nothing is happening, since happening arguably requires change.

In other words, if consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful (which are not things I would generally assume), then change is incompatible with determinism--because time doesn't objectively exist.

[LuckyR]

****************

Ha, ha, time doesn't even exist, it is a human construct to aid in various practical human endeavors.

...so then do "before and after's" also not exist?
...can a "human endeavor" actually begin if beginnings don't exist?

You don't get it. Semantic tricks manipulate language, which is another human construct. No one proves anything in the physical world by clever wordplay.

[Steve3007]

So then what do you call the 4th dimension? ...or does it not exist? ...if not, then do the other 3 dimensions likewise not exist?

In my view, dimensions are mathematical constructs and mathematics is an abstraction. Abstract things are things that exist as concepts in minds as opposed to real things, which exist outside of minds. Of course, as you've said many times, we can't be certain that any of the experiences we have correspond to things that exist independently of our minds. But we believe that they do. We don't believe that abstract concepts do.

So if "to exist" means "to be real and not abstract" then, no, dimensions do not exist.

As Scott has been pointing out (although he doesn't put it in this way), the clean division between 3 dimensions of space and one of time that has existed since Descartes first created the concept of cartesian coordinates is not necessarily a useful model for all purposes. For some purposes it's more useful to use a model of 4 dimensional space-time where it isn't the case that one of those dimensions is distinct from the other 3.

[RJG]

I am denying the existence of time.

1. Did it take 'time' to write and post this denial (the words above)?

2. Was there a "before" posting and a "after" posting of these words? In other words, was there a point in spacetime that these words were not posted on this forum and then another point in spacetime when it was posted?

Ha, ha, time doesn't even exist, it is a human construct to aid in various practical human endeavors.

...so then do "before and after's" also not exist?
...can a "human endeavor" actually begin if beginnings don't exist?

You don't get it. Semantic tricks manipulate language, which is another human construct. No one proves anything in the physical world by clever wordplay.

Lucky, there was no intent of "wordplay" whatsoever. These were serious questions. The "clever wordplay" is your non-answer to my serious questions.

If time truly does not exist, then neither do "before and afters" or "beginnings". It seems self-contradictory to claim one and deny the other. Either time exists or it doesn't, ...can't play both sides of the fence.

In my view, dimensions are mathematical constructs and mathematics is an abstraction. Abstract things are things that exist as concepts in minds as opposed to real things, which exist outside of minds.

But everything we know exists as "abstract concepts" (as thoughts in our head). There is NO thought in our head that is NOT an abstract concept.

Of course, as you've said many times, we can't be certain that any of the experiences we have correspond to things that exist independently of our minds. But we believe that they do. We don't believe that abstract concepts do.

So are you saying that if we have the abstract concept (thought; belief) that "abstract concepts" are not real, then they are not real? ...and likewise if we have the abstract concept that abstract concepts are real, then they are real?

Abstract concepts are abstract concepts. The content of these concepts can only be proven as 'real' (objectively true) via deductive logic, otherwise their status remains "uncertain" (abstract).

As Scott has been pointing out (although he doesn't put it in this way), the clean division between 3 dimensions of space and one of time that has existed since Descartes first created the concept of cartesian coordinates is not necessarily a useful model for all purposes. For some purposes it's more useful to use a model of 4 dimensional space-time where it isn't the case that one of those dimensions is distinct from the other 3.

But of course, this is Scott's abstract concepts, which is not necessarily more true/real than my or your abstract concepts. Logic/math are the tools that we use to discern our abstract concepts into concrete concepts (uncertain to certain).

Scott seems to hold the abstract concepts of science (4D block universe) in higher regard than Simple Logic. Making the claim (which is a "happening" itself) that "happenings don't exist" comes across (to me) as a flagrant contradiction of Simple Logic. [X=~X is logically impossible], and hence my difficulty in understanding his view.

[Steve3007]

In my view, dimensions are mathematical constructs and mathematics is an abstraction. Abstract things are things that exist as concepts in minds as opposed to real things, which exist outside of minds.

But everything we know exists as "abstract concepts" (as thoughts in our head). There is NO thought in our head that is NOT an abstract concept.

In replying to me here, you appear to me to be conflating the term "everything we know" with the different term "everything we know of". What I said there was that abstract things, such as mathematics, of which the concept of dimension is a part, are in our heads and real things are not. I believe there are real things. i.e. I am not a solipsist. So yes, everything we know (all of our knowledge) is in our heads. That doesn't mean that everything we know of (all the stuff we see) is in our heads. If you take that solipsistic position then I disagree with it.

[Steve3007]

Of course, as you've said many times, we can't be certain that any of the experiences we have correspond to things that exist independently of our minds. But we believe that they do. We don't believe that abstract concepts do.

So are you saying that if we have the abstract concept (thought; belief) that "abstract concepts" are not real, then they are not real? ...and likewise if we have the abstract concept that abstract concepts are real, then they are real?

No, I'm telling you what I believe. I believe that there are some things that are not in minds. I call these things real. I believe there are some other things that are ideas in minds. I call these things abstract. I believe that some of the things that happen in my mind are caused by the existence of real things; they "correspond to" them, as I put it above. I could call these observations. I also believe that the presence of those things that happen in my mind - those observations - don't make the existence of those real things certain.

Abstract concepts are abstract concepts.

I agree.

The content of these concepts can only be proven as 'real' (objectively true) via deductive logic...

They can't be proven as real at all because they're not real. They're abstract concepts.

...otherwise their status remains "uncertain" (abstract).

I disagree that "uncertain" means the same as "abstract". To me, uncertain means a proposition that might not be true and abstract refers to things that exist only in minds.

[Sculptor1]

Firstly, I define Time as the 4th dimension (a structural element) of this universe, which allows change/motion/interaction of 3D objects. From a geometric perspective, time enables change (of 3D objects):

• A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
  A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
  A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
  A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.

The 4th dimension is called "Time".

**************
Time can be proven to be INFINITE by a couple of methods:

METHOD #1 - Simple Logic
The first and most obvious is the logical impossibility of "something existing before it exists". [X<X is logically impossible]. In this case, Time cannot exist before it exists. Which means there can't be a "beginning of Time", as "beginning" is itself a temporal word. In other words, since "beginnings" don't yet exist in the absence of Time, there can't be a beginning of Time. And if Time had no beginning, then Time must have always infinitely permanently existed.

METHOD #2 - Imagination Experiment
Imagine there is nothing outside this universe; it is the totality of everything. Imagine this universe has a big "Power Off" button/knob. If you push this knob, it shuts off Time, which in effect, stops all activity within the universe. It shuts off and stops all movement, motion, change, and interactions of matter within the universe. Pulling on the "Power Off" button/knob will turn Time, and all activity, back on again.

Okay, now imagine that someone or something within this universe pushed the "Power Off" button. Now what? What activity is there left to turn it back on? The point is that if Time has ever shut off, it would forever be permanently off. Which means our existence today is proof of infinite Time.

Your analysis assumes the conclusion.

[Terrapin Station]

Talking about "2D planes 'changing into' 3D objects" and so on is talking about an abstraction--a mental construction that we've created.

That's different than talking about what the world is like independent of us, isn't it? I thought we were talking about real time, not an abstraction or our conception of it.

? -- Which of our thoughts are NOT a mental construction/abstraction/conception? -- Everything we know is a mental construction/abstraction/conception.

The world doesn't consist of thoughts. And no, everything that we know by acquaintance is NOT a mental construction/abstraction/conception.

[Nick_A]

Firstly, I define Time as the 4th dimension (a structural element) of this universe, which allows change/motion/interaction of 3D objects. From a geometric perspective, time enables change (of 3D objects):

• A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
  A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
  A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
  A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.

The 4th dimension is called "Time".

**************
Time can be proven to be INFINITE by a couple of methods:

METHOD #1 - Simple Logic
The first and most obvious is the logical impossibility of "something existing before it exists". [X<X is logically impossible]. In this case, Time cannot exist before it exists. Which means there can't be a "beginning of Time", as "beginning" is itself a temporal word. In other words, since "beginnings" don't yet exist in the absence of Time, there can't be a beginning of Time. And if Time had no beginning, then Time must have always infinitely permanently existed.

METHOD #2 - Imagination Experiment
Imagine there is nothing outside this universe; it is the totality of everything. Imagine this universe has a big "Power Off" button/knob. If you push this knob, it shuts off Time, which in effect, stops all activity within the universe. It shuts off and stops all movement, motion, change, and interactions of matter within the universe. Pulling on the "Power Off" button/knob will turn Time, and all activity, back on again.

Okay, now imagine that someone or something within this universe pushed the "Power Off" button. Now what? What activity is there left to turn it back on? The point is that if Time has ever shut off, it would forever be permanently off. Which means our existence today is proof of infinite Time.

I understand what you mean by a line having one dimension but if a point has no dimensions, how does it exist? Yet the fourth dimension of time assumes the point as essential for movement or existence. So how do you define a point? What is it, what does it do, and how does it exist having no dimensions?

[RJG]

So yes, everything we know (all of our knowledge) is in our heads. That doesn't mean that everything we know of (all the stuff we see) is in our heads.

True. Some of the stuff that we are knowing of, might actually be 'real' stuff, ...but then again it might not. ...the 'uncertainty' remains nonetheless.

ALL the stuff represented in our thoughts are abstractions (uncertainties; not-certainties). Without logic, one cannot necessarily be deemed more real/true/certain than the other.

I believe there are real things.

I do too. But beliefs by themselves are not enough to assure certainty. Logic is our best and only means to find real; objective truths and falses (certainties; real and not-real).

Other than an absolute truth (i.e. "experiencing exists"), nothing can be more certain in all of reality than that of a logical impossibility. Any abstraction (thought; concept) which is founded upon or implies the logical impossibility of X=~X or X<X, we can safely deem as 'certainly' false. This allows us to weed out the non-truths from our contaminated pool of knowledge.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I am denying the existence of time.

1. Did it take 'time' to write and post this denial (the words above)?

No, not really, because real time does not really exist.

2. Was there a "before" posting and a "after" posting of these words?

No, not really.

We can analogously think of these would-be events as if they exist as scenes on an unchanging unplayed DVD in a reality/universe that contains no DVD player and nothing but that unchanging DVD, which is thus an eternal reality without change or time.

Additionally, we can imagine the DVD is a video game not a movie, such that the unchagining data could be played in all sorts of different ways. There is no objective way to take the 3D+ data on the DVD and turn it into a series of 2D frames. Not only is there no objective order of the 2D frames within the information on the DVD, but there isn't even an unordered series 2D frames; because there is no objective simultaneity (simultaneity being what individual pixels would appear on the 2D movie screen at the same time if there was a screen and time which objectively speaking there aren't). There is no way to objectively slice up the 4D universe into 3D frames (i.e. to get real or objective time from it), such slicing (i.e. time) would have to be transcendental and relative. So either something transcendental is real and the source of real relative time, or the transcendentally relative time is just a fiction, a timeless illusion timelessly believed by would-be characters on the unlplayed DVD.

The unplayed DVD is analogously the eternal unchanging 4D block universe, timeless and unchanging.

In other words, was there a point in spacetime that these words were not posted on this forum and then another point in spacetime when it was posted?

What do you mean by a "point" in spacetime? (Please note, that spacetime is 4D and timeless.)

Are you talking about a 0-dimensional mathematical construct?

Are you talking about a 1-dimensional mathematical construct (i.e. a line)?

Are you talking about a 2-dimensional mathematical construct (i.e. a plane)?

Are you talking about a 3-dimensional mathematical construct?

Are you talking about a 4-dimensional blob in spacetime?

Or are you talking about something else?

As Scott has been pointing out (although he doesn't put it in this way), the clean division between 3 dimensions of space and one of time that has existed since Descartes first created the concept of cartesian coordinates is not necessarily a useful model for all purposes. For some purposes it's more useful to use a model of 4 dimensional space-time where it isn't the case that one of those dimensions is distinct from the other 3.

But of course, this is Scott's abstract concepts, which is not necessarily more true/real than my or your abstract concepts. Logic/math are the tools that we use to discern our abstract concepts into concrete concepts (uncertain to certain).

They aren't my constructs (though I wish they were). They are Einstein's, explained to the best of my ability and understanding (which is surely very far from a full understanding).

More importantly, the denial of the non-parsimonious assumption of objective time and time-ness (i.e. that one of the four dimensions in the 4D universe is actually distinct from the other three) is definitely more true/real in a scientific sense than the classical, Cartesian, or Newtonian model in which objective time/time-ness is non-parsimoniously assumed.

Those older models, namely Newton's, have been debunked through scientific experiment and observation, just like Flat Earth Theory. In that way it is not simply an arbitrary choice to look at the cosmos the way the OP or Newton describes versus the way Einstein describes, but rather it is analogous to choosing between Flat Earth Theory and Round Earth Theory because one has been debunked and contradicts the scientific evidence.

Flat Earth Theory is disproved when one takes a spaceship to space and sees the Earth is round, or otherwise measures the roundness of Earth at large scales here on Earth.

Newtonian Mechanics (and namely the reality of objective time) are disproved when one takes a spaceship to space comes back to Earth and sees their clocks don't match up anymore with those on Earth.

Newtonian Mechanics is disproved when one measures the rate of procession of Mercury.

Additionally, GPS satellites wouldn't work if they were designed under the false assumption that Newtonian Mechanics or objective time are actually correct.

Scott seems to hold the abstract concepts of science (4D block universe) in higher regard than Simple Logic. Making the claim (which is a "happening" itself) that "happenings don't exist" comes across (to me) as a flagrant contradiction of Simple Logic. [X=~X is logically impossible], and hence my difficulty in understanding his view.

I do not hold science in higher regard than logic.

You are claiming that things are "happening" and then claiming I am illogical because my claims don't match your assumption that things are "happening". I am not logically beholden to a begging the question fallacy committed by someone else.

Needless to say, if you assume that happening/change is real, and I argue that it is not, then my arguments will contradict your assumptions.

That is not me defying logic, but rather just a manifestation of your assumption of the antithesis of my conclusion.

In other words, I am not the one claiming that this conversation is really "happening" whatever that means. In fact, assuming "happening" requires change (and assuming consciousness is not transcendental), then I am asserting this conversation is not really "happening" because change does not really exist in a timeless deterministic universe without time and without anything truly transcendental to that unchanging universe (i.e. a real DVD player to play the DVD, with the DVD player by definition being transcendental to the DVD, which creates a transcendentally changing relationship between the player and the DVD independent of the unchanging spacetime contained within the DVD).

That my conclusions contradict your assumptions does not mean I am defying logic.

[LuckyR]

Ha, ha, time doesn't even exist, it is a human construct to aid in various practical human endeavors.

...so then do "before and after's" also not exist?
...can a "human endeavor" actually begin if beginnings don't exist?

You don't get it. Semantic tricks manipulate language, which is another human construct. No one proves anything in the physical world by clever wordplay.

Lucky, there was no intent of "wordplay" whatsoever. These were serious questions. The "clever wordplay" is your non-answer to my serious questions.

If time truly does not exist, then neither do "before and afters" or "beginnings". It seems self-contradictory to claim one and deny the other. Either time exists or it doesn't, ...can't play both sides of the fence.

Befores and afters are human language inventions to describe memories to other humans. Memories, of course are stored electrical impulses and neurochemicals, not time.

[Terrapin Station]

So yes, everything we know (all of our knowledge) is in our heads. That doesn't mean that everything we know of (all the stuff we see) is in our heads.

True. Some of the stuff that we are knowing of, might actually be 'real' stuff, ...but then again it might not. ...the 'uncertainty' remains nonetheless.

ALL the stuff represented in our thoughts are abstractions (uncertainties; not-certainties). Without logic, one cannot necessarily be deemed more real/true/certain than the other.

I believe there are real things.

I do too. But beliefs by themselves are not enough to assure certainty. Logic is our best and only means to find real; objective truths and falses (certainties; real and not-real).

Other than an absolute truth (i.e. "experiencing exists"), nothing can be more certain in all of reality than that of a logical impossibility. Any abstraction (thought; concept) which is founded upon or implies the logical impossibility of X=~X or X<X, we can safely deem as 'certainly' false. This allows us to weed out the non-truths from our contaminated pool of knowledge.

Certainty can take a hike. It's not something worth worrying about.

[RJG]

I understand what you mean by a line having one dimension but if a point has no dimensions, how does it exist? Yet the fourth dimension of time assumes the point as essential for movement or existence. So how do you define a point? What is it, what does it do, and how does it exist having no dimensions?

I think this is a great question. My two cents is that the existence of "true 0D" points are logically impossible (as there is nothing there to exist). The 0D point is just a reference point (for convenience sake), that does not actually exist. -- which further means that 1D lines are not truly formed by 0D points (because "nothing" x "a gazillion" is still nothing). The universe is not constructed/structured out of "nothing" (no dimension; i.e. "0D points") but out of something, i.e. "dimensions" (1D lines, 2D planes, 3D objects, 4D motion).


************

I am denying the existence of time.

Was there a "before" posting and a "after" posting of these words?

No, not really.

We can analogously think of these would-be events as if they exist as scenes on an unchanging unplayed DVD in a reality/universe that contains no DVD player and nothing but that unchanging DVD, which is thus an eternal reality without change or time.

The unplayed DVD is analogously the eternal unchanging 4D block universe, timeless and unchanging.

Okay, I don't disagree here, but this is just static data. Nothing happens at this point. But in reality stuff happens, which means this analogy is not complete, the events/scenes on DVD needs to be "played" for stuff to happen, otherwise we wouldn't be here "playing out the scene" of talking about this topic.

Additionally, we can imagine the DVD is a video game not a movie, such that the unchanging data could be played in all sorts of different ways.

But now you are talking about something(s) that exist outside of this universe, which contradicts the definition of universe (being all encompassing). You are suggesting that there are at least two things that exist 'outside' (external to) this 4D universe; a DVD video game player, and a controlling entity that somehow magically "decides" what to play and in what sequence to play it.

And because of this, I don't think it is fair (reasonable) to say that the DVD disc itself (static data) is analogous to our 4D universe, ...without including the DVD player at a minimum.

In other words, was there a point in spacetime that these words were not posted on this forum and then another point in spacetime when it was posted?

What do you mean by a "point" in spacetime? (Please note, that spacetime is 4D and timeless.)

Sorry, I didn't mean "point" in the literal 0D sense, I mean the "place" in spacetime. If we were to use the DVD analogy, then it is the place (spot) on the DVD which contains the event prior to you posting "I am denying the existence of time." and then the place on the DVD which contains the event just after you posted these words.

Scott seems to hold the abstract concepts of science (4D block universe) in higher regard than Simple Logic. Making the claim (which is a "happening" itself) that "happenings don't exist" comes across (to me) as a flagrant contradiction of Simple Logic. [X=~X is logically impossible], and hence my difficulty in understanding his view.

I do not hold science in higher regard than logic.

You are claiming that things are "happening" and then claiming I am illogical because my claims don't match your assumption that things are "happening". I am not logically beholden to a begging the question fallacy committed by someone else.

I see X=~X (...the "happening" of someone claiming "happenings do not exist") which from my view is a logical contradiction. But it seems that you see ~X=~X (...making the claim that "happenings don't exist" did not actually "happen"). I can only view from my view, and from my view it happened (...and from your view it didn't happen).

Needless to say, if you assume that happening/change is real, and I argue that it is not, then my arguments will contradict your assumptions.

Yes, agreed. From my view, happening/change is logically impossible to deny, whereas from your view, it is not, ...hence our disconnect.