so a second away is that beyond your grasp? Expectations of the future is not imagining infinity..expectations can never be finalised because they change as our moments change..

I have no problem with the concept of time in science..did i say i had?...We are talking about infinity and how we relate to infinity how we imaging infinity..I'm trying to say that infinity is no further than a second away..you can measure the past by time but the future has no relation to time because it is in the future...we can have expectations but nothing else, so infinity is the next moment it cant be measured..

Future time. How could there not be. If we were 200 years in the future we could look ahead and say 200 more years from now will be the future again. If you could keep jumping ahead 200 or 2000 or 2 million year incriments. You would always be able to say what happenes next will be in the future. Even if the planet or galaxy wasnt here and you kept jumping ahead but say you were in a protective bubble standing in space. You would still have a future time even if nothing is here anymore. Even if nobody can acknowledge it still it remains. Even if it never was recorded in the first place it is there.

What Was........What is now.........What will be......... There will always be a WHAT WILL BE.. or WHAT IS TO COME. At least in our dimension.

Yes, but the question was, is time infinite . . . and so first one has to have a working definition of time before one can talk about what traits it has or has not. Of course, the thread author seemed to actually be asking if time infinitely recycles; that is, after this universe winds down, will a new time-creating situation take its place, and so on ad infinitum. Obviously no one knows that, and there seems to be nothing going on in our universe now from which we can infer what will happen.

So let's apply my logic to your point, that infinity (I assume you mean infinite time) is always at hand. First we define time, and it turns out that the very definition of "time" excludes infinity. Why? (And here's where you can see why carefully defining time before discussing it potentials is crucial to an intelligent conversation.)

If we accept my definition, then what we call "time" is actually related to our observation of the relentless march of the physical universe toward disorder. Galaxies are flying apart, and at an ever increasing rate. Stars are burning towards supernovas and black holes. Our own bodies are falling apart and will, at some point, be mere quantum fluctuations. There's even solid evidence protons decay, so nothing is safe (it appears) from the organization of the universe ending in wholesale disorder.

But isn't it within a type of order that humans are found? Our bodies are the most advanced example of organization known in the universe. So as part of that amazing process that gave we humans a body, and because we can make observations (unlike most of the matter of the universe), we have witnessed, from birth, the incessant dissipation of all that's related to our physical existence: order. Our endless exposure to the disordering aspect of reality has given us a perspective which we label "time." Time is nothing more than a human physical perspective.

Alright then, let's answer your question. Since there is a finite amount of matter in the universe, and since matter is where order is primarily found, it means there are only so many disordering events left before all becomes disorder. That "perspective" we have gained from birth is watching the basis of our physical existence head toward being disorganized, or death.

We say, "I only have so much time left," but really we are saying, "there are only so many disordering events left before my physical existence is done (or before some star disappears, or before the universe itself melts into . . . ???). One thing we know about the RATE of disorder is that it can be affected by gravity or acceleration: increase the degree of say, acceleration of a jet, and the RATE of disorder slows down in that accelerating frame of reference (relative to the jet's former non-accelerating frame of reference). AND THAT'S WHAT PROVES "TIME" IS PURELY A PHYSICAL CONCEPT.

Given what we can see about the universe's order, we can only conclude that our perspective of the rate of disorder we call "time" is finite for the setting we call "universe" . . . and we don't know if the eventually-dissipated universe will somehow reaorganize as matter and start the cycle all over again, possibly recycling forever.

Another issue that gets mixed up in, and confuses, questions of time and infinity (eternity is actually the more proper term), has to do whether or not we humans are purely physical things (or emergent qualities of physicalness), or if we humans are in reality consciousness and something different than physicalness. So people will talk about the eternal nature of the human soul or our mind in the context of "time," and that is (accepting my definition) an oxymoron. Time by definition is finite, that part of its very meaning; so if there is an eternal something (soul or anything else), it is not subject to "time."

what happens if you take away matter from everything...........

Im terribly sorry but you have only expectations just like the others..prove that there is another moment in time..

Things are matter... Time without space is meaningless, and matter without space is meaningless, and space and matter without time are meaningless.

What "expectations" are you talking about? I said nothing about expectations, I spoke of the fact that the universe, as anybody these days should know, is entropic overall.

That's why yours is a ridiculous demand since "time" is not an actual quality. But if you want to pretend time actually exists, then one might say there is no "moment," except for now, there has never been a moment that wasn't now, and there will never be a moment that isn't now. The concepts of past and future merely reflect that some of the universe's ordered situations have already become disordered, and based on how things have gone, some of the universe's ordered situations will become more disordered.

So I repeat, how do you expect to discuss the potentials, or lack of, of time when you don't even understand what time is? All you are doing is demanding a proof that can't be achieved over, and over, and over, and over and over, and over . . . . . No one can prove anything beyond all doubt, and just repeating your single argument ad nauseum doesn't make it so.

Things are matter... Time without space is meaningless, and matter without space is meaningless, and space and matter without time are meaningless.

Does meaningless equate with non-existence? Here's the question that rises for me. I agree with you that we cannot perceive time except through change, and that change requires both matter or energy and also space. Is our inability to perceive something the same as that thing not existing, however? If the world were suddenly devoid of circles, we would not be able to perceive the ratio of the radius to the diameter, but would that ratio cease to exist, or merely lie beyond the scope of our possible knowledge? The underlined question is central to the nut I'm trying to crack right now, and my initial thought is that something does not cease to exist simply because it's beyond my perception or even beyond my ability to conceptualize.

I cannot prove this (as of yet, perhaps it will be possible with more study), but it makes sense based on empirical evidence. It is not possible for me to perceive all the laws of physics perfectly, but that does not mean that those laws do not exist. A hundred years ago, we could not even conceptualize energy and matter consisting of the same "stuff", yet our inability to grasp this concept did not make it null until Einstein's work brought it to light.

Thus, I have to submit that time, while only perceptible through changes in matter and energy in space, exists independently of these other qualities. There is no reason to believe that time is not infinite, since it is not dependent on anything finite for it's existence.

Does meaningless equate with non-existence? Here's the question that rises for me. I agree with you that we cannot perceive time except through change, and that change requires both matter or energy and also space. Is our inability to perceive something the same as that thing not existing, however? If the world were suddenly devoid of circles, we would not be able to perceive the ratio of the radius to the diameter, but would that ratio cease to exist, or merely lie beyond the scope of our possible knowledge? The underlined question is central to the nut I'm trying to crack right now, and my initial thought is that something does not cease to exist simply because it's beyond my perception or even beyond my ability to conceptualize.

I cannot prove this (as of yet, perhaps it will be possible with more study), but it makes sense based on empirical evidence. It is not possible for me to perceive all the laws of physics perfectly, but that does not mean that those laws do not exist. A hundred years ago, we could not even conceptualize energy and matter consisting of the same "stuff", yet our inability to grasp this concept did not make it null until Einstein's work brought it to light.

Thus, I have to submit that time, while only perceptible through changes in matter and energy in space, exists independently of these other qualities. There is no reason to believe that time is not infinite, since it is not dependent on anything finite for it's existence.

As I understand what you're saying, the universe will cease to exist when you do. Or, perhaps a broader "we", but nevertheless the universe ends when the human condition does. This is, I think, a fallacious view. The clock does not cease to exist because I am not watching it. My work has not ceased to exist even though I'm taking a break. You are, to my understand, taking the approach of the most narrow form of idealism; this form of idealism was rejected by most philosophers over a century ago.

Also, I'd be very careful about basing any sort of theory around "living" or "consciousness". Life is a very difficult word to define, when you get right down to brass tacks. Proving that we're alive is it's own philosophical issue. After all, you're nothing but a complex series of chemical reactions, not much different than a firework or internal-combustion engine. An outside stimuli is applied, reactions take place, and an action emerges. There is no need for consciousness in either case.