[Seafire (OP)]

I remember where objects were before they moved (past), and I can predict where objects will be after they move (future) but memory and prediction of movement is far from being evidence of a time dimension.
That's kind of ironic, since that statement seems to be strong evidence that time is a dimension.

Remembering and predicting movement is strong evidence of a time dimension how exactly? Seems like wishful thinking to me.

Is this what standing up for your convictions looks like?

[Origin]

Remembering and predicting movement is strong evidence of a time dimension how exactly?

The only way to predict the objects position would be to use all 4 dimensions.  If you only used the 3 spacial dimensions you obviously couldn't predict the location. 

[Seafire (OP)]

Remembering and predicting movement is strong evidence of a time dimension how exactly?
The only way to predict the objects position would be to use all 4 dimensions.  If you only used the 3 spacial dimensions you obviously couldn't predict the location.

Objects already know their location in the universe, if you are the object in question don't you know where and when you are? I think you are confusing math with reality again.

[Origin]

Objects already know their location in the universe, if you are the object in question don't you know where and when you are? I think you are confusing math with reality again.

No, I'm not confusing anything.  To locate an event you need a coordinate system, that coordinate system must contain 4 dimensions, 3 spatial and 1 temporal.  It is rather cut and dried.

[Seafire (OP)]

There is empirical evidence for movement, then there is personal speculation that movement is being facilitated by a time dimension.

Ignoring this lack of evidence and powering on with your personal speculation at least explains how you continue making the same mistake.

An event (location in space-time) already assumes there is a time dimension.
The co-ordinate system you mention is just math which again you are confusing with the reality.

The universe does not exist in reality in the past or the future, it only exists in the present, using a mathematical co-ordinate system to track or predict these imaginary times is fine as long as you remember they are just imaginary.

[Origin]

There is empirical evidence for movement, then there is personal speculation that movement is being facilitated by a time dimension.

That's rather absurd.  Facilitate is a rather odd word to use.  Isn't it obvious to you that without time there would be no movement?

Ignoring this lack of evidence and powering on with your personal speculation at least explains how you continue making the same mistake.

It isn't a mistake and I'm not speculating.  I simply agree that the mainstream physics position makes perfect sense.  Your disagreement with science amounts to little more than arm waving speculation that flies in the face of the evidence.

An event (location in space-time) already assumes there is a time dimension.

It also assumes there are spatial dimensions.

The co-ordinate system you mention is just math which again you are confusing with the reality.

Just like the speed of your car is 'just math', do you confuse that with reality?

[Seafire (OP)]

There is empirical evidence for movement, then there is personal speculation that movement is being facilitated by a time dimension.
That's rather absurd.  Facilitate is a rather odd word to use.  Isn't it obvious to you that without time there would be no movement?

Is it not obvious that you can't observe the time dimension.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence [nofollow]

It isn't a mistake and I'm not speculating.  I simply agree that the mainstream physics position makes perfect sense.  Your disagreement with science amounts to little more than arm waving speculation that flies in the face of the evidence.

Is it not obvious that you can't observe the time dimension.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence [nofollow]

The co-ordinate system you mention is just math which again you are confusing with the reality.
Just like the speed of your car is 'just math', do you confuse that with reality?

Is it not obvious that you can't observe the time dimension.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence [nofollow]

Speed is just a measurement of the reality which is motion, it is pure speculation to say the reality is anything more.

It is quite curious how your speculation becomes evidence, is measurement a real thing to you?
The time dimension is a measurement dimension, nothing more.

[Origin]

Is it not obvious that you can't observe the time dimension.

No more than it is obvious you can't observe the length dimension.
If there are no objects in space there is no way to see length or time.  If there is an object in space then you can see there are spatial dimensions, if there is movement you can see the time dimension.  The only way to see the length dimension is through physical objects in space.  The only way to see the time dimension is through physical objects moving. 

[Seafire (OP)]

If there is an object in space then you can see there are spatial dimensions, if there is movement you can see the time dimension.

I can see spatial dimensions and I can see movement, If I wish to measure the movement I can invent an abstract dimension to represent my memories and/or predictions but I don't observe an actual time dimension.

The only way to see the time dimension is through physical objects moving.

Nonsense, not observation.

[Origin]

Nonsense, not observation.

I understand you for some reason don't like that time is a dimension, but what you like or want is irrelevant.  As far as I know if I set up a meeting with someone the meeting point would require 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension.  As far as I know an event requires 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions to locate.  If you can do describe those exact points without time please demonstrate it, if not you will just have to accept that the universe doesn't care what you like.

[Seafire (OP)]

I understand you for some reason don't like that time is a dimension,

Pesky empirical evidence.

As far as I know if I set up a meeting with someone the meeting point would require 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension.

I want to meet you at Joe's in 10 unicorns, of course we will have to set up a convention for one unicorn like the swing of a pendulum or the movement of the sun, however we won't need to set up a convention for the spatial dimensions because they actually exist and we can measure them directly.

[Origin]

I want to meet you at Joe's in 10 unicorns, of course we will have to set up a convention for one unicorn like the swing of a pendulum or the movement of the sun,

OK we are making progress you agree that time is needed.

however we won't need to set up a convention for the spatial dimensions because they actually exist and we can measure them directly.

This is just plain wrong.  Please tell me how you would describe a distance of 100 miles with out a 'convention for the spatial dimensions'.

[Colin2B]

Might be time to take a pause and look at some basics here because I think there are some misunderstandings.

Minor point. Ideas generally come before models, but not always. Take eg of Copernicus, before him the idea was that the sun orbited the earth. The top mathematicians of the day, the Arabic scholars, struggled to find a model that worked with this idea. Copernicus came up with a different idea, that the earth orbits the sun from which a model of the planetary system could be developed.

Perhaps you're still convinced that movement needs a time dimension to facilitate it but are unwilling to stand up for your conviction. 

That depends what you mean by dimension and what you mean by facilitate.
Physics defines seven primary dimensions: length, mass, time, temperature, electric current, amount of light, and amount of matter. I suspect you would only consider one of those to be a dimension, that’s because the common usage of dimension is very different from the physics usage.
Facilitate movement? Certainly we know that any movement has a start position and time, and an end position and time (physics calls these points events and there are an infinite number of such events between start and finish). Whether you consider time to facilitate that movement is debatable, but I would say not. For example, we measure the temperature dimension, but it would be unusual to suggest that the dimension facilitates temperature. Temperature is facilitated by other causes, we just measure the effect.

The idea that there is a past, present and future is speculation when all we know is the present. I remember where objects were before they moved (past), and I can predict where objects will be after they move (future) but memory and prediction of movement is far from being evidence of a time dimension. This is a mistake and one that is rearly admitted.

I’m not sure who you think rarely admits it. I would agree if you are talking about the general population, but physicists (and philosophers) frequently debate this area. Your view is a form of temporal presentism, but there are many other options including block universe. So, you have nailed your colours to a particular wall, some would agree with you, but there are others who would say you are wrong to do so.
I tend to think in terms of a dynamic view of time. Do I believe that somewhere in spacetime Anne Boleyn is still being executed, or WWII is still being acted out, no. However, I would never be as arrogant as to say that my view is correct and all other views wrong.
@Halc has probably looked at all the different philosophies, but I suspect your accusatory tone might have put him off further discussion.

…….as long as you remember they are just imaginary.

Imaginary has a different meaning in physics to common usage. It does not equate to not real, as in unicorns are not real.

I understand you for some reason don't like that time is a dimension,

Pesky empirical evidence.

If you can devise an experiment that will provide unequivocal empirical evidence of your idea, then you will be in line for a Nobel prize. The reason there is so much debate and varying views in this area is because there is no empirical evidence.
There is, however, a lot of evidence that our common sense view of distance is affected by relative movement, and that what is the past for me might in some circumstances be the present for someone else. Distance is also affected by gravitational potential, so 2 people at different heights above the earth could disagree on vertical measurements.
Experiments in particle accelerators also tell us that distance is not what our ‘common sense’ might suggest.

I want to meet you at Joe's in 10 unicorns, of course we will have to set up a convention for one unicorn like the swing of a pendulum or the movement of the sun, however we won't need to set up a convention for the spatial dimensions because they actually exist and we can measure them directly.

As Origin points out, you are confusing units with dimensions.
Hours and unicorns are units and arrived at by convention, so are distance units.
Also, there are many things we cannot measure directly, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Interestingly there are many people who have a very good sense of time and can tell to within 15mins what time it is, and musicians have a very good time sense otherwise there would be no consistent rhythm.

All in all this is quite a complex subject, but I’m glad you are taking the time to think about it.

[Seafire (OP)]

Might be time to take a pause and look at some basics here

Before we forge ahead and use ideas like Minkowski space, events, and the block universe which are already 4 dimensional, perhaps you could ask yourself, "Am I using an idea containing the idea I wish to prove to then prove the idea"?  Let us indeed pause and look at where the time dimension is coming from in the first place.

I want to meet you at Joe's in 10 unicorns, of course we will have to set up a convention for one unicorn like the swing of a pendulum or the movement of the sun,
OK we are making progress you agree that time is needed.

I agree I invented a time dimension to set the meeting.

however we won't need to set up a convention for the spatial dimensions because they actually exist and we can measure them directly.
This is just plain wrong.  Please tell me how you would describe a distance of 100 miles with out a 'convention for the spatial dimensions'.

I tiled my bathroom without the use of a ruler because I could measure off the job, no convention was needed. I suppose I could use a 100 mile rope as a template because the length dimension actually exists and is observable but it would be simpler to invent the convention of a mile.

Perhaps this is not basic enough- we observe the length dimension, we don't observe the time dimension- it is our own invention.

All in all this is quite a complex subject, but I’m glad you are taking the time to think about it.

I wish I could say the same

[Seafire (OP)]

I tend to think in terms of a dynamic view of time. Do I believe that somewhere in spacetime Anne Boleyn is still being executed, or WWII is still being acted out, no. However, I would never be as arrogant as to say that my view is correct and all other views wrong.
@Halc has probably looked at all the different philosophies, but I suspect your accusatory tone might have put him off further discussion.

Why do you prefer a dynamic view of time that has no observable evidence over a fixed view of time that is observable in the first place? You can't observe past or future, only a fixed and enduring present. I am not saying your view is wrong just that it lacks any evidence.

Here philosophy describes presentism but for some reason it remains untouched by science. I called this a mistake but after a 100 years it seems just a little bit arrogant don't ya think?

Wiki-
Philosophical presentism is the view that only present entities exist (or, equivalently, that everything is present).[1] According to presentism, then, there are no wholly past or merely future entities whatsoever. In a sense, the past and the future do not exist for presentists—past events have happened (have existed) and future events will happen (will exist), but neither exist at all since they do not exist now. Presentism is a view about temporal ontology that contrasts with eternalism—the view that past, present, and future entities exist (that is, the ontological thesis of the block universe theory)—and with no-futurism—the view that only past and present entities exist (that is, the ontological thesis of the growing block theory).[2]

I am also labelled an atheist for not believing in things that aren't there.

[Origin]

I tiled my bathroom without the use of a ruler because I could measure off the job, no convention was needed.

The tiles were your convention.

[Colin2B]

I tiled my bathroom without the use of a ruler because I could measure off the job, no convention was needed.

The tiles were your convention.

I agree. There is a lot here that would be worth discussing, but the constant snide remarks are getting wearing, so I’m out.

I wish I could say the same

Whatever

[Origin]

There is a lot here that would be worth discussing, but the constant snide remarks are getting wearing, so I’m out.

I agree, the OP is clearly not the slightest bit interested in learning anything, he apparently knows all.  I've about had enough myself, it is becoming a 'feeding the troll' exercise at this point.

[Colin2B]

[ the OP is clearly not the slightest bit interested in learning anything, he apparently knows all. 

I really don’t mind if someone just wants to discuss their own ideas, but to constantly accuse others of not thinking is just plain rude.