I just heard that time is not constant only in abstract mathematics.
Just like in a movie or a video game, time elapses through a series of frames.
A lot of frames per second in this case. Thus, there is no constant "Flow" of time but a quick successions of still frames.

Also, in abstract maths, you can the same way infinitely divide by 2 a given distance to obtain half of that distance. In real, you can't, there is actually a point of ultimate smallness under which you can't go.

I heard this from a friend of mine that has a P.H.D. in physics that used to work in ballistic systems for Lockheed Martin. I'm guessing he got that somewhere.

He really shook my whole conception of space and time.
I thought infinite existed, apparently, it doesn't. Just the abstract concept of it does.

Did you already know that? If it was true, would it question some of your beliefs?

ianuam:
Hmm, i speak with little knowledge of physics or math, but from what i know or understand then are those frames basically differing formations of matter?

A very legitimate hypothesis. It would be indeed the same formation of matter, at a different time. That time however, is disconnected from the nest frame. Funny concept no?

Janus Vesta:
Does that mean when people suddenly stop for no reason dor a couple of seconds it's really just an massive FPS drop for them? They should upgrade the grey matter.

More like a brain cramp really.

Lukeje:

kanada514:
I just heard that time is not constant only in abstract mathematics.
Just like in a movie or a video game, time elapses through a series of frames.
A lot of frames per second in this case. Thus, there is no constant "Flow" of time but a quick successions of still frames.

Also, in abstract maths, you can the same way infinitely divide by 2 a given distance to obtain half of that distance. In real, you can't, there is actually a point of ultimate smallness under which you can't go.

Do you mean that the rate of change of time is not constant (not that time is constant... that would be silly)? As far as I know, theoretically there is a measurement of time called the 'Planck second' which may or may not be the smallest amount of time that exists.
With regard to abstract mathematics being able to create a 'flow' of time from static frames; this shouldn't be surprising, as our brains do it all the time (thats how we see films as being in motion).
The paradox of never actually being able to move anywhere if you think of it in terms of going 'half-as far each time' is rendered moot by mathematics called 'Calculus' and was invented by Newton (yes THAT Newton) to overcome the problem. It deals with how equations react when they head towards infinite smallness.

Alex_P:
You mean Planck time?

-- Alex

Ach... beaten to the Planck second thing...

Very constructive point, thank you for bringing it up. To my regret, I cannot confirm you guys that it is indeed of the Planck time or Planck second my friend told me about. I read the article Alex pointed out, and it sure seems like that coulb be it. I do not know enough myself to confirm or infirm that.
As for what you were saying with the way the eye percieves movies, I believe it is called Retinal Persistence, and yes, we see time as flowing for the same reason.
The eye can create a continuous flow at around 30 still images a second. A very comfortable margin that shouldn't let us see any frame drops in reality.

Lukeje:

ianuam:
Hmm, i speak with little knowledge of physics or math, but from what i know or understand then are those frames basically differing formations of matter?

Aah... this sounds like the original formulations of statistical thermodynamics who found that there equations showed that it was much more probable that the universe was repeatedly being created anew in a very small time period, than it was for time to 'flow'. As I remember this was overcome with the invention of 'entropy'. (NB. I may be wrong).

Hey, thank you friend for enriching the discussion, I appreciate.
Do you mean the enthropy being created in the Big Bang from a state of un-enthropy or do you mean, from the discovery of the concept? (because a lot of stuff happened in the nanoseconds following the Big Bang.
I'd like to meet a nihilist and ask him what he think on this.

Awesome, thanks.
I had missed that one.