Not so sure about that Lay. I get the distinct impression for instance that even Al was just a teenie bit confused when faced by the Twin Paradox
I also get the impression, after reading a bit, that a subliminal assumption of a stationary ref still survives; it's just that the relativists won't face it head-on
How can the events around us happen in succession, with no time?
No. It depends what you mean by 'precise'. In physics 'precise' means 'sufficiently empirically consistent with the paradigm in which the term is being used'. For example, the concept of 'an electron' is understood to account for measurements in experiments and causally interdependent with other specified particles, but the 'exact nature of an electron' or even its 'position' cannot be specified. As for 'time', if Edgar's QM quote is valid, it implies that the concept of 'time' has no utility in a quantum paradigm even if it does in a Newtonian one.( I seem to remember Cox writing about having to redefine 'velocity' in quantum terms following findings such as 'non-locality'). In short 'precise definition' is not equivalent to 'existence'.
"...to any desired degree of accuracy...'
That's the whole point which I won't labor. Precision is not an independent absolute. It is about 'what works' within a paradigm. Try defining 'color' precisely. I suggest 'time' is an equivalent concept because the use of those terms both include the 'non-empirical'. (I am assuming you know that 'wavelength of light' is insufficient)
I see you are not aware of the complexities of color perception.
You will find plenty of references on google.
Energy, for example, is defined as "the ability to do work."
The 'sensation' that a particular wavelength results in is affected by
(a) physiology of the eye (b) physiology of the brain (c) mood of subject (d) cultural experience of subject (e) exposure history......and these are just for 'light'. When it comes to color of objects even more factors come into play.
In fact 'color perception has been variously used by psychologists, anthropologists and philosophers as a convenient microcosm of 'observer-observed' interaction.
Quote:Energy, for example, is defined as "the ability to do work."
Well, if that's the definition, I aint no energy. Some say mass is energy, and I have mass. But I aint capable of doin no work. I'm too lazy.
Wouldn't the "ability" to do work just be potential energy, not actual energy, btw?
There was a later edit to the above which has a bearing on the answer to your last question. The experience of 'time' can be equally diverse in relationship to human activities, irrespective of contextually bound physical definitions.
BTW the color issues above have nothing to do with the vacuous question 'do you see green when I see green'. They have more to do with 'will you say green when I say green'
"It is not easy to understand energy well enough to use [the word] right. [It displays no understanding to say] "energy makes it move." It would be equally well to say that "God makes it move," or "spirit makes it move," or "movability makes it move." (Richard Feynman)