You see, the laws of physics would not have to be reversed because what I am talking about is not a LINEAR time frame...as in things do not go forward or backward, they just go. I know it's hard for the human mind to wrap around this, but flowing in either direction is still part of the human construct.

Yeah...and read some of his later papers in applying it and how that then relates to string theory.

When string theory actually applies to anything I might look into it, because for now from what I understand it's a complete hodgepodge with inconclusive equations and contradictory conclusions.

Like you said, things just GO, not that all time surrounds us or there are alternate dimensions.

Or maybe we need to define what we mean by linear time as well?

At the VERY least, we should all be on the same page about time not being exactly how we perceive it. First, what I mean by linear is there are events in the past, we are in the present, and there are events that will happen in the future. We look back on the past, try to live in the present, and look forward to the future. In actuality, all that really matters is the present, but what is the present? What you are experiencing now? Even what we think we are currently perceiving is already a memory. It happened microseconds in the past because your brain has to process it before you can perceive it. We are NEVER perceiving the actual present. Read Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett if you want more on that. I think that fact alone is enough to get you thinking about what time actually means.

Linear:

Things happened, they cannot be changed.
Each possibility is simply a possibility, not dimension spawning.
More things will happen.
The entire universe will never reach exactly the same state again.

I see the "does the present exist" question as somewhat removed from what we're talking about. Of course there's a delay before it reaches our senses, let alone before we perceive it. So we're always experiencing the past.

I suppose you could say (is this what you're saying?) all events are rigidly laid out on some level and that we are just experiencing a changing cross section of what IS there. But surely that goes against your standpoint on free will. And then I would say the cross section advances linearly across this...timescape anyway. And in effect it's no different really, it addresses more the predictability of events.

That is not the definition of linear at all, even if it is your "personal" definition. Linear means a straight line, if you want the literal definition.

I wasn't meaning to go off on whether or not the present exists, I just wanted to point out how time is definitely not as we see it.

Read my posts about how I view the nature of free will again and you will see how everything being laid out as I said in my last post is perfectly in line with it.

Yes, but as it would apply to time.
A straight line, doesn't branch, doesn't loop, continues "straight" on, and there is a constant invariable instant between events, but not that it is absolute.

Of course it isn't exactly how we view it. We view it as completely separate from space. We can't perceive time warps on a sensual level so on and so forth.

If you don't want to elaborate that's fine. But I'd rather have a back and forth with someone than be referred to books on consciousness.

When talking about our perception of time you can clearly trace an event A to event B with a straight line...that is the linear perception of time.

A back and forth is exactly what I'm trying to have, but I include the book references because it's becoming clear I am not explaining myself lucidly enough. You guys keep asking me to repeat things I've already explained.

Time is just comparing two events that had happened or are taking place. The only thing there is really is stuff like matter and radiation etc (molecules, sub-atomic particles, photons) and the present. The past is information or history of events that happened and the future is predictable but unknown.