[time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
GandalfG8 at aol.com
GandalfG8 at aol.com
Sat Dec 12 11:08:12 UTC 2009
In a message dated 12/12/2009 08:13:04 GMT Standard Time,
charles_steinmetz at lavabit.com writes:
>Time nuts do not and cannot measure time itself because time as an
>absolute entity just doesn't exist.
I suppose specifying the interval since the big bang could qualify as
an absolute measure of time (at least in our universe), but in
practice it must elude us because everything in the universe is in
motion and there is no practical way to relate our frame of reference
to any frame with the location of the big bang at the origin. Note
that assigning conventional units to measurements does not detract
from the ontological existence (or not) of the measured things. Most
would agree that physical extent (vector distance) exists,
notwithstanding that the units we use to measure it are conventional.
------------------
Again though, it's the interval that we measure.
We tend to talk in terms of the "passage" or "flow" of time, which gives
substance to the concept of time in some way existing as an independent
entity, whilst sometimes losing sight of such terms again being only defined in
terms of intervals.
Assigning conventional units to measurement is not a problem, it's just
that the units we assign to "time" measurement are always a measure of the
intervals.
There's no problem with this either until one starts to believe, as many
seem to do without due consideration, that time itself is an absolute
quantity.
------------------
>nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of time itself as a
>measurable quantity.
Without intending to expreess a view regarding the ontological status
of time, I would point out that one must be careful to distinguish
between the ontological question and any practical/empirical
questions such as the frame-of-reference issue noted above. The
ontological question is murky because it appears that "time" is an
orthogonal component of spacetime, and it can always be disputed
under what conditions (if any) the constituent parts of ontological
entities are themselves ontological entities. [And, the question
presumes that one accepts the ontological existence of
spacetime.] But this may be more philosophy than most time nuts want
to contend with!
-----------------
It's interesting though to note that the "Ontological Argument", as a more
specific term, generally seeks to find a logical basis for the existence
of yet another mythical entity:-)
I agree it becomes more of a philosophical argument than is sometimes
comfortable, and more often than not perhaps a question of etymology rather
than ontology as we debate the meanings and definitions of the words we use
to describe things, but I do think it's important to stop and consider
sometimes just what we do mean, or what is implied, when we talk about "time".
regards
Nigel
GM8PZR
More information about the time-nuts
mailing list