[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