In a message dated 12/12/2009 05:08:39 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Time does not just exist. That is correct. It is a human construct, like all other things. We define it, as all other things, and then make useful empirical comparative observations with it. --------------------------- It isn't quite as straightforward as that, in the sense that is of time being just a human construct, and not all other things are human constructs either. It's not too unreasonable to accept that events, in conventional physics at least, do generally occur in a sequential fashion, hence the intervals between them that we strive to measure, and that would occur without any human intervention or existence. It's when one attempts to quantify time itself as a measurable quantity in itself that problems arise. There are measurable quantities such as mass, length, potential difference etc, that again aren't human constructs but exist anyway, and would continue to do so even if we and our definitions all disappeared tomorrow. But with time there is no absolute quantity, just those intervals again, so when you say "we define it", just how would you attempt to define it as an absolute quantity? Although it's reasonable to accept that we live in a universe where things occur sequentially, even if not necessarilly causually related, and hence the existence of intervals between events can be accepted also, and can be measured in terms of whatever units we choose to define, that still does not demonstrate that "time" itself actually exists. regards Nigel GM8PZR _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
