In a message dated 12/12/2009 08:13:04 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] 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 _______________________________________________ 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.
