In a message dated 13/12/2009 05:04:53 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
I think we all agree that intervals are what we measure. The question is whether this has any bearing on whether "time is an absolute quantity," and if so, whether time being or not being an "absolute quantity" is philosophically interesting. A number of us have been trying, without success, to get you to be more precise about what you mean by time "being [or not being] an absolute quantity," and how that might be important. As it stands, you have not done so, so we are left to guess what meaning and import this phrase has in your view. The two possibilities I see are that you mean (i) time has no ontological status -- that is, that it doesn't "really" exist, but is merely an imaginary construct that we impose on the universe; or (ii) even if time does have ontological status, it is not philosophically interesting unless it is "absolute" (whatever that means). What a number of us have been saying is that the way we measure time is purely conventional (and therefore, I suppose, "imaginary"), but that accepting this says nothing about either of these two issues -- i.e., whether time really exists or whether it is philosophically interesting. I take no position on the ontological status of time, but not because we measure it "only" in intervals or because it is not "absolute" (whatever that means). Rather, for me, it is an issue whether time -- as one dimension of spacetime -- can be a separate ontological entity. In my view, when Einstein, Dirac, Bohr, Lorentz, Schroedinger, and other "founding fathers" of modern physics spoke or wrote regarding the "existence" of time, this is the issue they were addressing. However, if we accept that spacetime exists, nothing is really riding on whether time is a separate ontological entity -- it has ontological status as a constituent of spacetime. So, the remaining question is whether the claim that time is not "absolute" (whatever that means) -- if true -- somehow renders the issue of time a merely semantic matter, or otherwise philosophically uninteresting. I don't see how this could be, but then I cannot imagine what you mean by time not being absolute, other than it can "only" be measured by intervals, and you have not explained what you mean in any but the most vague and circular terms. If you are able to articulate what it would be for time to be an absolute quantity, and how this would make a difference with respect to its ontological status or philosophical interest, I'll be happy to listen -- but I won't hold my breath. _______________________________________________ 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.
