RC Macaulay wrote: > As I read the various posts on this and IT vs. Darwin etc. I think about one > subject often ignored. > > TIME > > If we presume time to have a beginning, we place ourselves in a box. If we > attempt to conceive time as " eternal" with no ending we in turn are faced > with the question.. what if time had NO start.. it is eternal.. no beginning. > Tryng to grasp a concept of time eternal is impossible to gather into one's > focus. It would mean that... > > No matter how much time elapses from this moment on into eternity.. that > measure of time would NEVER equal the amount of time that has passed. This is > one on paradoxes facing the true scientist. The paradox is that it is the one > scientific fact that is impossible to grasp in its significance. > > A proper view of time will open understanding to the depth of the task facing > CF research.
Good question. What matters then is the flow of time, rather than a duration of time. The flow is a constant according to Newton. However, he left the concept mathematically undefined. Einstein concerned himself with duration and said that duration is relative. No one has yet mathematically defined the flow of time. It is NOT equivalent to letting the length of a duration approach zero. Harry
