[time-nuts] Beginner's time reference
Charles P. Steinmetz
charles_steinmetz at lavabit.com
Sat Dec 12 08:12:08 UTC 2009
Nigel wrote:
>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.
>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!
Best regards,
Charles
More information about the time-nuts
mailing list