[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