Some Comments On Time

[Doctordick]

And certainly no, time does not divide. What divides time is called the psychological arrow of time. It is the mind which creates the illusion of a division in time.

 

Have you considered the possibility that everything you think you know is no more than an illusion?

 

Why don't we talk about that issue?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Again I didn't realize this collection of threads existed and I accidentally ran across it this morning....

 

 All I am asserting in this thread is that the general concept of time (used by most people) is a reference to specific past events of interest to them (or to specific future events of interest to them).  The real interesting aspect of these things is that past events are generally taken to be "known" and future events are generally taken to be "expected".  Two rather different concepts.  Oh yeah, the present is generally taken to be the transformation from being "expected" to being "known".

I actually find it difficult to understand why my position generates so much controversy.

Have fun -- Dick

 

Have fun -- Dick

This is an interesting thread, silent for some time, and I would like to offer some thoughts why your position about time can generate controversy.  

 

1.  You do not define 'event'.   In special relativity theory an event does not have a magnitude, but your position requires the probability that an event must have a magnitude. 

 

2.   You do not define what it means to have knowledge in general nor knowledge in specific, especially scientific knowledge.   Your position, as a scientist, is that all past events are known.   However, while posting this I heard a loud noise, but the location, cause, and moment it occured is unknown to me.   Your position is that the sound event I heard must then be within my future, that the event I just experienced is nothing more than an expectation that I hold since I have no knowledge of it other than to say that "it existed".  I suggest your position is not logical and thus a cause of controversy.  

 

3.  You claim that it is impossible to have uncertain knowledge of future events because you constrain knowledge to past events.  This position can create controversy.  For example, in my newspaper I can can learn (have knowledge) when the sun will rise tomorrow to accuracy of plus minus one second.  Thus I can say that I have uncertain knowledge of this event, a claim not allowed in your world-view since you constain such events to being an expectation, which is a concept completely different from knowledge. 

 

4.  As stated previously, you claim that time divides, others on this thread disagree and suggest that time is what is divided.   At the least you would need to show why the position that time is what is divided is a logical impossibility.      

 

5.  You claim in many posts that clocks do not measure time, but Einsein special relativity theory allows that clocks do in fact measure proper time (his tau) directly, and also coordinate time (t or T) indirectly under certain conditions, and in yet other conditions of the theory there is no difference between measurment of proper time and coordinate time by movement associated with clocks.  If the two universally accepted concepts of time presented by Einstein to form his theory of relativity (proper [tau] and coordinate time [t, T]) can be measured by movement that results from what is termed a clock (with possibility of both internal and external clock movement allowed), then it should not be a surprise that your position about time (which is derived from a world-view that links time directly with knowledge and expectations but not motion) creates controversy.