Further Treatises on Time... (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 15:26 (5001 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Physics acknowledges time but only as a unit of measure; for example a second is defined thusly: "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."-Philosophy in reverse: I understand the word ... it's the definition that has me flummoxed!
 
MATT: I notice that you like to return often to the idea of continuity. One of the things that we've discovered about nature at its lowest levels is that continuity does not exist.
 
No, it's you who like to return to it. The only time I've ever mentioned it, to my knowledge, is in the Chambers definition to which I subscribe. The word I like to return to often is SEQUENCE (frequently in block capitals, in the hope of drawing your attention to it), and one obvious SEQUENCE is that of cause and effect. The other theme I like to return to is the claim that time "isn't part of the fabric of reality".-dhw: If you genuinely believe that the laws of physics, not to mention biology, are wrong or backwards, step in front of that bus (but do please give yourself enough something or the other to step away again).
MATT: Here you're taking the discussion from time to cause and effect. We haven't made it there yet. Remember the same physics that describes what happens when I step in front of a bus is the same physics that denies a continuity of time; maybe we should dive deeper here?-The SEQUENCE of cause and effect, of before-now-after, of birth-life-death, is at the heart of my belief that time is part of the fabric of reality. I do see time as a continuous flow, but my emphasis is not on that. Between cause and effect there can be a gap (so "continuity" would be misleading) which I would call temporal. So let me repeat what I wrote in my last post, to see if you can prove to me that, although your response will follow on from all our other posts (cause-effect-cause etc. with temporal gaps), the something or other during which this SEQUENCE of exchanges takes place cannot be called "time". (What WOULD you call it? That is a genuine question, and your answer might be helpful.)-I wrote: "Our point of disagreement: the sequence of cause-effect-cause, and the movement from before to now to after, are integral to the function of the Earth and of the universe just as they are to the course of life. This sequence/movement is what I and many others call "time", and as such it is part of the fabric of reality."