Einstein and Time (Humans)

by dhw, Friday, February 10, 2012, 20:58 (4668 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: David, that is MY point. The divisions/measurements are man-made, but the sequence IS the reality of time. There is a before-and-after, a cause-effect-cause-effect, and a not yet existing future that becomes an existing present that becomes a no longer existing past. The sequence ... not 11.25 am, 10 February 2012 ... is what I see as the reality of time. If you don't agree, find me another word to describe that sequence.-DAVID: Philosophic point: we are back to if the tree falls in the forest and no one is there, is there sound? The tree creates waves in the air. They exist, but they are not observed. The same with the sequence of events; they exist, but they only become time if observed. As in quantum theory, time requires an observer.-It is indeed a philosophical point. The argument that nothing is real unless it is observed means that if there were no humans around to observe and record their observations, nothing would be real. Unfortunately, another philosophical point is that we cannot prove conclusively that things are as we observe them to be. There is no end to this game, and that is why I've asked Matt to tell us his criteria for judging whether something is real or not.-I notice you have not responded to my challenge. You seemed to agree in your previous post that the sequence of future ... present ... past was real. What word can you use for that sequence if it is not TIME?