Einstein and Time (Humans)

by dhw, Sunday, February 12, 2012, 14:21 (4667 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt says time is not real.
 
MATT: This means that there is no objective reality for time. On a galactic scale, there is no universal property for time, because of how gravity interacts with the cosmos. There's no universal clock you can use that will allow you to put together a completely coherent timeline. Because all the objects in the universe have their own "clocks." There's no objective "master clock" in the universe. [...] The "sequence of events" you keep talking about... they happen independently of any clock.-There is absolutely nothing here that I disagree with or have ever disagreed with. You keep making the same point, but I have NEVER argued that there is a universal or master clock, and you have even quoted the passage in which twice I stressed that it is the sequence and NOT man-made clock time that is the reality. But you and David seem to think that clock time is the ONLY form of time. The word has as many meanings as I once had hairs. Here are three dictionary definitions of the time I am talking about:-"Indefinite continuous duration regarded as that in which the sequence of events takes place" (Oxford)-"A [...] continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future." (Reader's Digest Great Illustrated Dictionary) -"The continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past" (Collins) 
 
No mention of clocks, because clock time is only ONE form of time (the man-made measurement). In my last post I suggested: "a not yet existing future that becomes an existing present that becomes a no longer existing past" No clocks. Since you both appear to accept the reality of the SEQUENCE, why can't you accept the reality of time according to this definition? I asked what other word you would use to describe the sequence, but neither of you has answered. You are perhaps too busy clock-watching.
 
This brings us to criteria. Matt, in your earlier post you asked: "how can you possibly argue that time is "real" outside of conscious human existence...outside of the observation of phenomena?" That is a philosophical question, and positively demands the clarification of criteria that you refuse to offer. My answer to your question is that on one philosophical level we cannot argue that ANYTHING is real outside of ourselves and our observations. However ... hurray for common sense ... you now say: "We can establish the reality of something minimally by agreement ... David, dhw, and I can all see the sun." Yes, yes, and yes again. I do wish you had pursued that line of thinking, but I suspect you knew where it would lead you and decided to rush back to your clock-watching. Well, let me spell it out: David, Matt and dhw can all see that effects follow causes, that we were younger in the past than we are now, that events take place in sequences of before and after. THAT is the level on which time is a reality, and that is why I asked for your criteria. But I will boldly go one step further, and issue yet another challenge which will probably go unanswered:-On the understanding that we cannot "know" any ultimate, objective truth, I firmly believe (David will be amazed at such commitment!) that even if there were no humans, there would still be events going on in the universe, via a process of cause and effect, which would pass from a non-existent future through a present and into a non-existent past (e.g. the birth and death of stars). Do you or do you not share my belief? If you do, you believe in the reality of clockless time as I have defined it. That is as far as any of us can go.