I see time as the sensation of articulating events.
But, if we had perfect and boundless comprehension, there would be no need for articulation and all events would appear to us to have uniform and ultimate immediacy. Time would not feature.
We all use time to measure how long things take to move, but is there more to it than that? I thought quite a bit about this a few years ago when I was thinking over Zeno's dichotomy paradox. He states that we can never fully reach any point because to get to the point, we must first go half way to it, but before that, half way to the half way point, ad infinitum. Seeing as how we do reach points all the time (ie, I never have any problem getting to work), it seems there is no real paradox here, yet the reasoning is sound.
This is more of a poor mind experiment than a paradox. A continuum of points on the real number line is a mathematical concept used only as an approximation to reality.
Clearly the mathematical algorithm would never end if each step took a fixed amount of time. However, the variation of time taken for each step could only be extrapolated so far before theory departs from reality. Familiar notions and behavours do not scale indefinitely. Questions will arise of what a physical point is and what constitutes "reaching" it in practice. In reality we detect "significant" interaction, not mathematical coincidence. There would also be the problem of the limiting mechanics of frequency and wavelength.
Solomon wrote that the reason man cannot understand all that God has made from beginning to end is because owlam (long time) is in our minds (same as hearts in ancient languages).
Consider this. 1. Not a single clock has ever measured any time. Clocks can only compare the rate of complex processes. No clock has ever isolated any time as though it had a private existence. No local clock ever compared the duration of a past "second" with a present one.
2. Yet we can directly compare the rate of ancient clocks with modern ones. Every atom in the distant universe clocks a different frequency than local atoms. Not a single atom in the universe shows itself to be a perpetual motion machines. (a) yet scientists use the concept of perpetual motion atomic clocks to define almost every one of their units of measurement. (b) Ancient orbits were radically different from modern orbits. We can see the past with our eyes at many ranges, eras, all directions and wavelengths. We observe how ancient galaxies were tiny and packed with stars. They were naked and without arms. At closer ranges, we follow how the stars came out, accelerating continually as the galaxies grew. (A spiral form is always associated with accelerations on earth).
3. Western science was founded on a first principle, invented by Aristotle, that matter does not change itself. Aquinas, a mendicant friar, convinced the Christian scholastics to found science on aAristotle's solution to the problem of change - that matter cannot change is properties as it ages. Our ancestors contrived the scientific operational definitions of matter and time on theis carefully protected assumption. In its modern form, this assumption means that atoms are not supposed to change their clock rates, so scientists invent pure magic - things like the vacuum spread the light, the vacuum accelerates galaxies, the vacuum created everything out of nothing.
Why? Because what we see with our eyes is that every bit of matter in the whole universe continually changes itself - its clock rate and its orbital rate. Since what is visible is not allowed, scientists invent myths about invisible things (by their own admission their universe is 99% invisible) to obfuscate the evidence that all matter continually changes its visible properties, including clock rate, as it ages.
Carefully examine the historical first principle of science!
I must say, for me at least, I DO NOT think so much with Aristotle, as I do with Newton, when I do. I have not made up my mind fully with developments since about 1900 however.
I used to think that I was supposed to think of an atom (regardless of the vaccuum) from about this time frame but I now realize this is not so. I DO NOT, however, see the need to refer to Democritus etc. Going back to Newton's thought seems good enough for me, especially as science seems to me to be dominated by Cartesianism rather than Aristotlianism. The references primarily to Aristolte I find in 1950s science scholarship but if I am going back to 1900 or so is rather philosphical than pragmatic towards whatever the experimental philosophy is. I understand that occult bodies seem analytical if the synthesis of the atom is not to the molecule but if the analysis of the genetics yields "a periodic crystal" then the difference of liquid and solid and not proton vs electron is controling for me. Thus finess of clock differences in atoms remains a purely physical rather than a chohesive collective divided it seems to me. It is like thinking that man is a machine. I have no use for this at all. Others may. I can eliminate a notion of feedback where 1950s science did not. Maybe that is just me however.
I must say, for me at least, I DO NOT think so much with Aristotle, as I do with Newton, when I do.
All Western people are disciples of Aristotle because he invented the foundational assumption upon which Friar Thomas founded Western learning. Aristotle’s primitive idea relates to matter and change. In his system, many things can change causally since the cause is external to themselves. There is one kind of change that Aristotle did not allow - innate change present in an object from inception and not imparted from anything external. He wrote that the attributes of matter cannot change. In other words matter cannot change itself, change intrinsically, change relationally as it ages.
Fundamental relational changes are not measurable. If the speed of all clocks changes because of innate changes in the attributes of matter, we could not measure it locally. Our forefathers contrived the operational definitions of clock-time on Aristotle’s first principle that matter does not change-itself. Newton was a disciple of Aristotle, although he dispensed with mentioning first principles. His book famously defines the properties of matter and time as “the measure of the same.” If matter changes itself in an orderly way (that is relationally) a system of measurement and a system of mathematics can only work accurately in nearby spaces and times.
The question is, is Aristotle’s first principle false? Does matter change itself, change relationally, change all its attributes in parallel as it ages? We can see the past with sight. Every atom in the universe changes its clock rate. We follow in primordial galaxies how the inertial properties of matter continually change as each galaxy grows from a dense naked clump to a great spread giant. If we use sight as evidence, we can see that every visible property of matter changes in an orderly way. Of course such evidence is not alowed in the scientific system because it violates the historical dogma upon which science was founded. SO they invent invisible things like the vacuum stretched the light or subduction prevents the earth from growing.
quote:Finally, as regards the history of Logic, we will only mention the following:- Logic, as we have it, is derived from Aristotle's Analytic. This philosopher may be regarded as the father of Logic. He treated it as an Organon, and divided it into Analyticand Dialectic. His treatment is very scholastic, and is directed to the development of the most general and fundamental notions of logic. Of this, however, we can make no use, since almost everything ends in mere subtilties, except that the names of several actions of the understanding are taken from it.
Since Aristotle's time Logic has not gained much in extent, and indeed its nature forbids that it should. But it may gain in respect of accuracy,definiteness,anddistinctness. There are but few sciences that can come into a permanent state, which admits of no further alteration. To these belong Logic and Metaphysics. Since Aristotle has omitted no essential point of the understanding; we have only become more accurate, methodical, and orderly.
It was believed indeed that Lambert's Organon would much enlarge Logic. But it contains nothing additional except more subtitle divisions, which, like all correct subtilties, no doubt sharpen the understanding, but are of no essential use,
Amongst more recent philosphers there are two who have brought general Logic into vogue, Leibnitz and Wolff
(Introduction to Logic Philosophical Library New York page10-11)
I am here to report that despite Russells’ methodical order and accuracy since “the vogue time” we still actually only have more subtilties and no essential use of Aristotle anyway. Aristotle made the distinction of distributive justice and yet our legal system can not recognize this. I even petitioned the District Court of the US. They did not want to answer.
I did say in the beginning of this thread that I really have little need to explore the physcisits notions which do not attempt to relate life on all levels but this does not stop me from trying for a more accurate description, a better method and a more orderly tracing of life. This I do not think is in our minds. Maybe Aristotle should be, but for various reasons, still, he is not, in mine. Perhaps because, scientifically, I am focused on heritable changes, Aristotle's general view is less helpful from "my" things being ordered.
Because we have subtilties rather than better than Russell order since Wolff and Leibniz I can not really even get the EVC discussion back to Newton's absolute space as I address it on http://www.axiompanbiog.com
This does not stop me from hoping we will, just I dont find this subsumtion of Aristotle just as I dont see but a limited use (so far)(I am working on it)of the notion of time as fgarb and salamander write in this thread.
Logic is not independent of Aristotle’s basic assumption. He could invent logic because he assumed that matter does not intrinsically change-itself. The first law of logic A = A would fail if all "As" change themselves. A modern "A" would not be like an ancient "A". Western science was founded on Aristotle’s principle that matter does not intrinsically change itself, change its attributes as it ages. Aristotle’s assumption cannot be deduced from simple evidence or any other assumption. How can you tell if this is the first principle upon which science was built?
History shows that a mendicant friar, Aquinas, convinced the scholastics to found Western science on Aristotle's assumption that matter does not change-itself. Since this assumption is always taught implicitly (not explicitly) in every science class, most scientists are not aware that they have a first principle. You cannot invent operationally defined units for matter and time without this assumption. If matter changes itself, every clock would change its pulse rate, but you could not measure it locally because all local clocks would be changing. Yet we can see with optics that all distant clocks pulsed a different rate, the more distant the more discordant. You could only measure orbital changes with angles, not with clocks, because clocks and orbits would stay in synch as they both changed. Why? Because the attributes of matter would continually change AS A RELATION. You could see with your eyes the global expansion seam and the stretch marks on the bottom of the ocean but you could not measure the earth changing size because even your meter sticks would change length. You cannot contrive a precise way of measuring (except with angles - with vision) without holding Aristotle’s assumption as dogma. You cannot model reality with mathematics over the long term if matter changes-itself, yet you could see such changes with your eyes.
How can you test whether our way of thinking entirely depends on Aristotle’s assumption that matter does not change its properties relationally? The smartest scientists invent pure magic (and get away with it) to protect their dogma that matter does not change. We can see the past optically. Yet what we see is not allowed because if Aristotle’s assumption is valid, then atoms must be perpetual motion machines. To protect their perpetual motion atoms, they fill the universe with magic. They claim invisible matter far weighs visible matter. They claim the vacuum of empty space stretched the light. They claim a tiny bit of vacuum burped and created everything out of nothing. They claim that the sea floor (twice as dense as granite is diving back into the earth (subduction). Yet the tiny amounts of undisturbed layered soft sediments in the ocean trenches visibly show that subduction is a myth. How could intelligent people invent unsupported myths? Their entire structure of measuring, theorizing and mathematicating was contrived (over several centuries) on the Aristotlean creed that matter does not change-itself. They constructed their version of time with this assumption. The entire structure of scientific earth-history was constructed on this assumption. Yet we can see the past with sight and we see that the assumption is false - with sight. No wonder a scientific earth-history violates the genealogies and astronomy accounts of early people. No wonder the scientific universe is 99% invisible. They contrived all the invisible things with their blind dogma that matter does not change-itself.
I can not test whether it responds subconsicously to Aristotle or not simply because I am aware that the discipline of logic is not able to help yet even where it should be helping. This is a matter of rather recent culutral history rather than historical sublimated influences even if they might be such.
I am fairly confident that much recent elite philosophy of biology IS dependent on a particular reading of Aristotle (unmoved movers of final causes) but I think the logical issue has less to do with motion here than it has with kinematics in a system. It seems that Aristotle has been used to make clear a position on teleology that need not be so, so it seems to me. I strain to get logic on my side of this. Immpenetribility is different than occult causes and yet the relation of chemistry BETWEEN physics and biology may be written to not notice this where you assert this is Aristotle's, I think.
If what I have been working for and towards is something that is simply dirty or dead, I dont see how or why I MUST always have to be or have been talking about something beyond knowledge. A mixed body is already changed. I just incline to continue to analyize where others deparmentalize. As to how time is supposed to be thought in all this for me, I am trying to see if my ideas of real and complex numbers are simply times for me or if they are a bit more objective, relevant to a kind of chemistry that does not yet exist except in the science of electricity which really are not chemicals but are shared instead (hence no time there).
The notion of a particle IS different than "impenetribility".