Comments about the book "Time in Experience and Science" by Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen Friis. Ph.D Disertation 2002

This document contains comments about the book: "Time in Experience and Science" by Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen Friis. Ph.D Disertation 2002 In the last paragraph I explain my own opinion.




Introduction - page 3

1. The Problem - page 3

The underlying assumption of this study is that time cannot be understood isolated from other aspects concerning human existence and activities.
Time can only be understood in two ways:
Nevertheless,different tendencies to isolate the problem of time will be present in traditional as well as in actual considerations.
Why to mention this distinction: traditional versus actual?
The Special Theory of Relativity (STR) has inspired philosophers and physicists to overemphasize the importance of physics in the study of time.
It is important to mention that in STR time is related to clock time i.e. the behaviour of clocks.
The notion that only physics is able to answer the question about the real nature of time has become almost a household opinion.
That is correct.
Philosophical interpretations of STR have resulted in a division between temporal experience, on the one hand, and, on the other, time as a property of the physical and objective world.
Science should be performed based on objective facts and not based on human experiences. Human experiences can be used to search for new objective facts.
Human temporality has become easy to reject as real since it is so obvious to several influential theorists that it "merely" exists in the mind of people.
Human temporality, that we exist for a small duration) has nothing to do with time. What humans experience in their mind is physical time.
And by "real" we shall not only see time as subjectively real; experienced time, or temporality, is pure and simply real.
Time experienced by humans should also be treated as physical time.
It is important to understand that clock time (indicated on a clock) is different.
One conclusion that can be drawn from the above "compartmentalization" of "things in the world" on the one hand, and "phenomena in the mind" on the other, is that time must have both an "internal" as well as an "external" aspect.
My understanding is, that it is not necessary to make a distinction between "internal" and "external" aspects of time.

page 4

To me, physics is a complex and extremely difficult field.
That is true in general, but no issue related to this document.
But since most psycho-physics-related theory about time concludes with "real time has no relationship with human experienced temporality", I will not accept this as "proper physics" or "proper science" but as metaphysics, as meta-theory.
We humans experience our own temporarlity, that we are born and die, but that has nothing to do with physical time.
The momement we are born is a physical event. The same when we die.
It is difficult to establish a physical-organic ontological basis for experienced temporality, which would merge temporal experience and the reality in science.
It is doubtful if these 'facts' are important to understand the concept: time.
Thus, we have the "phenomenological" perspective, the "metaphysical", the "realist" and "anti-realist", the "temporal realist" and "temporal anti-realist", as well as the perspectives of "subjectivity" and "objectivity".
It is again doubtfull if all these distinctions are important. Objectivity is. Objective facts are based on experiments.

4. Previous Work and Related Literature - page 9

However, my disappointment grew as my reading went on.
I could no longer see how it was possible for Einstein to argue that pure thinking and intuition could access reality while other mental accomplishments could not, for instance, experience, especially temporal experience, which, in Einstein's opinion, presented us with the grandest illusion of them all.
It is impossible to understand the reality by pure thinking.
Einstein observed that an apple falls from a three. In reality the apple and the earth move towards each other.
To understand the mathematics that describe this fall you must perform experiments.
Experience is a typical human characteristic. The primary reason to get experience is by reading or performing experiments.
How could we access nature if our way of ordering thought and experiences were flawed and even illusory?
Einstein himself is sometimes in favor of thought-experiments, that means only by observations and pure thinking. That is a very difficult way to understand all the details of what is involved.
To apply different perspectives in order to view time from more than one angle became necessary since I was not able to find even one book that could explain to me how the time of mind, the time of science and the time of nature is interrelated as an inner phenomenon, inexternal processes, and as construed concept.
It only makes sense to make a distinction between phyiscal time and clock time.

page 10

We also see that the temporal realism approaches looks to relativity physics for support and validation of its claims.
More detail is required to understand this sentence.
But we never see that temporal realism brings the phenomenological approach of experience into the context with the purpose of perhaps learning something.
When we use the concept experience more detail is required what it means

page 12

These thinkers represent various approaches to the question of the nature of time.
It is very difficult to discuss concepts like the nature of time.
Still they all agree about the essential nature of time to be dynamic and that "becoming" is characteristic of time.
Even subjectivity and temporal experience are given importance in the sense that a relation between the mind of man and real time is suggested in a variety of ways.
From a physical point of view human time and real time are the same. They are both physical time.
From the above it is clear that there exist confusions about the distinctions between real world properties and theoretical entities hypothesized as real world properties.
Theoretical discussions about physical time (excluding clock time) are always very confusing.

page 13

Prigogine's claims were that physical time conforms to our fundamental experience, the laws of physics need to be rewritten, the physics claiming that nature in its minutest parts behave reversible in time have gone astray.
The evolution of any process always goes forward in time and never backward in time. In fact the physical concept 'going backward in time' does not exist.
Water always flows from a higher position A to a lower position B. If you want, that water flows from B to A than you have to lower-down position A and up-lift position B. That means you have to make certain modifications
This indicates a total change of physics, as we know it of today. But Prigogine is not alone. Along with him in the new project of turning the tide in favor of "becoming", for the "irreversible time" of experience, he has other prominent thinkers as etc.
Time reversibility is a physical illusion.
These sources has led me to claim that physical theory must restrict its use of time concepts that cannot be empirically confirmed.
One of the greatest obstacles was to decide what kind of object time is.
Time is not a physical object . A clock is an object
I had to secure a fundament for subjectivity and I had to determine the "nature" of "objectivity".
It is very important to explain the reason for this discussion i.e. its physical implications.

page 14

Polanyi argues for personal knowledge, while Popper advocates realism, although a metaphysical kind of realism that cannot find the temporal realism valid, as a realistically founded approach to the study of time.
Poppers claim makes sense. The rest is tricky.
Determinism and the fundamental laws of physics present us furthermore with something of a conundrum. (riddle or mystery)
Both Determinism and fundamental laws of physics are descriptions or properties of physical processes.
The conundrum is, of course, that time is reversible, systems are closed and symmetrical, and the laws governing all this are claimed to be universal.
All these concepts are descriptions or properties of physical processes and they should not (as defined) contradict each other.
Important is that 'time' is not reversible. Systems in general are open and asymmetrical (what ever that means).
It should als be mentioned that laws are descriptions of identical processes.

Chapter 1.

1. Epistemological Metaphysics and Time - page 17

Metaphysics and epistemology presuppose each other.
Both concepts require a clear definition. Both are physical concepts which describe physical processes.
Both of these areas are involved in the investigation of reality

page 24

The task of the idealist is to show how the subject can objectify the content of subjective awareness and experience.
Difficult to understand. Next:
This appears to be contrary to realism, which endeavors to explain objects in terms of movement, energy, force and matter.
Difficult to place in context. Next:
Or time as symmetry of processes expressed by the fundamental laws of physics.
Physical processes are not time symmetrical.

1.1. About Epistemological Metaphysicsand the Foundation of Time in Mind and Theory - page 17

1.2. Reality and Time - page 25

1.3. Metaphysical and Scientific Foundations of Time - page 29

Chapter 2.

2. The Problems of Realism 31

2.1. Realism - page 31

2.2. Metaphysical Realism - page 36

2.3. Temporal Realism - page 42

2.4. Idealism and Misconceptions - page 44

2.5. Synthesis - page 47

Chapter 3.

3. Subjectivity, Becoming and Time - page 54

3.1. Notions Concerning Subjectivity and Time in Physics - page 54

3.2. A Preliminary on Becoming - page 63

Chapter 4.

4. Subjectivity and Objectivity page - 73

4.1. The General Features of Subjective-Objective Distinctions - page 73

4.2. Transcendental, Phenomenological and Psychological Notions - page 76

4.3. Subjectivity as the Problem - page 82

4.4. The Problem of Disjunction - page 91

4.5. Objectivity and Ontology - page 96

page 98

Nicholas Rescher operates with three well known but fundamental distinctions between different meanings of objectivity.
First we have "ontological objectivity", secondly, “epistemic objectivity” and thirdly there is “cognitive objectivity”.
Ontological objectivity” is that which is physically real, independent of human mind.
This is the most important concept. Who defines what is physically real?
Ontological objectivity includes the human brain but it does not include the human mind.
What is the human mind is the collection of our experiences. Its like the meaning or the message expressed by the words used in a book.
British philosopher Pete Mandik claims that we, first of all, have to distinguish between “metaphysical” objectivity – which I hold to be the same as “ontological” and “epistemic” objectivity.
That makes sense because “Ontological objectivity” is defined as: what is physically real.

page 99

The subjective, then, is the “existence” or phenomenon, which is dependent on our mind.
That makes sense
Here, we are not dealing with the subject matter, i.e. as in our case with time as such, but with the “justification” of our claims and contentions about time.
Broadly speaking, time is a human experience, taking place inside the brain, as part of our mind.
At the same time, the evolution of processes take time, making time also a part of the physical world.
The predisposition that sidetrack people from being objective include: Prejudices and “passions”, like greed and envy; conformity, to do the popularly done thing; personal loyalty and affective involvement with particular groups and persons; ideological allegiances; personal bias; wishful thinking, following our own desires rather that evidence and argument.
Physical time has nothing to do with these human characteristics.

page 100

If something requires thought, or any mental act like being represented for it to exist, it is metaphysically subjective.
It is metaphysically objective, on the other hand, if it exists without the help of intellect or thought.
That is the situation related to physical time.
And we shall see that this differentiation is of importance for the overall treatment of time.
The problem is that we humans experience time, which happens in our brain. At the same time objects exists, they exist 'in time', and that (physical) time is different of what we humans experience.
Now we also have to face something I believe is of great importance in a general characterization of objectivity.
A related question is how important is objectivity and subjectivity related to the evolution of physical processes and the understanding of these processes.

page 101

An objective judgment is one that abstracts from personal idiosyncrasies or group parochialisms.
An objective judgement by any human is always subjective. (?)
Because “time” is, as an “object”, a very special kind of “object”.
Time is not an object, similar as a horse an object is.
Rescher’s question is particularly interesting in the view of the stance of physical realism and its claim of objective reality for a restricted understanding of physical time, the “t” of physics.
The 't' of physics has to do with clock time.

page 102

Secondly, Rescher points to the aspect of “physicality or reality”.
Difficult to understand.
This means that time, or the “t” must exist somehow.
Unclear sentence. Only a horse exists. 't' does not exist.
Things or physical entities exist in space and time, but where/when does time reside?
Time does not reside nowhere. This is a dead end street discusion; it goes nowhere.

page 103

Is the “t” of physics absolutely independent of mind?
An impossible to answer question.
Therefore it is no doubt true that the time within physics that has been granted the metaphysical possibility of reversal is a creation (in the sense of being pure fiction) of the human mind.
This sentence is not very scientific. Important is that from a physical point of view the evolution of any process is irreversible.

Chapter 5.

5. The Metaphysics of Einsteinian Time - page 108

The feeling that is being transmitted is that Einstein has once and for all disclosed the true nature of time.
First you need a defintion what is meant with the the nature of time
The truth is that Einstein changed the physical meaning concerning the physical concept of time.
It is very difficult to discuss the physical concept of time. What you can discuss is what is the physical meaning of a clock. As such a clock is an oscilator, and the number of counts is an indication of a duration.
It was the epistemological aspect of time measurement that occupied Einstein.
First and for all you need a good definition of what means time.
Secondly you have to define how you want to measure time.
The only thing that can be measured is what I call: clock time.

5.1. Einstein's STR and Ideas Concerning Time and Epistemology - page 108

Rosen says in an interview that a physical theory "must distinguish between the physical or objective reality, which is independent of any theory, and the physical concepts of the theory which are intended to correspond with the objective reality."
First you need a proper definition of both: the physical reality and the objective reality. IMO the reality is always something physical and the description of the reality should be objective.

page 109

So in deciding the elements of physical reality, one has to determine with certainty the value of a physical quantity without disturbing the system in any way.
The two most important parameters in any process are the position of any event and the time of any event.
In the case of studying the solar system that means to measure the position of a planet at a certain instant and the time of this measurement.
With the determination of such a value one is believed to have found an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.
However, Einstein never got tired of stressing that the origin of his Theory of Relativity (TR) was not speculative, but based upon the desire to make his theory fit the observed facts as far as possible.
That is the way it should be. In fact with the Theory of Relativity, based on observations in the past, you should be able to make predictions which should match actual observations in the future.
Nevertheless, in relation to Einstein’s notion about time in STR it is important to understand these metaphysical empiricist underpinnings of STR.
This reference related to experiment is important. At the same time it is important to describe these experiments.

page 110

Ernst Mach had a more direct influence.
Mach was of the opinion that the fundamental laws of physics are only the final products and summary of a long and tedious labor of conducting experiments and collecting data.
That is the way science should be performed.
To be specific, one of the important issues that had a tremendous influence on Einstein's thinking was in fact Mach's criticism of Newton's ideas of space and time together with his criticism of the Newtonian mechanics.
Interesting discussion.

5.1.1. The Non-Verifiability of Newtonian Absolute Time - page 111

Thus, we have to make a distinction between absolute time and relative time.
It is very important to compare the meaning of identical concepts used by Newton with Einstein. The definition of relative time is a duration. That means the difference between two events measured as absolute time.
Absolute or metaphysical time is the real time of the world.
This substantial time is an all-embracing "form" and is thus held independently of physical events.
This is tricky because all physical events are part of the evolution of the world in real time.
In comparison to absolute time we see that physical time is the same as "clock time"; this is to say that physical time is identical to our endeavor to measure the real-world absolute time.
IMO physical time and clock time are two complete different concepts. Physical time has to do with the time of an event. Clock time with a clock, which is used to measure the time of an event.
Newton's conception of an absolute time is based upon his theism.
Theism can never be the basis for science.
This is a tricky sentence because at the same time, absolute time is a certain measure of the age of the universe.
Hence, it was not the absolute time of Newton that Einstein changed. It was Newton's concept of physical time. Einstein managed to make Newton's absolute time irrelevant.
This is strange, specific if you want to understand the total evolution of the universe. Physical time has also a link to absolute time.
Newton found time to have absolute and mathematical features, as well as relative ones, that is, apparent and common features.
This type of discussion, about time, is not very realistic.

page 112

Clock readings represent absolute time; on the other hand there is no identity between measures, the readings and the nature of absolute time.
Physical time depends upon the accuracy of the measuring devices.
No it does not. The measurement of time is an approximation.
True time is measurable, but our measurements of the flow of time are always only approximate.
Any measurement of time, using clocks, is always an approximation.
Our clock readings will always be more or less accurate attempts to describe the absolute time of God's creation.
See next sentence.
In Newton's eyes it is the absolute time created by God, which is the foundation of becoming. God created a simultaneous "Now" that is absolute and everywhere, a "Now" for the entire universe.
It is important to study this part without any reference to God.
As such there is nothing wrong to define a concept Now relevant for the entire universe.
However, the theistic metaphysics by Newton which fused absolute time and physical time was among those notions that Einstein could not tolerate as part of a sober physical explanation of the universe.
Also this sentence should be studied without any theistic interpretation.
The notion of a flowing time; of becoming; of the absolute simultaneity of created time by God; of the Universal Now, was not only non-testable but also posed a unfruitful diversion from the real issues that only a verifiable physics dealt with
Again this sentence should be studied without any reference to God. For example: there is nothing wrong to define a present or a now and to call all the events that are happening now, as simultaneous. To use the two concepts absolute simultaneous and relative simultaneous, only makes sense if they are different.
Only a testable concept of time can be given the status of objectivity and thus become a property of the reality which is of concern to physics.
Testable implies that it should be linked to a clock. The problem is that physical time and clock time are not the same. The second is an approximation of the first, as already mentioned.
Thus, Einstein freely omitted the notion of the "absolute" and instead concentrated upon the empirical properties connected to clock readings.

page 113

5.1.2. Mach's Influential Empiricis - page 113

Einstein connected his rejection of absolute simultaneity with the phenomenalism and empiricism of Mach and Hume.
The rejection of absolute simultaneity in favor of relative simultaneity is a serious issue.
The only justification for our concepts and system of concepts is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitimacy.
The use of the word experience should be used carefully, because it is human related, and subjective. Science should be based on experiments. They should be objective.
It is especially the definition of simultaneity in STR that is based on Mach’s requirement that every statement in physics has to state relations between observable quantities.
This requirement gives Einstein both an epistemological program and a metaphysical basis for his rejection of absolute time.
Also a serious issue

page 114

However, one of Einstein’s rational principles was that of a thought experiment.
Thought experiments are not scientific.
Thought experiments are can never be used to demonstrate how physical processes evolve . Only real experiments can.
For example, Einstein imagined himself to pursue a beam of light with the velocity of light in vacuum, c.
He can do that, but no when else can repeat that same experiment and compare the results.
When Einstein was asked about the source of his conviction he referred to “intuition”.
Intuition is not scientific.
According to Mach, principles need empirical testing. Einstein agreed with this.
Ernst Mach is correct, and if Einstein agrees he should not use thought experiments.

page 115

Thus, we are given a possible interpretation of how time can become something physical.
Time is not something physical. The Universe and all its objects are physical objects, subject of change caused by gravity. A clock is a physical object. Time is not. Time is related to the existance of objects.

5.1.3. Verification and Time - page 115

Einstein’s emphasis on empirical verification in STR can be seen in his instrumentalist redefinition of basic key concepts.
Simultaneity is defined by synchronization of light signals.
First of all you clearly must define what simultaneity physical means. That two events can be simultaneous and other events are not.
The light signals have to occur at the exact same local time.
This sentence replaces the concept simultaneity by a new concept: local time, and the original question is not answered.
In order to establish a physical meaning for a common time for spatially separated clocks, Einstein had to put in the presupposition, which is a natural assumption that light always travels with the same speed.
This requires a clear defintion of how the speed is measured, in every direction.
There are two ways to do that:
  1. You can start with clocks which are considered at rest in the universe. That also assumes that the speed of light is identical in all directions. Those clocks are synchronized from a common point at equal distance from all these clocks; i.e. at the centre. Using an arbitrary count indicating a certain duration, the speed of the lightsignals can be calculated.
  2. You can also start from the idea that the speed of light, at any point, is the same in all directions, in one frame. Using one of these points, this point can be used to synchronize any clock at equal distance, in the same way as above.
The problem with the first method is to find a reference frame at rest. This is only possible with try and error.
The second method starts from one point in one reference frame. You can also start a second point at that same location in its own reference frame which moves compared to the first reference frame. The light signals used are identical but the points and clocks synchronized are not the same.

This transforms whatever notion of time one might have had before.
By assuming that light always travels with the same speed, he introduces a concept with is based on thoughts and not on experiments.
The problem is these experiments are difficult if not impossible.

5.1.4. Relative and Relativistic Time - page 116

5.1.5. Non-Temporalism - page 119

5.2. Simultaneity in STR - page 124

5.2.1. Philosophical Interpretations of STR - page 127

page 128

As Kostro also points out, in Einstein's later quotes it becomes more and more clear that it is an ideal clock that Einstein has in mind.
The problem is that when performing science, the clocks used are physical clocks, which are not ideal.
From a physical point the clocks used should be considered at rest in the coordinate system in use.

page 129

Why? Because real clocks in space and time are imperfect since all real bodies are subjected to decay.
That is not the case. As already mentioned they should be at rest.
Furthermore, real clocks have mass and are thus subjected to gravitational time dilation.
When real clocks (for example using light signals) are not at rest they will run slower.
Although real, these processes are too unpredictable and contingent to be regarded as something that theory can rely on in the pursuit of accuracy and predictability.
It is the purpose of science to try to understand all processes, in order to predict the future.
In short, time has no direction; thus there is no now, no future or no past
That is almost correct. The point is that there is nothing wrong by claiming that there is a now; the present moment of the existance of the universe.
There is also nothing wrong by claiming that events which happend in the past can influence the present (state) and that certain events whch happen now will influence a specific moment in the future.
If this logic is excluded its implies that we cannot predict the future which is the purpose of science.

What this sentence specific implies that time (as a matter of speaking) always flows forward; irreversible.

5.3. The Status of Objectivity for the Concept of Time in STR - page 134

5.4. The Illusions of the Individual - page 145

5.4.1. Illusions and STR - page 148

5.4.2. Grünbaum's View - page 152

5.4.3. Time in Nature is the Time of Mind - page 155

Chapter 6.

6. Becoming - page 162

6.1. Stapp on Time - page 163

6.1.1. Reversibility - page 167

page 168

But the equation would be time-symmetric and reversible if it did not change when we exchanged the time parameter t by –t.
That is mathematical correct.
The problem is that as part of the evolution of any process, time (the parameter t) cannot be reversed. That means equations that describe these processes should not be time-symmetric.

6.1.2. Irreversibility - page 173

6.1.3. Coarse-graining - page 179

6.2. Problematic Becoming - page 181

6.2.1. The Problem of Temporal Orders - page 190

6.2.2. Temporal Order - page 192

6.2.3. Properties and Facts - page 196

6.2.4. Events and Intersecting Time Series - page 202

6.2.5. The Grounding of Order - page 207

6.3. Becoming, Dissipation and the Temporal Mind - page 211

6.3.1. A Comparison of Time and Entropy - page 216

6.3.2. The Extension of Local Temporality withoutRejection of Subjectivity - page 222

Chapter 7.

7. Determinism, Laws of Nature and Time - page 229

7.1. A Brief Historical Outlining of the Rationale behind the Ideal of Symmetrical, Fundamental and Deterministic Laws - page 230

7.2 The Metaphysical "Nature" of the Laws of Nature - page 237

7.3 The "Reality" of Time Symmetric or Universal Laws of Nature - page 242

7.4. Determinism - page 246

7.4.1. Ontological Determinism - page 248

7.4.2. Determinism and Causalism - page 249

7.4.3. Determinism, Laws and Symmetry of Time - page 251

7.5 Fundamentalism - page 255

Chapter 8.

8. The Evolution of Temporal Adaptation - page 261

8.1. Time in Nature; the Organic Perspective - page 262

8.2. Evolution and Temporality - page 264

8.3. The Temporality of the World:Coordination of "Biological Clocks" and "Natural Rhythms" - page 269

Chapter 9.

9. Reality of Time or Objectivity of Time 275

9.1. The Central Issues - page 275

9.2. Objectivity or Reality - page 285

9.3. Perspectives on Man and Nature - page 287


absolute simultaneity page 112, page 113
absolute time page 111, page 112, ref 4
clock time page 3, page 12, page 101, page 108, page 111, page 112, ref 3
experience page 3, page 4, page 9, page 10, page 12, page 13, page 24, page 98, page 99, 113, ref 1, ref 4
irreversible page 13, 1o3, 129, ref 1,
light signals page 115, 129,
local time page 115,
now page 112, 129, Ref 2, Ref 3
physical time page 3, 4, page 9, 12, page 13, 99, page 101, 111, page 112, Ref 1, Ref 2, Ref 3, Ref 4
relative time page 111
simultaneity page 112, page 113, page 115,
speed of light page 115,
theism page 111,
thought experiment page 114,
STR - Standard Theory of Relativity page 3, 108, 115, page 124, 134,
synchronization page 115,
thought experiment page 114,

Reflection 1 - Human time

'Human time' is the time we humans experience. But is that true? What we humans experience is that we exist and that our life is temporary. We know that, by observing other people and that there is something called birth and dead, and that it is important to stay healthy.
What is also important that we slowly feel that we become older and that is an inevitable fact. That in turn means that our life is irreversible like all processes on earth and in the universe, if they evolve undisturbed. If we want to reverse a process we have to take actions.
What does this indicates for time, I mean physical time, that time is irrevirsible.
At the bottom line, there is not something that exists and that we can call: human time

Reflection 2 - physical time

Physical processes in the universe are dynamical. That means they evolve in time. This time we call physical time. At every moment, now, during the evolution of the universe, the whole of the universe has the same phyisical time. Shortly called time. That is also what each human feels. The same for all humans everywhere in the universe.
However that is not what we observe. What we observe are events and all these events happened in the past. That does not mean that there exists a past. What exists are 'photographic' images of events that happenned in the past. A typical case is a supernova. This is explosion of a star at the end of its life. This explosion travels as a light flash through space, which we can observe; now
When this explosion happened we call the physical time of this explosion. By observing more and more similar observations we gat a better idea how the universe evolved in due time. It must be mentioned that this is not the whole universe but a much smaller part which we call the visible universe, and to be more precise, what we observe is the visible universe in the past.

Reflection 3 - clock time

The first and most basic tool to understand the universe and the evolution of the universe is by performing observations.
The best way to do that is from a general point of view and not from a specific location. That means we should start from a coordinate system, which is considered at rest and which is in use for the whole of the universe. Of course such a coordinate system is difficult to design from our local point of view but we should try to make something as global as possible. At the same time we should assume that all points in that coordinate system should reflect the same now; the same physicsl time.
To design this coordinate system, we should set up a grid, consisting of identical rods of equal length, in the three directions x,y,z. At the cross sections of this grid we place a clock and the time shown on these clocks we call the clock time.

The problem is to link physical object with this grids. The most simple example are the planets around the sun. A more realistic example are the stars in the Milky way. The most important issue that the positions of objects considered should all reflect the same time.
The second exercise is to improve the positions of the object considered, based on more observations.

Reflection 4 - The philosphy of science and the philosophy of time.

The universe is not static but dynamic. This means the processes involved, evolve continuously.
The more or less ultimate goal of science is that we all understand the details and how these processes volve. In reality science by it self is also a slow evolving process and we will never reach its final goal.
That does not mean we should not try to define the areas we all agree upon.

When you read the book "Time in Experience and Science" you get a good idea what the problems are, specific about the concept time.
This raises an interesting question: To what extend have both Newton and Einstein the same opinion about time.
One complication of this question is that both Newton and Einstein included religious aspects in their reasoning. Specific read the discussion at page 112 . As a consequence Einstein abandonned the concept of absolute time and only used clock time. When some one does not recognize the concept absolute time which is equivalent with the physical time of an event, than that sounds like a step backwards.



If you want to give a comment you can use the following form Comment form
Created: 14 September 2022

Go Back to Book and Article Review
Back to my home page Index