Tim had a very good point in his post on the difficulties of scientifically
proving any definition of time. However, I had two responses to that:
One is that we must first put forth some theoretical definitions before any
proofs can be conceived, much less tested.
And Two: Logic is a tool that can be employed creatively to achieve
astronomical breakthroughs. In other words, I submit that it is utterly true
that one human being can sit absolutely still, with the mind ferociously at
work, and achieve more answers-- more truth-- than all the laboratories and
experimental scientists and operating budgets put together, if one is employed usefully and the other is not.
What does "useful" mean? Ah, that's the sticky part. But I grew up with a
man who used his mind usefully, as I have come to define the term, and since I
am saying this to a group of people who wouldn't be listening if they
didn't also agree to some extent with my father's mind-usefulness, I feel some
assurance that my definition will be understood.
Therefore, the problem becomes one of finding new ways
to look at and think about time such that logic holds, explanations become
obvious, relationships are seen, connections are found, and truth is arrived
at. I doubt I can be much help with the
actual work here, folks. I'm good at the creative part, the conceptual part, the
Rosennean part.... but you guys have the collective chops,
scientifically/educationally/professionally/experientially..... so I'm here to
offer creative/Rosennean assistance, but I'm just the mascot of the list. The
cheering squad. The conscience. I don't think I can help any further than
that.
Judith