|
Hi Tim,
This intriguing quote from your
post:
> It was just this kind of consideration that led me to conclude that any > study of "time" was one that could only be done in vivo, so to speak. It > necessarily involved observing a relationship between a material clock > system and the material system under study - an impredicativity relating > comprehension of the smaller system to comprehension of a larger, more > inclusive system; a situation akin to the QM measurement problem. Otherwise, > it seemed one would be engaging in the "illusions" you mention. Is very different in what it says to me from what it
seemed you were saying during that discussion! I thought you were saying that
you believed "Time" isn't anything at all except a mental construct or label we
give to phenomena that are more likely to be side effects of other processes,
etc.
This quote, instead, reflects exactly what I was
trying to get across, regarding how time could be studied. In fact, it reflects
how my father said living organisms and life, itself, could be studied; "in
vivo" (which I tend to call "in situ" or "in motion") with the entire system
intact and running, as it were.
Does anyone on the list have any suggestions on a
protocol for how this might be done?
Judith
|