Re: Single atom universes, etc.

Hi Judith,

Well, I did initially characterize "time" as only a mental construct derived from the observed relationship. I am still not fully convinced that "time" is anything more than that. At the least, I think what I am saying is that it appears to be nonsensical to discuss things like "the nature of time" outside of the impredictivity describe below. (Just as it is nonsensical to ask what is the "real" momentum is of a quantum particle whose position is being measured.) What I am unsure about is whether or not this epistemological limit derives from time actually being only a label for these relationships (as Mach seems to say), so that sensible questions naturally end where the definition ends; or, is it that these phenomena have some noumenal ontological reality to them that we simply have no other way to access.

Regards,

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of Judith Rosen
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:14 AM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Single atom universes, etc.

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