Quote:
Originally Posted by AnssiH
...It doesn't really matter that much how you happen to define it as long as it works as an explanation for reality, and whatever your everyday idea of it is, it's bound to have some ontologically undefendable facets to it anyway. Reality is not really all that much affected by however you want to see "time". You are pretty much just arguing over semantics.
Btw, considering the ontological side of what we call "space" will lead to exactly similar complications. First getting over all the different ways to define space, and then realizing all aspects of its definitions have something to do with how all sorts of associated components are defined in our worldviews.
Anyhow, as long as you are thinking about the reality behind your comprehension of "time", things get considerably more interesting if you think about how simultaneity has been defined in special relativity. In fact it would be plain wrong to ignore that issue with a thread like this.
I tried to bring that up earlier because the validity of relativity implies many rather different ontologies on time than would otherwise be seen reasonable at all. It would be healthy to see how these different ontologies are also self-coherent sets of definitions by themselves. And it would be interesting to hear how different people here see "relativity of simultaneity" existing in reality.
|
I have to agree with this...lead on.
