Quote:
You see, time is real. That is, non-simultaneity is real.
Which is to say, not all "events" are simultaneous with each other.
Wherever you are, some "events" will occur before (and after) other "events".
|
Do you mean:
Will literally occur before? or Be observed to occur before?
A very careful use of language has to be used in these kinds of descriptions, or else, I find, the understanding within the communication becomes uncertain. Like myself, I can't visualize an example based upon those words alone, knowing I am certainly in agreement with your intentions. (Which I know you are well aware of). I require you to elaborate.
I think whatever it is that we decide to call real and not real depends entirely upon the elements of reason that are being put forward for understanding of a specific perspective. That is, in order to satisfy a perspective that is produced in a theory, certain things, like time for example, is required to be valid-realistic-elements within that theoretical perspective.
However, if we look at another example where we are attempting to put forward understanding of a specific perspective relative to a theory on light, we can validate that in the perspective of a photon, time as a realistic element can be fizzled out of the picture.
There are more examples, but they stray us from the point, so I will leave it with that contrast.
I believe the unending controversy and varied conceptions of time is due to this very notion I've put forward. And that is:
You can both validate and de-validate time as a realistic element depending entirely upon the elements of reason that are being put forward for the understanding of a specific perspective.
I would better communicate this with examples, than I would in this method I've posted, so let me know if that is in need.
