Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.object.logic,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!dcs.ed.ac.uk!newshost.dcs.ed.ac.uk!mxm
From: Mike Moran <mxm@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Is time continuous?
In-Reply-To: ma@cs.utk.edu's message of 23 Feb 1995 13:37:55 -0500
Message-ID: <MXM.95Feb26034944@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University
References: <1995Feb20.144659.9334@vax.sbu.ac.uk> <3iikm3INN9j7@duncan.cs.utk.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 03:49:44 GMT
Lines: 69
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:27777 comp.object.logic:357 sci.logic:9833 sci.misc:12241 sci.philosophy.tech:16924 sci.physics:111452


Norman Ma writes:
In article <3iikm3INN9j7@duncan.cs.utk.edu> ma@cs.utk.edu (Norman Ma) writes:


ma> In article <1995Feb20.144659.9334@vax.sbu.ac.uk> schleip@vax.sbu.ac.uk writes:
>> ...
>> Intuitively, time is continuous in that you can always reduce the size of
>> the fraction of whatever unit you're using to measure time to obtain a more
>> accurate measurement. But is this actually the case?
>> 
>> Is it possible that there is a fundamentally "atomic" unit of time? Does time
>> flow in "chunks"? If so, would it be possible to detect them? Could
>> relativistic time dilation manifest by varying the size of these time chunks?
>> ...

ma> Time is a measurement of physical process.  It is
ma> a derived object and should be discussed within a
ma> context, i.e. some physical process.  Discussing
ma> time without context will lead to interesting
ma> philosophical issues. 

ma> Thus, asking what is the fundamental unit of time is similar
ma> to asking what is the fundamental unit of distance (which
ma> is also a derived object). One needs to supply a context 
ma> when asking such sort of questions; each reference to
ma> a derived object needs to be grounded to the actual object.

ma> For example, the question of "Can we travel back in time?"
ma> should be rephrased as "Can we relocate all the atoms
ma> to a particular pre-existed configuration?" 

ma> A more general comment, we need to distinguish a physical 
ma> object and attributes of that object.  What tried and true
ma> experience on physical objects may not be reasonable
ma> when applied to an attribute of that object.

ma> --Norman Ma

	Just as an aside (i'm not sure whether it will effect the
force of any subsequent argument): regarding,

"...we need to distinguish a physical object and attributes of that
object."

	Isn't a "physical object" nothing but "the attributes of that
object"? I don't want to sound like a pedant trying to start of
definition war, but i feel its important to make this point. To me an
object is the entirety of all the attributes which i can distinguish
about it through my perceptions. By this definition, to "distinguish a
physical object and attributes of that object" would leave you with
nothing.

I would like to point out also, in relation to some on this group who
seem (to me) to relish definition-wars, that to me a 'definition' is
something fluid and built with change in mind, like a model; to me
*every* definition is a 'working' definition. By this light, the
definition-wars are pointless if they are nothing but explanations of each
persons different models of the world, where nobody gives any leeway,
and no effort is made for unification of models. 

Perhaps those who perpetrate useless definition-wars would to explain
why they hold their views, and not just what they are.

						Thanks,

							Mike

	
