Ozzie
Well-Known Member
[
Time is relative, ask the bacterium or Einstein.quote=s2a;972159]I find your lacking illustration in support of your summary conclusion that my provided notion is "flawed", to be, um, severely lacking in any substantiation or credulity.
The absurdity of your rote dismissal ignores so many tangible and real measures of observation and experience as utterly meaningless gobbledygook.
Is it ridiculous to examine the measured life-span of a bacterium? Is it "flawed" thinking that prevails in determinations of acceptable shelf-lives of fresh milk? Is there no advantage nor insight to be gleaned from such knowledge?
No it is not.Time is a measure of change.
Huh?Change defines existence within the human condition.
No we observe it as change.The observable cosmos is not static. The cosmos exists in perpetual change, and we measure that phenomena as "time".
It doesn't need to be.This is not a matter of semantics.
A real and valid measure of change personally held.*whatever*Whatever you prefer to name/call/denote this ever-changing existence, by whatever favored phrase or terminology you choose ("It's not 'time', it's ying-yang watsooie!"); "time" is a valid and real concept the rest of us will look to as a reliable measure of change
If you were my relative, I might bequeath that to you.If time has neither meaning nor utility in your greater understanding of the cosmos, then I invite you to send me your entire collection or wrist-watches and clocks. I'm itching to find a good reason to sell useless stuff on ebay...given time...;-)