- I have said more than once, that I hold space to be something purely relative, as time; an order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions.
- Third letter to Samuel Clarke, February 25, 1716
Matt: Socrates. Thanks for the brief on fatalism, tense, an open future, and philosophy of time. I know that each of these topics are unfathomable. But let's keep going on your promise to get into time and change. I do this to get a general sketch, instead of a detailed blueprint. The blueprint can come later.
Socrates: I am bound by the logic of the argument. Truth is still a mistress for pleasure for me. Let us strive to broaden the horizons of our sketch.
Matt: Okay. What if everything - and I mean 'everything' - just stopped moving? Absolutely no motion.
Socrates: A sublime thought to ponder. Let's ask a preliminary question: 'how long' would such a cessation of movement last?
Matt: Let's say the cessation lasted for a year.
Socrates: Let's entertain the possibilities, shall we? Suppose that such a scenario is possible. The implication would be that there could be time, but no change, correct?
Matt: Yea, and what's stranger is that if such a cessation already happened, it's possible that this 'year long freeze' started at the beginning of, for example, this sentence, and 'unfroze' as I said the rest of this sentence, right?
Socrates: It would seem so. A strange thought indeed. There's seems to be another assumption, though. Can time 'exist' without change? Can it be independent of change?
Matt: That's the question. And two philosophies of time emerge from the two options. (1) Time can exist without change. (2) Time cannot exist without change. And if time can't exist without change, it seems that the succession of events, which seems to be change under another name, is necessary for time. But it's hard for me, Socrates, to think of time existing independently of events.
Socrates: But it is definitely a view. Let's explore it. I believe it was Aristotle and Leibniz who are on our side here. Namely, that we need events and change to have time. These events seem to be related to each other in some temporal sense. But such grand and noble minds, like Plato (my student) and Isaac Newton are against us.
Matt: How would Newton understand time?
Socrates: Can you imagine for me an empty, glass container?
Matt: Okay.
Socrates: Would you agree that it's possible to place various things in that container?
Matt: Yea, sure.
Socrates: According to Newton, the stuff placed inside the container are events, and the container itself is time, and just as you can have an empty container without stuff, you can have an empty time without events and change.
Matt: Okay, I do understand the concepts. What are some arguments?
Socrates: I am fond of your order for things. So many people rush headlong into arguments before understanding, which is just as foolish as a hasty marriage without a courtship. To focus on what we can label the Relational view of Time (RT), which Aristotle would agree with, let's focus on the following point: When we said above that time should be understood as a succession of events, and a succession of events is the essence of change, then - conceptually - what have we reduced time to being?
Matt: Just that! Time just is change among events.
Socrates: The implication is that to say Time can exist without events is just as incoherent as to say that a bachelor can exist without being unmarried!
Matt: I follow.
Socrates: The other argument has to do with how we know. Newton had various arguments for absolute time, but without confirmation it's still up in the air whether the change we undeniably observe is an instance of change relative to absolute time, or this alleged absolute frame of reference's change relative to the change we observe.
Matt: Can you give an example?
Socrates: Sure. Suppose we're still in the dark about whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, or the Sun revolves around the Earth. Is the Earth stationary relative to the Sun, or is the Sun stationary relative to the Earth?
Matt: From our standpoint it appears as if the Sun is moving around the Earth. But science has proven that wrong!
Socrates: Exactly! But has science confirmed the Sun of Absolute Time relative to our Earth of confirmed change we that observe? It seems not. We can't tell, as we can with the Sun and the Earth, whether we're rotating, or whether the postulated, absolute frame of reference that is Absolute Time is rotating. Therefore, it seems more rational to assume that time just is change of events, since that's what's been undeniably confirmed.
Matt: Okay, but let me go back to a possible argument for the 'frozen time' idea I brought up before. It seems there good reason to think we can know how long such a 'frozen time' would last.
Socrates: What is this reason?
Matt: Imagine a city divided into 3 zones: A, B, and C. Suppose zone A 'freezes' for 2 hours, every two years. Suppose further that just before the zone 'freezes', the whole zone has a red hue. People in all 3 zones actually observe this red hue. Just after Zone A turns red, there's an impenetrable force field that envelopes Zone A. Then the horrible freeze ensues. To Zones B and C, the force field turns totally black, and B and C can't look inside or through to see what's happening in A. This black hue keeps light from entering A. Then, after say an hour, the freeze is over, the force field disappears, and B and C can see those in A resuming the behavior of those in A just prior to the freeze with uninterrupted uniformity, just as (to those in A) if such a freeze wasn't even noticed by those in A. But more interestingly, to A, B and C seem to instantaneously change, since B and C we're constantly changing during A's freeze!
Socrates: Let me see if I can draw out another implication to this very interesting thought experiment. Let's say that after A's freeze, suppose that B undergoes a similar freeze every 3 years, and C every 5 years! It seems that the citizens of all A, B, and C will eventually become aware of this 'freezing' phenomenon. Suppose further that every 50 years, all 3 zones undergo a one hour 'freezing'. In this case, no one observes the 'freezing', but A, B, and C see, just prior to the 'freezing' the red hue and the developing force fields.
Matt: It seems that in your case there might be an 'empty time' with no change.
Socrates: More telling is that from the standpoint of the citizens' appearance, there's no difference between A, B, and C undergoing their relative 'freezing', and all 3 simultaneously 'freezing'. For after the simultaneous 'freezing' is through, it will feel and look as if no 'freezing' had ever happened, as if you just woke up.
Matt: This does appear troubling. Let's leave the argument between Absolute and Relational Time alone for now, and tomorrow we can discuss something else.
Socrates: Tomorrow we can talk about what has been called time's typology!
Matt: What's that?
Socrates: How we formally represent time as a 'line'. Is the line necessary or contingent? Does it stretch backward and forward infinitely? Does the line exist independent of the temporal points on the line, or do the points come first and the line is a derivative construction from the points? Does the line have a beginning? Does the line go both ways? Does it loop back on itself? Does it branch off like branches from a trunk, or twigs from a branch?
Matt: Sounds interesting! Until then, see you later?
Socrates: Or will 'later' be waiting for us to arrive?
Matt: You know what I mean!
No comments:
Post a Comment