Time Lapse Chronography : The Continuing Saga Of “Does Man Make Time, or Time Make Man”

Time Lapse Chronography : The Continuing Saga Of “Does Man Make Time, or Time Make Man”

So back to the subject concerning the origins of “time”:  I recently came across the hypothesis that the origins of time depend on how you define time, and the author of this hypothesis offers up two definitions for us to choose from, and here is my response to the author:

The hypothesis I am responding to:

“That depends on your definition of "time", for it could mean either the "units of time" (seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc.) or the perpetuation of change in the physical universe as a result of the decay of matter into energy. The first is obviously a human construct, while the latter can only be perceived by beings capable of perception.”

Rearranged a bit, I have restated the hypothesis as follows:

That depends on your definition of "time", for it could mean either:

-          The "units of time" (seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc.) or

o   The first is obviously a human construct,

-          The perpetuation of change in the physical universe as a result of the decay of matter into energy.

o   While the latter can only be perceived by beings capable of perception.

So we are limited to either of two choices?

 1.  A concept of "units of time" of undefined genesis "that is obviously a human construct"

 2.  A "perpetuation of change in the physical universe" that requires a being to perceive it in order to exist

I can't be sure what you been by "either" in its entirety, but possibly you are suggesting that the two choices are mutually exclusive, and that we must choose?

Suppose I am indifferent about the 2 choices and not inclined to pick one.  Does that make me Chronophobic?  Decidophobic?  Agnostic? Or Chronatheist?

In any event, I find it hard to agree that there are only two choices available to us, and even a bit harder to agree that they might be mutually exclusive( if in fact that is what you meant by “either”)

1.     Now correct me if I have misinterpreted you here: “units of time” did not exist until at some point humans decided that their biological narrative was a continuous progression of man-made, contiguous units of determinate duration.

o   So “days” could have been of infinite length until they were bounded by some constraint of hours, minutes, and seconds?

o   Years could contain a limitless number of minutes, possibly 543,120 for example

Is the implication that celestial repetitions could be of random, non-time oriented durations until man imposed some structure on this solaristic chaos?

And in this realm of potentially aberrational sequences, was there any atomic level interval between occurring events?

I could agree that the linguistical tools of measurement: seconds, minutes, hours, would require language in order to exist, but I’m not so sure that these humanly derived words were the first means of communicating durations, and from that perspective, humans weren’t needed in order to establish a means of communicating “units of time”.  To suggest otherwise would be to imply that humans are the only beings (Animals? Microbes? Flora?) capable of communicating determinate durations or naturally occurring cyclical delineations.

                E.g. Apes had no concept of Seasons?  Birds had no idea when to communicate with each other that it might be a good idea to head south, or return north?  Lions had no idea when the lights might go out and it would be a good time to go hunting?

I’m not suggesting that one goose said to another goose, “Hey look, we’ve been swimming around in this lake in Michigan for 90 days, we better hurry since the flight to Miami will take 47 hours, and we don’t want to be late”.  But what I am saying is that I can’t commit to the idea that non-humans had no idea how to communicate the passage of time.  I think it’s fair to say they didn’t speak English as we know it, but I also think it’s fair to say that some sort of audible honking was likely the catalyst to get out of the Michigan lake and fly rapidly (does “rapidly” suggest that they move at such as speed that it might take a lesser duration to reach a destination”, and if so, how might a goose know if they were going to arrive early or late? Quite possibly they were absolutely clueless and simply obeying their inherent genetic programming, it’s hard to say I think, especially if a wholly instinctual goose “learned” in a single lifetime that “something in their environmental context” had changed, and maybe they better get flapping south a bit earlier( unfortunately I think that “earlier”, by definition, requires some time units)

What I can agree with is that the English words: “Days” and “Years” required a human to create them linguistically.

What I cannot agree with is that the durations expressed using these English words simply did not exist in the absence of the human linguistics commonly used to describe them.    

2.    “the perpetuation of change in the physical universe as a result of the decay of matter into energy” could “only be perceived by beings capable of perception”

a.       Now without entering the black hole of a discourse on what you might mean by “perception”, I think your statement is too circular to bother pursuing.  I would simply agree that things can only be perceived by “beings capable of perception”.

                                                               i.      And if all you mean is that things can only be perceived by beings capable of perception, there is really nothing more that I can add to your tidy, circle of self-defining definition.

1.       I could just stop here since your statement is terminal, but I’ll extrapolate on a concept that you may have intended to communicate.

a.       I won’t even attempt to speculate on whether or not you mean to imply sensory or cognitive (or both?) perception.

b.      Pretty much all matter capable of a process such as “decay of matter into energy” can do so over a myriad of durations:

                                                               i.      Atomic things pretty much decay at constant rates when left alone to do so, but I am pretty sure that the end of the decay process does not require a conversion into “Energy”

c.       In Physics, we pretty much refer to decay as an atomic level degenerative process often described as “Half Life”, but unfortunately Half Life is generally a measurement of Time, expressed using Linguistical constructs such as Months, Days, and Years.

                                                               i.      But, I think it’s fair to say that this sort of decay is going to happen whether or not someone is there to measure it and assign a word to describe the duration required for total decay to take place.  But again, left alone, atomic level decay seems to be fairly regular in its degenerative durations.

d.      The idea that time might be defined by the perceptions of beings capable of perception, is a bit shaky in my opinion, especially if we mean Sensory perception as opposed to purely cognitive perceptions.  The fact is, some things simply have trouble being themselves when observed (quantum mechanics), even if we only take the occasional tiny little peak( although the little peekers have recently postulated to the contrary).

e.      If we forget about sensory perceptions, and focus on purely cognitive perceptions of what may be decaying, I’m not sure that we can arrive at a conclusion without some degree of Uncertainty, at least in Theory.

f.        Lastly (and never trust me when I say that….),” does the perpetuation of change in the physical universe” truly require the decay of matter into energy.  Maybe there is simply enough existing energy to keep things moving, without relying on the creation of more.

                                                               i.      Seems like an awful lot of “stuff” is perpetuating based possibly on a sudden appearance of a great deal of energy, which may have also included a very large, even Big, Bang.

 

                                                             ii.      But, “perpetuation” is a tricky one because it may imply “perpetual”, which doesn’t generally include a point of termination in its definition.

1.       But, suppose that some quantity of matter, was kick started by some kinetically charged catalyst,  and there is an absence of ”anything” to impede this bit of matter on its course of some kind of action, is the problem of perpetuation covered-off without the requirement for adding more energy?

                                                            iii.      If a very large burst of energy suddenly existed, and there happened to be some lazy matter hanging about, seems like it’s possible that the origins of some kinds of perpetuation may have actually been a one-time event.

                                                           iv.      And if a Big Bang falls in the woods, and there is no one there to perceive it, does it not happen?

1.       And again, if this Bang soloist started something, and nothing impedes this something from continuing, why must there be continuous infusions of additional energy?

g.       Lastelely, I can’t help thinking about the perpetuation of a Vulture, who might depend upon the decay of matter as a source of energy required to continue perpetuating.

                                                               i.      But rarely is a bird something generally considered as Perpetual.  And you can pretty much substitute all cans of Flora and Fauna into this equation if you are not fond of Vultures.

So, in conclusion (finally), regarding your two choices made available to define “time”:

-          I can agree that beings capable of perception are required in order to perceive.

-          I can agree that words such as “Hour”, “Day” and “Year” required humans to come into existence

But what I really can’t agree with is the idea that decay inspired energy is required in order to perpetuate ( and I’m still unsure of what you mean by “perpetuate”) matter.  It does seem like there are scenarios in which perpetuations may exist in the absence of a continuous buffet of energy served up 24/7 courtesy of decay.

**Footnote: yes I am aware that I have taken some liberties in my choice of vocabulary.  My Scrabble dictionary was not handy, and the game doesn’t meet my requirements anyway, so there may be a few words in this discourse that you have not seen before (or anyone has seen before…), but my objective is to communicate concepts, and in my mind, this sometimes requires filling linguistic gaps that exist based solely on my determination of need.  But I see it this way: if Google( and not just Googol) is now officially a “word”, seems like a free-for-all in the linguistic space, and the genesis of new words is often just a popularity contest that I will unlikely win, but don’t mind entering…often.   And I am offering a prize to whoever correctly identifies all of the “new word candidates” appearing in this article.  TIP:  when you enter, just present you list confidently and you might win, simply because I have not counted, and might believe that you are correct.