The Existence of time
Even though the concept of time is problematic and can be argued to not exist at all, it is through our awareness and that we perceive time to exist actually. First it is imperative to try and understand time through our own perceptions of it; as well as the universal consensus of what each individuals own awareness leads them to believe time actuality is. I am aware of my past and make predictions of the future, through these situations it can be assumed that I am traveling on a linear �snake� of time. The tail of this metaphorical �snake� I imagine as my coming into existence, whereas the head of this snake I can conceptually imagine my passing from existence. Space is measured by the distance between two objects, or the same object at two different times. Time can be imagined in the same way. Time is the duration of an object even without spatial movement. One could imagine the rock as it was a year ago, and perceive it in the now. The distance between these two points are separated by what we perceive as time.
Our perception of time is a result of our memories of past events and their sequence. Because we can remember ourselves in past events at times other than the present, a linear concept of time comes into fruition. We perceive time as the distance between past events to our present, and with knowledge of past events we can postulate the existence of future events eventually occurring. A problem with this idea of the past is the actuality of its existence. No one lives in the past or exists in the past; our only proof of the past is our experience of it and the memories that are a result of it. Without present perception of the past, the actuality of it becomes questionable.
The idea of the future is also a result of our memories of past events and their sequence. The year 2004 came before the year 2005, and both came into existence as a direct relation to the existence of the year 2003. I have memories of my younger self, and was not older in the past than I am in the present. This unfaltering sequence of the duration of time allows for postulation on future events and times. In 2004, I could imagine what it would be like in 2005 because of the existence of the duration between 2003-2004. I could also imagine events that would go beyond my own lifetime, because of the concept of duration and the experience of it. I can imagine the year 2222 and what it would be like to live in an age of flying cars and space travel. Even though nothing of the sort exists in the present, I am still capable of imagining it as a duration of time. A problem with this idea of the future, is the actuality of its existence. No one lives in the future, or exists in the future; our only proof of the future is our experience of duration and sequence, and the memories of past experiences in the sequence. Without present perception of the future, the actuality of it becomes questionable.
The idea of the present, unlike that of the future and the past is different in its understanding because it is directly perceived by our awareness. I am aware of myself, and because of this awareness which is seemingly constant from moment to moment and throughout my existence, it can also be perceived that time and our existence in time is linear. We remember ourselves being aware in the past, and are currently aware in the present, so future awareness is assumed because of our past experience with the onset of the future. Our present experience of time however is difficult to explain because of our perception of it and the conflict it creates with the past and the future. The explanation of this conflict can be broken down into two separate theories.
The first of these theories vies our perception of time is an accumulation of a small duration of time which from here on I will call a �moment�. A moment, for argumentative sake, will be the duration of a minute; sixty seconds which is perceived by an individual which in turn is the totality of ones perception of present time. This however is problematic because of the problems in regards to the past and the future listed prior. Both have problems with actuality because of the present non-existence of them, and a moment comprised of thirty seconds of the past and thirty seconds of the future give way to the problem of the actuality of this �moment�.
This leads us to the second theory of time which we shall call an �instant�. Between the thirty seconds of the past and the thirty seconds of the future in the previously mentioned moment, exists the theory of an instant. That our perception of time is a constant accumulation of the smallest fraction of time stored and compiled within us to create the sensation of the present. This again is problematic because of the problems occurring within the concept of the past and the future. Even the smallest fraction of time is divisible into past and future parts. A single second is a moment of time because half of the second lies in the past and the other half of the second lies in the future. If we divide a second into half seconds, we must then divide half seconds into quarter seconds, and so on. This infinite division will not eventually lead us to the smallest fraction of possible time, but into an infinite regression of time to the point of times non-existence. These problems with the two theories allow doubt for the actuality of linear time.
Even though the concept of a moment seems problematic in its entailment of past and future time, there is an explanation of a real life example of the possibility for such an occurance. In our perception of the material world, it is through the means of a material body and brain that allows for us to have such a perception. The distance from an object to our eyes is present, as well as the time it takes for light to reflect off said object and travel to our eyes; along with this is the time taken for visual data to be converted to sensory data, as well as the travel time between our eyes and our brain. The brain must still convert this sensory data to allow perception, which requires yet more time from looking at an object to the perception of the object. As small as this time may actually be, it is still enough time that it becomes no longer an instant, but a moment. The average visual processing speed in humans is 132 milliseconds, therefore what we perceive is not apart of the present, but is actually 132 milliseconds in the past. Our perception of reality is 132 milliseconds behind that which is actually occurring within our environment, therefore once we have perceived an object, in the environment it is actually 132 milliseconds in the future. This theory of a moment coupled with the empirical data of the average visual processing speed entails that for each individual, their perception of time exists within a moment of time. 66 milliseconds of the past and 66 milliseconds of our future is in all actuality 132 milliseconds of our present.
It has been established that our perception of the present is a moment of 132 milliseconds, therefore occupying a space in time. With this knowledge it can be said that our perception does span into the past and the future, showing the actuality of time as a linear device used to measure the temporal distance between changes. Our awareness and perception of time is a result of our senses, and it is our senses that inevitably makes sense of the actuality of time.
1:23 a.m. - 2007-04-17
Recent entries:
An Athiests Prayer - 2010-11-22
An apple on a tree - 2010-11-07
At work and bored. - 2010-02-08
Faces - 2009-10-17
Time for a rebirth - 2009-10-16
My profile
Archives
Notes
Diaryland
Random
RSS
others:
drastik
ladyvaduva
shortcake30
audios-babe