The
idea that you can have no such thing as moments in time is not possible in a
human world. In Heraclitus' work he presents an understanding of time in which
you have four basic premises: 1) That ‘X
equals X’ at T1, meaning that X
exists at a moment in time, hence being. 2) That time is infinitely divisible.
3) That because time is infinitely divisible you can have no ‘moments in time’
because for everything that you label a moment you will be able to further
divide that moment. 4) That because you cannot have any moments in time at no
time can ‘X equal X’ which results in
a world not of being but in a world of becoming. While this is logically
correct in the sense that all the premises accurately reflect a logical
conclusion we are concerned with presenting the accuracy of these premises in
the first. Heraclitus uses the metaphor of a river to explain his ideas about
the constant flux of the world and the constant change that takes place. Plato
notes that according to Heraclitus, it is impossible to step into the same
river twice. By this he means that the river is constantly changing and that
the person entering the river would never be able to step into the same water
twice, for this water would have been removed down river and replaced by new
water. In order for this to be possible he stands in support of an ever
changing world with no definable moments in time. This ever-changing phenomenon
is not without faults, among them assumptions that time takes place regardless
of humans and disregarding the fact that time and its divisibility is
contingent upon the constructs usefulness to humans.
In order for this ever-changing
world to be rational it must be exhibited by physical matter held in a vacuum
otherwise this pretense does not hold up well in the physical world. We shall
start with the first premise. ‘X equals
X’. This premise may come across as straightforward but must be explained
here for it has implications on the rest of the argument. The statement of ‘X equals X’ is a statement of Being
while ‘X does not equal X’ stands to
mean that the item is nonexistent. Unlike statements of Becoming, Being implies
that at a specified time, T1, a
physical item actually existed whether in a physical or metaphysical form. This
is juxtaposed to a statement such as Heraclitus' that we live in an
ever-changing world. His world view is a clear statement in favor of Becoming in which we take a relative
existence dependent upon what is exerting power upon us and the setting that we
find ourselves in. According to Heraclitus, at all times then we are simply Becoming with no moment of Being.
Quite backward I think.
The
second premise of the argument is that time is infinitely divisible. The idea
of having time being infinitely divisible is not useful to humans. Because, as
will be displayed below, time is relative and dependent upon humans for
existence, time is simply a creation that we utilize because it is convenient
and advantageous for us to do so. The idea that you can have no moments in time
is not possible in a human world. If, as has been presented, time is infinitely
divisible then it would be true that you can have no moments in time. However,
in order for items and objects to interact with each other there must be a
specified time, relative to the participants, at which two things come into
contact. Therefore time must not be infinitely divisible, for time is relative
to the object taking part in an action and is therefore a mere imposition of an
abstract, unrealistic idea upon physical items. Therefore we must consider time
as an abstract idea and decide if it is: Dependent or Independent, Relative or
not. Let us first begin by examining the relativity of time.
It is my understanding that time is
relative to the participants in a given situation and that time is imposed upon
items through their relation to those who witness the event. In the cases of
black holes we, who are not entering a black hole but observing from outside
its range are of the opinion that anything that enters a black hole becomes
stationary when it crosses the line into the black holes area of power. This
line is termed the event horizon. While to observers on the outside of a black
hole the object that enters merely becomes stationary to our eyes, the person
that enters a black hole sees themselves clearly continuing to move toward the
center of the black hole. In this example time is made relative in an event by
those who participate in it. Another example of usefulness is that of a car
crash. In this event a person in a car that participates in the crash can see a
dramatic difference in their perception of time as it is slowed down. To an observer
that stands on the roadway and witnesses this event, time continues to move
along at their own regular pace. The time that both participants witness is
relative to them.
In addition those who are viewing
it, humans impose the idea of time and change on the event. By this I mean that
in the absence of humans, time does not exist but is merely a system of thought
that we impose upon the world around us, in a practical manner, in order to
interpret events that we are a part of or events that we perceive to happen. In
this example we may take a tree that is in a forest. There are no witnesses to
the event when the tree falls. Later a person comes walking by and witnesses a
tree lying on the ground. By witnessing the tree lying on the ground we have
inadvertently imposed our idea of time on a scene in order to reconstruct what
has happened. Through this imposition we have come to the conclusion that the
tree has fallen in a time that is relative to us (i.e. last week, an hour ago,
etc.). Because we have imposed time, as a system of thought, upon our
surroundings we have imposed an abstract, relative idea on an event.
In collusion with relativity goes
dependence. Time, in order to exist, is dependent on people. Because of this
time is something that is created, by humans, in order to give shape and
meaning to the world around us. In the absence of humans, time does not exist.
As previously stated, time is imposed by humans on a situation either while it
is happening or after it has happened, and occasionally both. We require time’s
dependence upon ourselves in order to construct a world in which to live with
relative ease and it is for this reason that moments in time exist. This
usefulness of time, in planning events, remembering actions, and keeping schedules
is the reason for its existence, not some ethereal notion. Time is because we
say it is. Because we create time it is of the utmost usefulness to ourselves
that we also enable us to note moments in time. These moments are also relative
to those viewing them. A scientist may measure things in nanoseconds for his
work but an hourly worker will measure theirs in minutes. Moments, as part of a
time that we create, are created for their usefulness to us.
Heraclitus' argument against this
could possibly come in the form of a rejection of events taking place outside
of time. In order for events to take place in Heraclitus' world, time would not
be relative nor a human creation. Time itself would take place outside of human
interaction and would be what spurs the objects in the world to change. He
would also argue that, because time is ever-changing at no ‘moment’ could the
idea form in the minds of men that time were a creation of men. In addition to
these objections he might also suppose that the senses we use to witness time
are simply misleading being as they are of the body and not of the mind. He
might also suggest that the idea of time taking place and being ever-changing
is only possible to view from outside the body. He would argue that even though
there are no humans to witness a river flowing it will continue to flow
regardless.
Logically, none of the rejections is
plausible. First let us take the idea that time would take place outside of
human notice. This is refuted by the idea previously stated, that time is
imposed upon events, upon their being noticed by a human. The human would
back-date, so to speak, the time essentially placing the events into their
creation of time. Time must be recognized to exist and as the only creature
with the agency to recognize this theoretical concept we implement it in a way
that works best for us.
On the second point raised we have
already presented the idea of a time creation that is useful to us and
therefore divisible to whatever such a point that the individual desires. Say
at T2 a person decided to recognize time as a measurement that would be
expedient for them and so decided to utilize it.
On the third point the idea that the
only way to view time accurately is to be in a separate dimension so to speak is
not a rational statement. The only way for a human to recognize what is is
through their own senses. Their own interpretation of time is what creates time
in the first place. Also would time be taking place even while we struggled to
understand the concept of time while in the body?
In
summation, the idea that time is an ever flowing river that continuously
changes is not a suitable idea for several reasons. Because time is a human creation we are able
to impose our own ideas of time in a fashion relative to our need for its
usefulness.
Bibliography
Raven, J.E. , and
G.S. Kirk. The Presocratic Philosophers.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Print.
Also used:
Assorted notes provided on draft #1 by Professor Ali Elamin, University of
South Florida, Philosophy Dept. 10/25/2011
