The Nature of Time

  To begin a study of time it is instructive to start with J. M E. Mctaggert's two time series. The "A" time series could be called the egocentric view of time, it is the flowing of time that we experience in everyday life. An example being an average day , as we consider what we have done and what we have left to do. The "B" series could be considered the Platonic Form of time. The "B" series is historical time; April 12, 1861 is when the Confederate army fired on Fort Sumter and is always one hundred years earlier than April 12,1961 when Yuri Gregarin became the first man in space; it has no flow it is fixed. The neo-platonic philosopher Iamblicus came up with a view of time that anticipated McTaggent. Iamblicus by virtue of being a neo-platonic had the luxuary of making the "B" series into a platonic form; that the "A" series is only a resembelence or reflection of. McTaggert did not have the luixary of being a neo-platonic, so he was forced to view the two time series as irreconciable. Thus McTAggent was led to the concluision that time was an illusion. To understand how McTaggert came to justify this conclusion, it is necessary to view the theories of time as expressed in modern philosophy.
    The first theory, we shall name Newton's theory; since his is the name most associated with the theory. This is also the view of science fiction when it shows characters travelling through time. It is the view that time is a medium or a containor, much like a film that contains events. This is the theory that allows time to be rewinded or fast forwarded. This is of couarse McTaggert's "B" series of time, and it leads to all the paradoxes explored in science-fiction. This led Immanuel Kant to our second theory of time.
    Kant realized that Newton's theory was unsustainable as it was stated, so he came up with as orginal solution to try to fix Newtonian time. to do this Kant posited two realms ohich he maned the "phenomenal" realm and the realm of the "thing in itself." The phenomenal realm is the everysay world that we all know, but Kant says this is not the real world. The real worldor "thing in itself" is unknowable and not subject to time and space. It is the mind of the subject that puts time, space, and causality into the world of experience. When Kant says that time and space are modes of perception; he must also make them universal; so everyone lives in the same world. Kant was able to get around the paradoxes of Newtonian time and yet save the framework. This is of course how McTaggert justifed time being an illusion; time does not exist in ultimate reality, it is created by the mind of the subject. Even though this gets around the paradoxes of Newtonian time it is unsatisfing on several counts. It leaves an unknowable hole in experience; it seems those who claim ultimate reality is unknowable end up knowing a lot about ultimate reality. Which brings us to our third theory of time.
    The third theory of time has a long history going all the way back to Classical Greece and Rome, but the first modern formulation was by G. W. v. Lebniz. It is also the theory of A. Einstein. That is why hereafter we shall call this theory the Leibniz-Einstein theory. In this theory McTaggert's "B" series is done away with. Time is generated by objects and is relative to their position and perspective. In other words the experience of time is caused by the change in objects; instead of objects existing in the medium of tine, time is created by the change in objects. In the Newtonian theory of time we can take film or video-tape as an example, to illustrate the Leibniz-Einstein theory we shall use a deck of playing cards the illustrate how change in an object or system generates time. In the Newtonian the theory objects are imbedded in time like the images on film or video-tape are imbedded in the medium of the film or video-tape. For the Leibniz-Einstein theory, imagine a new deck of cards that has never been shrffled, so it is in perfedt order. To introduce time we must change the order by introducing disorder. To do this we shuffle the deck; now imagine each shuffle only effects one suit , so the first shuffle the diamonds become disordered, the next shuffle the clubs become disordered and so on. Each shuffle is infusing more disorder into the deck, this change is what is creating time. In the terms of modeun physics, we world say time is a measure of entropy. With this theory we can escape the paradoxes of Newtonian time. To move backwards in time only means to bring order into disorder, and not a rewinding of events, because there is no medium to rewind. This also explains why time passed faster as one gets older. An older body is breaking kown faster, so it has a greater amount of entropy; so time speeds up for the older agent.Time is realtive to position and perspective. The Leibniz-Einstein theory is the only sustainable theory of time.
    Now we have the problem of the present. Henri Bergson says in "Creative Evolution" that the present is where past experience meets future expections. There is no douby that Bergson is on to something, by viewing the present as a unity. When we turn to A.N. Whitehead, we also come across the view of the present as being a unity. Whitehead's ultimate metaphysical particle is the actual occasion, which is not only a space-atom but is also a time-atom. The actual occasion is not only the smallest quanta of time; it also creates time. The actual occasion seeks satisfaction in a unity of feeling with other actual occasions. When an actual occasion reaches satisfaction it perishes. The satisfaction must be private, so the actual occasions become the beatof time, this beat of comming into existence, reaching satisfaction, and perishing is the ultimate quanta of time. The idea of a time-atom has a long history going all the way back to Classical Greece and Rome. It seems as soon as the time-atom was proposed, the criticisms started; so let us see how Whitehead would deal with the ancient criticisms. Even though these criticisms are ancient they have lost none of their power. The first criticism comes from Aristotle; that a time-atom must move in jumps. For if it moved in a fluid motion, the motion could be broken into parts. For example the time-atom could be measured after it completed half of its movement and would not be the absoluti measure of time. The proponets of time-atoms ancient and modern both answer the same: what is wrong with jumps? Why assume that everything has a fluid motion? The next criticism is much harder to overcome. The ancients noticed in watching millstone that the outer edge moves faster than the hub. If a proponet were to say that the time-atoms on the outer edge jumped faster than the time-atoms on the hub, it would destroy the uniformity of time and thus bring the whole theory crashing down. For it would mean that there are time-atoms which could be used to measure other time-atoms. This criticism was not overcome untill the metaphysics of A.N. Whitehead. Whitehead made his actual occasions stationary, so he could answer that the outer edge has more time-atoms (actual occasions) than the hub; thind of a wheel turning on a television screen. The pixels representing actual occasions. Thus Whitehead was able to keep uniformity and relativity in his metaphysics. Whitehead was a mathematician, so of course he wanted to keep a uniform measurement in both time and space. The question then becomes is the cosmos really uniform? To say the cosmos is uniform is an assumption that entails a leap of faith, and is not necessary to understand our next inquiry.

    How is the present created?  Let us observe how we view the present in everyday life. An example: Say you are in a coffee shop drinking coffee and reading a book. Your cell phone rings; a friend calls and asks "What are you doing?" Your answer "for now I am drinking coffee."  You shall leave the coffee shop when coffee is done or you are finshed reading. The present is created by a state of stable relations. When the relateons change the the present has changed, and another set of relations are used. Of course the criticism is that it is only the rilations that the agent is interested in, but this is the point. To create the present is always to abstract certin relations to judge by. A few more examples shall help illustrate: A friend is storing a damaged car in a garage. You ask when it he will fix the car, and the reply is "When I get enough money, but for now it is safe."  When asked if you are thinking about moving you reply "for now I am happy where I am."  When we talk about a hiltorical figure, we say he live "then."  The cosmos is a place of comstantly changing relations; the present is always a creation; an abstraction of relations that intrest the agert.