Embedded Files
We can make machines and 'call' them different things, but just naming a thing a certain way is not the same as proving it does a particular job.
Consider an inventor shows you the 3 machines A, B and C above. He (or she) claims that machine A is an ‘Electricity measurer’, B is a ‘Yeti detector’, and C a ‘Time Clock’.
Now, just giving some machine a particular name, is not the same as proving that it does what is claimed. So in each case the inventor should be able to prove facts about the machine, and what it is meant to display or detect etc.
The Electricity measurer.
With machine A, the claim is that electricity exists, that it can be stored in batteries (or cells), and that it can be made to flow through a ‘circuit’, revealing physical ‘motion’ and numerous other effects. All these claims can be revealed, and confirmed in many different ways by independent testers. When we look inside the machine, we find a motor, a quartz crystal, and various cogs etc
When we look inside machine A we find a motor and cogs, and that the machine only works when a charged battery is inserted.
Also with machine A we find that when we put a fresh battery (or cell) in the device, the hands on it do move. And when we remove the battery, or replace it with a dead battery, the hands do not move. And that this is very consistently true.
The ‘Yeti detector’.
With machine B, the ‘Yeti detector’, the inventor does not provide actual proof that the thing it is meant to detect actually exists. In fact, their only apparent proof is that when switched on, the hands on the device move, which, he claims, means it has detected one or more ‘Yetis’. The problem here is that this machine may well perfectly detect yetis, and they always exist, and may be thousands of miles away, or even close by but totally invisible, and not detectable by any other machine. If this is the case then what is even more suspicious is that the machine seems to always detect yeti’s, and it seems to be absolutely identical in construction and function to machine A, which was said only to detect electricity.
However, it can be said that the machine would operate just as it seems to whether Yetis exist and are near by or not. In other words, unless the inventor proves that Yetis exist, and shows how this machine is affected by them and detects them, then anything said about it 'may' or 'may not' be true. Which makes it effectively meaningless.
In his defence, the inventor says that he personally really believes that yetis exist because his own parents had told him this for as long as he remembers. And as further proof that yetis exist he lists a number of other people who agree with him.
The ‘Time Clock’
So, what of machine C, the ‘Time Clock’? The claim here, is that the machine displays the ‘passing’ of a thing called ‘Time’. ‘Time’ is said to pass from the ‘future’ to the ‘past’ (or the reverse). Or it is claimed that everything constantly moves forwards through time, leaving the past accumulating behind us, as we constantly head into the future, and time wise it is said that the present moment is an extremely or even infinitely, thin slice of constantly moving time sandwiched between the future and the past.
So, the numbers on the dial, and the 'hands' on the clock are said to show this progression of time from the future to the past, or the opposite as they rotate.
However, similar to machine B, the Yeti detector, the inventor does not provide actual proof that the thing it is meant to detect actually exists. In fact, their only apparent proof is that when switched on, the hands on the device move, which the inventor says shows that there is a thing called time constantly passing, and thus an accumulating 'invisible' past in another dimension, and an 'invisible' future ahead of us in that dimension that is constantly arriving.
When asked why the machine only works when a charged electric cell is inserted the inventor says that time always flows everywhere, whether it is being measured or not, and the machine if running is just analogous to this.
Again, the problem here is that this machine may well perfectly display the passing of 'time' (if it exists) , and time may well be 'flowing everywhere' and 'totally invisible', and If this is the case then it is not suspicious is that the machine seems to always display the passing of time. But, oddly it seems to be absolutely identical in construction and function to machine A, which was said only to display the regulated flow of electricity.
However, it can be said that the machine would operate just as it seems to whether Time exists, and is needed for motion, or not. In other words, unless the inventor proves that Time exists, and shows how not just this machine but everything in the universe is affected by it, then anything said about it, or Time in relation to it, 'may' or 'may not' be true. Which makes it effectively meaningless.
Given that machine A was claimed only to show the flow of electricity, from one end of a battery, through some clearly visible wires, to the other end, then to prove the claim that machine C proves the flow of a thing called 'time' from the future to the past, the inventor must prove the existence of the future and past, and time.
In other words, if time exists, then a machine like this, called a clock, would undoubtedly be a useful way of showing times passing. But this machine alone, no matter what we call it, does not prove the existence of time.
However, we are all very familiar with such machines, and there is no doubt at all that they are extremely useful if not essential to the smooth running of our lives, societies and humans throughout the planet as a whole, so what do they display and measure ?
The machine called a clock has within it circuitry that ensures the internal cogs, and hands on the display rotate at very uniform rates. And these rates are set by useful convention to be particular multiples of the Earths own rotational speed, specifically the smallest hand rotates 2 times as fast as the Earth, the next 24 times as fast and the last 1,440 times as fast.
So in fact what such a machine displays is an abstracted indication of the Earths rotation, and critically a useful example of constant motion that we can use to compare to , or measure, other examples of motion.
if we have what is called a 24 hour clock the main hand rotates at the same rate as the Earth making the first point clearer, and if we have what is called a stop watch the fact that a useful example of constant motion is displayed is also clearer.
So the hands can rotate, and the Earth is rotating, and the hands give useful information about this fact, and allow us to coordinate our lives efficiently anywhere on Earth, but neither of these facts prove there is also a past, future or thing called time. If there is a thing called time then the Earths rotation or the hands rotation would be useful indications of times passing, but neitherof these observations can be used to confirm the existence of time.
Google Sites
Report abuse