rawi swami said : …..time is actually (as we understand the meaning of the word) better described as “moment” or continuity – not an evolution of anything but a constant…within that constant there are “events”…us, supernovas, all instances of “local time”….
I agree, ravi swami, but…..
….. if time is a constant and not an evolution, then we have reconsider our definition of the word ‘event’, for the word event assumes a moment that is not continous, but singular. But a singularity of an event assumes a past and future where that singularity never existed, right ? And if so then are we not, after having described Time as a constant, contradicting ourselves ? So every event too, in that case must also be’constant’. So it always existed, does exist and will always exist. And is therefore not an event at all, but also a constant.
shekhar
Yes…moment and continuity are contradictions in terms – event assumes a “before event and after event” situation – what you are saying is that every “event” exists and is not marked by a start and end point, if it did then “time” as concept has to exist – as in editing a film, an in point and out point, but outside of the “edit”, events and actuality(for want of a better word), continue, despite the film makers division of the continuum to make logical sense and tell a story….
Maybe our concept of time is just a method for rationalising things and making it have a point or giving it a meaning… a perspective.
I sometimes ponder on the idea of dividing time into ever smaller divisions – like you see in “time slice” films – at a certain point time appears to stands still – on a theoretical level this is what is supposed to occur for a viewer if he/she/it approaches the speed of light, time “stands still” and all “events” become simultaneous…