trmulti

Originally posted by Raider

... trying to define time with entropy seems rather absurd to me.

Yes, it makes time really absurd. That's why this way of thinking falls under Fatalismus.

Do you have or have you heard about any other angle of view from wich one should try to understand/define time?

Originally posted by Radical Edward

...what you are describing there, is Zeno's paradox...

OK, I'll read Zeno (sounds like some rock musician and maybe I'll find someone famous who proves the oppsite too? Any suggestions?

Originally posted by Radical Edward

... I coudn't follow what you were saying about static time or whetever.

No, it isn't easy, and because you seem to be a bright person: Sorry! for going on with this. But the 'fact' that because movement actually is impossible (because every distance allways has a half) the result must be something indynamic.

As an illustration: A hammer kan never hit a nail! Let's say one tries to hit a nail and starts with a distance of one foot from the hammer to the nail. As the hammer gets closer with the half of each keypoint as new keypoint, the distance just gets infinitly small. There will allways be a half of the last length, so mathematically the hit will never take place.

Of course, even the swinging of the hammer is impossible too. Both past and future cannot exist. Or should we rather trust our experience?

Bitte entschuldigen Sie mein English!

Originally posted by Radical Edward

but not meaningful. the planck time is (quantum mechanically) the shortest meaningful length of time, as the planck distance is the shortest meaningful distance scale.

This is actually the essence: The meaningfullness. Who is this meaningfull for, the scientistist? Because every non-zero values are dividable, even Planck's distance and thereby the length or travel, the tranformation itself should be impossible. The only proven fact is that there is no time at all. We're stuck in some static, imagining past and future. And because imagininig also takes time, we don't even imagin.

This is either a philosophical question of fatalism or the mathematics must be changed to fit.

Plancks theory only fits into practically proveable physical experiments.

Originally posted by Radical Edward

yeap, it is the time taken to travel one planck length at the speed of light. aka not-very-long-at-all

Half of 'not-very-long-at-all' is even shorter, isn't it?