I think you meant to use the word "continuous." Because it has a fundamental "particle", I think it would be inaccurate to say that time is continuous.Yes. I meant continuous.But isn't this fundamental "particle" defined by an arbitrary measurement that is only achieved by our limited knowledge of quantum measurement? When I was learning to be a carpenter, I learned about all those small lines on the tape measurer. I never needed thirty-seconds of an inch before. Before my training, those increments did exist, but their importance wasn't perceived by me. Once I'd learned the concept and cut the wood, the true length of that wood in reality became of utmost importance. In other words, I needed a means of measuring a continuous piece of wood for my own purposes, but neither the existence of those increments, nor my understanding of them, ever influenced the wood before I cut it.I think science needs to measure time in the smallest increments (just like carpenters need to measure wood) because their field requires more precise measurement. What I'm asking is- has TIME read the memo that it occurs in increments? And, perhaps more importantly, are there really smaller increments of time in reality that we just aren't capable of discerning? Yet?k
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra