Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 0
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?

Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.