Apr 16 2010
Real Time
Time is an idea. It’s real world referents are never as error free as the ideal mental construct. It is made up of a combination of memory and repetitive movements in space. Time is like a melody that can only exist as one note in any given instant. Memory provides the sense of continuity that we can recognize as a tune.
Time is mathematically defined by its units of measurement. There are a variety of references for time but in the real world none of them are as exact as the idea of time. Seconds, days, months years are defined by movements of planetary objects in space, but seconds don’t fit perfectly into years. There is accumulative error that has to be adjusted for with leap years and so on. So there has been a search for more exact references. They have come up with atomic clocks that oscillate at very steady frequencies. So time is now based on repetitive movements of atoms through space instead of planets. That serves to reduce the error factor to parts per million levels which is more than tolerable — but it is still in error compared to the idea of time.
The only thing real is the eternal now. The rest is an idea. Unreal mathematical ideas are useful sometimes. If 2 times itself yeilds 4 and 1 times itself yeilds 1, what number times itself yeilds -1? The square root of -1 does not exist. If you try it on a calculator you will get an error. But if you ignore its non-existence and put it into trigonometry equations you end up with a tool for describing electricity. Alternating current is a periodic motion, cycles in time. Imaginary numbers can describe the timing relationship between current and voltage cycles.
No one has trouble admitting that square-roots of negative numbers are useful mathematical fictions. Math is a tricky language. Time is also just an idea, but it is so built into our every-day language that it looks as solid as a rock.
So what about pre-cognitive viewing? Most of the viewers at TKR have seen that time anomally, first hand. How do we handle anomalies? By explaining them with the most impressive scientific language we can muster? (analytical overlay). Or do we hold them loosely like an impressionistic painter rendering a sunset?
![]()
