Most helpful critical review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Introducing Time, seems to assume "time"exists, but it seems not to actuallyprove there "is" a past and/or Future, or thus Time.
on September 23, 2014
I'm a great fan of the “introducing” series, but I think it can be shown “Introducing Time by Craig Callender” in no way proves that time exists, and is thus just a discussion about what a thing called “time” might be, IF it existed. But this is not made clear in the text.
For example, in the opening pages, the text discusses “clocks”, but does not point out that in all cases any suggested “clock” is just a useful example of regular oscillation or motion. Which therefore in itself only proves that matter can exist and have regular motion. However “Introducing Time” implies without proof that an example of regular motion proves there is a thing called “time” that also exists, and passes in some regular way. Thus it is also implied that there “is” a “past”, and/or “future”, but no proof of this is given.
In the section “Psychological ‘time’ ” it is suggested that “we also feel time pass”. But the suggestion that if we are feeling air move in and out of lungs, or thoughts change in our heads etc, that this is a proof we are also “feeling” a thing called time “pass” from a “future” through the present and into a “past”, is a grand assumption without supporting experimental proof.
Also in suggesting an apparent proof of time, and an existing “temporal order of events” it is suggested
“[a] father and son returning home... typically won’t argue much about the ordering of events”, “We agree that the free throws by Smith in the second half occurred sometime after his free throws in the first half”.
However, in fact two people agreeing in such a conversation must in fact, actually, and only, be agreeing about existing patterns of matter in-formation in their minds.
For such patterns to exist, matter must be able to exist, move, change and interact etc (as objects, in the outside world or as electro chemicals etc in peoples bodies and minds. But, just because matter can exist, move change and interact etc, and form patterns in people’s minds, this does not prove that there is also a thing called time that exits, and passes creating a “temporal record”, or that a “temporal past”, or “temporal record of events” actually exists.
Therefore, that two people agree on certain patterns in their minds, does not prove at “Introducing Time” suggests, that....
“The objectivity of the ordering of events in time proves there is more to time than just our psychological sense of it’s passage”.
No proof is given that what we psychologically sense is anything more that movement and change of exiting electro chemicals etc in our minds ( in simple physical directions ), and no proof is give that a thing called “time” exists, such that we can legitimately, or scientifically, talk about “it’s” passage.
In the section on Einstein’s Relativity, it is explained, and agreed , that Special Relativity shows how and why a moving oscillator will be oscillating more slowly than expected. But no proof is given that this is a result of a thing called “time” existing, and “flowing” at a dilated rate from a thing or placed called “the future”, through the present, into a thing or place called “the past”. ( or any variation of the theory of time).
Without these points being addressed, in my opinion, “Introducing Time”, does present the theory of time very well, but does not make it clear that the theory may be completely unfounded. Moreover, “Introducing Time” implies that the theory of time, is in some way proven. (e.g. by claiming patterns in our minds, relate to or *prove there is* a “temporal past”).
Auth A Brief History of Timelessness.