[ExI] "Time does not exist."

[Lee Corbin]

Terry writes


> A physicist, Julian Barbour, wrote a book about time ["The End of 
> Time"] which in reality only exists in the mind but since the mind/brain
> is a form of energy, is this thought of time a universal truth that exists
> locally?

I can't agree that his claim ought to be described like that. It's not
the case that he's saying that "reality only exists in the mind". He's
just following the ancient scientific practice of trying to explain
one phenomenon by a reductionistic appeal to phenomena at
a lower level.  In this case, *time* is the target, and he attempts
to show that we ought to regard it simply as an (almost) 
unordered configuration of states of matter (and energy).

For example, the time that we see as  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,... might
really in timeless Platonia be

     67   23    123     34     12345    12    456    345   ...

in no particular order. (Invitations to anyone to improve my analogy.)

Have you read the reviews at Amazon, for example of Barbour's book?
Some will probably do a fine job of explaining what he's about.

> Is this a case of the relative meeting the absolute/compatibilism?

I wouldn't touch that question with a ten foot Czech.  :-)

> We don't see thoughts but we see the effects of thoughts/the behavior 
> of the mind just as we don't see gravity but only the effects of gravity.

I agree.  But they're making progrss with the MRI equipment as
regards thoughts, and some kinds of astronomical paraphernalia
sort of image gravity, at least gravity among the galaxies.

> Sorry, we do not see time, for we are time itself and who can tell who 
> owns time? Who owns thoughts?

So far as I have been able to determine, the property laws of no existing
country on Earth establishes any conditions for the ownership by any
entity of *time*.  Now, of course, God (if He deigns to exist) probably
does, since He made and so it rightfully belongs to Him.  Besides, He's
got the most battalions  :-)

As for who owns thoughts, that's under hot dispute in the U.S.  The
damned patent office seems to have embarked upon a lot of unholy
rulings and precendents, not to say destructive practices.  But I don't
really know much about it.  In some ideal cases, who ever originates
a thought should own it. But that probably doesn't really make sense
except under certain conditions, and probably isn't helpful towards
the advance of civilization.

Lee