Wow. Just, wow. I had no clue what just hit me. The article we had to read was a doozy. Anyways, That article actually reinforced my beliefs of what I hold time to be, but what I have realized is how little ground my definition actually covers. Physical and Psychological time, which are discussed in the article, seem to be what I had meant by perceived and physical time in my previous post. However, my concept of recorded time seems to be unique, for nothing in the article seemed to have mentioned it, or through recorded time under physical or psychological time. In my opinion it is something completely different than the two. Just as how a tree (Physical), a perception of a tree (Perceptive), and the organ that is used to perceive it of a tree (Recorded) are all different, so are my three ideas. Recorded time is a mental construct, while perceived time is a state of being. It is a subtle difference and they can play off of one another, but they are not the same.
So, if we were to start off with my previous theory on time then, then the only one that we could call external and objective is my physical time, or what physicists called spacetime, and would correspond with what was called absolutism in the philosophy of time. So, with this theory, in order to make it adequate, I would need to answer questions such as is time travel possible? Is time eternal? Is there such a thing as the past, present, and future? and so on. Right now, I view that it is impossible for me to answer all of these in one blog post, so I will try to spread them out over a few posts coming on up.
I have to agree that condensing the various ways we experience time into two categories seems a little too convenient, as you said my individual perception of the "now" is something active whereas my understanding of past memories at minimum has a less accurate perception of time as the memory fades. I would be intrigued to see some work on the personal and psychological time and see if they look into this idea further.
ReplyDelete