We Run to Catch Up with the Sun...

I wish I had been in class for the discussion of the time reading. I don’t think we realize how valuable it is until we are absent, although this may be another reason for maintaining blogs because reading other’s opinions has helped a considerable amount.

I agree time does exist, at least to the organisms on Earth because we grow up and age. I also like the example of breathing one student discussed. At its fundamental use, the breath is an event which helps one to continue its life processes and also aging. Events compiled together display motion and order which could be an arrow display of time. Age alone shows change in oneself from beginning to end and we begin to age the moment we are born; in some manner we begin to die the moment we are born.

Descartes had an interesting view of time in which God recreates our body in each instant successively because we do not have temporal endurance but rather spatial extension (I hope everyone may consider that religion may play no part here necessarily). This theory can be supported by the aging body because we are never the same moment to moment. For example, a cell dies and a new one takes its place, our hair follicle produces another protein molecule, our DNA becomes a little more worn from replication; all showing age although the later in mitochondria shows age most. I think realism would support his view the most because this line of thinking could coincide with an organism’s reality being different at every instant as well independently of one another, as aging affects us all differently.

Borrow claimed time did exist, however it did so independently of motion and change, therefore time exists whether or not an event takes place. I think this is interesting because earlier in the reading the discussion of “zero” seemed to imply the existence of nothing and Borrow’s claim supports this mathematical need. It is minding bending to consider the existence of nothing, and I would relate this to the existence of pure, empty, space; it must be something to be in mind remember. I do not agree time is a container for all events in the way he does because the events display an arrow of direction in an ordered sequence, of “time” and to me this is a direct relation. In short, I think for this section of the reading I agree somewhere between Descartes and Leibniz.