|
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
To me that is the same as saying it is a dimension.. I wouldn't suggest it's the same as the spatial dimensions. The problem with reconciling our definition of time with our experience of spatial dimensions is that we only see "cross-sections" of time.
Imagine a two-dimensional being traversing the third dimension, looking at a three dimensional ball.. it could never see the entire thing - as it travelled along the third dimension it would see only two-dimensional cross sections: first a dot that would expand to a circle then contract to a dot and disappear. In the same way we traverse time. If we could see time in it's entirety we would see a person as a snake stretching from themselves as an infant to their eventual death (this ofcourse is merely an analogy, it is impossible to know what seeing the entire timeline would "look" like if looks is even the right word). However we are trapped as the two dimensional being to see only cross sections as we move forward in time - as we look at a childhood friend, for example, first we see them as a young child then as an adult, then as an old man etc. |
Well said
|
