Understanding Time: Implications

In the last post I stopped at Paradox. The term Paradox is another head of the Hydra of questions that time and its related aspects presents to anyone who tries to understand it. So what does paradox really mean? Is it a theoretical ‘being’ or does it have a practical bearing? Dictionary meaning states that Paradox is a statement that seems contradictory but is really true. That means all the paradoxes that a person confronts (O K only in books) are true. But science stops anyone from believing anything unless it is experimentally proved. This implies that all theories concerning time  (I am also generalizing as every theorist does) are more or less unfounded. Because, as I said earlier, one cannot trite the validity of a theory about any component of a system from within the system. By this the only conclusion that I can come is whatever theorems have been formed about time (I am leaving gravity out of it for the time being) are faux passé. The best example is the theory that Speeds greater than speed of Light is impossible to achieve The theorists prove it using E=mc^2. If speed approaches speed of light i e c, then m will approach infinity. Thus making ‘faster than light’ travel seemingly impossible. However, here the assumption is c is constant What if it is not? So due to these theorems I say that time based theorems are faux passé.   This may seem radical and cruel but true Everything is based on an assembly of un-architectured structure.

However, I feel everything is not lost. Some of the bricks of the foundation are in their correct position. The task is daunting. Even then one cant quit trying. The tools in accomplishing this task is logic, capacitance of observation and perseverance I think this is a perfect conclusion for an imperfect introduction.

Advertisement