|
Page 2 sur 9
Let's remind :
- Plato (-427, -348) could not separate time of the Cosmos.
Space and time was for him, elements coming from a universal chaos where the things evolve in muddle.
Nevertheless, he imagined an original state of the time because all has a beginning (all the things) and that there is always a general relation of succession, a link, between the beginning and end of the phenomena.
However Plato has never considered this link as being the time because it seemed to him too unpredictable.
- Aristotle (-384, -322) imagined the movement as the time's substratum :
"… we think that time does not pass when we determine no change and when the soul is in a unique and indivisible state, and on the contrary, it is when we think and act that we say that time is passing ; we see thus, that there is not time without movement. It is therefore clear that the time is not the movement, nor without the movement.".
Why, the time is not movement and why the time is with movement ?
How is it associated to the states of the beings, of the objects and of the events?
Is not it by a relation of implication ?
How does the time influence the appreciation of the sense since too short sensations give the bitter taste of unsatisfaction and long sensations induce to monotony, even to boredom ?
- Saint Augustine (354, 430) saw in the time a distension of the soul recognized by Spirit,
a distension which help to measure the past by the memory (by the souvenir), and the future by the waiting (by the expectation).
What is long in the future it is not the future in itself because it does not exist but the long expectation which we have of it ; in the same way, a long past is a long souvenir of the past.
- During the Middle Ages the differentiation by Aristotle of the time and space, was unanimously recognized.
The time’s measure which is the movement’s number, was supposed to depend on soul, while the space's perception was imputed (assigned) to the body.
In the XVIIth century this understanding was questioned by the scientists who thought that the real can be represented by the mathematics.
- Newton (1642, 1727), asserting with reason, that we have to use a same frame of reference to measure distances and durations, has imagined the time as independant of the symbolic representations.
Having postulated it as "flowing" uniformly, he recognized in the time the succession's order and in space the situation's order.
- Liebniz (1646, 1716) recognized the time and space as depending of the events, space giving the possibility of "simultaneous existences" and time the order of "successive existences".
- Afterward, with and since Kant (1724, 1804), the time and space will be understood as pure intuitions of the sensibility, beyond of any empirical datum ; the current philosophic intelligentsia still considers, use of the space and time as a specific faculty of human race.
Curiously, Kant recognized by time and by space the same nature and it, of the only fact that it is possible to represent time by using an element of the space : the line.
More exactly he considered the time's intuition as being similar to arithmetic's intuition notably because the expressions of the durations are numbers, whereas the space's intuition, being translated by lines, was for him similar to the geometry's intuition.
He also was joining Newton, when he was comparing the space and time to two frames empty which can contain and order the phenomena.
- Then Michelson (1852, 1931) came who, with famous experiments, showed that the photons's speed (the light's speed) is the same in all the directions in spite of earth's rotation ; of this fact, Michelson concludes that the laws to add up speeds and to add up durations are specific.
At the same period, Lorentz (1853, 1928) interested by the phenomena's perception in two reference systems which move with different speeds, establishes the basic equations which enabled Einstein (1879, 1955) to imagine the relativity's theories.
Since, time is only recognized and understood as an inexpressible entity which flows inexorably, but which can be formalized by a continuum of numbers (of durations).
Nevertheless, if for the world's evolutions, the "sense" (the direction) associated to time is always "from past towards future", it is not the same for "potential time", particularly for characteristic time of the abstraction's field.
Indeed, the creative entity, of transcendent order, who animates us and recognizes herself in the I (ego, subject, spirit), can easily "go" of the future to past, and vice versa.
Thus, time, in its potential state, has not direction and the expression : "arrow of time", is valid only when we discuss, scientifically, of the reality's evolutions.
Regrettably,
the abstraction's domain where we are conscious of the present, of the future and of the past,
this mysterious domain where are memorized the lived experiences which are used to anticipate future,
is ignored by the philosophers and theologians.
*
|
