🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1dk21rINN5e6@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>I would agree that it is conceivable
>that one would have two measures of time, neither one with a greater
>claim to being "time", although it seems unlikely.

We already have at least two.

There is subjective time, in which we sense the flow of
events around us.  Time flies when we're having fun, and
crawls at the oddest of times.

There is objective time, in which we compare the flow of
events in a machine with the flow of events around us.

One can add relativistic time and sidereal time, off the
top of one's head (this fourth is too closely related to
4/4 time for me to use that as a fifth).

These are mere implications of nuances in the definition of
time.  I would say to your inspiration that he should first
adequately define the obvious sort of time before implying that
there is another that fits all of our conventional versions.

				--Blair
				  "Who said 'science is truth?'
				   Where is his proof?"