But abolishing clocks? This will greatly impair a lot of scientific research – so much depends on relationships of things over time, which becomes impossible to work with if you’re not allowed to measure time. It will become impossible to make a computer that works well and efficiently … maybe illegal to make a computer at all, since any computer could be used as a clock. GPS will become unusable, since it depends on accurate timekeeping. Heck, even radio will become unusable, since you can no longer measure the frequency of a transmitter or a receiver. Scheduling anything – from a train stop to a meeting with friends – will become incredibly difficult. Entirely abolishing clocks is madness. … That’s not even getting into the issues of enforcement. Since rudimentary clocks are quite easy to make and (see above) there’s plenty of motivation to make one, enforcement of this clock ban is going to have to be draconian and pervasive in order to be even marginally effective.
Ok, so, I get what you are arguing, and I think OP meant the idea of scheduling in general gets thrown out (which, btw, fully support, scheduling causes too much stress, especially if people only follow it sometimes.
But, measurement of time is flawed. In any two different reference frames where there is an accelerated difference, one clock does not satisfy timekeeping in both.
Unless I were able to know your exact reference frame so that I could calculate the time dilation, scheduling doesn’t do you or I any good.
So really what we need is a way to measure energy states. An energy clock. The universe is relaxing, perpetually over time. That total energy, therefore, is observable in all reference frames. So if we want to schedule something effectively, we set an energy state to match.
That allows me to exist in my frame and you in your frame without the annoying calculations to figure out “when” we meet.
I think it was Bertrand Russell who had an essay on time and it was basically about how it used to be an imprecise thing. People on different sides of the same town might be running on time that’s 10 or 15 minutes apart, because it really just comes down to the nearest bell tower (usually a church or a town hall) and their timekeeping.
But then the railroad was invented and suddenly people needed to coordinate precise times not only across a whole town, but also between towns and cities that stood miles apart. So the railroad was the development that forced clocks to become precise so that time could be standardized.
Unless I were able to know your exact reference frame so that I could calculate the time dilation, scheduling doesn’t do you or I any good.
Over everyday distances and speeds, this effect is tiny and entirely negligible.
Any difference between two living people on Earth (disregarding time zones for the moment) will be far less than 1 second, and I think we can deal with it if one of us shows up 1 second early or late to lunch.
No, we do not need to do any relativistic calculations in order to set a time to meet for lunch.
So really what we need is a way to measure energy states. An energy clock. The universe is relaxing, perpetually over time. That total energy, therefore, is observable in all reference frames. So if we want to schedule something effectively, we set an energy state to match.
Great … so we’ll just both need an array of high-powered telescopes and a supercomputer in order to figure out when to meet each other for lunch.
Abolishing jobs, okay.
But abolishing clocks? This will greatly impair a lot of scientific research – so much depends on relationships of things over time, which becomes impossible to work with if you’re not allowed to measure time. It will become impossible to make a computer that works well and efficiently … maybe illegal to make a computer at all, since any computer could be used as a clock. GPS will become unusable, since it depends on accurate timekeeping. Heck, even radio will become unusable, since you can no longer measure the frequency of a transmitter or a receiver. Scheduling anything – from a train stop to a meeting with friends – will become incredibly difficult. Entirely abolishing clocks is madness. … That’s not even getting into the issues of enforcement. Since rudimentary clocks are quite easy to make and (see above) there’s plenty of motivation to make one, enforcement of this clock ban is going to have to be draconian and pervasive in order to be even marginally effective.
Ok, so, I get what you are arguing, and I think OP meant the idea of scheduling in general gets thrown out (which, btw, fully support, scheduling causes too much stress, especially if people only follow it sometimes.
But, measurement of time is flawed. In any two different reference frames where there is an accelerated difference, one clock does not satisfy timekeeping in both.
Unless I were able to know your exact reference frame so that I could calculate the time dilation, scheduling doesn’t do you or I any good.
So really what we need is a way to measure energy states. An energy clock. The universe is relaxing, perpetually over time. That total energy, therefore, is observable in all reference frames. So if we want to schedule something effectively, we set an energy state to match.
That allows me to exist in my frame and you in your frame without the annoying calculations to figure out “when” we meet.
No, no more clocks.
Like the Butlerian Jihad, we must expunge all clocks or they will again rule over us.
I think it was Bertrand Russell who had an essay on time and it was basically about how it used to be an imprecise thing. People on different sides of the same town might be running on time that’s 10 or 15 minutes apart, because it really just comes down to the nearest bell tower (usually a church or a town hall) and their timekeeping.
But then the railroad was invented and suddenly people needed to coordinate precise times not only across a whole town, but also between towns and cities that stood miles apart. So the railroad was the development that forced clocks to become precise so that time could be standardized.
Yeah, but, see I think if we can change it to energy state, we can effectively say “nah, I didn’t vibe with it well” when we don’t show.
Any device that purports to quantize global energy states is the devil.
Man, I thought we were almost friends.
Over everyday distances and speeds, this effect is tiny and entirely negligible.
Any difference between two living people on Earth (disregarding time zones for the moment) will be far less than 1 second, and I think we can deal with it if one of us shows up 1 second early or late to lunch.
No, we do not need to do any relativistic calculations in order to set a time to meet for lunch.
Great … so we’ll just both need an array of high-powered telescopes and a supercomputer in order to figure out when to meet each other for lunch.
I know what I said ;)