|
Just to throw this out there - does relative mean non-existant or inconsequential? If everyone has a different perception of the same thing (for instance the example that while you are in the dentist's office someone else is on a roller coaster) how meaningful can a comparison be if you don't acknowledge that it is the perception that is different, not the object?
I am not much of a relativist, so I believe that time is an objective constant that can be percieved with varying degrees of correctness. Two points about this:
1) The idea of a constant that changes is not so unfamiliar. What you have to consider is the conditions surrounding your constant. For instance, the boiling point of water is a constant - given a constant pressure (which in our experience translates to altitude). At a higher air pressure, the boiling point for is higher. This boiling point is a characteristic of water which is objectively measurable and does not change. However if the conditions in which the object (water) exist change, so does the object's response. If one is not sensitive to the surrounding factors, it may seem that the characteristic being measured is not constant, when in fact it is. This may go some of the distance toward explaining the different rate of time passage encountered in Einstein's theories.
2) Many people refer to, without consideration of its nature, their "sense of time". Most of us don't give much thought to it, because we don't use it for anything much more important than to estimate how long our brownies have been in the oven. However, musicians (especially classically trained ones) put an enormous amount of effort into understanding the perception of time and honing their ability to maintain sense of time.
A musician's sense of time (which is not the same as rhythm) is regulated by their "inner pulse". The name notwithstanding, it actually has nothing to do with your heartbeat. This is a difficult lesson to learn, as the heart rate is extremely variable in the exact circumstance that a sense of time is needed - performance. The bodily functions are all seperate from the mind's perception of time in a musical sense. Anyway, we have different abilities to maintain an accurate inner pulse, not to mention doing it while concentrating on something else. But, it is a sense can be developed through practice. None of us have a completely accurate sense of time, and so we have developed tools to help us, such as the metronome.
In a performance, an accurate sense of time must be established by the the performer - even in a symphony concert when the performer includes over one hundred people on stage. The tempo (speed of the division of time) can change, but this change must be regulated in reference to some factor - the inner pulse. Now, most performers have tuned their sense of time well beyond that of the audience, but I think that goes toward the ability to generate an accurate pulse, not percieve it. I don't have to have sense of time of Yo-yo Ma to know a steady beat when I hear it. I do have to have his sense of time to generate it. The reason for this lies in the fact that my generation is internal.
All of this may be beside the points made above, but I think it is interesting that so many are willing to say that time is relative when there is an entire area of art that is devoted to the idea that this isn't so. A distinction should be made as to whether it is the object (time) that is relative or the subject (the perception). I would say that the perception of time is relative. Because of this, it is possible to learn to perceive more accurately.
Now you guys have made me go and think during summer vacation. Thanks a lot!
i remain,
ubertuber
|