4. The Total Span of Time

 

THE FUTURE OF TIME

by Sean O'Donnell, Ph.D.

Few people doubt that our knowledge of time in the centuries to come, will be very different from what passes for temporal understanding nowadays.
To know where you may be going however, it helps to realise where you have been coming from.
In these articles I will therefore strive for systematic and simplified exploration, of all major sectors of time knowledge as currently known to science. I will not address relatively trivial matters such as more efficient time management. Instead I will seek greater comprehension, and hopefully consolidation, of time's larger mystery overall.
This project derives from “The Mystery of Time”, an AdultEd course conducted by me at the National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) – 1988 to 2,000 AD.

·         The Total Span of Time

on the MillimetreScale.

·         SUMMARY If one adopts a spatio-temporal scale of one millimetre per year, it becomes easier to appreciate the various high points in Universal history, since the first Big Bang event some 14 billion years ago.

In seeking to visualise time as a jigsaw of many pieces, one obvious first step must be to determine the extent of the whole. So what is the total extent or duration, of time in both past and future modes?
Firstly regarding time-past, its duration and high points can be clarified with some precision. That is of course presuming one accepts the Big Bang theory - that time, space and matter were all created in one singular First Event some 14 thousand, million years ago.
Nor can you logically ask what came before that moment, as people are often inclined to do. Indeed this aspect of Creation was first clarified by St. Augustine of Hippo around 400 AD. For 'before' is a time-descriptive adverb – and so is simply not applicable when there was no time.
Many have thought that this vast duration - of 14 billion years since the Big Bang and sometimes known as “deep time” - must be quite unimaginable to our everyday minds: after all we're accustomed to think in much lesser terms of a few centuries at most. Whence Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species maintained that “the mind cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of the term of even a million years”.

THE MILLIMETRE SCALE

However it seems to me that we needn't be quite so pessimistic as Darwin on this point. This is because the entire duration of the Universe can easily be reduced into familiar spans of Earth geography if we adopt what I'll term The Millimetre Scale. This very handy form of scaling was first used by me during my course on “The Mystery of Time” at the National University of Ireland, Galway, in 1989. Though posssibly others elsewhere may have conceived of it before or since.
In any case this scaled correlation between time and space measurements equates 1 year to a millimetre of distance. So that your maximum lifetime of 100 years will correspond to 100 millimetres (ten centimetres or four inches), 1,000 years to 1 metre, Darwin's million years to 1 kilometre and so on.
Imagine therefore that you have constructed some magic time machine which can travel back and forth through aeons past. Its special feature will be that it must also progress through just one millimetre of distance for every passing year.
Imagine also that you are about to start off from Greenwich Observatory in London, where global time reckoning was first formalised over a century ago. Finally your time machine must point south-eastward, so as to maximise convenient land-marks in terms of distance along the way.
First then you can set the controls of your time machine for rapid travel at hyper-speed, set to arrive in an instant right back at the birth of the Universe all those 14 billion years ago. In that case your time machine will also have transported you across 14,000 kilometres of distance – about as far from London as the north coast of Australia.
Next imagine reversing your controls, and setting them at a much slower pace, to come back up to the present from that far-off singularity in space-time. You can then travel back to Here-and-Now at Greenwich in more leisurely fashion, stopping to mark significant points in cosmic history along the way.
In that case you would have travelled over half-way back around the globe - about 8,000 kilometers which would equate to reaching Afghanistan on the way back from Australia - before observing our own familiar sun light up 6,000 million years ago.
Another 1400 kilometres of travel, or two-thirds of your journey back to Here-and-Now, would bring you to as far as Southern Russia. There you would see the earth finally solidify into a solid ball, that is about 4,600 million years ago.
A billion years later - or 1,000 kilometres nearer home – you would observe the first signs of primitive marine life appear. But you would still have to travel a further 3,000 kilometres, as far homewards as Northern France on your journey back to London, until plants began to colonise the land less than 500 million years ago.
By now likewise your time-ship would be entering the last 500 kilometres of its 14,000km journey through space and time – with a mere 4% left since you started at the first Big Bang event in far-off Australia. Only about the distance from Paris to London would remain, from your voyage of half-way round the globe.
But from now on you will have many more observation stops on this final stretch of your journey, since all significant life histories are crammed into this little recent span.
So the first amphibian animals crawled out onto land less than 400 kilometres away, one branch developing into those fearsome dinosaurs 150 kilometres afterwards. The North Atlantic Ocean began to open around the start of your final 100 kilometres away or 100 million years ago. And the dinosaurs disappeared just 60 kilometres away from your final Here-and-Now destination at Greenwich Observatory.

THE SPAN OF HUMANITY

The death of the dinosaurs also left ecological room for mammals to flourish, and of these some early hominids eventually began to walk upright. This happened some 4 million years ago, or just 4 kilometres from your journey's end. Later they learned to harness fire and develop proper speech, probably within the last one million years.
Much later again the first humans walked out of Africa to spread across the globe around 200,000 years ago. The total span of humanity as we know it is therefore crammed into the last 200 metres of that long journey from Australia.
Prehistoric times end and more definite human history commences very much later again. This happened with the change from nomadic habits to settled agriculture around 10,000 years ago. On the Millimetre Scale we have been using, this is just 10 metres away (about the width of a small classroom) from your final stop at Here–and-Now.
Another 5 metres and large-scale organisation of humanity into civilisation had been established – as the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt still testify.
True rationality however did not begin until Ancient Greece ca. 600 BC – just 2.6 metres away from the present in our year-per-millimetre terms. Nor was truly modern science able to start properly until about 500 years ago – just half the span of your arm from where you're sitting at Here-and-Now.......
And finally to this ever-growing journey you can add your own lifespan from birth in the recent past to death in the nearby future. It will equate to just 10 centimetres or 4 inches if you are lucky enough to live for a full century.

DURATION OF THE FUTURE ?

Millimetre scaling therefore provides us with a useful visualisation of all those years which have elapsed from the very first Big Bang event, in terms of a journey from Australia to London. Compared with time-past however the duration of time-future is a much less certain matter: whatever knowledge we may have of it consists of cosmic speculation in the main.
In fact about the only firm figure we have for time-future is that our parent Sun is a middle-aged star – and so destined to die out some 6 billion (6000 million) years ahead. Long before that it will have swelled into a great red giant star which will fill our entire horizon, burning our earth and all its surface into toast during its' lingering death throes.
Much much later again all the other stars in a still-growing Universe may also eventually have died out; even matter itself may fade away into nothingness uncountable trillions of years ahead.
Such estimates however are really just cosmic projections or speculations based on very slight or partial information gleaned from astronomy during the past century – and nobody doubts that there will be many more revisions ahead.
But if they are even remotely true, the good news is that the Universe as we know now is still very young. In fact it seems very much just a baby - in terms of cosmic time totality or its probable life-span....

3/ Do Infants Learn Time Properly?

THE FUTURE OF TIME

by Sean O'Donnell, Ph.D.

Few people doubt that our knowledge of time in the centuries to come, will be very different from what passes for temporal understanding nowadays.

To know where you may be going however, it helps to realise where you have been coming from!

In these articles I will therefore strive for systematic and simplified exploration, of all major sectors of time knowledge as currently known to science. I will not address relatively trivial matters such as more efficient time management. Instead I will seek greater comprehension, and hopefully consolidation, of time's larger mystery overall.

This project derives from “The Mystery of Time”, an AdultEd course conducted by me at the National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) – 1988 to 2,000 AD.

3/ Do Infants Learn Time Properly?

SUMMARY

It may well be that our notions of time are not so much obvious reflections of reality - but rather an untested set of notions we pick up as infants through adult precepts and language. Which also leaves entirely open the possibility, that such infant learning may be crucially mistaken at one or several points.

If so, we may need to question and re-test several common beliefs about time (often no more than unquestioned assumptions at best). And thence commence to reconsider the whole topic of time anew.

In this way we might find some currently missing viewpoint or centrepiece, around which the Jigsaw of Time might finally be pieced together properly. And from which a fully coherent new Science of Time (best termed kronology and/or kronosophy?) might then emerge....

The sixth possible reason why there is still no proper “science of time” may be the most important, though partly a combination of others already discussed:

So perhaps infants “learn time” wrongly when starting off, and so grow up with mistaken notions about the temporal throughout their later adult lives? This is a possibility by no means as farfetched or unfounded as might at first appear.

PIAGET'S CONCLUSION

For one thing it's inherent in a question first posed by the great physicist Albert Einstein, to pioneering Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget over 60 years ago. The former wanted to know whether common notions of time are innate or learned. Are they ideas inherent in reality - or alternatively learned as we grow to make sense of experience over the first few years?

Piaget was conducting a research program which laid the foundations for modern child psychology, one summarised in several books like The Child's Conception of Time (1969). And his answer to Einstein was that our comprehension of time is not so much an innate perception of reality, but rather a set of notions learned from surrounding adults, through enculturation and language over the first few years.

Indeed one might almost say that the child starts off as a little relativist – a follower of Einstein with little comprehension of passing time. But then it grows up as a Newtonian absolutist – one who subscribes to the common notion that time definitely passes by!

So that maybe we all as infants have “learnt time” wrongly from the start?

THE IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE

Relevant to this possibility is the proto-IndoEuropean language family – in use perhaps 8,000 years ago. This was the forerunner of Greek, Latin, and most modern European languages in which science has historically evolved.

But compared with other language systems like AmerIndian, the I.E. family is a uniquely tensive one. It's unusually replete with many fine divisions of tense and temporality - 'soon',' not yet', 'long agone' etc. - not commonly found elsewhere.

It also expresses unchecked assumptions such as 'Time passes' (to which we may query 'passes what or who?') Mostly such expressions seem to have have descended without much question, from the primitive ideas of those first IndoEuropeans 8,000 years ago. And so we grow up with our time thoughts moulded by such unchecked notions, assumptions and beliefs.

More definitely in any case, the language we use to describe our thoughts on temporality is still very much primitive, pre-scientific and confused. It doesn't begin to compare in sophistication with the terms used in more developed sciences like physics or chemistry, wherein numerous clear concepts are precisely defined.

Wherefore language must constitute another major piece of the overall Time Jigsaw, and as such one I will consider later in more detail.

THE TIMELESS SUBCONSCIOUS?

To a certain extent too this possibility – i.e. that human infants may “learn time” wrongly - is supported by a conclusion which Sigmund Freud made several decades before Piaget. He observed that “the processes (of the unconscious) are timeless, are not ordered temporally, are not altered by the passage of time, in fact bear no relation to time at all.”

If so, at least some of our common notions on time may be just stratagems to help us comprehend reality, ones imposed by the conscious mind to save it from being totally overwhelmed? Or as the common saying goes: “Time is Nature's way for keeping us sane.”

Finally this major possibility, that we may have somehow “learned time” wrongly, is also inherent in the viewpoint now increasingly expressed by modern philosophers like S.Barbour, H.Price, R.Le Poidevin. Broadly this can be summarised in the general statement that “Time does not pass, though we may think it does.”

LET INFANTS “LEARN TIME” ANEW?

But one of the very few people ever to have suggested a pragmatic approach to this problem of time learning was Dublin scientist J.L.Synge in 1959. He was a major relativist (follower of Einstein) who had edited the papers of renowned Irish mathematician William Rowan Hamilton (1805-65) from a century before.

Hamilton was probably the first of all scientists ever, to call for a “New Science of Pure Time” as far back as 1833.

Synge's era was also that of the early Space Race between America and Russia. This led him to deplore the traditional great scientific imbalance between space and time which I have considered earlier. And he combined his arguments in a cogent article in New Scientist magazine – A Plea for Chronometry – 1959 – p.434

But Synge had new reason beyond Hamilton for re-issuing the call for a whole new “Science of Time”. This was a great problem raised by Einstein's two theories of relativity, a problem still notably unresolved. For, as with those philosophers I've just quoted, these theories seem to insist inescapably that time doesn't pass in reality. And this despite all our common and strong impressions that it does.

Some fifty years ago Synge was therefore proposing that a new viewpoint on time was urgently required – a proposition with which current scholars increasingly agree. But to achieve this new viewpoint he made the novel suggestion that we should start right back at the dawn of consciousness during infancy. There we should give those newborn infants chronometers (which measure time) to play with, instead of those traditional building blocks (which focus their attention more on space)!

Hopefully such infants might then grow up more cognisant of time than space to start with – and in so doing achieve that new temporal viewpoint still so urgently required! However this proposal by Synge was of course never taken up, presumably because it must seem both impractical and socially unwise.

A more practical course towards the same end (though one he never suggested) is however feasible. This would be for intelligent adults to strive and divest themselves of all about time that they had ever learned – and thence commence to consider reality anew. Or “sit down before reality like a little child “ as Einstein was wont to advise.

Again this is a very promising possibility to which I will return. It's also of course a potential pragmatic development from those several current philosophies which deny that time passes in reality. Otherwise such philosophies remain entirely theoretical, not at all pragmatic or practical so far.

KRONOLOGY OR KRONOSOPHY?

Finally Synge suggested that his proposed new Science of Time might best be called chronometry. But this is a term long used to describe just simple clock measure-ments, not anything more basic or widespread.

I therefore propose that either kronology (Lit: time study) or kronosophy (Lit: time wisdom) would be more apt terms. The hard k in both words would be required because chronology (the ordering of dates) and chronosophy (mystic time wisdom) are already long in use. Though both of these latter would have only very limited relevance to the greater study of time overall.

Further kronology might best describe pragmatic time studies, and kronosophy whatever more theoretical conclusions might derive therefrom.

Finally that words are a “shorthand for thought” is a semantic principle widely used in practice, if not so often realised. And now that we two new and related names suggested for the putative Science of Time, the whole thing seems thereby more concrete and realisable.

2. So Why No Proper Science As Yet?

THE FUTURE OF TIME

by Sean O'Donnell, Ph.D.

Few people doubt that our knowledge of time in the centuries to come, will be very different from what passes for temporal understanding nowadays.
To know where you may be going however, it helps to realise where you have been coming from!
In these articles I will therefore strive for systematic and simplified exploration, of all major sectors of time knowledge as currently known to science. I will not address relatively trivial matters such as more efficient time management. Instead I will seek greater comprehension, and hopefully consolidation, of time's larger mystery overall.
This project derives from “The Mystery of Time”, an AdultEd course conducted by me at the National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) – 1988 to 2,000 AD
2/ So Why No Proper Science As Yet?

SUMMARY
At least six reasons can be advanced to explain the current absence of any proper 'Science of Time' at this late date in science history. These range from the absence of accurate clocks in Ancient Greece, to the possibility that time as we know it may be just an illusion, a literal non-entity..

As I've already clarified, there is as yet no proper Science of Time at this late date in science history. And considered against the greater background of science progress overall, this is a very striking omission indeed.
For time is the single most dominant aspect of reality for us all. It's 'the great universal' which underlies all phenomena that we know. Yet strangely it's that single major facet of reality or experience about which science knows least.
This striking ignorance – about time's real nature as compared with our deep understanding of all nature otherwise – is therefore a matter which merits further examination of itself. As I will now proceed to do....
One of the few to have considered this neglect, or 'ignoring' of time by science over the last five centuries, was the late London mathematician and science historian J.G. Whitrow (1912-2000). In 1960 he published The Natural Philosophy of Time, an incomparable book which remains the most definitive work on time in its entirety. So through Whitrow's work and that of others, at least six reasons for this neglect of time by science so far, can now be clarified.
Of these I will take the most esoteric to begin...

AN ILLUSION TO HELP US MAKE SENSE OF REALITY?

Firstly therefore it may be simplest to think that there's no such entity as time at all. This was the thesis of Cambridge philosopher J.McTaggart (1866-1925) who published The Unreality of Time in 1908.
McTaggart clarified that the common experience of time seems to present two different aspects. There's our labelling of events as past-present-future, which naturally alters as our lives proceed (the A-series). But still the sequence of these same events as laid out in history can never change (the B-series).
For example Kennedy must always precede Obama in the historical sequence of American Presidents. This typifies the B-series quite obvious to us now in 2011, but likewise clear from any other point in history. But still from the viewpoint of the year 2,000 the Obama Presidency would be labelled future, whereas from 2020 it will be labelled past.
This may be a very important clarification of time's properties, and as such one to which I will return. But its inherent contradictions also led McTaggart to go one giant step further: he concluded that time itself is merely an illusion of our human minds. Is it just an anthropocentric notion we've made up to help us deal with our experience of reality?
Other philosophers from differing viewpoints have reached a similar conclusion. Of these one of the most extreme is contemporary English mathematician Julian Barbour. In The End of Time (1999), he reasons from quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity that the Universe is essentially timeless. If so, the current lack of any real Science of Time might be easy to explain: it would concern a topic which doesn't exist in reality, a literal non-entity.
Still Barbour and those who agree with him then totally fail to explain why time still forms such an major aspect of everyday experience. For no matter how compelling the logic from such deep studies, we all share a deep conviction that time exists (or should that be occurs?) - whatever it may turn out to be.
So that we can still reasonably aim to transform our widespread experience of time in its many guises into a more ordered body of knowledge, which is the defining characteristic of science everywhere.

TOO PROBLEMATIC FOR OUR MINDS?

Secondly perhaps there is no Science of Time because that simple four-letter word may convey many different shades of meaning as we attempt to describe reality. So that time as encountered in common experience, might (or again might not?) be very different from its more esoteric manifestations – for example in relativity, quantum physics, or at the birth of the Universe.
If so, attempting to gather all such manifestations under just one conceptual umbrella might be a project doomed to failure. This is another way of saying that an integrated new Science of Time might ultimately prove impossible.
But if such differences in what we mean by time really do exist, they certainly need to be teased out and clarified much better than so far. Or if a new Science of Time is ultimately to prove impossible, we need to know of clearer reasons why.

EVENTS ARE TOO TRANSIENT?

Thirdly and in any case, the transient nature of events may be another reason why time science has never flourished historically. Events are the prime source of our temporal comprehension, and time is an abstraction we derive therefrom.
For example if nothing at all ever happened to us – or even if things did but we never got to know about them through sleep or coma - we could hardly have any notion of time.
But events once happened can never really be experienced again. As such they exhibit a once-and-no-more quality in time. This makes them much less amenable to the scientific method, than objects which can endure indefinitely in space.
For example you might see two pheasants fighting in your garden at a certain time one morning in July. But then (barring cameras) you can hardly produce any evidence for scientific sceptics, who might reasonably doubt your timing and account of this rare event.
In contrast, and on that same morning in your garden, you might also decide to measure the length to which some prized giant vegetable has now grown. And to convince all those sceptics who might doubt your description, you can always invite them over to check on your measurements as they please!
Such rechecking by sceptics is of course an important aspect of scientific method-ology. It's a process which can always be easily applied to objects which exist in space, but not so much to events which occur in time. So that the historical development of time science may well have been neglected to this degree.
However the advance of technology since 1800 now enables us to largely circumvent this problem of event transience. Modern videos, cameras, sound recorders, etc. now enable us to 'capture' a semblance of events as they happen - and further manipulate their re-presentation by speed-up, slow-down etc.
All of which means that the unique transience of events is no longer such an obstacle to time science as it might have been two centuries ago.

NO CLOCKS IN EUCLID'S DAY

Fourthly, it may be relevant that there were no accurate clocks to measure time in Ancient Greece some 2500 years ago. This was the era from which modern science has sprung. Back then in contrast, rulers to measure space or small distances were always easy to fashion and standardise. Any convenient length of wood or metal would do.
So that when Euclid (300 BC) assembled the practical measurements of masons and surveyors into his new scientific logic of geometry, early science grew naturally more concerned with space (which was easy) than time (more difficult). This was a natural bias still prevalent, and is any case substantiated by other reasons as we will see.

WE GRASP SPACE RELATIONS FIRST

Fifthly our striking lack of time understanding so far, may well stem from what I'll term an accident of our infancy. For human babies display good competence in dealing with space relations from very early days. So much is shown by numerous studies on infant grasping, their early ability to recognise spatial patterns like familiar faces, etc.
Yet infants seem to display no similar time awareness for many months after they are born. Indeed their operational understanding of time may even have to wait on their assimilation of language with all its associated expressions of temporality.
That 'space precedes time' in the development of human cognition therefore seems true. More obviously also, and perhaps quite naturally, the later development of adult science has largely followed with the same priority.
For example Euclid laid out the primary laws of space with his new science of geometry about 300 BC. But as yet we have no developed system of laws or axioms to provide a similar science for time.
That NASA may then have arisen through an accidency of human infancy seems quite feasible. For it's easy to imagine another planet where infants arrive more cognisant of time than space. Out there adults may long ago have learned how to live forever – while still blissfully ignorant of cubes, triangles, satellites and space telescopes!
Finally this early priority, of space over time in human development, may well be the most important of those various factors, which can explain the absence of any true Science of Time so far. As such it's also a matter I'll consider further in my next article....

1. THE FUTURE OF TIME

THE FUTURE OF TIME

by Sean O'Donnell, Ph.D.

Few people doubt that our knowledge of time in the centuries to come, will be very different from what passes for temporal understanding nowadays.
To know where you may be going however, it helps to realise where you have been coming from!
In these articles I will therefore strive for systematic and simplified exploration, of all major sectors of time knowledge as currently known to science. I will not address relatively trivial matters such as more efficient time management. Instead I will seek greater comprehension, and hopefully consolidation, of time's larger mystery overall.
This project derives from “The Mystery of Time”, an AdultEd course conducted by me at the National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) – 1988 to 2,000 AD.

1/ A New Approach

SUMMARY
There is as yet no real or proper Science of Time. But its striking current absence from the scientific scene, will probably be seen by future historians, as the single greatest omission of our age.
Here I make the novel proposal that time's current status in science is similar to the disordered “jigsaw of the elements” which was prevalent in chemistry around 1850. That was before D.Mendeleef succeeded in piecing them all together into the unifying pattern of the Periodic Table in 1869.
However scholars have adduced at least 6 good reasons why no proper Science of Time has yet emerged, and these I will consider in my next two articles.

Time is the great single universal, or one common factor behind all nature and also personal experience. And yet curiously it's also that single major aspect of nature about which science knows least. For, even at this late date in progress, time obstinately remains a mystery which scientists can't comprehend properly, if indeed at all.
Which, when you come to think about it, is also a further mystery on its own.
This further problem is then why we still know so little about time's real nature at this late date in science history. It emerges more clearly when you consider the nature of reality, which science regards as matter displayed in space and time.
About the nature of matter we are now very knowledgeable from chemistry (the science of substances) and physics (the science of events). About space we are likewise increasingly knowledgeable through a long line of development stretched over two millenia – i.e. from Euclid's geometry (ca. 300 BC) to NASA's Hubble Telescope.
But about time's real nature – and indeed whether it really exists at all (or should that be occurs?) outside of our merely human illusions – science is still very much ignorant, challenged and confused.
This secondary problem - i.e. our ignorance of time's real nature at this late date in progress - is therefore one for which I will seek explanations suggested by others, over these first few articles.

TIME STUDIES NOW

Though the nature of time has been the subject of numerous conjectures ever since western philosophy and science began in Ancient Greece around 600 BC, modern or more scientific time speculation only really commenced just over 100 years ago. It began around 1885 when speculations (still relevant) on 'Time as the Fourth Dimension' were published by English cleric E.Abbott in Flatland (1884). He was soon followed by author HG Wells with The Time Machine (1895). This was another theme which continues to excite wide interest today.
In a curious case of art preceding reality, both fantasies then attained scientific immediacy when Einstein really did incorporate time as the fourth dimension or axis, in his first or Special Theory of Relativity (1906).
However time studies only really began to take off half-a-century later when scholars G.J.Whitrow (London) and J.T. Fraser (Connecticut) wrote two works which are still definitive. These were The Natural Philosophy of Time (1961) and The Voices of Time (1966). Thereafter both authors co-founded the International Society for the Study of Time (ISST).
Since then the ISST has held 13 multidisciplinary conferences with published proceedings, and maintains a bibliographic database ennumerating 25 sectors of differing time content. Through such we can further estimate that about 1,000 time-related books have been published in the past half-century, along with perhaps half-a-million time-related papers.
Otherwise there are just 2 formal centres devoted to time study, anywhere in the world today:-
1/ The Institure for Time Nature Exploration (otherwise termed Temporology), established under the Dept. Of Biology at Moscow State University in 1984.
2/ The Centre for Time, established under philosopher Huw Price at Sydney University in 2002.
The current status of time studies therefore consists of just three central bodies attempting to abstract temporal essence from studies conducted under many other disciplines. Often the temporal content in these other disciplines seems peripheral, disparate or even conflicting in what is apparently implied. For example there seem to be vast differences in what time implies when treated by relativity, quantum theory, psychology.
Such scattered subsectors or 'islets of temporality' are therefore still largely disunited or separate: they have no clear position or relation to each other in what I will term the great allegorical 'Archipelago of Time'. Which is of course another way of saying there's still no organising framework or schema for these differing manifestations of temporality overall.
That no proper Science of Time as yet exists is therefore obvious or self-evident. Which further suggests another obvious question - “Why Not?”

LIKE THE OLD 'JIGSAW OF THE ELEMENTS' ?

To some extent also this currently scattered disposition - of separate temporalities or disconnected sectors of time knowledge - resembles that very limited understanding of chemical elements, which was the best available to science around 1850. Of the 50 or so elements then known, each was considered largely in isolation or on its own. This was because of the huge variation in chemical properties between say sodium, iron, chlorine: there seemed little or no similarity or connectivity between them all.
Wherefore few scientists back then (with the notable exceptions of J. Dobereiner (1819), and J.Newlands (1863)) likely ever suspected that all those widely different 50 known elements, might resemble the scattered pieces of a jigsaw just requiring to be joined up conceptually. And so it was not until 1869 that D.Mendeleef, expanding on his two predecessors, was able to fit those pieces together and solve this 'jigsaw of the elements'.
Mendeleef's newly formed jigsaw was of course the familiar Periodic Table of Chemistry. But his newly coherent overall picture was still very much incomplete: it had various gaps or missing pieces where new elements would eventually fit in. Still his novel Table now constituted an organised schema with optimised order and strong predictive power.
After which chemical studies were finally able to mature into a proper science - as distinct from that scattered and disconnected collection of facts which it had largely been before.....

TIME AS A CONCEPTUAL JIGSAW

Likewise the current status of temporal knowledge also resembles a conceptual and much scattered 'jigsaw of time'. It's one where the various islets of temporal knowledge are still very much isolated, or scattered in large disarray. For example there seem to be abrupt changes, in what is meant by time, as one turns from quantum theory to relativity and then on to human memory. This is much like the great differences between those 50 known chemical elements as observed 150 years ago,
With time the great scientific challenge now may therefore resemble that which confronted Mendeleef before 1869. So how best might one “solve the jigsaw of time”? - by uniting all those scattered islets of temporality into a more coherent and productive pattern.
Some scholars like J.T.Fraser rather pessimistically think any such single pattern must be impossible. Imagine however if conceptual unification ever could be achieved by assembling the great time jigsaw! In that case we would then have one overall schema or umbrella, under which a true and mature new Science of Time could develop naturally
In succeeding articles and to such ends, I will therefore address and attempt to correlate, those many sectors of current scholarship where time is especially dominant. Most such studies are of course a product of deep and laborious investigation by scholars over decades. But I will try to summarise them in a simple manner accessible to all.
In this my intention is to make the entire topic of the temporal - that great alllegorical 'Archipelago of Time' with all its scattered islets of knowledge - much easier to grasp and understand. So that hopefully people may then find it easier “to see the whole wood despite the trees”.
I further believe, and with good reasons I will present later, that the still unformed “jigsaw of time” may well be put together within the present century, with results therafter constituting a revolution to rival Mendeleef or even Copernicus in scope.
For humanity's understanding of time in the 22^nd century will almost certainly be very diffferent, from that which passes for temporal knowledge nowadays.