60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute, 1000 milliseconds in a second, 1000 microseconds in a millisecond... but then what? A single moment is so particular that it cannot be counted. we may say a picture has been taken at this hour second, millisecond, and microsecond but how can we express the exact time when we run out of units? By this perspective the camera chooses a moment of time amongst infinite possibilities. I say infinite because although there will be a moment when time comes to an end, we are unable to break down the time we experience to its basic structure: time can be broken down to infinite decimals. This means that the time of a moment occurs does not have an exact numerical value. This is because we have not found the so-called 'atom' of time. Yet when we take a picture... we have captured that atom.... although we are not able to give this picture an exact time, we are able to express its essence by calling it a moment and therefore proving that there is an atom of time.

So is time infinite or are we just incapable of expressing time as a finite substance? The moment in time that a camera has captured is an asymptope: we can express the approach to that moment in infinite decimals, but we cannot assign an exact time to that moment. But the mere fact that the picture has captured such a moment shows that time is not infinite: only approaching time is. But if we are unable to count to the endpoint, why is it that it is not infinite? In order to show that particular moment in time, we must break the chain of decimal places and ‘jump to the conclusion’. Let me express the picture as time=0. We can approach this moment with as many decimals as we want, for example 0.00000000000000000000001. In order to get to the final numerical value of 0 we must overlook infinite decimal places to finally express the numerical value of time as zero. So by jumping from 0.00000000000000000000001 to 0, we are ignoring the fact that there are infinite decimal places make up that 0.00000000000000000000001. so by ignoring all those decimal places, we are ignoring infinite events leading upto that particular moment in time.

So if we cannot express this moment without the certainty of numbers, how can we say with confidence that it even exists? The only evidence of that moment existing is the picture; by destroying the picture, we erase any evidence that the moment exists. We cannot assign the time a moment has occurred a numerical value so, so we cannot prove exactly when it occurred hence, we cannot prove its very existence. Some may say, ‘we can prove its existence with the events which have occurred as a result of the moment, such as a broken vase or a teardrop of blood’. These people are wrong. This is because a) only those who have experienced the moment may vouch for the existence of the moment because they are the only ones that have ‘seen’ it happen. The result may have occurred because of other instances, meaning that their are possibilities as to which moment has occurred. b) whoever experienced the moment are unable to provide concrete assurance of the moment occurring. Why? i) Because we are not able to process time to its atom. When we look at a light bulb we see a constant light when in fact it is flickering. If we are not able to process every moment in time, so our minds are ignoring infinite decimal places and therefore infinite possibilities. If we see someone pushing a vase off of a table, we are ignoring infinite moments which have occurred. I say that this is the reason why experiencing the vase falling is not enough is because there is a very slight chance that your eye has processed that very moment of time when the vase had fallen off the table. However, if a camera takes a picture of the very moment that the person has pushed the vase beyond its limit to stay on the table, than we have captured that moment in time and therefore have proof of the moments’ existence. ii) humans see what we want to see because we all have biases. I will explain this concept using an example from my class on organizational culture professor, Jackie Botterile. If we are observing rain, we may see each raindrop individually or we can see the rain falling in streams. The reality of the situation may be that molecules of H20 are falling but we morph the reality to what we feel most comfortable with and according to our bias. So if the reality of observation is dependent on our previous bias’, than we are altering reality as we see fit. If we are altering reality as we see fit, than we cannot provide concrete evidence.

So is there an atom of time? If a picture can capture a single moment in time, than the atom of time is a moment. That moment has no decimals, and it cannot be broken down any further. We can look at a picture and say to ourselves that this moment occurred and it is not made of up other moments. The picture moment is when t=0, in other words it is a constant. Time is a compilation of these moments. Infinite moments to approach finite moments? The way I look at this is that there is no way of having two moments side by side because there are infinite moments between each moment. So if this is true, how can a moment be the atom of time? If the moment is an atom of time than it must be able to lead up to the next moment... such as counting moments (moment 1 moment 2 etc) but we cannot count moments because there are infinite moments between moments. And if there are infinite ‘millimoments’ between each moment, than a moment cannot be the atom of time. So what is it that is captured in a picture? If approaching a moment is infinite, and the approach is made of moments, is a moment infinite or finite? The only thing I can say is... sometimes its infinite sometimes its finite. The only time when a moment is finite is when you treat it as a constant... you are looking for the infinite moments leading upto this finite moment.

There is no way to measure time. But there is no way to measure anything because everything cannot be broken down to a basic structure. There is something smaller than a centimetre, millimetre etc. So if there is always a unit smaller, whether we have given it a name or not, there is no standard to measure anything. So is everything infinite?

I have decided to stop this thought process because it is giving me a headache.