PHIL 101

         Although everyone wishes that those who pollute and damage the Earth could be held responsible, Simon Caney shows just how difficult this actually is. There are several factors that need to be taken into account, such as who was responsible, who benefited, and whether or not the polluters are even still alive. Climate change is a global crises, yet many companies and nations have paid almost nothing for their harmful actions. The biggest factor for this is that the pollution caused from say 50-100 years ago was done by people who are no longer living. The question of who should pay for their actions is complicated and arguments usually show that there is not a way to hold anyone accountable.          Unfortunately, this reasoning can be used for other past wrongdoings, such as slavery. If polluters from 50 years ago cannot be held accountable for their crimes, then slave owners from over 100 years ago cannot either. The first re...

           While many people may look at an electronic clock to illustrate the length of a second, the true nature of a second is much more complex. Numerous nations have collaborated for decades to determine precisely what a second should be. As of 1967, a second is defined to be the duration of "9,192,631,770 periods of radiation corresponding to a hyperfine transition of caesium-133 in the ground state" (Tal, 301).  With the use of well-crafted atomic clocks, metrologists across the world are able to measure a second to within nanoseconds of each other in the best cases.          These atomic clocks measure the frequencies that correspond with specific atomic transitions. For a clock to be used in taking these measurements, it must first have an accurate frequency. This is determined by the clocks ability to tick according to the well-determined intervals associated with the atomic transitions. Additionally, these ...

           The relativity of simultaneity is the difference in the way two observers can witness an event. For instance, an observer in the middle of a stationary platform can have a light source emitted at both ends and conclude that the light sources reach him at the same time. These events occurred simultaneously. However, if an observer is to move relative to this platform, one light source will appear to start traveling at a later time than the other. Consequently, the events are not simultaneous to the moving observer.          The concept of the relativity of  simultaneity can often be confused with what John Norton refers to as "appearance simultaneity." This is when two events appear to be or not be simultaneous based on our sensation of them. An easy example to distinguish between the two concepts is with a lightning strike. For an observer far away, the light will arrive first, and then the thunder sound later. ...

           My view on time before reading McTaggart's article was that time is the medium through which change happens. Without time, there would be no change in the universe. I also believed in the common idea that time can only "move forwards". With this belief, events could only ever happen, and then become past. There is no way for a past even to happen, and then become the future.          While reading McTaggart's article, I did find some of my beliefs about time. For instance, the A series description says that events are either future, present, or past. This was definitely a part of what I felt time was. To me, events are anticipated, then happen, and finally they are remembered. So, the three stages of time from the A series fit well with my preconceptions about how time works.          When McTaggart is discussing "the unreality of time," he is essentially stating that how humans currently per...