I'm sorry about my recent illusiveness in this competition, I started my judging process today and I have to comment that the first submission 'TreadVigorously - A Bit of a Philosophical Take on Time' claims that humanity are necessarily the, "creators of time", which is a falsifiable notion, complicated as a falsifiable notion, but non the less falsifiable. If anybody has a further query regarding the matter PM me, and I'll try and explain a really complicated analogy to you (one which works).
Nor is he correct to, following his argument draw such a conclusion, that we create time.
Our rational concept of time, which is forever (till we depart) experienced by sense experience allows us to declare that the present 'had' existed in its before sense. That aforementioned, 'infinite' collection of sense data then allows us to draw the conclusion that we do not 'create time', but rather we experience time moving as a constant, however the conclusion that we 'create time' relies where there are no possible ways we can define 'present', and present in the piece is often spoken as of a memory.
Yet we can still draw the concept of present, when we trace back to a memory, which invokes a time and location. The problem is that we are then experiencing the past, however, the past cannot exist without its necessary 'creation', which requires an experience based in the present. We can empirically justify this based upon our sense data, and how that sense data came to be.
If A 'knows' X, where X is a claim (such as the sun is shining), that requires X to be true, and thereby A believes X is true, and following this initial belief, A must have reason or justification such as evidence to believe X is true. It is a false argument to have a belief, for which you have evidence for, which isn't true.
If we are receiving the sense data consistently, by staring into the sun, we envision that 'glare' of the sun, and as we constantly receive that sense data, we know X 'the glare' to be true, because it is sense data as of the present tense. Grammatically "I am staring into the sun" is different from "I stared into the sun", even though we still recall the sense experience, through the memory of staring into the sun.
It is a false envision to declare that we are the 'creators of time', where we have no experience of 'time making', and as human beings rather than acting as creators, and manipulating time, it is time that manipulates us. Rather we exist in time, than time exists because we perceive it.
But I see where he's coming from, that we only perceive time because we are the only beings who empirically justify it. But I found it easy to see simply by paraphrasing the statement, that this only applies to a memory, rather than an experience which is consistent.
I know that sounds muffled, confused, dazed, but I'm trying to recall back to some college work here. I written an excellent essay on something along the lines of this, but much more concise, illustrative, in depth, and VERY VERY meta-critical, and I'm going to have a good dig around for it in the morning.
Don't you hate writing amazing things which get lost in computer files, paper.etc.etc?