Why ‘Time doesn’t Exist’ is Illogical

People claiming time doesn’t exist is ludicrous. Some say it’s because we made up the measurements; others say it’s because time is an abstract concept.

 

Humans made up the measurements for time and, if the measurements are made up, the thing they measure must be, too.

Humans did the same thing with weights and distances yet nobody claims they don’t exist. The change of weight and distance is as easy to perceive as the change of time.

So why view time any differently?

 

Some say that because time is an abstract concept, it isn’t real.

Sure, time is an abstract concept (especially when factoring in the past, present and future). But claiming this makes it made up is ridiculous. Love is an abstract concept but no-one claims it’s made up. Abstract things are experienced as much as physical things.

Abstract things manifest in physical, observable ways. Love affects the body profoundly, such as increasing the heart rate, endorphins, and encourages behavioural change. Time is seen by the fact that nothing stays the same: the past is pre-change and the future is post-change.

So time isn’t solely within the real of the abstract, meaning if abstract concepts were just ‘made up’, time would be immune to the ‘it’s abstract so it’s made up’ argument.

 

A second is a measurement based on scientific observation. In other words, this means a second is based on something that physically happens. A second, and thus time, is based on what is certainly real. So saying ‘time doesn’t exist’ has no basis in existing facts.

 

Thoughts on the Upcoming Harry Potter TV Series

I’ll cover four points: should there be a tv series; black Hermione; age discrepancies; and more hours.

 

Under what circumstances should a book series get a second visual adaptation?

            If the first flopped, having another go at it would be understandable. People want to be successful, after all. An example of this would be the Mortal Instruments: the first film flopped yet they went on to make four series for the tv.

            Another suitable circumstance would be if there is a significant amount of time between the first adaptation finishing and the second adaptation starting. That way, rather than the second adaptation riding on the coattails of the first’s success, each adaptation is made for its time. Think the Chronicles of Narnia: it’s had loads of adaptations but never too close together.

            The Harry Potter film series was a massive success and, even though it’s barely been a decade since it finished, a new adaptation has already been announced. As neither suitable circumstance has been achieved, a new adaptation of Harry Potter isn’t suitable.

 

Some people are worried that a black person will be cast in the role of Hermione, like in The Cursed Child.

            From a statistical viewpoint, far more black people have curly brown hair than white people do. So, from a statistical point of view, Hermione is statistically more likely to be black than white.

            Then there’s the fact that the books don’t state Hermione’s skin colour. So, from the point of view of being accurate with the source material, Hermione as a character could be of any skin colour. Including black.

            If the books don’t state Hermione’s skin colour, and it’s more likely that she’d be black than white as according to her hair (which is described), casting Hermione as black has a lot of merit.

 

TV series don’t take as long to produce as films do.*

If a series takes less time to make than a film series, it means the characters and actors will age at the same rate. This will provide visual accuracy, because teenagers change so much in so little time that it was obvious in the films that the actors were older than their characters.

If a series does take more than a year, it will likely be a latter series than an early one. As teenagers change more in their early than later years, the visual discrepancies between the actors’ and their characters’ ages will be minimised. This is opposed to the film series in which the discrepancies started in the third film whereas the later films were the ones that were released in subsequent years.

*(A single tv series has more hours than a single film. So how a tv series takes less than a year to make yet a film takes more than a film to make, I don’t know.)

 

A tv series has more time than a film does.

A film usually takes between 90-150 minutes. A tv series, at 60 minutes an episode and between six and ten episodes a series (for UK shows), will be between 360-600 minutes. That means a tv series is between 2.4-4 times longer than a film series. Some North American shows have twenty-four episodes: at 1440 minutes, that’s 9.6 times longer than a film.

Clearly, with more hours, a tv series can include more of the book than a film ever could. This will lead to greater accuracy which is always a plus. Also, more hours separate the events better. Then the illusion that the story takes a year to unfold will be better than it was in the films.

 

Clearly, a tv series does have a lot of advantages over a film series. But considering the success of the film series, one that finished only a little more than a decade ago, I’m not convinced there should be a tv series. Yet.