"Time" has to be taken to mean what it is: the human perception of it. When you deal with (relatively very unknown) unknowns, you ought to take extra care with perceptual bias.. Just like the electromagnetic spectrum was spoken of by different names for all its segments, when it was in fact one and the same real "thing" at different wavelengths.
I mean that words mean what they mean, an ensemble of things that do or don't materialy seem aggregate. A human idea can lot together any number of these things, and whether or not these things are one and the same in "concrete" reality, or really separate things not even corelated, the idea is still valid.
These sorts of subtleties make for words being a pretty imprecise means of communication sometimes. Objectivity for example, is supposed to be the accuracy of what someone perceives, and yet it's pretty sure that whatever it is someone thinks they've perceived, their perception may or may not match the object in question.
It might be only a relatively tiny deviance from reality, but short of omniscience, you can never really be objective. And so, in my opinion anyway, everyone really is perfectly objective about one thing: what it is they think; since they can never say anything else but what they think.
It might sounds like a roundabout nincompoopish thing to say, but really, everyone is affected by this to a certain degree. It's not something you can ignore, and although luckily most people have a good sense of this, it isn't always recognized as significant factor when, in fact, it is.
You can't take the tool that makes the measurement out of the equation.
This sort of clarifies what I meant that McGroin had seemed to find a bit dubious when I mentionned it in another recent thread.
Here's yet another take on it,
four spatial dimensions and two for time.
