When I see threads like this one, though, it irks me that people haven't read Aristotle. The way in which Rob compares the motion of time to counting is an example of this ignorance, one that is particularly addressed in Aristotle's reply to the paradoxes of motion made by Zeno of Elea.
Verme's post eloquently answers the question:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by verme (prevaricator)
2000 - 2001 I
2001 - 2002 II
2002 - 2003 III
2003 - 2004 IV
2004 - 2005 V
2005 - 2006 VI
2006 - 2007 VII
2007 - 2008 VIII
2008 - 2009 IX
2009 - 2010 X
|
As Rob considers it, a year *begins* with its numeration or, in other words, we begin a year till its completion into the next. However, this is incorrect as a year is a measurement of time like any else and measures time by its passing. The confusion can be seen in language: it's been a year and 3 months or it has been three months into the new year. The former is a correct measurement of time. This confusion is made worse, particularly when remembering Zeno, when counting off years like numbers (2001, 2002, 2003, etc.). This can lead to thinking a year as a static thing, however a year, like a decade, is the measure of the motion of time. Thus, the value of a year is the measurement of its passing between years, as Verme's answer shows.
TL;DR: This isn't 2009. It has been 2009 years and 11 months and 15 days.