It's a common misconception that analogue is the opposite of digital - and in fact, it's the way in which we distinguish watches, weight scales, thermometers, and any other measuring device. The truth is digital is short for digital analogue - as all measuring tools require an analogue (think: analogy).

Both digital and analogue scales measure weight in a similar manner: in the compression/extension of a spring. It's this compression/extension that is the analogue of weight. This compression/extension is then translated to some form of reading. In the "analogue" case, it is the turning of a disc with weight markings. In the "digital" case, this compression causes a numeric output. Both, however, rely on the physical translation of weight - the downward force we exert on the Earth - to a spring, an elastic force.

Measuring time also requires a physical analogy. An "analogue" watch uses a crystal quartz to vibrate, causing gears to shift. The analogue of time is the distance an arm sweeps around a circle, relative to a starting position. 1/4 of a circle of arbitrary radius is an analogy of 15 minutes.

With a digital watch, the analogy is simplified. The analogy of a time in a digital watch, again caused by the vibration of a quartz crystal, is the representation of time through numbers. We again choose a fixed "position" - say, 12:00. 15 minutes becomes more immediate to us, however the analogue in this case is in the math. A digital watch is the displaying the number of vibrations the quartz crystal had, since the watch was first calibrated.

An interesting point is that all of our measuring analogies are calibrated to other analogies - that is, there is never a direct representation of the physical thing itself. It is a thing that can only be explained with other things. This becomes increasingly frustrating when you consider that - even with distance - we have to use an analogy. And so, an analogue watch is measured by the amout one arm sweeps across a distance, the distance which was also measured with an analogue. The cycle of requiring analogues ends when we can arrive at a number - in the case of a watch, the circumference of the circle is required as a measure of length, so that the watch can be calibrated such that an arm will complete the full circle in 60 minutes, 60 seconds, or 12 hours. And with analogue stacked on top of analogue, this leaves a lot of room for error. It's amazing we're ever on time.

Time - strictly speaking - is not a number. It's a dimension that we flow through in one direction while we watch movies of Marty McFly travelling in the other direction. We represent our position in this flow with an arbitrary number. And when you consider it, it's odd that we represent time as cyclical - with repeating 24 hours, repeating 60 minutes, repeating 60 seconds, etc. Of course, this helps in scheduling our day to day lives, because each day is viewed as a new day, each hour a new hour. But this conception itself is equally wrong. Time is not cyclical - or if it was, it is not cyclical in the sense that we have it, in which hours, days, weeks, months, years, all reset themselves, where we start at the beginning, making resolutions to lose weight, quit smoking, and live more charitable lives.

It's through this view of time that procrastination becomes inevitable. Tasks can be put off until tomorrow, because "tomorrow is a new day." Something can wait an hour, because in this hour, we're busy doing nothing.

It's through this view of time that our age increments every year, rather than every moment. Perhaps it's a little greedy, because it means that - rather arbitrarily - every 365 days from our moment of birth, we will get presents.

One benefit of our current system is administration. With our current view of time, we know that those who have gone through 18 cycles of 365 days (366 on leap years), are smart enough to vote in the leaders of our world. Those who are days less are not intelligent enough. Not only that, but after 18 cycles of 365 days means that you have become legally independant, and can manage your own life. After 19 cycles in Canada, and after 21 cycles in the USA, it means you can drink alcohol. This usually results in humans going out and drinking themselves silly in celebration of completing their 19th/21st cycle of 365 days. When you've completed roughly 65 cycles of 365 days, you'll likely stop working and wait for death - which usually comes about around the 80th cycle. It used to be that women typically would live a few more cycles than men - perhaps because we men didn't cry. Since we started crying though, we can live more cycles.

Our view of time, at the moment, sounds like a dull Science Fiction novel.

It would seem to make more sense if we had a single, ever increasing number, which represented how many units of "time" have passed since time 0 (the beginning of the Universe). This unit, the smaller defined, the better. The second works best in my mind, as while it is not the smallest measure of time, it is small - yet long enough that we sense each passing second. Any subunit, should merely be a fractional representation. Of course, this would, by now, by an incredibly large number. If the Universe is 13.73 billion years old, and there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year, we're somewhere in our 432 quadtrillionth second. But we'd very quickly learn to pay little attention to the higher digits, and focus on the individual seconds.

While this seems like a silly notion, it makes me wonder how this simple modification would affect our lives. For one, we would have no days, no years. That means not having to buy a new calendar every year, for one. While it may seem to be difficult to schedule appointments, it may infact be easier, and also be on time for them. Instead of scheduling a meeting on the 26th of May, we simply schedule the meeting to be at 432,583,341,439,311,201. Your watch counts up towards that number, and you'll constantly see that meeting coming up. It won't get lost in the concept of "what day", or "what hour." It has a single representation that cannot be missed.

And nothing would be put off. Assignments that are due in 259,200 seconds (3 days) would get done. Especially if you have counters that tick down. Imagine having a giant timer for each assignment, gradually ticking down from 259,200. No more cycles, no more infinite repititions. Just a gradual progression forward towards an end.

Perhaps we would appreciate life more, as we would suddenly see our lives constantly moving forward - no tomorrows, no next years. No New Year resolutions. You're only left with doing things immediately.

But then, we'd all have to get "digital" watches, wouldn't we? The "analogue" watch exploits that infinite circular property of watches, after all.