A camera can not capture a moment in time only a duration of time (due to shutter speed.) An instant, or a moment, can not be captured because it has no duration (even the fastest shutter speed imaginable can not capture it.)
Since a moment can not be captured (or perceived) it can not be objectively established. "Now" is only an abstract expression based on the notions of past and future.
When the camera shutter is opened it's anticipating the future and when it's closed the past has been recorded (into memory in the case of digital cameras.) Thus into a single image a duration of time has been captured. (A good example of this is when a slow shutter speed is used and a moving object appears blurred due to it's movement across the frame during the period in which the shutter was open.) Such a statement seems obvious but the implications are quite profound.
Is a person's perception of a moving object just a matter of memory only? If a moment has no duration then movement of an object can not happen in the "present". Perhaps only the memory of it's past positions, relative to the observer, allow the object to appear to move. However since there are no conceivable past moments of perception (since moments don't exist) how can that add up to the continuum of movement?
Food for thought perhaps in this "quiet in here" thread
Edited by 4M2 (Sun 17-Dec-17 20:11:35)