What are space and time?

On Jul 20, 9:07 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:
On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang wrote:





On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang wrote:

On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford wrote:

In article
,

Huang wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford wrote:
In article
,

Huang wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford wrote:
In article
,

Huang wrote:
[1] Relativity
[2] HUP
[3] WP-Duality
[4] A correct understanding of causality
[5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime
[6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck
Length

I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical
construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms,
and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I
interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its
description.

I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the
rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've
tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat
on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to
provide observational correspondence.

- Tim



[7] A correct understanding of order/disorder
[8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in
physics

Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important

[9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've
never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain
conservation without resorting to a magic wand.

You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures,
here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.

You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.-
Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine.

Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims
instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool
cannot fix another.

Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read
my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that
you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply.

IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional
interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language.

That is what Kant said almost verbatim.

Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No
delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that
humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has
no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text -

That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just
abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's
head ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim
among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists,
and probably havent been laid in years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Starting with some preliminaries:

If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont
really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should
be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking
there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. Futher, I dont
want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be
seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out.

So, to justify [6] above I would proceed as follows:

Physical length may be modelled as a conglomerate of existent segments
and nonexistent segments. Planck length is the smallest unit of length
which can exist from the point of view of approaching physics with
standard mathematics. My claim is that this property can also be
understood using conjectural methods (in place of mathematics) and is
a consequence of mixing the existent and the nonexistent length
segments. At this point I will remind readers that I do not believe
that this is the only correct view, but that there are several
approaches which are correct and would be equivalent in the sense of
Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

Suppose you have a segment which is existent and write it as
[eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee]

and you also have a nonexistent segment and you write it as
[nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn]

If you combine these segments into a kind of conglomerate you can have
uncountably many different configurations which are all equivalent.
Some examples of would include an infinite number of different
discrete partiions, and also an infinite number of continuous
distributions which is modellable as a collection of gradients. I wont
include a graphic for that, you'll have to visualize it.

My claim is that there is a ratio of existent/nonexistent where
nonexistence is more (a) "probable" than existence, and that is why we
have Planck Length. For some proportional combinations existence is
expected, and for others nonexistence would be expected. Planck Length
represents a ratio of 50:50 potential for existence, any proportion
less than this and nonexistence becomes the expected outcome if one
were to attempt to make an observation.

This approach is conjectural, but should have a mathematical
couterpart which is based on existential dichotomy. Both approaches
are equivalent IMO. The problem is that no-one has thought of the
mathematical explanation yet because it is philosophically
intractible.

So, when we mix the existent with the nonexistent we obtain a
conglomerate, and Planck Length is a limit on the extent to which
space may be bent by performing such operations. If it were not for
this limitation we would be able to bend space in ways which nature
will not allow. This is similar to the speed of light being the cosmic
speed limit. I do not have a more formal derivation at this time but
believe that it may be easier to model this using conjecture than
mathematics, and then convert the whole thing back into a mathematical
argument. I should probably study some more QM and try to make some
more formal derivations, but it does seem that gravity would be a
pretty good place to start.


(a) I used the word "probable" for illustrative purposes only. Formal
probability theory technically cannot be used to make conjectures
because PT is orthodox mathematics. Instead, existential potential
must be used in place of probability theory. But to make the
explanation as clear as possible I sometimes use the word "probable"
as a means of conveying the broader idea.

On Jul 8, 12:40*pm, Immortalist wrote:
What sort of things are they if they are things?

Space and time are measures of things, not things.

One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional
in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time;

One-dimensional time in a single given spatial reference.


that is to
say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can
be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an
existence in their own right.

And measures given by time and space and also mass.

It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and
processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and
substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.

True, in a given spatial frame of reference.

Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the
objects and events that they contain?

Had there been no objects, the concept of space would not arise. Had
there been no events, the concept of time would not arise.

Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space
and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more
complex than just sustained perceptual constants?

Einstein was the most brillantly wrong analyst in the entire field of
science, and the sooner the world realises this fully, the better.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/

On Jul 20, 1:03 pm, Huang wrote:
On Jul 20, 9:07 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:



On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang wrote:

On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang wrote:

On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford wrote:

In article
,

Huang wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford wrote:
In article
,

Huang wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford wrote:
In article
,

Huang wrote:
[1] Relativity
[2] HUP
[3] WP-Duality
[4] A correct understanding of causality
[5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime
[6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck
Length

I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical
construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms,
and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I
interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its
description.

I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the
rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've
tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat
on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to
provide observational correspondence.

- Tim

[7] A correct understanding of order/disorder
[8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in
physics

Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important

[9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've
never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain
conservation without resorting to a magic wand.

You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures,
here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.

You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.-
Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine.

Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims
instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool
cannot fix another.

Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read
my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that
you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply.

IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional
interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language.

That is what Kant said almost verbatim.

Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No
delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that
humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has
no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text -

That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just
abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's
head ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim
among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists,
and probably havent been laid in years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Starting with some preliminaries:

If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont
really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should
be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking
there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. Futher, I dont
want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be
seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out.

So, to justify [6] above I would proceed as follows:

Physical length may be modelled as a conglomerate of existent segments
and nonexistent segments.

I am still processing your thoughts and do take interest in this
construction. Still, I think that your choice of words here is poor.
You have just brought nonexistent segments into existence, and so are
providing a self contradictory basis. I suggest simply choosing
another term other than 'existence', for within the approach of
building a basis we are providing fundamentally existent qualities.
That there would be two such qualities is believable, but not that one
of those qualities would be existence and that the other would be
nonexistence. The quantity of things which are nonexistent within the
basis of your own theory is quite large and there is no need to add
formally to these.

- Tim

Planck length is the smallest unit of length
which can exist from the point of view of approaching physics with
standard mathematics. My claim is that this property can also be
understood using conjectural methods (in place of mathematics) and is
a consequence of mixing the existent and the nonexistent length
segments. At this point I will remind readers that I do not believe
that this is the only correct view, but that there are several
approaches which are correct and would be equivalent in the sense of
Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

Suppose you have a segment which is existent and write it as
[eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee]

and you also have a nonexistent segment and you write it as
[nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn]

If you combine these segments into a kind of conglomerate you can have
uncountably many different configurations which are all equivalent.
Some examples of would include an infinite number of different
discrete partiions, and also an infinite number of continuous
distributions which is modellable as a collection of gradients. I wont
include a graphic for that, you'll have to visualize it.

My claim is that there is a ratio of existent/nonexistent where
nonexistence is more (a) "probable" than existence, and that is why we
have Planck Length. For some proportional combinations existence is
expected, and for others nonexistence would be expected. Planck Length
represents a ratio of 50:50 potential for existence, any proportion
less than this and nonexistence becomes the expected outcome if one
were to attempt to make an observation.

This approach is conjectural, but should have a mathematical
couterpart which is based on existential dichotomy. Both approaches
are equivalent IMO. The problem is that no-one has thought of the
mathematical explanation yet because it is philosophically
intractible.

So, when we mix the existent with the nonexistent we obtain a
conglomerate, and Planck Length is a limit on the extent to which
space may be bent by performing such operations. If it were not for
this limitation we would be able to bend space in ways which nature
will not allow. This is similar to the speed of light being the cosmic
speed limit. I do not have a more formal derivation at this time but
believe that it may be easier to model this using conjecture than
mathematics, and then convert the whole thing back into a mathematical
argument. I should probably study some more QM and try to make some
more formal derivations, but it does seem that gravity would be a
pretty good place to start.

(a) I used the word "probable" for illustrative purposes only. Formal
probability theory technically cannot be used to make conjectures
because PT is orthodox mathematics. Instead, existential potential
must be used in place of probability theory. But to make the
explanation as clear as possible I sometimes use the word "probable"
as a means of conveying the broader idea.

On Jul 16, 10:07 am, John Stafford wrote:
In article
,
"Tim Golden BandTech.com" wrote:



On Jul 15, 9:34 am, John Stafford wrote:
Indeed, polysign is beautiful and heartening, but we disagree upon the
introduction of directionality _at this point_ of the discussion/view.
Can we be certain that entropy is not reversible in special cases? Are
special cases perhaps key to a breakthrough in our maths and
understanding?

I enjoy your posts. Thanks for being here.

Within polysign there is room for accumulation within any of the
domains.
I'm not a firm believer in entropy from a thermodynamic point of view
because I am not a believer in the thermodynamic interpretation as
vibrating atoms. But you use an informational paradigm. I am all for
the informational approach, but accept that the situation is
ultimately noncomputable, since the quantity of information is so
large.

Consider that the information is the computation in progress. IOW, time
is the information changing, evidence of universe computation. This is
the means to avoid the problem of requiring an external computer which
would require every bit of the universe to crunch all the data of the
universe - an impossible task, as you suggest.



For instance, if we were to measure the gravitational pull at your
position and find that it alters when I jump a foot over here then we
would be consistent with theory. I admit that this figure is a very
small dither, but informationally speaking the law of gravitation of
the earth is built as an accumulation of its parts, and this
accumulation is an act of summation within the integral. This is
likewise true of all of matter, and even going relativistic on
Newtonian gravity will not change this.

I am suggesting that no such measure needs to be made. Gravity is
coupled to entropy. Time is coupled to entropy. Look to another means to
affirm the relationship - mathematics, cellular automata, statistics.

Somehow we have to admit that much of our attempts at physics require
washing out the small perturbations, and it works well. They do wash
out, but we have no hope of computing them either. Is this tied into
the informational approach? I think so, somehow, but I haven't stated
it very clearly. Still, to answer your question I suppose that
accumulation is fundamental, which is to say that superposition is
fundamental, and that its inverse is not necessary within the
fundamentals since it can be defined in terms of superposition, just
as subtraction is not a fundamental activity since we can declare it
based upon a reversal of addition:
2 + 1 = 3 . (P2)

Excellent!

We do see structures forming within the accumulation, so the
interpretation that all must go into a blender and come out less
structured is observably false. This may physically have something to
do with cooling, so the thermodynamics does seem to be nearby, but I
don't accept the modern form as final. We operate in a region of space
that is at a triple point, colloidally speaking. We breath gas, our
bones are solid, and our blood is liquid. There are other regions of
space where this is not possible, and we would be inanimate due to
being frozen solid, or completely gaseous to the point of the disorder
that seems so close by to your focus. When solids form there are
structured results. Sometimes pure crystals do form. Isn't the sole
instance of a diamond formation evidence enough against entropy? Or do
I have to treat this like the man jumping a foot off the ground?

I think that intelligence can be gaseous, light-years wide,
completely different than skin and bones.

Hmmm... Yes, I've considered this too, especially in those regions of
space with rich gas. It is easy to ponder within those beautiful
photographs. Anyhow, the thermal processes there may be important, and
if something special condenses for a moment or two, well, in an energy
rich environment the processes will be quite energetic. Still, I think
the life within the gas low gravity environment could be flying about
through the gas, taking a semi solid form with great freedom. This
would again be at a weird sort of triple point, where exchanges take
place and the same thing as crystal formation can happen. There can
only be so much chaos in those places, especially at a small scale.
Geeze, is that a paradigm? The quantity of chaos is limited by its
volume. In other words if your throw enough small eddies into a fluid
they will quell each other. Yeah.

- Tim


Diamonds and crystals are fodder for cellular automata simulations. Love
the idea.

On Jul 21, 8:44*am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:
On Jul 20, 1:03 pm, Huang wrote:





On Jul 20, 9:07 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:

On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang wrote:

On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang wrote:

On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford wrote:

In article
,

*Huang wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford wrote:
In article
,

*Huang wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford wrote:
In article
,

*Huang wrote:
[1] Relativity
[2] HUP
[3] WP-Duality
[4] A correct understanding of causality
[5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime
[6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck
Length

I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical
construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms,
and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I
interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its
description.

I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the
rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've
tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat
on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to
provide observational correspondence.

*- Tim

[7] A correct understanding of order/disorder
[8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in
physics

Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important

[9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've
never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain
conservation without resorting to a magic wand.

You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures,
here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.

You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.-
Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine.

Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims
instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool
cannot fix another.

Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read
my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that
you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply.

IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional
interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language.

That is what Kant said almost verbatim.

Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No
delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that
humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has
no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text -

That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just
abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's
head ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim
among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists,
and probably havent been laid in years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Starting with some preliminaries:

If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont
really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should
be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking
there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. Futher, I dont
want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be
seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out.

So, to justify [6] above I would proceed as follows:

Physical length may be modelled as a conglomerate of existent segments
and nonexistent segments.

I am still processing your thoughts and do take interest in this
construction. Still, I think that your choice of words here is poor.
You have just brought nonexistent segments into existence, and so are
providing a self contradictory basis. I suggest simply choosing
another term other than 'existence', for within the approach of
building a basis we are providing fundamentally existent qualities.
That there would be two such qualities is believable, but not that one
of those qualities would be existence and that the other would be
nonexistence. The quantity of things which are nonexistent within the
basis of your own theory is quite large and there is no need to add
formally to these.

*- Tim



Planck length is the smallest unit of length
which can exist from the point of view of approaching physics with
standard mathematics. My claim is that this property can also be
understood using conjectural methods (in place of mathematics) and is
a consequence of mixing the existent and the nonexistent length
segments. At this point I will remind readers that I do not believe
that this is the only correct view, but that there are several
approaches which are correct and would be equivalent in the sense of
Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

Suppose you have a segment which is existent and write it as
[eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee]

and you also have a nonexistent segment and you write it as
[nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn]

If you combine these segments into a kind of conglomerate you can have
uncountably many different configurations which are all equivalent.
Some examples of would include an infinite number of different
discrete partiions, and also an infinite number of continuous
distributions which is modellable as a collection of gradients. I wont
include a graphic for that, you'll have to visualize it.

My claim is that there is a ratio of existent/nonexistent where
nonexistence is more (a) "probable" than existence, and that is why we
have Planck Length. For some proportional combinations existence is
expected, and for others nonexistence would be expected. Planck Length
represents a ratio of 50:50 potential for existence, any proportion
less than this and nonexistence becomes the expected outcome if one
were to attempt to make an observation.

This approach is conjectural, but should have a mathematical
couterpart which is based on existential dichotomy. Both approaches
are equivalent IMO. The problem is that no-one has thought of the
mathematical explanation yet because it is philosophically
intractible.

So, when we mix the existent with the nonexistent we obtain a
conglomerate, and Planck Length is a limit on the extent to which
space may be bent by performing such operations. If it were not for
this limitation we would be able to bend space in ways which nature
will not allow. This is similar to the speed of light being the cosmic
speed limit. I do not have a more formal derivation at this time but
believe that it may be easier to model this using conjecture than
mathematics, and then convert the whole thing back into a mathematical
argument. I should probably study some more QM and try to make some
more formal derivations, but it does seem that gravity would be a
pretty good place to start.

(a) I used the word "probable" for illustrative purposes only. Formal
probability theory technically cannot be used to make conjectures
because PT is orthodox mathematics. Instead, existential potential
must be used in place of probability theory. But to make the
explanation as clear as possible I sometimes use the word "probable"
as a means of conveying the broader idea.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, we are not treating nonexistent lengths as if they exist.
There's a very subtle distinction here. What we are doing is assigning
magnitude to a nonexistent length. That's all we did. You have a
length which is nonexistent, and we simply say that it has magnitude.

The ratio of existence to nonexistence is preserved regardless of
whatever manipulations you are doing, and that is how I understand
conservation.

But to manipulate nonexistent lengths like this....it is not
mathematics. It is something else altogether. It can be made
consistent with math with conservation. But these basic models are
most easily understood as bearing strong semblance to random variables
and most easily converted back and forth that way.

On Jul 8, 7:16*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/8/10 12:26 AM, Michael C wrote:

Also, if a moment in time is a configuration of the universe, then it
seems that traveling "back to" a certain moment in time is a little
more possible in theory.

* *We are part of the universe--we can't step outside of it and go
* *where we choose as if we where "above it all".

That is what the imagination is for! And if you believe Lewis
Carroll, then it is actually "below it all."

Eric

On Jul 9, 6:06*am, Errol wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:00*am, Michael C wrote:





On Jul 7, 10:40*pm, Immortalist wrote:

What sort of things are they if they are things?

One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional
in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; that is to
say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can
be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an
existence in their own right.

It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and
processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and
substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.

Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the
objects and events that they contain?

Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space
and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more
complex than just sustained perceptual constants?

Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/

Immortalist,

* * *I think a moment in time is a certain configuration of the
universe. *Now, it's not enough to just know where the atoms in the
universe are located in that "moment in time". *You'd have to include
things like momentum and the directions they are "currently" moving.
Now, does this definition still allow time to be the fourth
dimension? *Well, if a moment in time is a configuration of the
universe, then it seems that knowing what moment in time the universe
is currently at would be enough to describe everything, length, width
and height and then some of all the objects in it. *Is time an all
inclusive dimension - does dimension simply mean piece of information
about an object? *If you know what time it is, would you know the
length, width, height and locatons (and anything else) of all the
universe's objects?

Michael C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think that each configuration of the universe along the space-time
continuum is an act of observation by the universe of itself (whether
by human observation or interactions of particles). This particle
interaction helps explain the explicable state of twinned particles at
a distance as well. *Eternity might separate observations, but it is
unnoticed by sentient consciousnesses such as humans.

But for you to notice that it goes unnoticed, isn't that a paradox?
Unless you're not
human that is...

On Jul 8, 4:42*am, Giga2 wrote:
On 8 July, 03:40, Immortalist wrote:





What sort of things are they if they are things?

One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional
in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; that is to
say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can
be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an
existence in their own right.

It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and
processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and
substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.

Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the
objects and events that they contain?

Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space
and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more
complex than just sustained perceptual constants?

Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/

I think one fundamental aspect of Einstein's idea of spacetime is that
it is a single 'thing'.

In four dimemsions. When is 1 = 4? A family? When the things on each
side of the equation aren't of the same type.

Sometimes philosophies that fit in a nutshell, belong there.

On Jul 11, 7:08*pm, Wordsmith wrote:
On Jul 8, 2:42*am, Giga2 wrote:





On 8 July, 03:40, Immortalist wrote:

What sort of things are they if they are things?

One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional
in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; that is to
say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can
be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an
existence in their own right.

It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and
processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and
substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.

Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the
objects and events that they contain?

Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space
and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more
complex than just sustained perceptual constants?

Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/

I think one fundamental aspect of Einstein's idea of spacetime is that
it is a single 'thing'.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As an organic totality, yes, but scientists and
philosophers love to pick 'em apart.

W : )

Please define "organic totality".

On Jul 8, 7:31*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/8/10 6:26 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:





On 7/8/10 3:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
On Jul 7, 7:40 pm, wrote:
What sort of things are they if they are things?

Guess who said this:

"It will be helpful to distinguish space and time into absolute and
relative. Relative space and time are measurements."

That's Newton in the Principia. Einstein did quite a bit to reinforce
that notion.

Of course, that's also more or less Plato, Buddha, and the first words
of the Tao and the Bible.

Make of that what you will.

Scientific idea live with the support of empirical data.

* *Perhaps a better statement: Scientific idea live that fit
* *current observations, are not contradicted by an observation
* *and make fruitful predictions.

Something about experiments and testing need to be added to that.