Re: Time

From: jamikes <>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:04:28 -0400

Dear George,
would it be too strenuous to briefly (and understandably???)
summarize a position on time which is in the 'spirit' of the
'spirited' members of this list?
(I mean not the - as you wrote - " just a rehash of "old
> science-fiction technology" of the fifties and sixties").

I have a hard time (in formulation - wording) of things timeless
and spaceless, such a rehab would be useful. IMO time (and
space and the conventional cousality) are dimensions of the
mind (not necessarily human, rather of the universe - down to
anything) ordering THIS (our) universe, to make sense from the
impacts we 'live in'.
IMO other universes may have different 'ordering' features, not a
space - time - causality system like ours.

Best wishes

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Levy" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Time

> Tim
> I agree with you. Scientific American did not do a good job covering the
> issue of time. The days of Martin Gardner are over. Paul Davies' article
> on time travel making use of worm holes is just a rehash of "old
> science-fiction technology" of the fifties and sixties. Falling into a
> worm hole is identical to falling into a black hole and would completely
> destroy any (information carried by a) time traveler and would therefore
> make time travel pointless and unverifiable. I was disappointed by the
> absence of any mention of the MWI. The MWI, in my opinion, is essential
> in understanding time and has the potential to lead to "new
> science-fiction technology" for time travel and parallel universe travel
> "a la Roger Zelazny."
> George
> Tim May wrote:
> > The September issue of "Scientific American" is usually/always devoted
> > to some special theme. This issue is ostensibly devoted to "Time" and
> > problems associated with it. Articles include some physics articles,
> > some perception/psychology articles, and one or two on clocks and
> > timepieces.
> >
> > Sad to say, "Sci Am" has fallen far from its once lofty perch.
> > Flipping through the issue at a boostore, I found the first _half_ of
> > the thin magazine devoted to advertising, general news, and a special
> > 20-plus-page insert devoted to Italy and its industries, blah blah.
> >
> > Once the articles started, they were of course no longer the meaty,
> > detailed dozen or so solid articles. (Used to be the special September
> > issues were thicker than usual!) The articles were short, filled with
> > colorful graphics (but with less content than the SciAm graphics of
> > the 1950s-recent), but carried little information.
> >
> > The articles may be of use in introducing people to notions like
> > "block time," but the entire idea is covered in just a few paragraphs.
> > Not much to go on.
> >
> > Paul Davies does one of the physics articles on time...nothing in his
> > article not covered in much more detail in the books by Huw Price,
> > Julian Barbour, Kip Thorne, and others.
> >
> > I didn't buy the issue.
> >
> > Meanwhile, my study of lattice and order continues. I'll say more in
> > the future (if it exists, that is).
> >
> >
> > --Tim May
Received on Sat Aug 31 2002 - 14:06:50 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST