The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"

From: James N Rose <integrity.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:11:55 -0700

chris peck wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen;
>
> I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are provisos.
> Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to freely
> navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in time and it
> moves onwards in a single direction without anyone’s consent. Furthermore,
> where it possible to move around in time all sorts of paradoxes would appear
> to ensue that just don’t when I traverse the spatial dimensions. I’d appeal
> to an asymmetry between time and space, it is a dimension of sorts, but not
> one that can conceptually swapped with a spatial dimension easily. I don’t
> think the a priori requirements for space will be necessarily the same as
> those for time.


 
Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential pre-bias.
While it is true that we can calculate negative spatial values and not
identify negative temporal values easily - or at all in some cases - let
me describe motion in this alternative way for you:

1. All action/motion is never a single dimension but instead, a net-vector.
(be it spatially evaluated or temporally or both).

therefore, it is quite possible to say that the impression of time
as a positive single vector is masking its composite dimensional structure
which it is really made of.

2. Negative spatial distances are calculation illusions, usable only because
we can visually identify a sequence reversal and label the suquences
alternatively - even though - in a relativistic universe, ALL actions and
traversals of 'distance' are and can only be done ... positively.
"Negative" dimension values are conditional computational handwavings.

And again, even spatial traversals are net-vectors. A body in true motion
through space is ALWAYS in a positive net-vector; the same as
presumptively ascribed only to time.

Therefore, Time can and undoubtably does have, internal dimesional
structuring; contrary to the conventional view of it not.

James Rose
ref:
"Understanding the Integral Universe" (1972;1992;1995)
Received on Mon Jul 11 2005 - 10:17:15 PDT