Hi James;
>You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
>mistake that all conventional thinkers
I hope i am a 'conventional thinker'. It gives me reason to think im onto
something, that ive got something right. That seems to be how things become
conventional.
>spatial. You and all .. conflate commutative -and-
>non-commutative standards when analyzing dimensions.
Im not sure I do.
'>Let me pose this simple everyday definition that is
>typically laxly understood/applied, to see what you think:'
I can feel a dreadfully non everyday definition approaching :
>Tenet JNR-01: every exponent is indicative of 'dimension(s)',
> not just positive integer exponents.
You should decide whether this is conventional (everyday) or not.
Im fairly sure you are attacking a straw man. We can just say that 'now'
races towards the future rather than the opposite without us exerting any
effort, whilst 'here' doesnt really move at all. Especially for a rock. At
least the a priori notions of each spatial dimension dont involve change of
position, but our a priori notion of time at least involves a change of
time. If time has no arrow one way or the other, if there is no succession
of events, then time stops.
I am left wondering whether you know what I mean at all when I say that we
are embeded in time in a way we are not in space. Its more the point that
there is a direction to time rather than whether we characterise the
direction one way or the other, or whether it can be flipped, or whether
backwards in time need be or neednt be represented by positive integers. One
way or the other, time moves on. And if it doesnt, everything stops.
regards;
Chris.
>From: James N Rose <integrity.domain.name.hidden>
>To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
>Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:56:28 -0700
>
>Chris,
>
>You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
>mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the
>outside the box inventive ones- continue to make:
>
>you cannot identify, distinguish, specify or apply -
>complete non-Abelian, non-commutative aspects to
>considerations of 'dimensions' - whether temporal or
>spatial. You and all .. conflate commutative -and-
>non-commutative standards when analyzing dimensions.
>
>You also ignore basic arithmetic definitions and
>pretend they hold no meaning, particularly when
>those definition standards arise in weakly discussed
>situations.
>
>Let me pose this simple everyday definition that is
>typically laxly understood/applied, to see what you think:
>
>Tenet JNR-01: every exponent is indicative of 'dimension(s)',
> not just positive integer exponents.
>
>James
>
>13 July 2005
>
>
>
>chris peck wrote:
> >
> > Hi James;
> >
> > I suspected that this part of my argument to Stephen would raise
>objections
> > from other members of this board.
> >
> > '>Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential
> > pre-bias.'
> >
> > It may be. Nevertheless, without the experience to hand at all, I
>maintain
> > that the asymetry exists in the sense that my movement in spatial
>dimensions
> > is second nature, movement in time - other than the apparantly
>inevitable
> > next step forward - is theoretical at best. It is not something I can
>just
> > do, I am in the 'now' in a stronger sense than I am 'here'.
> >
> > But, say time travel is possible, we have a futher asymetry in so far as
>the
> > idea that time is a dimension in the same sense that x,y,z leads to
> > paradoxes if we attempt to move around it. Spatial movement does not
>involve
> > paradoxes.
> >
> > I think this is enough to establish an asymetry in nature rather than
>just
> > experience.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> > >From: James N Rose <integrity.domain.name.hidden>
> > >To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > >CC: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
> > >Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
> > >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)
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
> > http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
>
_________________________________________________________________
Winks & nudges are here - download MSN Messenger 7.0 today!
http://messenger.msn.co.uk
Received on Wed Jul 13 2005 - 15:15:16 PDT