Hi James;
>Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
I’m not sure what this line of argument has to do with the price of peas,
but as I have said, it wouldn’t be troubling to me to be considered
conventional. However, I do think you are being hasty in so far as I’m still
finding my feet with regards to many of the concepts and arguments on this
forum. I don’t consider myself to have a steadfast opinion one way or the
other yet.
I feel able to raise objections which of course must seem naive to a
seasoned expert.
What’s more, so far I have been more impressed by the rigour of the posters
on this board - I think the standard of writing is extraordinary, at times
intimidating - than the 'unconventional' ideas that you think you are
entertaining. I don’t see many unconventional views, infact I see views that
seem to have a long lineage reaching all the way back to Plato and beyond.
To take one example, when Bruno speaks of Zombies with varying degrees of
consciousness, I find it reminiscent of Leibniz’s Monadology, not to mention
the idea that the universe can be conceived as a purely mathematical entity,
that extension can be done away with.
Perhaps it is the possibility of time travel that sounds unconventional to
you, but here again, its similar to Aquinas' discussion of whether angels
can jump from a to b without traversing the points imbetween, isn’t it?
A blend of rationalism, idealism and scholastic thought then, but
unconventional? I’m not convinced about that, nor sure why it matters.
>So, let me ask you the straight fundamental question
>that rests at the heart of the topic of time (dimensional
>Or not dimensional). Is the universe operatively Abelian,
>or non-Abelian or co-Abelian?
I'm leaning towards the idea that the universe is operationally non-Abelian.
A state of the universe is a statistical result, so how we reverse the
direction of time without invoking the idea of possible pasts is unclear to
me. Perhaps you have the answer.
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 23:35:01 -0700
>
>
>Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
>
>The challenging point of view I express goes beyond
>the obvious qualia -differences- of space relative
>to time, and instead identifies certain similarities,
>that in turn identify how quantum mechanics and classical
>relativity can be unified. Interestingly, even Einstein
>missed this key aspect - of his own mathematics.
>
>So, let me ask you the straight fundamental question
>that rests at the heart of the topic of time (dimensional
>or not dimensional). Is the universe operatively Abelian,
>or non-Abelian or co-Abelian?
>
>James
>
>
>
>chris peck wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger 7.0 today!
http://messenger.msn.co.uk
Received on Fri Jul 15 2005 - 13:54:08 PDT