Hi James;
>>Only mirrored back what you wrote first ..
Your search for symmetry is all encompassing!
>>'If the quantum paradigm'
There are plenty of them. At least two! Democritus vs. Anaxagorus. Newton
vs. Leibniz. Atomism vs. Holism. M-Theory vs. Bohm/Chew.
>>Concurrently, this implies that all systems that functionally extend from
>>symmetry breaking events >>must of necessity be 'dimensional'
There are many theories around positing more than three dimensions. Special
Relativity can be considered a 4 dimensional theory, M-Theory an 11
dimensional theory. They, I have noticed, are expressed as (3+1) or (10+1)
theories. The +1 is of course time. Clearly many physicists attracted by the
idea of time as dimension are nevertheless aware that in some sense time is
different.
But then, in what way is time asymmetric to space? You have no answer to
that.
>>There may be operational reasons why time travel is or is not possible - I
>>don't have any >>comments on the conjecture of time travel - my only
>>stance being that I state it is and would be >>improper to consider Time
>>as -not- being dimensional.
May I ask if you are as agnostic with regards to the possibility of walking
north and then south as you are with regards to moving forward and backward
in time? After all, space is a dimensional like time, isn’t it? If I claimed
an ability walk in a circle, would you remain silent about that?
There are two ways in which time is not like space. I do not wake up to find
myself travelling haplessly north, however I do wake up and find myself
moving haplessly forward in time. Getting older and older by the plank
instant. Secondly, I cannot reverse the flow of time. I can of course
reverse freely my spatial vector.
Consider the manner in which relativistic theories freely interpret temporal
direction. I’m thinking of Feynman diagrams interpreted as positrons moving
forward or electrons moving back in time. Formally these interpretations are
identical. To overcome the apparent absurdity of such a concept we dutifully
imagine space-time as a (3+1) continuum. As Broglie explains:
"Everything for us that constitutes the past, present and the future is
given en bloc. Each observer, as his time passes, discovers so to speak, new
slices of space-time which appear to him as successive aspects of the
material world, though in reality the ensemble of events constituting
space-time exist prior to his knowledge of them."
It’s an ugly piece of writing, with obvious connotations of times within
times not to mention a deeply deterministic conclusion. (I contrast
'deterministic' with 'indeterministic' here, rather than with 'free will').
I’m increasingly uncomfortable with such a picture. However - and this is
the point I was trying to make last week - I do not think that one can
account for temporal/spatial asymmetry by appealing to token reflexive
statements. Contrary to McTaggart and Dummet, I do not think that a complete
description of the universe can be given without spatial token reflexives
('here', 'there', 'this', 'that'). Dummet's contention that one can conceive
of space without adopting a perspective must be one of the most contentious
statements in contemporary Philosophy of Time. I can’t do it, and I suspect
that Dummet cannot do it either. Consequently the obvious difference between
temporal and spatial 'dimensions' is not captured. If one wants to escape
the bloc universe view and entertain something more dynamic, I really think
that such an approach falls flat.
No one must be more intuitive. What is true with regards to reflexives, as
I’ve said in a different way, is that no contradiction follows from the
statement 'what was there is now here', whilst paradoxes emerge from
statements like 'what was past is now future'. Whilst it might be formally
correct to allow for directions in time, it must be just conditional on an
ideal rather than actual concept of time.
>>[c^2] is exactly an expression of the presence of 2 temporal dimensions
>>orthogonally configured, >>computing against a sheet region not a linear
>>one. [Rose(c)1995].
What then would it mean for two events to occur in temporally perpendicular
directions?
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: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:11:01 -0700
>
>Interleaving:
>
>chris peck wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>Only mirrored back what you wrote first ..
> just let it go, not imortant
>
> > 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.
>
>
>If the quantum paradigm is accurate, then it would be improper to
>identify the universe as functioning wholly Abelian or non-Abelain.
>
>Concurrently, this implies that all systems which functionally
>extend from symmetry breaking events must of necessity be
>'dimensional' where Abelian simply refers to pre-broken
>symmetry relations and non-Abelian to post-symmetry broken
>relations ... where concurrency of pre- -and- post- is the
>rule of the day. And where it would be remiss of any one
>dealing with all these relations, to think of them in any
>way -except- fully and completely 'dimensional'; where the
>only distinction is the extent of packed and unpacked states
>present.
>
>This allows for classical evaluation of quantum phenomena,
>which heretofore has been a roadblock in computational
>and relational analysis.
>
>There may be operational reasons why time travel is
>or is not possible - I don't have any comments on the
>conjecture of time travel - my only stance being that
>I state it is and would be improper to consider Time
>as -not- being dimensional.
>
>And as an example, I state that even Einstein did not
>understand this aspect, one of the true points of his
>equation E=mc^2 being that [c^2] is exactly an expression
>of the presence of 2 temporal dimensions orthogonally
>configured, computing against a sheet region not a linear
>one. [Rose(c)1995].
>
>Energy is a net abelian 3-dimensional compacture,
>even and in spite of being computationally expressed
>as a one-dimensional factor.
>
>The whole structure of mathematics is currently
>under-valuated in any full and complete 'dimensional'
>way. [Rose(c)1972]
>
>James
>
_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
Received on Mon Jul 18 2005 - 13:58:56 PDT