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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes"; ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
