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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Levy" <[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

Reply via email to