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 anyones consent. Furthermore,
> where it possible to move around in time all sorts of paradoxes would appear
> to ensue that just dont when I traverse the spatial dimensions. Id 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 dont
> 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.
"Understanding the Integral Universe" (1972;1992;1995)