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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
CC: Stephen Paul King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 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.
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/
