You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the
outside the box inventive ones- continue to make:

you cannot identify, distinguish, specify or apply -
complete non-Abelian, non-commutative aspects to
considerations of 'dimensions' - whether temporal or
spatial.  You and all .. conflate commutative -and-
non-commutative standards when analyzing dimensions.

You also ignore basic arithmetic definitions and
pretend they hold no meaning, particularly when
those definition standards arise in weakly discussed 

Let me pose this simple everyday definition that is
typically laxly understood/applied, to see what you think:   

Tenet JNR-01:  every exponent is indicative of 'dimension(s)',
               not just positive integer exponents.


13 July 2005

chris peck wrote:
> 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:
> >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 anyone’s consent.
> >Furthermore,
> > > where it possible to move around in time all sorts of paradoxes would
> >appear
> > > to ensue that just don’t when I traverse the spatial dimensions. I’d
> >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
> >don’t
> > > 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!

Reply via email to