Hi James;

Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.


I’m not sure what this line of argument has to do with the price of peas, but as I have said, it wouldn’t be troubling to me to be considered conventional. However, I do think you are being hasty in so far as I’m still finding my feet with regards to many of the concepts and arguments on this forum. I don’t consider myself to have a steadfast opinion one way or the other yet.

I feel able to raise objections which of course must seem naive to a seasoned expert.

What’s more, so far I have been more impressed by the rigour of the posters on this board - I think the standard of writing is extraordinary, at times intimidating - than the 'unconventional' ideas that you think you are entertaining. I don’t see many unconventional views, infact I see views that seem to have a long lineage reaching all the way back to Plato and beyond. To take one example, when Bruno speaks of Zombies with varying degrees of consciousness, I find it reminiscent of Leibniz’s Monadology, not to mention the idea that the universe can be conceived as a purely mathematical entity, that extension can be done away with.

Perhaps it is the possibility of time travel that sounds unconventional to you, but here again, its similar to Aquinas' discussion of whether angels can jump from a to b without traversing the points imbetween, isn’t it?

A blend of rationalism, idealism and scholastic thought then, but unconventional? I’m not convinced about that, nor sure why it matters.

So, let me ask you the straight fundamental question
that rests at the heart of the topic of time (dimensional
Or not dimensional).  Is the universe operatively Abelian,
or non-Abelian or co-Abelian?

I'm leaning towards the idea that the universe is operationally non-Abelian. A state of the universe is a statistical result, so how we reverse the direction of time without invoking the idea of possible pasts is unclear to me. Perhaps you have the answer.

Regards

Chris.


From: James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:35:01 -0700


Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.

The challenging point of view I express goes beyond
the obvious qualia -differences- of space relative
to time, and instead identifies certain similarities,
that in turn identify how quantum mechanics and classical
relativity can be unified.  Interestingly, even Einstein
missed this key aspect - of his own mathematics.

So, let me ask you the straight fundamental question
that rests at the heart of the topic of time (dimensional
or not dimensional).  Is the universe operatively Abelian,
or non-Abelian or co-Abelian?

James



chris peck wrote:
>
> Hi James;
>
> >You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
> >mistake that all conventional thinkers
>
> I hope i am a 'conventional thinker'. It gives me reason to think im onto > something, that ive got something right. That seems to be how things become
> conventional.
>
> >spatial.  You and all .. conflate commutative -and-
> >non-commutative standards when analyzing dimensions.
>
> Im not sure I do.
>
> '>Let me pose this simple everyday definition that is
> >typically laxly understood/applied, to see what you think:'
>
> I can feel a dreadfully non everyday definition approaching :
>
> >Tenet JNR-01:  every exponent is indicative of 'dimension(s)',
> >                not just positive integer exponents.
>
> You should decide whether this is conventional (everyday) or not.
>
> Im fairly sure you are attacking a straw man. We can just say that 'now'
> races towards the future rather than the opposite without us exerting any > effort, whilst 'here' doesnt really move at all. Especially for a rock. At > least the a priori notions of each spatial dimension dont involve change of
> position, but our a priori notion of time at least involves a change of
> time. If time has no arrow one way or the other, if there is no succession
> of events, then time stops.
>
> I am left wondering whether you know what I mean at all when I say that we > are embeded in time in a way we are not in space. Its more the point that
> there is a direction to time rather than whether we characterise the
> direction one way or the other, or whether it can be flipped, or whether
> backwards in time need be or neednt be represented by positive integers. One
> way or the other, time moves on. And if it doesnt, everything stops.
>
> regards;
>
> Chris.
>
> >From: James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> >Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
> >Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:56:28 -0700
> >
> >Chris,
> >
> >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
> >situations.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >James
> >
> >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: 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 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!
> > > http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Winks & nudges are here - download MSN Messenger 7.0 today!
> http://messenger.msn.co.uk


_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger 7.0 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk

Reply via email to