chris peck wrote:
> 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.

Only mirrored back what you wrote first .. 
  just let it go, not imortant
> 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.

If the quantum paradigm is accurate, then it would be improper to
identify the universe as functioning wholly Abelian or non-Abelain.

Concurrently, this implies that all systems which functionally
extend from symmetry breaking events must of necessity be 
'dimensional' where Abelian simply refers to pre-broken
symmetry relations and non-Abelian to post-symmetry broken
relations ... where concurrency of pre- -and- post- is the
rule of the day.  And where it would be remiss of any one
dealing with all these relations, to think of them in any
way -except- fully and completely 'dimensional'; where the 
only distinction is the extent of packed and unpacked states

This allows for classical evaluation of quantum phenomena,
which heretofore has been a roadblock in computational
and relational analysis.

There may be operational reasons why time travel is
or is not possible - I don't have any comments on the
conjecture of time travel - my only stance being that
I state it is and would be improper to consider Time
as -not- being dimensional.

And as an example, I state that even Einstein did not
understand this aspect, one of the true points of his
equation E=mc^2 being that [c^2] is exactly an expression
of the presence of 2 temporal dimensions orthogonally
configured, computing against a sheet region not a linear
one. [Rose(c)1995].

Energy is a net abelian 3-dimensional compacture,
even and in spite of being computationally expressed
as a one-dimensional factor.

The whole structure of mathematics is currently 
under-valuated in any full and complete 'dimensional'
way. [Rose(c)1972]


Reply via email to