Interleaving: chris peck wrote: > > Hi James; > > >Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris. > > Im not sure what this line of argument has to do with the price of peas, > but as I have said, it wouldnt be troubling to me to be considered > conventional. However, I do think you are being hasty in so far as Im still > finding my feet with regards to many of the concepts and arguments on this > forum. I dont consider myself to have a steadfast opinion one way or the > other yet.

## Advertising

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. > Whats 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 dont 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 Leibnizs 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, isnt it? > > A blend of rationalism, idealism and scholastic thought then, but > unconventional? Im 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 present. 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] James