Hi James;

Only mirrored back what you wrote first ..

## Advertising

Your search for symmetry is all encompassing!

'If the quantum paradigm'

`There are plenty of them. At least two! Democritus vs. Anaxagorus. Newton`

`vs. Leibniz. Atomism vs. Holism. M-Theory vs. Bohm/Chew.`

Concurrently, this implies that all systems that functionally extend fromsymmetry breaking events >>must of necessity be 'dimensional'

`There are many theories around positing more than three dimensions. Special`

`Relativity can be considered a 4 dimensional theory, M-Theory an 11`

`dimensional theory. They, I have noticed, are expressed as (3+1) or (10+1)`

`theories. The +1 is of course time. Clearly many physicists attracted by the`

`idea of time as dimension are nevertheless aware that in some sense time is`

`different.`

`But then, in what way is time asymmetric to space? You have no answer to`

`that.`

There may be operational reasons why time travel is or is not possible - Idon't have any >>comments on the conjecture of time travel - my onlystance being that I state it is and would be >>improper to consider Timeas -not- being dimensional.

`May I ask if you are as agnostic with regards to the possibility of walking`

`north and then south as you are with regards to moving forward and backward`

`in time? After all, space is a dimensional like time, isnt it? If I claimed`

`an ability walk in a circle, would you remain silent about that?`

`There are two ways in which time is not like space. I do not wake up to find`

`myself travelling haplessly north, however I do wake up and find myself`

`moving haplessly forward in time. Getting older and older by the plank`

`instant. Secondly, I cannot reverse the flow of time. I can of course`

`reverse freely my spatial vector.`

`Consider the manner in which relativistic theories freely interpret temporal`

`direction. Im thinking of Feynman diagrams interpreted as positrons moving`

`forward or electrons moving back in time. Formally these interpretations are`

`identical. To overcome the apparent absurdity of such a concept we dutifully`

`imagine space-time as a (3+1) continuum. As Broglie explains:`

`"Everything for us that constitutes the past, present and the future is`

`given en bloc. Each observer, as his time passes, discovers so to speak, new`

`slices of space-time which appear to him as successive aspects of the`

`material world, though in reality the ensemble of events constituting`

`space-time exist prior to his knowledge of them."`

`Its an ugly piece of writing, with obvious connotations of times within`

`times not to mention a deeply deterministic conclusion. (I contrast`

`'deterministic' with 'indeterministic' here, rather than with 'free will').`

`Im increasingly uncomfortable with such a picture. However - and this is`

`the point I was trying to make last week - I do not think that one can`

`account for temporal/spatial asymmetry by appealing to token reflexive`

`statements. Contrary to McTaggart and Dummet, I do not think that a complete`

`description of the universe can be given without spatial token reflexives`

`('here', 'there', 'this', 'that'). Dummet's contention that one can conceive`

`of space without adopting a perspective must be one of the most contentious`

`statements in contemporary Philosophy of Time. I cant do it, and I suspect`

`that Dummet cannot do it either. Consequently the obvious difference between`

`temporal and spatial 'dimensions' is not captured. If one wants to escape`

`the bloc universe view and entertain something more dynamic, I really think`

`that such an approach falls flat.`

`No one must be more intuitive. What is true with regards to reflexives, as`

`Ive said in a different way, is that no contradiction follows from the`

`statement 'what was there is now here', whilst paradoxes emerge from`

`statements like 'what was past is now future'. Whilst it might be formally`

`correct to allow for directions in time, it must be just conditional on an`

`ideal rather than actual concept of time.`

[c^2] is exactly an expression of the presence of 2 temporal dimensionsorthogonally configured, >>computing against a sheet region not a linearone. [Rose(c)1995].

`What then would it mean for two events to occur in temporally perpendicular`

`directions?`

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: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:11:01 -0700 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 ofpeas,> 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 Imstill> finding my feet with regards to many of the concepts and arguments onthis> forum. I dont consider myself to have a steadfast opinion one way orthe> 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.> Whats more, so far I have been more impressed by the rigour of theposters> on this board - I think the standard of writing is extraordinary, attimes> intimidating - than the 'unconventional' ideas that you think you are> entertaining. I dont see many unconventional views, infact I see viewsthat> seem to have a long lineage reaching all the way back to Plato andbeyond.> To take one example, when Bruno speaks of Zombies with varying degreesof> consciousness, I find it reminiscent of Leibnizs Monadology, not tomention> the idea that the universe can be conceived as a purely mathematicalentity,> that extension can be done away with. >> Perhaps it is the possibility of time travel that sounds unconventionalto> you, but here again, its similar to Aquinas' discussion of whetherangels> 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 operationallynon-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 unclearto> 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

_________________________________________________________________

`Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!`

`http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/`