Hi James;

Only mirrored back what you wrote first ..

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 from symmetry 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 - 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.

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, isn’t 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. I’m 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."

It’s 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').

I’m 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 can’t 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 I’ve 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 dimensions orthogonally configured, >>computing against a sheet region not a linear one. [Rose(c)1995].

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



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


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]


Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

Reply via email to