On May 5, 1:59 am, "Danny Mayes " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think of time from the third person perspective as being simply a higher
> spatial dimension above 3 dimensional volume in the same way that 3
> dimensional volume exists above 2 dimensional area. In other words it's
> really the same as the other dimensions.
> So your comment about "3 dimensional time" is sort of right, but it is of
> course actually 4 dimensional. This means there are connections and
> relationships between points in this "hyperspace" that we can't imagine with
> our normal thought process because it is obviously something more than 3
> dimensional volume.
No, 3-d time would be quite different to the standard 4-d block
universe of general relativity. Even in relativity, the time
dimension is not exactly the same as the spatial dimenions. 3-d time
would result in a 6-d block universe (the standard 3-dimensions of
space, plus 3 extra time dimensions).
In any event, I've kinda modified my ideas and am not longer
postulating three time dimenions in a literal sense. What I'm
suggesting is simply that there may be more than one valid way to
define causality and it may arise from the fact that there are
different levels of organization. I'm a non-reductionist. Although I
agree there may be physical properties associated with everything,
there are many different levels of organization and I'm skeptical that
higher level properties of systems are entirely reducible to
explanations in terms of the lowest level properties. This would
allow for the possibility of there being more than one valid measure
of time flow.
> This 4 dimensional thing is eternal, and is the multiverse. Actually that
> is not even correct because it implies the passage of an infinite amount of
> time. Time is ultimately the relationships between things and how those
> relationships change. So for the entire multiverse it exists outside of
> time, or more accurately time exists as a part of it so it does not make
> sense to discuss the whole in the context of time.
> From the first person point of view the sum is greater than the parts. No
> individual frame of reference creates an observer moment because it
> obviously takes the passage of some time (passage of time being another way
> of saying a string of individual universe frames in the first person point
> of view). Therefore the illusion of time passing and moving in one
> direction is simply a result of the nature of consciousness. Consciousness
> involves linear thought process and we of course only seem to experience one
> outcome as you follow the line of existence of the SAS (that acronym used to
> be used a lot around here!) through the multiverse. From the 3rd person
> perspective, the existence of the SAS is a 4 dimensional space in this
> diagram (covering its existence in every universe it is described in), but
> again from its perspective on the diagram it is a one dimensional line
> through points in the 4 dimensional hyperspace it existed. This is of
> course its self-perceived time line.
> This idea may give us a theory as to the total information capacity of the
> multiverse, which may not be infinite. It may also explain the holographic
> principal, as suggested by Colin Bruce a few years ago.
There is no doubt that the nature of consciousness is closely
associated with time in some way - but exactly how? The relationship
between time (time flow and also causality) may be far closer than
many realize. Could consciousness in fact be *identical* to time in
some peculiar sense? This is in fact what I'm getting at with my
suggestion that there may be more than one valid way to define
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at