Brent,

1. are you sure about our conceptualization to fit 'nature(?)'s'? we are 
impeded by our figments to explain the world(?) as we CAN, material means, 
physical world,
excuse me: Bruno:) numbers, while all we see (and less we understand of it) 
is a little segment - one primitive universe among the innumerable  others 
(we cannot even 'see' them) in the interpretation of our individual 
(personalized) mindset, our personal mini-solipsism (Colin) controlled by 
the tissue-tool (brain) we use.

2. According to 1.: are you sure that in the unrestricted World the 'time' 
concept is as we can imagine it? Sequence and consequence are human 
observations HERE.
We cannot include the totality into our thinking, not as a background and 
not as an interefficient relation of them all. So our conclusions are 
partial and forcible.

3. R. Bertrand was in 1935 obsolete as compared to the views of 'this list' 
(or: the cognitive inventory accumulated up to date in our epistemic 
enrichment). His words have to be updated to the present thinking. (More so 
the ancient savants!). I don't argue with his statements, just mention 
'caution'!.

4. I think what Abram said should reflect our dichotomy of 'continuum' vs. 
the quantized 'discontinua' - no matter in what scale one thinks. Dense?...
The only way we can imagine a change in a discontunuum (WE!!!) is to take 
two arbitrary points and compare the qualia. No explanation (so far) where 
and how they became different if you do not abide by a fixed scale. I think 
topology is in this respect underdeveloped (although I don't know topology). 
And so may be dimensions - thought of as diversely identified, yet possibly 
with continuous transition from one (named) to the other (named).
If the 'existence' is continuous (and we have no sign indeed to the 
opposite) then we are in deep trouble.

John Mikes

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@dslextreme.com>
To: <everything-l...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Time


>
> Abram Demski wrote:
>> Brent,
......
No, I'm saying that the time that appears in physics is a variable that
takes real values and so it has the topology of the real line. That
topology is continuous so every "moment" has other moments arbitrarily
close to it which are well ordered.  When I think about this it seems to
capture the idea of "sticking together".  If I pick any two times there
is a dense set of times joining them. Of course time also includes the
idea of direction.  Most fundamental theories of physics are time
symmetric and the "arrow of time" is tied to expansion of the universe
by statistics.

Bertrand Russell wrote a paper in 1935, which is reprinted in "Logic and
Knowledge" 1956 which considers how instants (i.e. moments) are
logically constructed from events (which have non-zero durations).  He
shows that "...the existence of instants requires hypotheses which there
is no reason to suppose true..."  It's rather technical, but you might
find it interesting.  I think Russell is right to regard events
(intervals) as fundamental and instants as idealized constructs.



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to