On 1/25/2014 1:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 January 2014 09:55, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com
<mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote:
Strictly speaking, no, time is not a dimension. We define sequences of
associated
events to be so in our mathematical representations.
This is true of all physics. It's all mathematical representation (I hope Brent will
back me up on this...)
Yep, it's models all the way down (or at least to the turtle).
Brent
Picking on time and saying "it's just a mathematical representation" doesn't get us
anywhere. It's our best available mathematical representation - the one that has the
most explanatory power. Unless you can get to a more powerful explanation by removing
this assumption, I can't see why you would do it. (Please note that a more powerful
explanations would have to solve problems that exist, not ones that are covered
perfectly well by the existing explanation, like "becoming").
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
