On 25 Aug, 14:00, Vam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat, I can see doubts regarding ends may be valid if the ends are
> defined in spatial terms < say, line ... with a circle, there are no
> ends ! >.
>
Next time(!) you draw a circle, start drawing it from the middle. A
circle is a 2-D figure, not a 1-D figure, like a line is. So the
analogy falls apart, I'm afraid.
> The ends need to be defined in terms of Time in case of parallel
> universes, and in terms of Time and Space in case of sub universes.
>
Yep! However, in our space-time, there are no purely spatial or
temporal points, so those doubts can be allayed and carried to the
dustpile. There is only one space-time continuum in which we
exist. ;-)
> On Aug 25, 4:23 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Aug, 11:56, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 2009/8/24 Pat <[email protected]>
>
> > > > > Assuming a continuum, why do you think a future there contained is
> > > > anything
> > > > > other than a perfectly indeterminate, fluctuating, and malleable one?
>
> > > > That's easy!! Because I would expect it to be like every other
> > > > part of the continuum. I.e., as fixed as is the past. Now, if you
> > > > and I can somehow figure out how to change the past (NOT just writing
> > > > an historical yet false account), then I'll be more open to a mutable
> > > > future. I can't see ANY basis for thinking that the continuum works
> > > > differently in some parts than it does in others; it's a continuum--
> > > > the rules for it always apply.
>
> > > How does this work with multiverses? Is there a single continuum that
> > > encompasses all space and all time, or does each delineation of multiverse
> > > have a separate continuum?
>
> > Either is, technically, possible; however, in my opinion, a
> > multiverse isn't required as 'that which exists' has access to all of
> > time. Parallel universes gains nothing over serial universes as the
> > end result, the accomplishment of all that energy can do, can be
> > accomplished by serial Big Bangs within one entity, provided that
> > entity is geometrically shaped to do that. In short, I don't believe
> > the concept of a multiverse passes Occam's razor, as there is nothing
> > gained by it, as 'the One' is not pressed for time, as it were.
>
> > > > On the opposite side of that question:
> > > > what makes you think that there would be a difference between the way
> > > > the future works and the way the past works? I can see absolutely no
> > > > basis for it; but, of course, I can't see everything. ;-)
>
> > > I wouldn't presume to know how either works, Pat.
>
> > > Ian
>
> > Yet you DO make presumptions about how it works. Thus the line of
> > questions and the beliefs that underpin them. There's nothing
> > inherently wrong about making presumptions, so long as you've weighed
> > as much evidence as you have had available. Mankind, in general, has
> > been ignoring the philosophical implications of space-time for the
> > better part of a century now. How much longer will we continue to try
> > to fool ourselves*?
>
> > * True rhetorical question. All answers, though, will be gladly
> > accepted, although not all may be true. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" 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
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
