> I'm working on it. I'm trying to find links that explain it, but > there are loads of links to filter through. Just a thought, though, > the future, from our perspective, has NOT already happened; it exists > in the future, but we have no access to it. I know it's difficult to > picture a 4-D whole. In a nutshell, the fact that time and space are > indivisible from one another implies that they are linked in that way > throughout all time and throughout all space. This means that, in the > whole of the 4-D space-time, all events are extant. Physics has much > more of a difficulty in explaining how we see time flow and perceive a > universe moving over time than it does with the concept that the > future is extant in the whole.
I certainly understand this conceptually. It just doesn't jive with what I'd heard before, so I'd be curious, if it's true, to read about what experiments / theories suggest that result. On Aug 26, 8:05 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 Aug, 04:47, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I actually disagree with your interpretation of the continuum (though > > of course I'd be happy to hear more thoughts). This is what the link > > said: > > > "This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, > > have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called > > 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the > > space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the > > mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because > > space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time > > must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a > > 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in > > space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any > > apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely > > consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time > > continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so > > on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time." > > > A continuum doesn't have to be infinite. Dictionary.com defines a > > continuum as "a continuous extent, series, or whole." It adds the > > mathematical definition of "a set of elements such that between any > > two of them there is a third element." Think of a line segment. It's > > finite, but continuous - between any two points on the line, there's > > another point. > > > When the speaker says "there are no missing points in space or > > instants in time," he is referring to the current set of space-time. > > Doesn't mean that the set can't expand. Indeed, the universe is > > expanding, thereby increasing the total amount of space in existence > > (and hence, the total amount of space-time in existence, as space is > > an aspect of space-time). > > Rather, when the speaker says "there are no missing points in space or > > > instants in time", he means that all spatio-temporal points are extant IN > > space-time. All. The fabric of space-time is expanding, true, but that > > expansion is already a part of the WHOLE of the 4-D object, of which we can > > only see one slice at a time. > > If you could spell out more clearly what, from science, suggests that > > the future has already happened, then I would be curious and grateful > > to hear it. > > I'm working on it. I'm trying to find links that explain it, but > there are loads of links to filter through. Just a thought, though, > the future, from our perspective, has NOT already happened; it exists > in the future, but we have no access to it. I know it's difficult to > picture a 4-D whole. In a nutshell, the fact that time and space are > indivisible from one another implies that they are linked in that way > throughout all time and throughout all space. This means that, in the > whole of the 4-D space-time, all events are extant. Physics has much > more of a difficulty in explaining how we see time flow and perceive a > universe moving over time than it does with the concept that the > future is extant in the whole. > > > > > On Aug 25, 11:43 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 25 Aug, 15:58, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Pat, > > > > > What is your source for the contention that the space-time continuum > > > > referred to by physicists means a continuum with defined endpoints? I > > > > agree that the word "continuum" often means something with defined > > > > endpoints, but as far as I am aware, its usage in the phrase "space- > > > > time continuum does not." > > > > But it does. Have a look at this > > > link:http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html > > > > But don't confuse 'missing points' with 'undiscovered points'. > > > From our perspective, the entire future is filled with undiscovered > > > points (thus appearing open), and there are many undiscovered points > > > in the past. But, within the whole of the continuum, none of its > > > points are missing. > > > > > I think that the theory of relativity holds that we can see things > > > > that happened far in the past (e.g., when we see an object that is 4 > > > > light years away, we are seeing how it looked 4 years ago), but not > > > > the future. As far as I kow, according to modern physics, the future > > > > hasn't happened yet. Do you have more information? > > > > Yes. You're mistaken about modern physics' view about the future. > > > At least since Einstein. The fact of a space-time continuum implies > > > that the continuum contains all of space and time. There is no space > > > or time that can ever exist that is not, already, a part of the > > > whole. And it is this point that I feel is vital to us understanding > > > the true nature of the universe and our part in it. > > > > > On Aug 25, 6:38 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 24 Aug, 16:36, showmethehoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Pat, how can continuum have ends points defined? > > > > > > How can it not? A continuum is defined by its ends. For example, a > > > > > line (a 1-dimensional entity) can be viewed as a continuum of points > > > > > (zero-dimensional entities) from the beginning of the line to its > > > > > end. Along the line, there are no missing points, i.e., the line is > > > > > continuous. So, too, our space-time continuum is continuous from > > > > > beginning to end with no missing points. The philosophical > > > > > implications of us living in a space-time continuum are enormous, as > > > > > it means that our conventional view of a future open to possibilities > > > > > is simply not realistic/accurate. Einstein knew this, but only > > > > > mentioned it rarely. To believe that the future is mutable is the > > > > > modern-day equivalent of still believing the Earth is flat. We have > > > > > to come to a new understanding of the universe and humanity's role in > > > > > it and that will not happen until we've removed the comforting > > > > > blindfolds we 'prefer'. > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 8:22 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 24 Aug, 12:51, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So, let me get this straight. You have a philosophy that, in > > > > > > > > > philosophy, absolute truths are impossible. How do you get > > > > > > > > > past the > > > > > > > > > dichotomy of having such a contradictory absoloute truth in > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > philosophy? Alternatively, if you back off from the > > > > > > > > > statement and say > > > > > > > > > that your statement above is only a relative truth, it, then, > > > > > > > > > logically allows for absolute truths to exist and {that they > > > > > > > > > could} be > > > > > > > > > duly ignored by you. Tricky stuff, Ian. Personally, I don't > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > you've stated your whole case, here. > > > > > > > > > Heh I think Pat that if you do not belive in a creator God then > > > > > > > > Ian's > > > > > > > > strance is going to be the best you will get. > > > > > > > > > Many of Ian's ilke may well (and justified too I believe) accuse > > > > > > > > people like you and I of being philosophicly lazy, that we > > > > > > > > practice a > > > > > > > > kind of philosphy of the gaps, that we do not like to work out > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > hard question of the absolute and so we call it God and have > > > > > > > > done with > > > > > > > > it. I don't think it is an acusation that we can easily defend > > > > > > > > against, do you? > > > > > > > > I think I've been fairly diligent in my attempts to discover > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > truth about the One (not that I'm finished, yet!!). In order to > > > > > > > defend against the rallying cry of those who offer no > > > > > > > comprehensive > > > > > > > alternative, one must proceed from the point of ontology. Once > > > > > > > we've > > > > > > > determined what it is that exists, THEN we can look at what it > > > > > > > can do > > > > > > > and how it does it. The answer to all the 'why' questions to > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > atheists would have you believe there are no reasonable answers, > > > > > > > leaves them only a pool of 'unreasonable answers' from which to > > > > > > > choose > > > > > > > and futher blocks progress. > > > > > > > One of the main arguments against God is that atheists see no > > > > > > > evidence that the universe is teleological, i.e., that it is > > > > > > > heading > > > > > > > in a particular direction with goals at the end. They overlook > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > FACT that we exist in a space-time continuum. The continuum > > > > > > > contains > > > > > > > ALL the past, present and future; that is, the ends are already > > > > > > > defined (as is all the middle). If the ends are already defined, > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > the universe is, most definitely teleological, and the stumbling > > > > > > > block > > > > > > > (of no teleology) crumbles into dust before the weight of one > > > > > > > stone > > > > > > > (Einstein). > > > > > > > My main point was that it should be obvious that some absolute > > > > > > > truths exist. Some of these may not be particularly useful until > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > extends them. Einstein looked for truth and found special (and > > > > > > > general) relativity. Absolute truths are, usually, things like > > > > > > > physical constants. But it is how those truths work together and > > > > > > > allow for the relativity in between that muddies the water and > > > > > > > makes > > > > > > > the absolutes seem less important or obscure.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
