>Time :
>- Relativity learns that the concepts of time and space are strongly
>related, and that in any other system of reference they can be quite
>different (relative to ....) . Idealists like Locke regard the concepts of
>space and time as complex ideas in the category 'relations' , thus as
>something humans use to relate events and perceptions in a understandable
>way. Others have suggested that 'space&time' is a innate/inborn idea for it
>is used 'a priori' (can you nurture a child in a way that it doesn't have a
>concept of 'space&time' ?); it is suggested here that 'space&time' is a
>pattern of the organic level, something nessecary for organisms to
>function,
>is this possible in the MOQ or is there a systematic argument against it ?
I don't think that space&time is a pattern at the organic level. My
interpretation of the MOQ is that things are pretty straight-forward in
their classifications. Since there aren't really any organic processes
operating to create the existence of 'space&time', i take it to mean
'space&time' isn't organic. So then what is it? I'm not sure... If it's an
idea that we have that we use as a kind of spatial relationship mechanism,
then I would say it's at the intellectual level, born out of our minds. But
certainly cells have some concept of space and/or time. If they didn't, some
little organism would be moving around and when it hit a wall, it wouldn't
do anything except perhaps still try to move forward into the wall. My
biology is a little rusty, but I don't think this happens to often. So
perhaps 'space&time' is at the inorganic level. I'm not aware of what
elements or compounds make up space&time though. But space&time would be in
the same category as gravity, so wherever it is, space&time goes.
Brian
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
