Dear Danny,
the farthest thing from my mind is hostility or
acrimony.
I am not up to those theroetical considerations
of you, which Russell found reasonably treatable in his response. I am open to
the 'unrealistic' - my own worldview is beyond the reductionist scientific
domains - and I thought about your formulations something similar. I was
referring mostly to the language: it resembled to me as a 101 physics text with
ideas coming fromthe unrealistic.
Or is it strongly realistic - just not in my
terms?
New ideas should not be left for those with
'adequate scientific background' because the prejudice of the model-based sci.
limitations is hard to overcome. (Model in my terms here: meaning a
boundary-enclosed topical - or other - segment of the totality (wholeness)
considered as asubstantial 'unit').
In such respect Q science is a model, time is a
problem-spot for me in which I have not
reached a me-satisfying solution yet, I consider the Multiverse limitless in
terms of an "in our universe defined 'space' concept" and so 'unmappable' in our
views.
Your questions refer to things not applicable to
my concepts.
Which does not mean anythinglike "I am
right and you are wrong", or vice versa, just
that I am not thinking in these terms.
Sorry for my style.
John M
- Original Message -
From:
danny mayes
To: Russell Standish
Cc: John M ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; everything list
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 2:35
AM
Subject: Re: follow-up on Holographic
principle and MWI
I certainly have no ill intent, and am a little disappointed
that an idea can not be addressed in a proper way, that being to simply
explain the inherent problems. No need for hostility or
acrimony.That said, John has a valid point (if he showed up on my
legal lists that I am a member of and started giving legal advice perhaps the
reaction would be the same, though I'd like to think we, even as attorneys
believe it or not, might be a little kinder) and the "theories" (or rampant
speculations John may suggest) and explanations thereof really should be left
to those with adequate scientific background to handle them, and I therefore
overstepped my bounds to an extent.That said, I do have two
questions: 1. If it is true that "This is the distinctive
core of the quantum concept of time: Other times are just special cases
of other universes" (Deutsch, FOR, p.278), in the multiverse context, how can
time be thought of as anything other than an area map of the multiverse?;
2. Does it really matter if the cube is really a rectangle?
Regardless of the size of the "time area," (and it's proportionality to the
"real" spatial dimensions) you would still have to divide it by the length of
the world line, eliminating the volume. As I said before, this
is speculative. But hopefully someone will be willing to point out the
error of my ways, which I am sure would help more than just myself understand
all of this a little better.Russell
Standish wrote:
John, you make out like Danny is trying to "Sokal" out this list. I
don't think that is the case. His use of terminology is very muddled -
he is a lawyer, remember, and lawyers use language in a different way
to the rest of us.
I was trying to see if he had the germ of an idea here, that properly
expressed might provide an interesting insight. Alas I haven't been
successful so far...
Cheers
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 10:56:43AM -0400, John M wrote:
Danny,
(I think) I made the mistake to read your post below.
Did you compose it from the habitual vocabulary of physics-related sciences
to construct a gobbledygook that sounds VERY scientific?
I enjoyed it as abstract paintings. Don't look for sense in those either.
I figured you may have an identification for 'time' to image it as
geometrical.
I heard about one relationship netween (physical) space and (physical) time
it is called (physical) motion. You wrote:
[DM]: "It would be like drawing a square and asking why height is
proportional to length. The relationship is necessary. "
Same with your "cube(???)" and the time expressed as area. Or whatever.
I post these remarks only to make listmembers (whom I honor no end) to think
twice before spending their time and braingrease to work into it and -
maybe - getting a Nobel prize (ha ha).
If there is something logical, understandable, followable, in your position,
I would be happy to learn about it.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: "danny mayes" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Russell Standish" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "everything list"
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI
Russell Standish wrote:
What I was asking is why you think "time-area" should be proportional
to length. I can't see any reasoning as to what it should be
proportional to.
