On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 02:30:47PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Are there reason to believe that (physical, or local) time could have a
> scale invariant fractal dimension (between 1 and 2, bigger?) ? Does it
> make sense ?
>
I don't know if this is relevant, but Laurent Nottale published a
th
George Levy writes:
> Hal Finney wrote:
> >http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
> >http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf .
>
> Wouldn't it be true that in the manyworld, every quantum branchings that
> is decoupled from other quantum branchings would in eff
Le 21-juil.-05, à 08:33, George Levy a écrit :
Hal Finney wrote:
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.
Hal Finney wrote:
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf .
Wouldn't it be true that in the manyw
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf . In the excerpts
below, n is the number of space dimensions and m
chris peck wrote:
Thats why I make an appeal to something more intuitive. The A List as
concieved by McTaggart may lead to incoherence, but nevertheless, we are
embedded in the present. To meddle with its order is to conjure up paradox.
Reality can not be like that.
But are you just expres
cts are ab libbed as the actors interact with each other and not a
book that was written "in the beginning".
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "chris peck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005
ons being made that must be reconsidered...
What is your background?
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris peck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension&q
chris peck wrote:
> >>[c^2] is exactly an expression of the presence of 2 temporal dimensions
> >>orthogonally configured, >>computing against a sheet region not a linear
> >>one. [Rose(c)1995].
>
> What then would it mean for two events to occur in temporally perpendicular
> directions?
simil
>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
snip
But then, in what way is time asymmetric to space? You have no answer to
that.
There may be operational reasons why time travel is or is not possible -
I don't
temporal dimensions
orthogonally configured, >>computing against a sheet region not a linear
one. [Rose(c)1995].
What then would it mean for two events to occur in temporally perpendicular
directions?
Regards
Chris.
From: James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@esk
Interleaving:
chris peck wrote:
>
> Hi James;
>
> >Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
>
> Im not sure what this line of argument has to do with the price of peas,
> but as I have said, it wouldnt be troubling to me to be considered
> conventional. However, I do think you ar
TECTED]>
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:35:01 -0700
Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
The challenging point of view I express goes beyond
the obvious qualia -differences- of
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 01:01:29PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Esteemed Prof. Standish,
You're sounding German here: "Sehr Geherte Herr Professor Standish".
Its how they broke the enigma code, you know! At least I'm not the
"Very Estimated Professor Standish".
>
>Thank you for that cor
No, because I wasn't talking about artificially imposed orderings. One
can always define a strict ordering by means of something like
x < y iff Re(x) < Re(y) or Re(x)=Re(y) and Im(x)
> Le 13-juil.-05, ? 06:02, Russell Standish a ?crit :
>
>
> >Complex numbers indeed do not have an ordering (b
gt; backwards in time need be or neednt be represented by positive integers. One
> way or the other, time moves on. And if it doesnt, everything stops.
>
> regards;
>
> Chris.
>
> >From: James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> >
chris peck wrote:
Hi Jesse;
we can just understand it in terms of our brains having different memories
and anticipations of the future at different points along our worldline.
I think that is necessary for an understanding of time, but insufficient.
What governs which set of memories and a
chris peck wrote:
Im fairly sure you are attacking a straw man. We can just say that 'now'
races towards the future rather than the opposite without us exerting any
effort, whilst 'here' doesnt really move at all. Especially for a rock. At
least the a priori notions of each spatial dimension d
D]>
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:56:28 -0700
Chris,
You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the
outside the box inventive ones-
;Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:54:55AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How familiar are you with the details of quantum mechanics? Did
Chris,
You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the
outside the box inventive ones- continue to make:
you cannot identify, distinguish, specify or apply -
complete non-Abelian, non-commutative aspects to
considerations of 'dimensions' - whether
Le 13-juil.-05, à 06:02, Russell Standish a écrit :
Complex numbers indeed do not have an ordering (being basically
points on a plane)
So you pretend the axiom of choice is false. It is easy to build an
ordering of the complex numbers through it.
There is no ordering *which satisfies
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:54:55AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> How familiar are you with the details of quantum mechanics? Did you
> happen to know that the notion of an observable in QM has a complex value and
> that a real value only obtains after the multiplication of an observabl
[SPK]
Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static
"Being".
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a "reality"-
that results from the
ve of being".
I don't have a mental picture of what this statement means.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of tim
[SPK]
Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static "Being".
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a "reality"- that
results from the
Hi James;
I suspected that this part of my argument to Stephen would raise objections
from other members of this board.
'>Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential
pre-bias.'
It may be. Nevertheless, without the experience to hand at all, I maintain
that the asymetry
uch a
process involves a pernicious infinite regress.
regards
Chris.
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "chris peck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:26:45 -0
Dear Chris,
Thank you for this post! Interleaving...
- Original Message -
From: "chris peck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
; the state
of the water at that time, doesnt it?
regards.
Chris.
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything-List"
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:37:05 -0400
Hi Pete,
- Origin
On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:PC:But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary (or are 'processed') a somewhat arbitrary choice?[SPK] Please notice that the identification of "time" with a "dimension" involves the identification with each moment in tim
Hi Pete,
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Carlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything-List"
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There is a huge difference in kind between "existing" and
"
32 matches
Mail list logo
