On Wed, Oct 6, Levi Pearson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Paul Seamons wrote:
>> And to return to a slightly more on topic and flame-able subject,
>> spending too much time worrying about the reality or dimensionality of
>> time is akin to using a graphics only screen saver that consume
On Wed, Oct 6, Levi Pearson wrote:
> On a related note, Hawking has apparently given up the search for a
> unifying "theory of everything" that describes the real fundamental
> "stuff" that everything is made of. He instead favors the idea that
> the ultimate theory is actually a set of theories t
On Wed, Oct 6, Levi Pearson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> Just as long as no one goes around calling it the "fourth dimension"
>> which it clearly is not.
>
> It clearly is the fourth dimension of the equations governing
> spacetime. My point that followed this
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Paul Seamons wrote:
> While I find the discussion about what is "real" intriguing, after some
> time I finally give up and laugh and remember what little I understand
> of Godel's Incompleteness theorem, essentially that a comprehensive
> definition of a system can
Quoting Matthew Walker :
> On Wed, October 6, 2010 10:12 am, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Jacob Albretsen wrote:
>>
>>> Meh. Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey.
>>
>>
>> You made some very good points aside from this, but I just wanted to
>> say yay for Doctor Who!
>
> Ditto!
On Wed, October 6, 2010 10:12 am, Levi Pearson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Jacob Albretsen wrote:
>
>> Meh. Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey.
>
>
> You made some very good points aside from this, but I just wanted to
> say yay for Doctor Who!
Ditto!
Is it time for the next season yet?!
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Jacob Albretsen wrote:
> Meh. Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey.
You made some very good points aside from this, but I just wanted to
say yay for Doctor Who!
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/opti
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 12:26 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> Did I say it was a spatial dimension? No. I said it was as real as
>> the spatial dimensions, which clearly implies that it is not itself a
>> spatial dimension.
>
> Just as long as no one goes
http://phenommark.xanga.com/videos/ffca9293530
Quoting Michael Torrie :
> On 10/06/2010 12:26 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> Did I say it was a spatial dimension? No. I said it was as real as
>> the spatial dimensions, which clearly implies that it is not itself a
>> spatial dimension.
>
> Just as
On 10/06/2010 12:52 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> And whether something
> is "real" or not in some philosophical sense has almost no bearing on
> whether that thing is useful or even calculable.
>
Well put.
While I find the discussion about what is "real" intriguing, after some
time I finally giv
On 10/06/2010 07:35 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 12:26 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> Did I say it was a spatial dimension? No. I said it was as real as
>> the spatial dimensions, which clearly implies that it is not itself a
>> spatial dimension.
>
> Just as long as no one goes around c
On 10/06/2010 12:26 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Did I say it was a spatial dimension? No. I said it was as real as
> the spatial dimensions, which clearly implies that it is not itself a
> spatial dimension.
Just as long as no one goes around calling it the "fourth dimension"
which it clearly is n
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Daniel C. wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> In any case, time doesn't become "real" through aggregate measurement
>> in the same way that temperature does.
>
> “Time may be an approximate concept that emerges at large scales—a bit
> l
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 11:02 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> Although you're correct that temperature is only a meaningful
>> measurement in aggregate (i.e. a large number of molecules), time is a
>> fundamentally different thing. To modern physics, the
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> In any case, time doesn't become "real" through aggregate measurement
> in the same way that temperature does.
“Time may be an approximate concept that emerges at large scales—a bit
like the concept of ‘surface of the water,’ which makes sense
On 10/05/2010 11:02 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Although you're correct that temperature is only a meaningful
> measurement in aggregate (i.e. a large number of molecules), time is a
> fundamentally different thing. To modern physics, the dimension of
> time is just as real and fundamental as the di
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Daniel C. wrote:
> There are several real things (temperature, possibly time) which do
> not "actually exist" but can be measured in aggregate.
If we're going to go off on this tangent...
Although you're correct that temperature is only a meaningful
measurement in
17 matches
Mail list logo
