Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Now - The Moving Present
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Immortalist
Oct 13, 2012, 1:55:16 PM10/13/12
to
Now is often called the moving present it connects past and future and
sweeps through our lives and the universe. But what is this Now? Is it
an infinitely thin slice of time - the smallest imaginable unit? Does
time consist of infinite procession of these Nows?
Aristotle thought not. At any given moment Now, the previous Now must
have disappeared in its own lifetime, for then it was Now; but cannot
have disappeared in a subsequent Now, since the Nows must be
sequential and cannot coexist. Therefore it seems that there is no
succession of Nows.
Furthermore, some segments of time have already passed, and others are
to come, but none of them is Now, for Now cannot be a segment; it is
only the division between past and future. It follows that time itself
does not exist, since niether past nor present exists, and if there is
no Now, then there is no time.
sweeps through our lives and the universe. But what is this Now? Is it
an infinitely thin slice of time - the smallest imaginable unit? Does
time consist of infinite procession of these Nows?
Aristotle thought not. At any given moment Now, the previous Now must
have disappeared in its own lifetime, for then it was Now; but cannot
have disappeared in a subsequent Now, since the Nows must be
sequential and cannot coexist. Therefore it seems that there is no
succession of Nows.
Furthermore, some segments of time have already passed, and others are
to come, but none of them is Now, for Now cannot be a segment; it is
only the division between past and future. It follows that time itself
does not exist, since niether past nor present exists, and if there is
no Now, then there is no time.
JP
Oct 13, 2012, 2:33:57 PM10/13/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Oct 13, 8:55 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now is often called the moving present it connects past and future and
> sweeps through our lives and the universe. But what is this Now? Is it
> an infinitely thin slice of time - the smallest imaginable unit? Does
> time consist of infinite procession of these Nows?
In other words is time discrete?
> Now is often called the moving present it connects past and future and
> sweeps through our lives and the universe. But what is this Now? Is it
> an infinitely thin slice of time - the smallest imaginable unit? Does
> time consist of infinite procession of these Nows?
JP
>
> Aristotle thought not. At any given moment Now, the previous Now must
> have disappeared in its own lifetime, for then it was Now; but cannot
> have disappeared in a subsequent Now, since the Nows must be
> sequential and cannot coexist. Therefore it seems that there is no
> succession of Nows.
>
> Furthermore, some segments of time have already passed, and others are
> to come, but none of them is Now, for Now cannot be a segment; it is
> only the division between past and future. It follows that time itself
> does not exist, since niether past nor present exists, and if there is
> no Now, then there is no time.
time.
JP
Dissitr
Oct 13, 2012, 3:18:49 PM10/13/12
to
of Zenos paradox next...and in which direction ?
Immortalist
Oct 13, 2012, 5:07:08 PM10/13/12
to
dimensions, in which events can be ordered from the past through the
present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events
and the intervals between them, does that mean that space is also
discrete?
JP
Oct 14, 2012, 1:33:07 AM10/14/12
to
time" is a discrete representation of time.
I tried a few times to understand how a continuous representation/
model of time/space would be but I failed.
I cannot understand/represent change in a non discrete way.
JP
Dare
Oct 14, 2012, 10:08:48 AM10/14/12
to
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5524fd52-272e-4922...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
Is "Now" like a feeling....it "feels like" Now?
Is there Now without conscious experience of it?
What is change?
Is the experience of time "supervenient" from relationships of processes of change?
Is Now related to Here?
Does Here exist?
Are Here and Now only relative the some remembered There and Then?
Is there Now without conscious experience of it?
What is change?
Is the experience of time "supervenient" from relationships of processes of change?
Is Now related to Here?
Does Here exist?
Are Here and Now only relative the some remembered There and Then?
jonathan
Oct 14, 2012, 11:19:51 AM10/14/12
to
> "Dissitr" <diss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b0eff6d0-d3d5-48b2...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
as being not discrete or continuous, but both and neither at the
same time.
Like light, neither a wave or a particle, but both.
Like a cloud, neither condensed or evaporated but
constantly transitioning between the two.
Like a democracy, dominated neither by the rule
of law, or freedom, but both at the same time.
Like evolution, neither ruled by genetics or mutation
but both in balance.
ALL emergent properties are the result of the critical
interaction between system specific opposites in possibility.
The critical interaction between that which changes little
and that which changes constantly. Order and chaos.
There is no paradox in nature, it's the concept of objectivity
or proof that is the problem. The only way to make things
agree every time is to simplify to part details, to turn that
which is continuous into discrete. It's our fault.
The solution is to accept that since reality is both and
neither, so should our observing of realty be a combination
of objective and subjective methods.
But how can that combined method become repeatable
or 'scientific'. The starting point has to also follow the
example of reality. So the starting point, the source of
our fundamental laws, needs to become criticality.
Where the opposites are already entangled.
As in a cloud or fluid motion, both and neither.
Instead of our instinct of starting with one or the other.
The fundamental laws of nature must be written from the
clouds, not particles or gas. From fluid motion, not classical
or quantum. From that which emerges from the critical
interaction of the opposites.
Life is the starting point for the fundamental laws of the
Universe. As all things, physical, living or otherwise...evolve
following similar logical processes. Learn how all things
evolve, and you learn about reality.
Darwin, in the abstract, is the source of understanding
the simpler version of the physical universe.
Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Fred^4
Oct 14, 2012, 12:25:50 PM10/14/12
to
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Now is often called the moving present it connects past
>and future and sweeps through our lives and the universe.
No it does not. Good fucking grief. If you're going to spew about
>Now is often called the moving present it connects past
>and future and sweeps through our lives and the universe.
temporeal physics, go read a fucking book first.
Immortalist
Oct 14, 2012, 1:04:16 PM10/14/12
to
...within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some
propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the
rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be
able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a
system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules
and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with
its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical
system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them
contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly
prove according to its own defining set of rules.
Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as
smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited
by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected
truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which
emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express
ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely
understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system,
can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it
knows about itself...
...within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements that
can neither be proved or disproved. Hence one cannot, using the usual
methods, be certain that the axioms of arithmetic will not lead to
contradictions ... It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical
certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as
a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from
which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced...
...He proved it impossible to establish the internal logical
consistency of a very large class of deductive systems - elementary
arithmetic, for example - unless one adopts principles of reasoning so
complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of
the systems themselves ... Second main conclusion is ... Gödel showed
that Principia, or any other system within which arithmetic can be
developed, is essentially incomplete. In other words, given any
consistent set of arithmetical axioms, there are true mathematical
statements that cannot be derived from the set... Even if the axioms
of arithmetic are augmented by an indefinite number of other true
ones, there will always be further mathematical truths that are not
formally derivable from the augmented set...
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem
My conclusion; I don't think that the idea of proof is appropriately
used here, since certainty about anything's decidability is in doubt,
concepts included. But he may have shown how in order for the case of
complete enough justification for the needs of math, that
incompleteness is necessary, for sufficient warrent of the case.
--------------------------------
Russell's paradox represents either of two interrelated logical
antinomies. The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction
arising in the logic of sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem
to be members of themselves, while some do not. The class of all
classes is itself a class, and so it seems to be in itself. The null
or empty class, however, must not be a member of itself. However,
suppose that we can form a class of all classes (or sets) that, like
the null class, are not included in themselves. The paradox arises
from asking the question of whether this class is in itself. It is if
and only if it is not. The other form is a contradiction involving
properties. Some properties seem to apply to themselves, while others
do not. The property of being a property is itself a property, while
the property of being a cat is not itself a cat. Consider the property
that something has just in case it is a property (like that of being a
cat) that does not apply to itself. Does this property apply to
itself? Once again, from either assumption, the opposite follows. The
paradox was named after Bertrand Russell, who discovered it in 1901.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-russ.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
Immortalist
Oct 14, 2012, 1:45:22 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 9:25 am, repo...@scientology.org (Fred^4) wrote:
Your wrong. The Now is "often" called but not always called as such.
Actually I was reading a physics bok about time. I liked the authors
style because he presents various arguments about time in a similar
fashion as a philosophy of mind book might.
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Time-Secrets-Works-Measure/dp/1554079055/
But the theory your supporting has counter theories anyway.
Actually I was reading a physics bok about time. I liked the authors
style because he presents various arguments about time in a similar
fashion as a philosophy of mind book might.
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Time-Secrets-Works-Measure/dp/1554079055/
But the theory your supporting has counter theories anyway.
Immortalist
Oct 14, 2012, 1:58:08 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 7:08 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:5524fd52-272e-4922...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
For humans the now is just the minimal amount of time it takes to
refer to memory and formulate a plan of action after sensory
experiences have been had.
The important parts would be how big and fast objects are in the
nearby environment and how long it takes to formulate a resonse.
This like in math with "exhaustion" where we only need to calculate
things like pie to the point that the result works well enough to
satisfy our intentions. Newton's math still gets us to the moon but it
doesn't explain as much as Einstien. Newton's level of detail meets
the exaustion level (minimally sufficient)
Jacques Bernier's approach of matching. Wherin; We can place the
incommensurables between two magnitudes which are congruent with
rational number orderings showing that this incommensurable is less
than the one of this pair, but greater than the other. This was the
method used by Eudoxus:
the method of exhaustion.
By this method, the arithmetic value
of pi can be measured to any necessary
position, for such purposes as
carpentry, plumbing, and
so forth.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.software.year-2000/msg/09542544956450ba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exhaustion
Exaustion matches the limitations of sense and concept, sufficiently
to make equivalence and functionability which of course matches
available evidences which are within that magnitude.
In mathematics, an imaginary number (or purely imaginary number) is a
complex number whose squared value is a real number not greater than
zero... ...Imaginary numbers were defined in 1572 by Rafael Bombelli.
At the time, such numbers were thought not to exist, much as zero and
the negative numbers were regarded by some as fictitious or useless.
Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at
first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie,
where the term was meant to be derogatory.
Although Descartes originally used the term imaginary number to mean
what is currently meant by the term complex number, the term imaginary
number today usually means a complex number with a real part equal to
0, that is, a number of the form i-y. Zero (0) is the only number that
is both real and imaginary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number
http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:5524fd52-272e-4922...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
refer to memory and formulate a plan of action after sensory
experiences have been had.
The important parts would be how big and fast objects are in the
nearby environment and how long it takes to formulate a resonse.
This like in math with "exhaustion" where we only need to calculate
things like pie to the point that the result works well enough to
satisfy our intentions. Newton's math still gets us to the moon but it
doesn't explain as much as Einstien. Newton's level of detail meets
the exaustion level (minimally sufficient)
Jacques Bernier's approach of matching. Wherin; We can place the
incommensurables between two magnitudes which are congruent with
rational number orderings showing that this incommensurable is less
than the one of this pair, but greater than the other. This was the
method used by Eudoxus:
the method of exhaustion.
By this method, the arithmetic value
of pi can be measured to any necessary
position, for such purposes as
carpentry, plumbing, and
so forth.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.software.year-2000/msg/09542544956450ba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exhaustion
Exaustion matches the limitations of sense and concept, sufficiently
to make equivalence and functionability which of course matches
available evidences which are within that magnitude.
In mathematics, an imaginary number (or purely imaginary number) is a
complex number whose squared value is a real number not greater than
zero... ...Imaginary numbers were defined in 1572 by Rafael Bombelli.
At the time, such numbers were thought not to exist, much as zero and
the negative numbers were regarded by some as fictitious or useless.
Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at
first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie,
where the term was meant to be derogatory.
Although Descartes originally used the term imaginary number to mean
what is currently meant by the term complex number, the term imaginary
number today usually means a complex number with a real part equal to
0, that is, a number of the form i-y. Zero (0) is the only number that
is both real and imaginary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number
http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
JP
Oct 14, 2012, 2:10:53 PM10/14/12
to
>
> My conclusion; I don't think that the idea of proof is appropriately
> used here, since certainty about anything's decidability is in doubt,
> concepts included. But he may have shown how in order for the case of
> complete enough justification for the needs of math, that
> incompleteness is necessary, for sufficient warrent of the case.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Russell's paradox represents either of two interrelated logical
> antinomies. The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction
> arising in the logic of sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem
> to be members of themselves, while some do not. The class of all
> classes is itself a class, and so it seems to be in itself. The null
> or empty class, however, must not be a member of itself. However,
> suppose that we can form a class of all classes (or sets) that, like
> the null class, are not included in themselves. The paradox arises
> from asking the question of whether this class is in itself. It is if
> and only if it is not. The other form is a contradiction involving
> properties. Some properties seem to apply to themselves, while others
> do not. The property of being a property is itself a property, while
> the property of being a cat is not itself a cat. Consider the property
> that something has just in case it is a property (like that of being a
> cat) that does not apply to itself. Does this property apply to
> itself? Once again, from either assumption, the opposite follows. The
> paradox was named after Bertrand Russell, who discovered it in 1901.
>
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-russ.htmhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
A continuous representation is something that I cannot comprehend and
> My conclusion; I don't think that the idea of proof is appropriately
> used here, since certainty about anything's decidability is in doubt,
> concepts included. But he may have shown how in order for the case of
> complete enough justification for the needs of math, that
> incompleteness is necessary, for sufficient warrent of the case.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Russell's paradox represents either of two interrelated logical
> antinomies. The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction
> arising in the logic of sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem
> to be members of themselves, while some do not. The class of all
> classes is itself a class, and so it seems to be in itself. The null
> or empty class, however, must not be a member of itself. However,
> suppose that we can form a class of all classes (or sets) that, like
> the null class, are not included in themselves. The paradox arises
> from asking the question of whether this class is in itself. It is if
> and only if it is not. The other form is a contradiction involving
> properties. Some properties seem to apply to themselves, while others
> do not. The property of being a property is itself a property, while
> the property of being a cat is not itself a cat. Consider the property
> that something has just in case it is a property (like that of being a
> cat) that does not apply to itself. Does this property apply to
> itself? Once again, from either assumption, the opposite follows. The
> paradox was named after Bertrand Russell, who discovered it in 1901.
>
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-russ.htmhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
your quotes are somehow dealing with a discrete representation that
approximates a continuous reality (mostly the set theory), and that is
something that I have no problem understanding.
In my mind in a continuous reality you cannot move as your move will
separate you from the continuum and make you discrete.
IOW discreteness is a property of the representation not of what is
represented, it is the property that allows us to model reality.
If the reality is discrete, how are cuanta separated? it there
anything between them?
JP
Dissitr
Oct 14, 2012, 3:41:55 PM10/14/12
to
Sir Fred M. McNeill
Oct 14, 2012, 5:48:34 PM10/14/12
to
that works, such as nows. Similar as the various wave lengths
of 'light' get represented by the 'colors'. 'Humans' are constrained
to what 'worked' during 'our' hunter-gatherer days. Of course,
hubris then says that is 'reality'.
Bill Taylor
Oct 15, 2012, 2:17:00 AM10/15/12
to
Here is often called the moving locale, it connects N, S, E & W and
sweeps through our lives and the earth. But what is this Here? Is it
an infinitely thin dot of space - the smallest imaginable unit?
Does space consist of infinite array of these Heres?
Immortalist thought not. At any given place Here, neighboring Heres
must have disappeared in their own locations, for there they were
Here;
but cannot have disappeared in a neighboring Here, since the Heres
must be arrayed and cannot coexist. Therefore it seems that there is
no array of Heres.
Furthermore, some patches of space have already disappeared,
and others may appear, but none of them is Here, for Here cannot be
a patch; it is only the centre between N, S, E & W. It follows that
space itself does not exist, since no direction exists, and if there
is no Here, then there is no space.
- anon
sweeps through our lives and the earth. But what is this Here? Is it
an infinitely thin dot of space - the smallest imaginable unit?
Does space consist of infinite array of these Heres?
Immortalist thought not. At any given place Here, neighboring Heres
must have disappeared in their own locations, for there they were
Here;
but cannot have disappeared in a neighboring Here, since the Heres
must be arrayed and cannot coexist. Therefore it seems that there is
no array of Heres.
Furthermore, some patches of space have already disappeared,
and others may appear, but none of them is Here, for Here cannot be
a patch; it is only the centre between N, S, E & W. It follows that
space itself does not exist, since no direction exists, and if there
is no Here, then there is no space.
- anon
Zerkon
Oct 15, 2012, 6:38:30 AM10/15/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:55:16 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> Now is often called the moving present it connects past and future and
> sweeps through our lives and the universe. But what is this Now? Is it
> an infinitely thin slice of time - the smallest imaginable unit? Does
> time consist of infinite procession of these Nows?
Is now a part-thing-object having limits? Or is now a thought and all
> Now is often called the moving present it connects past and future and
> sweeps through our lives and the universe. But what is this Now? Is it
> an infinitely thin slice of time - the smallest imaginable unit? Does
> time consist of infinite procession of these Nows?
ideas-thoughts demand objectification via limitations no matter what is
being thought about?
>
> Aristotle thought not. At any given moment Now, the previous Now must
> have disappeared in its own lifetime, for then it was Now; but cannot
> have disappeared in a subsequent Now, since the Nows must be sequential
> and cannot coexist. Therefore it seems that there is no succession of
> Nows.
>
> Furthermore, some segments of time have already passed, and others are
> to come, but none of them is Now, for Now cannot be a segment; it is
> only the division between past and future. It follows that time itself
> does not exist, since niether past nor present exists, and if there is
> no Now, then there is no time.
The issue here centres on the nature of human thought not time.
A priori reasoning becomes dodgy if the premise is dodgy. 'Now' being a
division or segment or 'part' of a greater past, future whole is dodgy.
There can not be a now as there can not be a square circle given one can
only think of space/areas in terms of squares and circles. Here we have a
'now' (spaces) chained up in a Aristotled numerical analytic of parts
(squares) and wholes (circles) all in sequences so essentially 'now' is
being painted with bright a priori hues into a corner of non-existence
even though wherever 'now' stands can never painted simply because 'now'
is now standing on it.
Malcolm McMahon
Oct 15, 2012, 6:58:31 AM10/15/12
to
I speculate that the way around this problem (it wasn't a problem for Dunne, who was happy with the infinite regress), might be to ask if the "now" is actually continuous, or infinitesimal (which kind of comes to the same thing) or if the now might actually be of finite dimension, perhaps as much as a few seconds.
Suppose, instead of traveling into the future, as if on a train, we _walk_ into the future, each decision we make stepping us from one "now" to the next. The Nows become a well-ordered but not continuous set and, if we don't see it as a continuous movement, the higher time dimension might not be needed.
This probably would imply that each of us carries our own "now".
Immortalist
Oct 15, 2012, 10:45:31 AM10/15/12
to
>
> > My conclusion; I don't think that the idea of proof is appropriately
> > used here, since certainty about anything's decidability is in doubt,
> > concepts included. But he may have shown how in order for the case of
> > complete enough justification for the needs of math, that
> > incompleteness is necessary, for sufficient warrent of the case.
>
> > --------------------------------
>
> > Russell's paradox represents either of two interrelated logical
> > antinomies. The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction
> > arising in the logic of sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem
> > to be members of themselves, while some do not. The class of all
> > classes is itself a class, and so it seems to be in itself. The null
> > or empty class, however, must not be a member of itself. However,
> > suppose that we can form a class of all classes (or sets) that, like
> > the null class, are not included in themselves. The paradox arises
> > from asking the question of whether this class is in itself. It is if
> > and only if it is not. The other form is a contradiction involving
> > properties. Some properties seem to apply to themselves, while others
> > do not. The property of being a property is itself a property, while
> > the property of being a cat is not itself a cat. Consider the property
> > that something has just in case it is a property (like that of being a
> > cat) that does not apply to itself. Does this property apply to
> > itself? Once again, from either assumption, the opposite follows. The
> > paradox was named after Bertrand Russell, who discovered it in 1901.
>
> >http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-russ.htmhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entrie...
> > My conclusion; I don't think that the idea of proof is appropriately
> > used here, since certainty about anything's decidability is in doubt,
> > concepts included. But he may have shown how in order for the case of
> > complete enough justification for the needs of math, that
> > incompleteness is necessary, for sufficient warrent of the case.
>
> > --------------------------------
>
> > Russell's paradox represents either of two interrelated logical
> > antinomies. The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction
> > arising in the logic of sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem
> > to be members of themselves, while some do not. The class of all
> > classes is itself a class, and so it seems to be in itself. The null
> > or empty class, however, must not be a member of itself. However,
> > suppose that we can form a class of all classes (or sets) that, like
> > the null class, are not included in themselves. The paradox arises
> > from asking the question of whether this class is in itself. It is if
> > and only if it is not. The other form is a contradiction involving
> > properties. Some properties seem to apply to themselves, while others
> > do not. The property of being a property is itself a property, while
> > the property of being a cat is not itself a cat. Consider the property
> > that something has just in case it is a property (like that of being a
> > cat) that does not apply to itself. Does this property apply to
> > itself? Once again, from either assumption, the opposite follows. The
> > paradox was named after Bertrand Russell, who discovered it in 1901.
>
>
> A continuous representation is something that I cannot comprehend and
> your quotes are somehow dealing with a discrete representation that
> approximates a continuous reality (mostly the set theory), and that is
> something that I have no problem understanding.
My post implied that a continuous representation is something that we
> A continuous representation is something that I cannot comprehend and
> your quotes are somehow dealing with a discrete representation that
> approximates a continuous reality (mostly the set theory), and that is
> something that I have no problem understanding.
cannot comprehend. As examples I provided the "halting problem" and
the "paradox of the cardinal set". Before you make claims about them,
especially claims that one cannot make claims about them, maybe you
should learn some physics and philosophy. We are saying exactly the
same thing fool.
> In my mind in a continuous reality you cannot move as your move will
> separate you from the continuum and make you discrete.
> IOW discreteness is a property of the representation not of what is
> represented, it is the property that allows us to model reality.
> If the reality is discrete, how are cuanta separated? it there
> anything between them?
> JP
and ice all being water. Its all energy, some to hot to form chunks
and other cool enough to chunk chunk.
But the funny part of your position is your claim that you cannot say
anything about continuity but then you turn around and say things
about continuity.
JP
Oct 15, 2012, 2:26:08 PM10/15/12
to
I said " A continuous representation is something that I cannot
comprehend".
Give me an example of continuous representation.
It does not exist, the representations are only discrete.
So please read carefully before you make a fool of yourself.
JP
>
> > In my mind in a continuous reality you cannot move as your move will
> > separate you from the continuum and make you discrete.
> > IOW discreteness is a property of the representation not of what is
> > represented, it is the property that allows us to model reality.
> > If the reality is discrete, how are cuanta separated? it there
> > anything between them?
> > JP
>
> Since quanta are probably like ice chunks floating in water, the water
> and ice all being water. Its all energy, some to hot to form chunks
> and other cool enough to chunk chunk.
JP
> But the funny part of your position is your claim that you cannot say
> anything about continuity but then you turn around and say things
> about continuity.
I said " I tried a few times to understand how a continuous
representation/model of time/space would be but I failed.
I cannot understand/represent change in a non discrete way".
and
"In my mind in a continuous reality you cannot move as your move will
separate you from the continuum and make you discrete."
Or how Disstra pointed Zeno's paradoxes.
separate you from the continuum and make you discrete."
Anyway if your claim that " Since quanta are probably like ice chunks
floating in water, the water and ice all being water. Its all energy,
some to hot to form chunks and other cool enough to chunk chunk" is
correct then what is holding this water?
If what is holding it is discrete isn't water gonna slip thru the
cracks?
Maybe you should use your brain sometimes and not just quote somebody
else.
JP
Malcolm McMahon
Oct 16, 2012, 1:07:52 PM10/16/12
to
physics view, in which time is just a particular direction in four
dimensional space-time. The physics view doesn't divide time into past,
present and future except with respect to some particular event. It even
has problems with the arrow of time, the entropic arrow might even be a
local phenomenon.
Then there's time as we experience it, the present rushing forwards,
turning many valued future into single valued past. This kind of time
seems to exist only in relationship to consciousness.
Immortalist
Oct 16, 2012, 5:55:00 PM10/16/12
to
representation represent itself?
> It does not exist, the representations are only discrete.
Greene spacetimers but ya sound like a 140 character twitt!
> So please read carefully before you make a fool of yourself.
> JP
>
>
>
> > > In my mind in a continuous reality you cannot move as your move will
> > > separate you from the continuum and make you discrete.
> > > IOW discreteness is a property of the representation not of what is
> > > represented, it is the property that allows us to model reality.
> > > If the reality is discrete, how are cuanta separated? it there
> > > anything between them?
> > > JP
>
> > Since quanta are probably like ice chunks floating in water, the water
> > and ice all being water. Its all energy, some to hot to form chunks
> > and other cool enough to chunk chunk.
>
> Ok, but what separates the "slices of time"? , slices of no time?
> JP
>
> > But the funny part of your position is your claim that you cannot say
> > anything about continuity but then you turn around and say things
> > about continuity.
>
> No, again you don't pay attention when reading.
> I said " I tried a few times to understand how a continuous
> representation/model of time/space would be but I failed.
> I cannot understand/represent change in a non discrete way".
> and
> "In my mind in a continuous reality you cannot move as your move will
> separate you from the continuum and make you discrete."
> Or how Disstra pointed Zeno's paradoxes.
> Anyway if your claim that " Since quanta are probably like ice chunks
> floating in water, the water and ice all being water. Its all energy,
> some to hot to form chunks and other cool enough to chunk chunk" is
> correct then what is holding this water?
> If what is holding it is discrete isn't water gonna slip thru the
> cracks?
> Maybe you should use your brain sometimes and not just quote somebody
> else.
> JP
position.
0 new messages