Time -- An invention of man
S D Rodrian
martin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Our scale of time is irrelevant, but
> you have to agree that there is a
> past, present, and future,
No I do not: The misconception can be easily
and quickly cleared up by realizing that
"existence is all that exists" ... this means
that "all that has existed" and "all that will
exist" is part of existence (it exists now).
In our universe "things" do not arise from
Nothingness or end in Nothingness (this means
that all "things" in the universe are merely
transitional "forms/shapes" ... the 1999 Subaru
does not into existence but is merely "shaped/
formed" from other "things" which already exist
... Alexander The Great did not cease to exist
--any more than he came into existence--rather,
"some things which already existed" were shaped
into Alexander The Great and afterwards "all that
was Alexander The Great" was turned into other
"things" with the result that Alexander The Great
is very much with us even NOW... who knows, part
of him may be in the sausage you ate today or
even in the wax in your ear). Therefore, if the
past is but a particular given form/shape, then it's
possible to recreate that given form/shape (do it
exactly, and the Abe Lincoln recreation himself
will not understand how "he" was brought into the
future). Again: Existence (the universe) is an almost
limitless number of forms/shapes (cause/effect) ever
in transition --one to the next to the next-- and
it matters not whether that shape/form is Mount
Everest or Michaelangelo's Pieta BECAUSE we too
are but transitional shapes/forms ourselves.
> so in fact time does exist. If time did not
> exist the universe would not exist.
The misconception here is when you cannot dissociate
"time" from "motion:" You have to realize that the term
"time" is a synonym for motion (motion is what exists,
"time" is just our pet name for it). The term comes
from our "idea of time" (or, timing one arbitrary motion
against/by some other arbitrary motion). Now consider
that ONLY motion defines existence (the universe) and this
clearly means that while the idea of time is not necessary
for existence (only motion is).
Our ultimate human wisdom is "all things change."
Our ultimate human folly: "It is possible to be original."
We apprehend the world to be one form (the present)
while remembering the world had another form (past)
and our brains have evolved to predict the form
the future will take. But it's all origami, in the end,
and the same piece of paper is always used.
> But i will say that time is a relative thing.
The reason why "time is relative" is because
the universe is a jumble of mostly independent
motions (independent here meaning they are mostly
capable of being considered in isolation by us)...
some slowing down, others speeding up. Now, "time
is motion, motion is time." As you can see: if
the nature of the universe is "a jumble of mostly
independent motions... some slowing down, others
speeding up" (each motion IS "a time" unto itself)
then absolutely... time IS relative. of course, given
the fact that the universe's "motions" are relative
(there is no absolute rest anywhere IN the universe).
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
RE:
> without a timekeeper everyone would have their own
> diffrent time scale.
>
> In article <39D17C99...@icecreamhasnobones.org>,
> icecream has no bones <phy...@icecreamhasnobones.org> wrote:
> > S D Rodrian wrote:
> > > Only for people who use Salvador Dali watches.
> >
> > Our metric of time was chosen for its convenience.
> > It could have just as easily been based on the interval
> > a sliver of pine takes to burn.
> >
> > >
> > > Apples & oranges: The fact that
> > >
> > > 1) "Everything does NOT happen at once"
> > >
> > > is unrelated to the fact that
> > >
> > > 2) "time is only the timing of what's happening
> > > ( = motions )... one arbitrary motion that's
> > > "happening" with/to/against some other motion(s)
> > > that's/R "happening."
> > >
> > > Period.
> > >
> >
> > What motion would I use to make a newborn lab rat
> > die of apparent old age before its siblings reach the
> > capability of breeding ?
ANSWER: Tie it to a fan's flap & flip it on.
Works every time.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sean Samis
news:8re74a$77$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8rdbm0$98k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> martin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Our scale of time is irrelevant, but
> > you have to agree that there is a
> > past, present, and future,
>
> No I do not: The misconception can be easily
> and quickly cleared up by realizing that
> "existence is all that exists" ... this means
> that "all that has existed" and "all that will
> exist" is part of existence (it exists now).
in other words, Martin, the "misconception" can be cleared up by sweeping it
under the rug of another misconception. even at best, S D Rodrian's
"explanation" does not explain why we sense, time, it just tells us to
ignore it.
> In our universe "things" do not arise from
> Nothingness or end in Nothingness (this means
> that all "things" in the universe are merely
> transitional "forms/shapes" ... the 1999 Subaru
> does not into existence but is merely "shaped/
> formed" from other "things" which already exist
... which has no bearing on the question of time; after all, people have
always known that they made stuff from other stuff; yet time keeps on
"keep'en on".
> ... Alexander The Great did not cease to exist
> --any more than he came into existence--rather,
> "some things which already existed" were shaped
> into Alexander The Great and afterwards "all that
> was Alexander The Great" was turned into other
> "things" with the result that Alexander The Great
> is very much with us even NOW...
the constituant atoms that at one time were Al the Great still exist, for
sure. but Al was more than just those atoms in any random collection, they
were Al only in some very specific configuration, and that Al is gone, gone.
the chuncks and lumps may be around, but Al is no more.
> who knows, part
> of him may be in the sausage you ate today or
> even in the wax in your ear).
oh yuck! Alexander the Great was a great lump of sausage and ear wax? SD,
you've seen too many Monty Python movies!
> Therefore, if the
> past is but a particular given form/shape, then it's
> possible to recreate that given form/shape (do it
> exactly, and the Abe Lincoln recreation himself
> will not understand how "he" was brought into the
> future).
but until that is done, Lincoln and ATG don't exist any more. recreation of
them would be a process existing in time; the very thing you said does not
exist.
> Again: Existence (the universe) is an almost
> limitless number of forms/shapes (cause/effect) ever
> in transition --one to the next to the next-- and
> it matters not whether that shape/form is Mount
> Everest or Michaelangelo's Pieta BECAUSE we too
> are but transitional shapes/forms ourselves.
transition being another time-related event. so you do believe in time?
> > so in fact time does exist. If time did not
> > exist the universe would not exist.
> The misconception here is when you cannot dissociate
> "time" from "motion:" You have to realize that the term
> "time" is a synonym for motion (motion is what exists,
> "time" is just our pet name for it). The term comes
> from our "idea of time" (or, timing one arbitrary motion
> against/by some other arbitrary motion). Now consider
> that ONLY motion defines existence (the universe) and this
> clearly means that while the idea of time is not necessary
> for existence (only motion is).
but motion (change in location) creates time; the particle was here then, is
here now, is heading toward there in the future. motion creates time. no
time, no motion.
> Our ultimate human wisdom is "all things change."
> Our ultimate human folly: "It is possible to be original."
you said that "Existence (the universe) is an almost limitless number of
forms/shapes"; therefore it is possible to be the first (original)
occurrence of a form in a particular location.
> We apprehend the world to be one form (the present)
> while remembering the world had another form (past)
> and our brains have evolved to predict the form
> the future will take. But it's all origami, in the end,
> and the same piece of paper is always used.
which does not rule out time. as the paper changes (to use your metaphor),
time occurs, even if the paper returns momentarily to a previous shape.
how silly. couldn't answer the question, obviously.
sean
Richard A. Schumacher
I wonder what he thinks now that he's dead?
David Sander
> Mathematician Kurt Goedel usta say that "time is an illusion".
> I wonder what he thinks now that he's dead?
Not a lot.
:-)
David
S D Rodrian
"Sean Samis" <sean....@compuware.com> wrote:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:8re74a$77$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8rdbm0$98k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > martin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Our scale of time is irrelevant, but
> > > you have to agree that there is a
> > > past, present, and future,
> >
> > No I do not: The misconception can be easily
> > and quickly cleared up by realizing that
> > "existence is all that exists" ... this means
> > that "all that has existed" and "all that will
> > exist" is part of existence (it exists now).
>
> in other words, Martin, the "misconception"
> can be cleared up by sweeping it
> under the rug of another misconception.
And that would be--? sean, please note that
I fully addressed the misconception I pointed out.
> even at best, S D Rodrian's
> "explanation" does not explain why we sense, time,
> it just tells us to
> ignore it.
We do NOT "sense time" any more than we "sense
inches or gallons" (sorry). We sense colors and
odours and textures and sounds (and some of us
even have a sense of taste--again: sorry). What
we do with "time" is to remember "the previous form"
long enough to compare it to "the present form"
and maybe even, if we're smart, calculate what
form the future will take (that's what the animal
brain evolved to do, along with other sundry
full-time duties, such as breathing...).
> > In our universe "things" do not arise from
> > Nothingness or end in Nothingness (this means
> > that all "things" in the universe are merely
> > transitional "forms/shapes" ... the 1999 Subaru
> > does not into existence but is merely "shaped/
> > formed" from other "things" which already exist
>
> ... which has no bearing on the question
> of time; after all, people have
> always known that they made stuff
> from other stuff; yet time keeps on
> "keep'en on".
But apparently you cannot put 2 and 2 together
and come up with 22. And so it behooves some
Kinderteacher to point out the obvious: sean,
"shapes/forms changing" ... that's what we call
"time." Why do things change in our universe?
Because our universe consists of nothing BUT
motions... some slowing down, others speeding up
(most of them slowing down because they're
speeding up the others, etc. see Newton).
> > ... Alexander The Great did not cease to exist
> > --any more than he came into existence--rather,
> > "some things which already existed" were shaped
> > into Alexander The Great and afterwards "all that
> > was Alexander The Great" was turned into other
> > "things" with the result that Alexander The Great
> > is very much with us even NOW...
>
> the constituant atoms that at one time were Al
> the Great still exist, for
> sure. but Al was more than just those atoms
> in any random collection, they
> were Al only in some very specific configuration,
> and that Al is gone, gone.
> the chuncks and lumps may be around,
> but Al is no more.
Then you will have to explain your casual claim
that "energy can be created/destroyed." [PS If your
explanation is merely that Al's "soul" is "now" in
Hades... don't bother, please.] Otherwise, know
this: We are all specific and quite transitional
(I believe the usual term is "mortal") forms.
Were we not we could never have become us:
"If in order to exist Existence would have had
to have a beginning... it could not exist."
> > who knows, part
> > of him may be in the sausage you ate today or
> > even in the wax in your ear).
>
> oh yuck! Alexander the Great was a great
> lump of sausage and ear wax? SD,
> you've seen too many Monty Python movies!
It's impossible to've seen too many MP movies.
(Besides, you did not notice Al was NOT
a lump of sausage or ear wax... he merely
"might have" become them: And what form do you
believe the constituents of your present form
will become, I wonder?) As for myself, I seldom
inquire of my barber what he does with my clippings
nor of the sewer what it does with my... which is
probably why the world's as polluted as it now is.
> > Therefore, if the
> > past is but a particular given form/shape, then it's
> > possible to recreate that given form/shape (do it
> > exactly, and the Abe Lincoln recreation himself
> > will not understand how "he" was brought into the
> > future).
>
> but until that is done, Lincoln and ATG
> don't exist any more. recreation of
> them would be a process existing in time;
> the very thing you said does not
> exist.
Perhaps you need a simpler model: Forget that
particles/subparticles "remember" their age
and think of a cup of water cycling between
melting and freezing... That is all that
exists; the universe is a cup of water forever
melting and freezing (cycling between those
two forms only). It does not remember from
one cycle to another. Now ask yourself: What
then is time? If you are the melted form, then
your frozen past is identical with/to your
frozen future. Aren't you "traveling back
thru time" then? What is the difference? What
would tell you "time" wasn't going backwards?
Well, in our universe of cause/effect you
perceive the continuous chain of forms becoming
other forms and do not seem to understand why
it is they so change (you believe it's some
mythical cause you call time, and others might
call God), but the simple truth is that it's
all merely motions: When the universe of matter
began all those motions began and they shall
continue until the universe of motions is no
more (motion = matter). But ONLY motions
will cease--the energy that caused them will
remain (to again cause the universe of matter):
Time IS symmetrical. The only way we have
of understanding the interactions of those
motions is Newton's laws of motions. Just keep
in mind that ours is an absolutely deterministic
universe (and why you and I do something is
also only explained by Newton's laws of motion).
--It's just that we just don't have the physical
ability to identify and compute all the individual
motions & their causes/interactions, that's all.
Nothing could be simpler than this explanation
of the universe in one ungrammatical paragraph.
> > Again: Existence (the universe) is an almost
> > limitless number of forms/shapes (cause/effect) ever
> > in transition --one to the next to the next-- and
> > it matters not whether that shape/form is Mount
> > Everest or Michaelangelo's Pieta BECAUSE we too
> > are but transitional shapes/forms ourselves.
>
> transition being another time-related event.
> so you do believe in time?
Time is motion, motion is time: The motions of
the universe do not "need us" to exist, only the
delusion that there is something other than motions
to it needs us to "exist." Motions are always
in transition (duh); and a whole universe of motions
in constant interaction (Newton) can paint an
almost infinite mosaic movie of marvels and wonders
for our discerning brains to revel in & enjoy. Lucky us!
> > > so in fact time does exist. If time did not
> > > exist the universe would not exist.
>
> > The misconception here is when you cannot dissociate
> > "time" from "motion:" You have to realize that the term
> > "time" is a synonym for motion (motion is what exists,
> > "time" is just our pet name for it). The term comes
> > from our "idea of time" (or, timing one arbitrary motion
> > against/by some other arbitrary motion). Now consider
> > that ONLY motion defines existence (the universe) and this
> > clearly means that while the idea of time is not necessary
> > for existence (only motion is).
>
> but motion (change in location) creates time;
sean, the only time anyone says, "All this lack of
money is making me poor" is when you're after a
cheap stupid laugh. TRY to understand that this is
the equivalent of what you're saying above (because
motion is time, time is motion... and the reason
why time is relative is ONLY because motion is
relative).
> the particle was here then, is
> here now, is heading toward there
> in the future. motion creates time. no
> time, no motion.
The reason why the dime was in your pocket is
that you put it there. The reason it's now on
the floor is because you put it there. The reason
why it's heading for the gutter is because you'll
kick it there. Not "time" but you. And so too
for every effect in the universe: it's caused
not by "time" but by some other motions(s).
> > Our ultimate human wisdom is "all things change."
> > Our ultimate human folly: "It is possible to be original."
>
> you said that "Existence (the universe) is
> an almost limitless number of
> forms/shapes"; therefore it is possible to be
> the first (original)
> occurrence of a form in a particular location.
Absolutely! But only as the product of some syllogism:
Two or more forms (motions) combine into another
form (direction). But all that has changed is the
direction of motion(s). You have NOT started a motion
from absolute rest (you have NOT created something
out of nothing, and you have not created energy in the
universe). ALL you have done is... made some waves.
[Have you EVER seen a movie monster which was not
a combination of all sorts of natural animals?]
> > We apprehend the world to be one form (the present)
> > while remembering the world had another form (past)
> > and our brains have evolved to predict the form
> > the future will take. But it's all origami, in the end,
> > and the same piece of paper is always used.
>
> which does not rule out time.
Which does not rule out motion, yes.
Time (the timing of motions) is only of
interest to people who want to meet on time:
Even WE can live without it (and some people
actually do so quite nicely, thank you).
> as the paper changes (to use your metaphor),
> time occurs,
Motion occurs, yes!
However, your memory of yesterday
exists only in your mind: The motions of the universe
are continuous and never-ending (your rest-frame
"snap-shot of your yesterday" is meaningless to
the universe). To the universe "yesterday" was
merely a stretch of distance covered by its (almost)
infinite motions.
> even if the paper returns
> momentarily to a previous shape.
That's all anything in our universe can do:
Change form/shape. Worst still: NOTHING in our
universe can STOP changing form/shape...
Neutrons & quarks will eventually dissolve (decay)
and even that new car you now lavish such care on
must turn into a rust heap someday. But you are NOT
poor because you don't have any money (you are poor
because you just can't seem to keep a job, or some other
personal shortcoming... medical or educational).
You know which, I assume.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
RE:
Gee, sean, you don't even know, "ask a silly question..."
SDR
Sean Samis
> In article <8rfkjc$p...@news.nl.compuware.com>,
> "Sean Samis" <sean....@compuware.com> wrote:
> > "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > news:8re74a$77$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <8rdbm0$98k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > martin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Our scale of time is irrelevant, but
> > > > you have to agree that there is a
> > > > past, present, and future,
> > >
> > > No I do not: The misconception can be easily
> > > and quickly cleared up by realizing that
> > > "existence is all that exists" ... this means
> > > that "all that has existed" and "all that will
> > > exist" is part of existence (it exists now).
> >
> > in other words, Martin, the "misconception"
> > can be cleared up by sweeping it
> > under the rug of another misconception.
>
> And that would be--? sean, please note that
> I fully addressed the misconception I pointed out.
you addressed the "misconception" by offering an alternative, what you did
not do was explain why your alternative is in any way preferable to
Martin's, nor what if anything was wrong with Martin's alternative (except
of course that it is flawed by not being accepted by you, which is an
insignificant flaw). so, why should anyone accept your alternative and
reject Martin's? when you can answer that question, THEN you will have
"fully addressed" it.
> > even at best, S D Rodrian's
> > "explanation" does not explain why we sense, time,
> > it just tells us to
> > ignore it.
> We do NOT "sense time" any more than we "sense
> inches or gallons" (sorry). We sense colors and
> odours and textures and sounds (and some of us
> even have a sense of taste--again: sorry). What
> we do with "time" is to remember "the previous form"
> long enough to compare it to "the present form"
> and maybe even, if we're smart, calculate what
> form the future will take (that's what the animal
> brain evolved to do, along with other sundry
> full-time duties, such as breathing...).
while it is true that our five (or six) senses do not include a "distance"
sense or a "volume" sense; we also do not have a "form" sense nor a "motion"
sense (not even the inner ear; it only senses acceleration which can be
experienced without motion). yet you seem to have no problem with people
sensing and remembering forms or motion. so in the spirit of consistency,
there is no problem with us recognizing familiar forms we name gallons or
inches or meters or time. time, again, is an entangled effect of motion;
there cannot be motion without time (motion is change in location over time:
it was there, is here, is heading over there)
> > > In our universe "things" do not arise from
> > > Nothingness or end in Nothingness (this means
> > > that all "things" in the universe are merely
> > > transitional "forms/shapes" ... the 1999 Subaru
> > > does not into existence but is merely "shaped/
> > > formed" from other "things" which already exist
> >
> > ... which has no bearing on the question
> > of time; after all, people have
> > always known that they made stuff
> > from other stuff; yet time keeps on
> > "keep'en on".
> But apparently you cannot put 2 and 2 together
> and come up with 22. And so it behooves some
> Kinderteacher to point out the obvious: sean,
> "shapes/forms changing" ... that's what we call
> "time." Why do things change in our universe?
> Because our universe consists of nothing BUT
> motions... some slowing down, others speeding up
> (most of them slowing down because they're
> speeding up the others, etc. see Newton).
and here is the issue: slowing down means "was going faster BEFORE (time)
than it is NOW (time) so this effect we call time exists. now it is true
that time is not a "thing", you can't drop a lump of time on your foot. but
motion is also not a thing, you cannot drop a chunk of motion on your foot
either. time is a tangible effect of an observable behavior.
time is analogous to a shadow, shadows are real, and definable and
measurable and omnipresent since light (EMR) fills the universe. a darkened
room is dark only because the walls/floor/ceiling block out light. a
darkened room is FILLED with shadow. where there is light and some object
capable of blocking it, there will also NECESSARILY be shadow.
where ever there is an object in motion, there will also be time.
> > > ... Alexander The Great did not cease to exist
> > > --any more than he came into existence--rather,
> > > "some things which already existed" were shaped
> > > into Alexander The Great and afterwards "all that
> > > was Alexander The Great" was turned into other
> > > "things" with the result that Alexander The Great
> > > is very much with us even NOW...
> >
> > the constituant atoms that at one time were Al
> > the Great still exist, for
> > sure. but Al was more than just those atoms
> > in any random collection, they
> > were Al only in some very specific configuration,
> > and that Al is gone, gone.
> > the chuncks and lumps may be around,
> > but Al is no more.
> Then you will have to explain your casual claim
> that "energy can be created/destroyed." ...
well, since i did not make such a statement i feel no need to explain it. i
DID say that CONFIGURATIONS or STRUCTURES made of energy or matter can be
destroyed, but that the constituent energy or matter remains UNdestroyed.
like a toy house made of LEGOs, one can destroy the house without breaking
the LEGOs.
> ... [PS If your
> explanation is merely that Al's "soul" is "now" in
> Hades... don't bother, please.] Otherwise, know
> this: We are all specific and quite transitional
> (I believe the usual term is "mortal") forms.
> Were we not we could never have become us:
> "If in order to exist Existence would have had
> to have a beginning... it could not exist."
again, since i never made the claim in question, this stuff about souls is
not relevant to me.
> > > who knows, part
> > > of him may be in the sausage you ate today or
> > > even in the wax in your ear).
> >
> > oh yuck! Alexander the Great was a great
> > lump of sausage and ear wax? SD,
> > you've seen too many Monty Python movies!
> It's impossible to've seen too many MP movies.
> (Besides, you did not notice Al was NOT
> a lump of sausage or ear wax... he merely
> "might have" become them: And what form do you
> believe the constituents of your present form
> will become, I wonder?) ...
after i die, i really don't care what becomes of my body. i could not care
less.
> ... As for myself, I seldom
> inquire of my barber what he does with my clippings
> nor of the sewer what it does with my... which is
> probably why the world's as polluted as it now is.
true.
> > > Therefore, if the
> > > past is but a particular given form/shape, then it's
> > > possible to recreate that given form/shape (do it
> > > exactly, and the Abe Lincoln recreation himself
> > > will not understand how "he" was brought into the
> > > future).
> >
> > but until that is done, Lincoln and ATG
> > don't exist any more. recreation of
> > them would be a process existing in time;
> > the very thing you said does not
> > exist.
> Perhaps you need a simpler model: Forget that
> particles/subparticles "remember" their age ...
since there is zero evidence of this, it will be easily forgotten.
> ... and think of a cup of water cycling between
> melting and freezing... That is all that
> exists; the universe is a cup of water forever
> melting and freezing (cycling between those
> two forms only). It does not remember from
> one cycle to another. Now ask yourself: What
> then is time? If you are the melted form, then
> your frozen past is identical with/to your
> frozen future. Aren't you "traveling back
> thru time" then? What is the difference? What
> would tell you "time" wasn't going backwards?
ahh, but this is a new topic. given time, why does it seem to move in only
one direction? remember that time is NOT a THING, it is an effect of
motion. the direction of time is then determined by the ability of
particles or energy to repeat their motions. in the EXTREMELY simplified
universe you envision (just a cup of water cycling between solid and liquid)
time does still occur, and it would be very difficult to tell if it were
moving forward or backward or both. but time itself would be detectable,
even ice molecules vibrate, and water molecules travel; here then, there
later. the directionality of time would be unclear perhaps, but time would
still be.
> Well, in our universe of cause/effect ...
cause and effect is a time dependent concept. the cause must precede the
effect IN TIME, or it cannot be the cause.
> ... you
> perceive the continuous chain of forms becoming
> other forms and do not seem to understand why
> it is they so change (you believe it's some
> mythical cause you call time, and others might
> call God), but the simple truth is that it's
> all merely motions: When the universe of matter
> began all those motions began and they shall
> continue until the universe of motions is no
> more (motion = matter). But ONLY motions
> will cease--the energy that caused them will
> remain (to again cause the universe of matter):
this is interesting, but not established as fact. where, after all, does
this eternal energy come from? will it all just restart again? why would
it run down at all? the claim that it is running down, even if it repeats
later, means that time exists NOW, or during the current cycle. will the
"next cycle" (if there is one, which is uncertain) be the same as the
current one? one can claim to know, but one cannot make it reasonable to
believe that claim.
> Time IS symmetrical. The only way we have
> of understanding the interactions of those
> motions is Newton's laws of motions. ...
Newton's laws are only a special case of more general, relativistic laws,
which are themselves known to be incomplete.
> ... Just keep
> in mind that ours is an absolutely deterministic
> universe (and why you and I do something is
> also only explained by Newton's laws of motion).
> --It's just that we just don't have the physical
> ability to identify and compute all the individual
> motions & their causes/interactions, that's all.
> Nothing could be simpler than this explanation
> of the universe in one ungrammatical paragraph.
it may be simpler, but is it true? i realize that you have no respect for
me, but i must respectfully decline to agree. all of physical reality
consists of matter and energy, and it is true that all is in constant
motion. there is zero evidence that the motion of matter/energy will ever
cease, we cannot even get it to cease in isolated particles. it probably
will, at some point IN TIME cease to be energetic enough to accomplish much,
the universe probably will sink into cold stasis, but there is no evidence
the motion will ever cease completely, much less is there any evidence that
this cold, motionless universe will suddenly leap back into life. how would
that happen? here perhaps it will by YOU who invokes a bored God.
> > > Again: Existence (the universe) is an almost
> > > limitless number of forms/shapes (cause/effect) ever
> > > in transition --one to the next to the next-- and
> > > it matters not whether that shape/form is Mount
> > > Everest or Michaelangelo's Pieta BECAUSE we too
> > > are but transitional shapes/forms ourselves.
> >
> > transition being another time-related event.
> > so you do believe in time?
> Time is motion, motion is time: The motions of
> the universe do not "need us" to exist, ...
agreed.
> ... only the
> delusion that there is something other than motions
> to it needs us to "exist." ...
disagree, see reasons below.
> ... Motions are always
> in transition (duh); and a whole universe of motions
> in constant interaction (Newton) can paint an
> almost infinite mosaic movie of marvels and wonders
> for our discerning brains to revel in & enjoy. Lucky us!
and time comes into existence the moment translation occurs. translation
occurs over time; even if it repeats.
> > > > so in fact time does exist. If time did not
> > > > exist the universe would not exist.
> >
> > > The misconception here is when you cannot dissociate
> > > "time" from "motion:" You have to realize that the term
> > > "time" is a synonym for motion (motion is what exists,
> > > "time" is just our pet name for it). The term comes
> > > from our "idea of time" (or, timing one arbitrary motion
> > > against/by some other arbitrary motion). Now consider
> > > that ONLY motion defines existence (the universe) and this
> > > clearly means that while the idea of time is not necessary
> > > for existence (only motion is).
> >
> > but motion (change in location) creates time;
> sean, the only time anyone says, "All this lack of
> money is making me poor" is when you're after a
> cheap stupid laugh. TRY to understand that this is
> the equivalent of what you're saying above (because
> motion is time, time is motion... and the reason
> why time is relative is ONLY because motion is
> relative).
good thing didn't make that lame joke, huh? no it is not the equivalent of
what i am saying; but you are getting closer; can we in normal usage, call a
person with a lot of money 'poor'? there are emotional and psychological or
even physical impoverishments, but if we restrict our consideration to
financial poverty, do the financially impoverished have much money? no; if
they did, they would not be considered "financially impoverished". one can
quibble around the margins, saying that financial impoverishment is lack of
SUFFICIENT money, but that is just quibbling. the question would then
become: do the financially impoverished have SUFFICIENT money? again, no.
so the lame joke is revealed, lack of sufficient money might not CAUSE
financial poverty, but it does ACCOMPANY financial poverty. whoever is
lacking in sufficient money is financially poor. you cannot have financial
poverty without insufficiency of money. they must occur together. and each
can be treated as a tangible thing; poverty has it's effects (social,
psychological, physical). and insufficiency of money has it's effects (the
same).
but which is cause and which is effect? cannot the social or psychological
or physical effects of poverty prevent one from acquiring more money?
constrictions in one's social contacts can adversely effect employment, most
people find a job through a friend or acquaintance, but the poor and the
not-poor tend to not socialize. psychological traits, paranoia, distrust,
belligerence, etc. can make acceptance at a workplace difficult; but they
are also traits common among the poor. so does poverty cause financial
insufficiency or vise-versa? Sociologists disagree, or conclude that they
re-enforce each other. is a person who has always been poor the same as a
middle-class person who has had a severe financial set-back? if the
middle-class person does not quickly escape their problem, will they tend to
become more like the life-long poor person?
time and motion also ACCOMPANY each other, each can be treated as a tangible
thing, and each re-enforces the other. no time, no motion. no motion, no
time. i personally believe that motion is primary, that motion is the
"cause" and time the "effect" (metaphorically) but for sure they cannot be
disentangled any more than financial poverty and insufficiency of money.
> > the particle was here then, is
> > here now, is heading toward there
> > in the future. motion creates time. no
> > time, no motion.
> The reason why the dime was in your pocket is
> that you put it there. The reason it's now on
> the floor is because you put it there. The reason
> why it's heading for the gutter is because you'll
> kick it there. Not "time" but you. And so too
> for every effect in the universe: it's caused
> not by "time" but by some other motions(s).
again, time is not a thing, time is an effect of motion, existing
legitimately as long as motion exists. it is perceptible and measurable.
> > > Our ultimate human wisdom is "all things change."
> > > Our ultimate human folly: "It is possible to be original."
> >
> > you said that "Existence (the universe) is
> > an almost limitless number of
> > forms/shapes"; therefore it is possible to be
> > the first (original)
> > occurrence of a form in a particular location.
> Absolutely! But only as the product of some syllogism:
then you accept what you previously called the "ultimate human folly";
originality?
> Two or more forms (motions) combine into another
> form (direction). But all that has changed is the
> direction of motion(s). You have NOT started a motion
> from absolute rest (you have NOT created something
> out of nothing, and you have not created energy in the
> universe).
starting from dead stop is not a requirement of originality in common usage.
in your usage you may be right, but that is an idiosyncratic meaning.
> ... ALL you have done is... made some waves.
> [Have you EVER seen a movie monster which was not
> a combination of all sorts of natural animals?]
> > > We apprehend the world to be one form (the present)
> > > while remembering the world had another form (past)
> > > and our brains have evolved to predict the form
> > > the future will take. But it's all origami, in the end,
> > > and the same piece of paper is always used.
> >
> > which does not rule out time.
> Which does not rule out motion, yes.
> Time (the timing of motions) is only of
> interest to people who want to meet on time:
> Even WE can live without it (and some people
> actually do so quite nicely, thank you).
or at least they think they do. some people live quite nicely believing
that the Earth is flat and the center of the Solar System. what some people
do is irrelevant.
> > as the paper changes (to use your metaphor),
> > time occurs,
> Motion occurs, yes!
which means time occurs.
> However, your memory of yesterday
> exists only in your mind: The motions of the universe
> are continuous and never-ending (your rest-frame
> "snap-shot of your yesterday" is meaningless to
> the universe). To the universe "yesterday" was
> merely a stretch of distance covered by its (almost)
> infinite motions.
... over time.
> > even if the paper returns
> > momentarily to a previous shape.
>
> That's all anything in our universe can do:
> Change form/shape. Worst still: NOTHING in our
> universe can STOP changing form/shape...
... over time.
> Neutrons & quarks will eventually dissolve (decay)
> and even that new car you now lavish such care on
> must turn into a rust heap someday. But you are NOT
> poor because you don't have any money (you are poor
> because you just can't seem to keep a job, or some other
> personal shortcoming... medical or educational).
>
> You know which, I assume.
>
> S D Rodrian
sean
<<< snipped a great lot of inactive stuff >>>
S D Rodrian
rlmassey <rlma...@mho.net> wrote:> > news:8re73n$71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <8rdbm0$98k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > martin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Our scale of time is irrelevant, but
> > > > you have to agree that there is a
> > > > past, present, and future,
> > >
> > > No I do not: The misconception can be easily
> > > and quickly cleared up by realizing that
> > > "existence is all that exists" ...
> >
> > that existence cannot exist unless
> > it has time to exist in.
> > If there's no time duration - there
> > cannot possibly be any existence.
You are confusing yourself with polemical
redundancies: Try for an elegant solution:
1) If there is no duration there is no time
2) If there is nothing enduring there is no duration
3) The THING that must exist is SOMETHING enduring
AND now you have ALL THERE IS TO EXISTENCE: Motion!
4) Where is TIME required AT ALL?!?!?!?!
(outside of your wanting to time one motion
against some other motion/motions)...
> > Even if something is totally
> > without movement it still has to
> > have time to exist in, otherwise it can't.
>
> An unproved assertion.
>
> Consider: "any problem and its solution
> that can be described by a
> finite number of words, can be saved
> in an UNCHANGING, TIMELESS book".
Can you tell me where I can get the materials
to build such a book: Most of my books are
already crumbling to dust!!!!
> Change itself may be described by
> fixed words! [can it really?]
Nope: Everything in our universe is
transitional, for a little while, mortal,
already a memory almost before it's born.
> These
> words may be memorized in a similar
> TIMELESS form by a human's synapses.
The reason human history is just a cycle
of endlessly repeating our same old mistakes
is not just only because of Alzheimer's.
> So, likely, no proof, 'understanding' may be
> in a timeless form. 'no
> proof' because 'understanding' is not
> rigorously defined here. However,
> if one 'responds' by his understanding,
> a sequence, time, is implied.
No one disputes the deterministic nature of
our reality... except where ignorance blinds
those who do to the immutable path of cause/effect.
> B U T, if one continually repeats
> his actions, there is a sense of
> CHANGELESSNESS, timelessness again!
More likely: Insane asylum.
> B U T, increasing entropy, implies
> that nothing can exactly repeat.
True only in the duration of the universe
of matter, but not in the existence of the
complete universe (the universe of matter is
only half of existence, the other half is
the universe of energy)... The universe of
energy "gives birth" to the universe of matter
which then "dies" back into the universe of
energy. Entropy increases only for the universe
of matter and returns to "zero" at the gate for
the universe of energy. So, "time IS symmetrical
for the complete universe" even though it
is asymmetrical for each of its halves in
isolation: Were it not so, what you would have
is SOMETHING (the universe of matter) from
NOTHING... which then returns to NOTHING. [This
is so impossible it's even impossible to imagine.]
But, if in order to exist, Existence would have had
to have a beginning... it would NOT exist ("energy
cannot be created or destroyed" et al). The complete
universe conserves its energy. Time is symmetrical.
Existence is everything that exists [nothing has
"really" ever ceased to exist, nothing has ever
"really" come into existence: The universe of matter
consists of an almost infinite number of motions,
some slowing down, others speeding up [Newton]
... and these motions construct the shapes/forms
which our brains understand BECAUSE our brains
evolved specifically to "see" eternal shapes and forms
in the passing pageantry before our so brief lives.
> I think this, and other things, means
> that no intelligence, nor any PART
> of any universe can understand or model
> itself, exactly.
There are many things which will probably remain
unresolved when we become extinct; but most of them
will most likely also remain tantalizingly within
our grasp--and what more can mortals like us ask 4?
> However, like
> evolution creations, blind chance
> and the 'selection' process of
> recognizing 'whatever increases entropy
> sooner' as automatic winner,
> create the other varities needed
> for increasing entropy in many
> situations.
Temperature.
> > > this means
> > > that "all that has existed" and "all that will
> > > exist" is part of existence (it exists now).
> >
>
> I think it is reasonable that: for
> a universe to be self-caused, it must
> be unbiased; and to be unbiased, all
> things must have 'equal' existence.
> Since some things are contradictatory
> or exclusive, they cannot exist
> together and it is different times
> that make this possible. For example:
> one is short and one is tall, occures
> in growth from childhood, occurs
> because of a change in time.
It is unreasonable to expect the universe
to resolve a paradox (which only exists in
the human mind). The universe NEVER thinks
that different sequences of a given motion
might exist "at the same time" ... the laws
of physics does not allow it. It's only we,
who can remember "the previous sequence" and
superimpose it over "the current sequence" (of
the same motion) in our minds (where pigs can
fly & trees sprout money for leaves) who can
do all this (although here "do" is but
figuratively). In the universe if two motions
clash they affect each other (both change)
because it's impossible for the same motion to
go in opposite directions at once (this just
cancels motion). [not 2 ends of the same motion]
> > Agreed.
> > But "only" because time is "still" passing,
> > and for no other reason.
> >
> > > In our universe "things" do not arise from
> > > Nothingness or end in Nothingness
>
> No. Consider the virtual particles
> of quantum mechanics. We have to
> assume something may exist if its life
> time is so short that we can't
> measure it. We have to accept that whole
> universes are comming into
> existence, everywhere, at all times.
This concept of "virtual particles" in processes that
fulfill the conditions of the uncertainty principle
does NOT mean that ghosts are interacting with matter
[e.g. "energy of an exchanged photon can be thought of
as "borrowed," within the limits of the uncertainty
principle (the more energy borrowed, the shorter the
time of the loan). Such "borrowed photons" are called
"virtual" photons to distinguish them from "real" photons,
which constitute electromagnetic radiation and can, in
principle, exist "forever"...] Any notion that ANYTHING
is "really" coming into existence is a gross misstatement
of the concept.
> > Agreed.
> > They come from time itself.
> >
> > > (this means
> > > that all "things" in the universe are merely
> > > transitional "forms/shapes"
> >
> > Agreed.
> > Transitional in time duration.
Translation: When changes are going on
they are changing! Please!
> Agreed.
>
> > > ... the 1999 Subaru
> > > does not into existence but is merely "shaped/
> > > formed" from other "things" which already exist
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Nice! Conservation of matter/energy.
> Except, this is not
> relativistically invarant because
> of non flat space-time and
> impssibility of a universal time or
> an agreed sequence of events by
> different observers.
Time is ONLY relativistic because motions
are relativistic (there is nowhere IN the
universe of matter ANYTHING at absolute rest).
Therefore it's very hard for two observers to
measure "a given motion" against Absolute Rest
and agree... they measure it against different
motions and therefore can never agree on/to
the absolute "speed" of the "given motion"
they're measuring. Duh.
> > In the appropriate duration of time.
> >
> > > ... Alexander The Great did not cease to exist
> > > --any more than he came into existence--rather,
> > > "some things which already existed" were shaped
> > > into Alexander The Great and afterwards "all that
> > > was Alexander The Great" was turned into other
> > > "things" with the result that Alexander The Great
> > > is very much with us even NOW
> >
> > Hmm, that's even more fanciful than
> > the time warp theory.
"An unproved assertion."
> Consider beings in a world 3 billion
> light years away, they see our
> world as a gas cloud: no Alexander,
> no us. That is, Alex might have
> existed for us but not for everybody!
Things exist not because they are known
to us--Only imagined things exist that way.
> > >... who knows, part
> > > of him may be in the sausage you ate today or
> > > even in the wax in your ear).
> >
> > Hmm, not impossible I suppose.
> > But in a different time duration.
That is only a paradox in your mind: In
"reality" the universe would never think of
taking the adult "back in time" and try to
stuff him into the child he was (albeit this
is a common occurrence in psychology).
Repeat after me: "There are NO paradoxes in
the universe--ONLY in the human mind."
> > > Therefore, if the
> > > past is but a particular given form/shape,
> >
> > Which of course it can't possibly be,
> > because it is entirely relative to
> > previous time duration as well.
The past is but "a remembered shape."
The present is a shape some of us recognize
better than others can recognize it.
The future is immutable and unchangeable
(and just barely infinitesimally open
to human recognition)... this is but
a reflection of our ignorance and limitations,
and not that the future is in any way unpredictable.
> Also from QM, we can not measure anything exactly.
That's a bit overly enthusiastic: We can still
measure a 12-inch foot. What we cannot measure
"absolutely/completely" ("exactly," if you wish) are
those things which are affected by our measuring
--except through second-hand equivalencies (and
Quantum Theory does this very neatly). This "grey
area of uncertainty" does NOT mean that there are
any exceptions to the laws of cause/effect... only
that cause/effect sometimes takes a path so tentative
that we erase it just by looking at/for it.
> > > then it's
> > > possible to recreate that
> > > given form/shape (do it
> > > exactly,
> >
> > Nope. That's absolute rubbish.
"An unproved assertion."
> > You can recreate given forms/shapes
> > but never the
> > original time reference.
An absolutely identical recreation (no
exception for "forces" or particles) would
be indistinguishable from the original
(and Abe Lincoln would know all he knew
and be the same age, have the same human
personality, and live to old age--if we
remove Booth from our recreation). Abe
would "wake up" with the identical memories
of yore and marvel how he was "transported
through time" into "the future." [This would
be Abe Lincoln and not an automaton.]
> > Time is a continuum, a whole dimension
> > - not just a measurement.
Motion continue (in three dimensions ONLY)
- and time is but our habit of timing some
motions against some other motions (a rather
perilous pastime in an universe where there is
nowhere in it anything at absolute rest).
> > > and the Abe Lincoln recreation himself
> > > will not understand how "he" was brought into the
> > > future). Again: Existence (the universe) is an almost
> > > limitless number of forms/shapes (cause/effect) ever
> > > in transition --one to the next to the next-- and
> > > it matters not whether that shape/form is Mount
> > > Everest or Michaelangelo's Pieta BECAUSE we too
> > > are but transitional shapes/forms ourselves.
> >
> > Agreed.
> > But only to the time reference to
> > which we or whatever existed.
The point IS that "the time reference" would
be annihilated: You could walk into the recreation
and it would be absolutely indistinguishable from
its original "form." You would "be" "back there"
in 1865 and if Lincoln is shot you would "be" a
witness to it & Abe would die "for real" and, if
you're half-way human, you would weep bitterly
that such a great man had died (all over again).
Then you could walk out of the recreation and there
would not be any difference whatsoever between your
doing that than if you had "really" traveled forward
in time to "the present" ... because 1865 is just
a shape which was and can be again and again ... as
soon as you have the means of reconstructing it "exactly."
> > > > so in fact time does exist. If time did not
> > > > exist the universe would not exist.
> >
> > Well, this man knows what he's talking about.
"Those with whom we agree are geniuses; those
who do not agree with us are idiots." --Human Nature.
> > > The misconception here is when you cannot dissociate
> > > "time" from "motion:"
> >
> > You cannot possibly have motion (let alone
> > existence) without time duration.
Trans. "You cannot have motion without motion."
> > There is no dissociation
> > to even be considered.
> > Time and motion are two entirely
> > separate and different states of existence.
> > Motion depends on time - but time
> > does "not" depend on motion.
This is a paradox IN YOUR MIND ONLY:
In "reality" the universe does not think
that Nothingness "exists" ... which is what
you are thinking of when you imagine time
without anything moving... or existing (since
existence = motion).
> > > You have to realize that the term
> > > "time" is a synonym for
> > > motion (motion is what exists,
> > > "time" is just our pet name for it).
> >
> > You must try to demonstrate this
> > piece of nonsense.
> > You have never done so yet, and that's
> > why it ain't acceptable.
> > I don't believe it's possible, but
> > leave it to you to prove me wrong.
My dear, I have demonstrated it SO MANY
TIMES and in SO MANY WAYS that it's the
greatest mental test just to keep coming up
with different ways of saying the same thing
--But I'm (almost) infinitely creative:
One need never have heard of the term TIME
to understand that "motion ceases to exist
when it stops" [no mind needed]. But one has
to know of motion to understand ANYTHING about
TIME... or to even so much as speak or think
of it [it's all in yo head].
> > > The term comes
> > > from our "idea of time" (or, timing
> > > one arbitrary motion
> > > against/by some other arbitrary motion).
> >
> > No. That is not how time is either
> > measured or assessed at all.
> > It is simply a continuous duration
> > - a continuum - how you measure it is
> > quite unimportant.
THINK: You cannot have a duration WITHOUT
something enduring! If I say "motion is all
that exists" I am saying that "whatever's moving"
is all that exists." You cannot have motion
without something moving (that's why the universe
of matter is ONLY composed of motion).
To assert that you can have TIME
as some sort of separate entity from motion
is a de facto assertion of a physical
impossibility: I understand there is still
a willingness among us primitive hominids
to believe in ghosts, but we should at least
have the integrity to refrain from conjuring
them up in the scientific disciplines!
> > The important bit, is with "nil" duration
> > there's "no" movement whatsoever,
> > and "no" existence.
> >
> > > Now consider
> > > that ONLY motion defines existence (the universe)
> >
> > But it doesn't, so why are we considering it?
> > Only "time duration" defines existence.
If that were so, then existence could exist
without ANY THING existing! ... This is only
possible in yo head--the universe is sane:
Only man is crazy (and a couple of women
of my acquaintance).
> > > and this
> > > clearly means that while the idea
> > > of time is not necessary
> > > for existence (only motion is).
> >
> > And consequently, this doesn't follow either.
Correction: You cannot follow it. [It's human
nature to believe that if One cannot understand
something it's impossible for anyone to understand
it: Do you have any idea what horrors this fallacy
has wreaked upon us poor creatures throughout human
history?]
> > > Our ultimate human wisdom is "all things change."
> > > Our ultimate human folly: "It is possible to be original."
> > > We apprehend the world to be one form (the present)
> > > while remembering the world had another form (past)
> > > and our brains have evolved to predict the form
> > > the future will take. But it's all origami, in the end,
> > > and the same piece of paper is always used.
> >
> > Agreed.
> > But in a different "time duration".
> > That's what will "always" be different.
"time duration" is a redundancy: Time IS duration.
The thing you cannot seem to grasp is that
a duration is not time (unless WE "time it").
> > > > But i will say that time is a relative thing.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > The reason why "time is relative" is because
> > > the universe is a jumble of mostly independent
> > > motions (independent here meaning they are mostly
> > > capable of being considered in isolation by us)...
> > > some slowing down, others speeding up.
> >
> > It's all good up to here.
> >
> > > Now, "time
> > > is motion, motion is time."
> >
> > You have yet to show and prove this.
Once more unto the breach: i.e.
"Motion is motion." If you need that to be proved
you need somebody to tie your shoelaces as well.
> > So far, it's a nonsense.
"The mirror of mankind" (you see only what you
believe is there, and not that's really there).
--Human nature.
> > > As you can see: if
> > > the nature of the universe is "a jumble of mostly
> > > independent motions... some slowing down, others
> > > speeding up" (each motion IS "a time" unto itself)
> > > then absolutely... time IS relative. of course, given
> > > the fact that the universe's "motions" are relative
> > > (there is no absolute rest anywhere IN the universe).
> >
> > I dispute this claim too.
It's your right to jump off a cliff.
(It's also illegal, by the way. So
be sure to do it only when you're
absolutely sure no cops are around.)
> > There is absolute rest in the void
> > of space (minus all the energy and
> > matter) itself.
Even you have to qualify your statement
because you KNOW it's whistling in the dark:
The idea that Nothingness "exists" is a delusion,
a crazy thought, malarkey, humbug, a crock,
it's... a reflection of the Mind's glorious
ability to think of things beyond the mere
limits of existence! That's what makes us
such marvelous creatures: We are quite nuts
(in a charming sort of way).
> > And there's a very very large amount of that,
You seyrrr-it!
> > including even the space
> > between sub atomic particles.
A sour note of sanity: Nothingness does not exist
(least of all inside our universe). When two things
that exist move away from each other SPACE is NOT
" created" (except figuratively/metaphorically)...
and, in fact, when two things IN our universe move
away from each other ... they yet always maintain
a connection (regardless how tenuous).
Godspeed, but down to earth:
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> >
> > TC
S D Rodrian
You are only pooh-poohing & trying to
establish a row of yes/no/yes/no...
I have (approximately 1.2 million times by now)
explained why there is no past/no future: Because
existence is all that exists: What you call past
and future are but forms/shapes. Take a blob of
dough and kneed it... make one form and then make
another form ad infinitum: What has been created?
What has been destroyed? SHAPES. FORMS. What are
shapes and forms? They are meaningful ONLY in
the human mind (we determine what forms they are
and what shapes they are). So too with the universe:
The universe only knows Existence (the past and
the future are mere transitional coincidences
among its motions... and it is only in the human
mind that such transitional coincidences remain
AS IF such impossible rest-frames had any reality).
> > > even at best, S D Rodrian's
> > > "explanation" does not explain why we sense, time,
> > > it just tells us to
> > > ignore it.
>
> > We do NOT "sense time" any more than we "sense
> > inches or gallons" (sorry). We sense colors and
> > odours and textures and sounds (and some of us
> > even have a sense of taste--again: sorry). What
> > we do with "time" is to remember "the previous form"
> > long enough to compare it to "the present form"
> > and maybe even, if we're smart, calculate what
> > form the future will take (that's what the animal
> > brain evolved to do, along with other sundry
> > full-time duties, such as breathing...).
>
> while it is true that our five (or six) senses
> do not include a "distance"
> sense or a "volume" sense; we also do not have
> a "form" sense nor a "motion"
> sense (not even the inner ear;
You need a biology refresher.
> it only senses acceleration which can be
> experienced without motion). yet you
> seem to have no problem with people
> sensing and remembering forms or motion.
> so in the spirit of consistency,
> there is no problem with us recognizing
> familiar forms we name gallons or
> inches or meters or time. time, again,
> is an entangled effect of motion;
Entangled only in your thoughts: It's
easier than you think. Try clearing your thoughts.
> there cannot be motion without time
> (motion is change in location over time:
> it was there, is here, is heading over there)
In a universe where ALL that exists is motion
you will have to define "time" without reference
to motion (if you can do that then you have indeed
proved that time is NOT motion). Good luck!
In a universe where ALL that exists is motion
you will have to define "time" without reference
to motion (if you can do that then you have indeed
proved that time is NOT motion). Good luck!
> time is analogous to a shadow, shadows
> are real, and definable and
> measurable and omnipresent since light
> (EMR) fills the universe. a darkened
> room is dark only because the
> walls/floor/ceiling block out light. a
> darkened room is FILLED with shadow.
> where there is light and some object
> capable of blocking it, there
> will also NECESSARILY be shadow.
Translation: Nothingness exists. Try this:
If what exists is Nothing, where does that
leave matter?!?!?! [Please resist the
temptation to claim that matter doesn't exist.]
> where ever there is an object
> in motion, there will also be time.
In a universe where ALL that exists is motion
you will have to define "time" without reference
to motion (if you can do that then you have indeed
proved that time is NOT motion). Good luck!
Then you agree with me: All that exists are
shapes/forms (made of energy which cannot be
created/destroyed, or E=MC^2). Now, that
wasn't that unpleasant, was it!
Well, as long as you concede this, why
not simply concede (the same thing
expressed differently) that motion is
what exists... and time is
just our "spin" on it?!?!?!?!
Hard to concede I'm right, eh!
> the direction of time is then
> determined by the ability of
> particles or energy to repeat their
> motions. in the EXTREMELY simplified
> universe you envision (just a cup
> of water cycling between solid and liquid)
> time does still occur, and it would
> be very difficult to tell if it were
> moving forward or backward or both.
> but time itself would be detectable,
> even ice molecules vibrate, and
> water molecules travel; here then, there
> later. the directionality of time
> would be unclear perhaps, but time would
> still be.
Actually that simple analogy tells ALL THERE IS
to our universe: The universe cycles between
a state of infinite (scalar) mass (energy) and
a state of matter (gravity-bound, self-bound energy).
Just as the reason why you can have a cup
full of ice is because it was full of water,
the reason why you can have a universe of matter
is because you have an universe of energy:
If you wish to use the time (entropy) analogy
then you will immediately realize that "Time
is as symmetrical for the complete universe of
matter/energy as it is for the cup of water/ice."
But, "If in order to exist, existence would have
had to have a beginning... it could not exist."
Just as with the cup's water/ice cycles, the
cycles of the complete universe between states
of matter and of energy (in isolation)... are
"timeless" in that the universe of matter ALWAYS
begins again from exactly the same state (or
primordial singularity of energy)... from where
is CAN ONLY implode AND NEVER "inflate/expand or
Big Bang." You can bet your soul on that.
> > Well, in our universe of cause/effect ...
>
> cause and effect is a time dependent
> concept. the cause must precede the
> effect IN TIME, or it cannot be the cause.
>
> > ... you
> > perceive the continuous chain of forms becoming
> > other forms and do not seem to understand why
> > it is they so change (you believe it's some
> > mythical cause you call time, and others might
> > call God), but the simple truth is that it's
> > all merely motions: When the universe of matter
> > began all those motions began and they shall
> > continue until the universe of motions is no
> > more (motion = matter). But ONLY motions
> > will cease--the energy that caused them will
> > remain (to again cause the universe of matter):
>
> this is interesting, but not established as fact.
Go thou to http://web.sdrodrian.com
and but make the tiniest of effort to understand:
You will. It's put in the simplest/clearest way
there.
> where, after all, does
> this eternal energy come from?
We may never really understand "energy" or
"force" any more than the universe understands
our illusion of physical solidity: We speak
to the universe of solid things and it answers
back that there are no fundamental particles
(just only more basic subparticles within all
the subparticles). The universe speaks to us
gravity and "forces" and we answer back that
we cannot see or touch these things, that they
are not even things but only incomprehensible
unphysical causes which can only be known by us
from the effects they have on matter... although
we do not know why/how they can affect matter!
> will it all just restart again? why would
> it run down at all? the claim that it is
> running down, even if it repeats
> later, means that time exists NOW,
> or during the current cycle.
Entropy is increasing in the universe of
matter, but decreasing (at the same time,
yes) in the universe of energy: Matter is
"dissolving" back to energy as the universe
of matter implodes and all its "solid" forms
"shrink" at identical rates.
> will the
> "next cycle" (if there is one, which
> is uncertain) be the same as the
> current one? one can claim to know, but
> one cannot make it reasonable to
> believe that claim.
This is the objection to the notion that
the primordial singularity always implodes
identically: The laws of thermodynamics
demand that the universe of energy (in order
to create the universe of matter) have "flaws"
in its homogeneity: This means what might
amount to "convection currents" running from
regions of higher values to regions of lower
values (energy). And this "probably" makes
for at least as much "chaos" in the universe
of energy as in the universe of matter. Which,
basically, explains why the cycle is eternal.
I once considered the moral implications of
a universe which always repeated identically:
http://theory.findhere.org (many years ago)
> > Time IS symmetrical. The only way we have
> > of understanding the interactions of those
> > motions is Newton's laws of motions. ...
>
> Newton's laws are only a special case of
> more general, relativistic laws,
> which are themselves known to be incomplete.
Trans. "We'll know more as we go along."
> > ... Just keep
> > in mind that ours is an absolutely deterministic
> > universe (and why you and I do something is
> > also only explained by Newton's laws of motion).
> > --It's just that we just don't have the physical
> > ability to identify and compute all the individual
> > motions & their causes/interactions, that's all.
> > Nothing could be simpler than this explanation
> > of the universe in one ungrammatical paragraph.
>
> it may be simpler, but is it true?
I'm as certain that it is true
as you are sure your wife is faithful:
Keep on top of it. But Occam's Razor
sez it's true (if you go in
for that sort of thing).
> i realize that you have no respect for
> me, but i must respectfully decline to agree.
Actually I'm just an old counter-puncher:
You treat me with respect and I treat you
with respect. You spit on me, and I'm gett'n
some hot crap...
> all of physical reality
> consists of matter and energy, and
> it is true that all is in constant
> motion. there is zero evidence that
> the motion of matter/energy will ever
> cease,
The laws of thermodynamics say it will cease:
Gravity is NOT magic but energy at work (its
work IS matter). Once entropy evens out
there will no longer be any matter. But there
will be energy. And this means: Back to Square 1.
> we cannot even get it to cease
> in isolated particles. it probably
> will, at some point IN TIME cease to be
> energetic enough to accomplish much,
> the universe probably will sink
> into cold stasis,
This is a fallacy growing out of the mistaken
idea that matter is fundamental in some way.
> but there is no evidence
> the motion will ever cease completely,
> much less is there any evidence that
> this cold, motionless universe will
> suddenly leap back into life. how would
> that happen? here perhaps it will
> by YOU who invokes a bored God.
Go to: http://web.sdrodrian.com
It's all there: how & why. You need only
seek to FIND.
> > > > Again: Existence (the universe) is an almost
> > > > limitless number of forms/shapes (cause/effect) ever
> > > > in transition --one to the next to the next-- and
> > > > it matters not whether that shape/form is Mount
> > > > Everest or Michaelangelo's Pieta BECAUSE we too
> > > > are but transitional shapes/forms ourselves.
> > >
> > > transition being another time-related event.
> > > so you do believe in time?
>
> > Time is motion, motion is time: The motions of
> > the universe do not "need us" to exist, ...
>
> agreed.
>
> > ... only the
> > delusion that there is something other than motions
> > to it needs us to "exist." ...
>
> disagree, see reasons below.
>
> > ... Motions are always
> > in transition (duh); and a whole universe of motions
> > in constant interaction (Newton) can paint an
> > almost infinite mosaic movie of marvels and wonders
> > for our discerning brains to revel in & enjoy. Lucky us!
>
> and time comes into existence the moment
> translation occurs. translation
> occurs over time; even if it repeats.
Only motion "exists." But, afterwards (after
we evolve) we may time one arbitrary motion
against another arbitrary motion... not because
it's really essential for survival: just to nitpick.
One day you will understand that ONLY the mind
can create "a tempest in a teacup." And then
you will take a hatchet to all that verbiage above,
understand that "lack of money" IS "poverty"
as well as that time IS motion/motion IS time.
> but which is cause and which is effect?
> cannot the social or psychological
> or physical effects of poverty prevent one
> from acquiring more money?
> constrictions in one's social contacts
> can adversely effect employment, most
> people find a job through a friend or
> acquaintance, but the poor and the
> not-poor tend to not socialize.
> psychological traits, paranoia, distrust,
> belligerence, etc. can make acceptance
> at a workplace difficult; but they
> are also traits common among the poor.
> so does poverty cause financial
> insufficiency or vise-versa? Sociologists
> disagree, or conclude that they
> re-enforce each other. is a person who
> has always been poor the same as a
> middle-class person who has had a
> severe financial set-back? if the
> middle-class person does not quickly
> escape their problem, will they tend to
> become more like the life-long poor person?
"lack of money" IS "poverty"
they do not accompany each other
or cause each other: they are the same thing
going by a different term.
> time and motion also ACCOMPANY each other,
> each can be treated as a tangible
> thing, and each re-enforces the other.
> no time, no motion. no motion, no
> time. i personally believe that motion
> is primary, that motion is the
> "cause" and time the "effect" (metaphorically)
> but for sure they cannot be
> disentangled any more than financial
> poverty and insufficiency of money.
Energy is the cause and motion (matter) the effect:
"That is all ye know on earth & all ye need to know."
Do you have any idea how many people
believe they are original?!?!?!
> > Two or more forms (motions) combine into another
> > form (direction). But all that has changed is the
> > direction of motion(s). You have NOT started a motion
> > from absolute rest (you have NOT created something
> > out of nothing, and you have not created energy in the
> > universe).
>
> starting from dead stop is not a requirement
> of originality in common usage.
> in your usage you may be right, but
> that is an idiosyncratic meaning.
People call themselves original if
they remove their trousers before farting!
> > ... ALL you have done is... made some waves.
> > [Have you EVER seen a movie monster which was not
> > a combination of all sorts of natural animals?]
>
> > > > We apprehend the world to be one form (the present)
> > > > while remembering the world had another form (past)
> > > > and our brains have evolved to predict the form
> > > > the future will take. But it's all origami, in the end,
> > > > and the same piece of paper is always used.
> > >
> > > which does not rule out time.
>
> > Which does not rule out motion, yes.
> > Time (the timing of motions) is only of
> > interest to people who want to meet on time:
> > Even WE can live without it (and some people
> > actually do so quite nicely, thank you).
>
> or at least they think they do. some
> people live quite nicely believing
> that the Earth is flat and the center
> of the Solar System. what some people
> do is irrelevant.
What all people do is irrelevant:
Relevancy is always TO someone.
S D Rodrian
> > explained why there is no past/no future: Because
> > existence is all that exists: What you call past
> > and future are but forms/shapes.
> >
>
> Would that i had more time to discuss this, for i read you
> often, Rodrian, and i enjoy your words and expressions,
> your mind.
I appreciate it.
> Just because man thinks up words and phrases that describe
> something does not make that something an invention. This
> is the epitome of hubris.
>
> The concept of time is a discovery, not an invention. We
> use many invented terms to describe time, just as we use
> many invented terms to describe "fire" and "ice," "wind"
> and "love."
>
> The wheel is an invention. The telephone is an invention.
> The light bulb is an invention. Religion may or may not be
> an invention. "Time," as the passage from one event to
> another, is a discovery, and is not man's alone.
But, what is not a discovery by "every" man? Thusly
walking a discovery, music is a discovery, twiddling
one's thumbs is a discovery... by every one of us
--but they are not discoveries made by Man (though
they can, in a sense, be called "inventions" by Nature).
[Language is almost never exact enough to express what
we mean without leaving some ambiguity in other people's
minds as to exactly what it was we meant. And, as a
direct consequence of this, we are often betrayed, by
how our own ideas find expression in our own thoughts,
into a false confidence that what we think makes sense
--we know what we mean, but we cannot articulate it
meaningfully enough for others.]
But, this "discovery" line of reasoning sets aside
the fact that ONLY Man "makes sense" out of comparing
a memory "rest frame" with/to a present "rest frame."
The memory of other animals may not work this way (for
example, your dog might "remember" something that
happened on Monday and something else that happened
on Tuesday... but it may not be possible for him to
"understand" that what happened on Monday happened
before what happened on Tuesday--e.g. your dog might
even "know/remember" you as some "timeless/eternal"
being... who hath always existed in "his dog world").
More simply: The nature of the universe is to change
(not from "rest frame" to "rest frame" but) through
smooth (unbroken/unpausing) motions... and it is our
nature (and our nature only) to "pick out" from that
never-ending unrelentingly constant motion... shapes
and forms "we" can use. [There are no "rest frames"
in the universe... we just make up our minds to
assemble them arbitrarily from the eternal jumble
of interacting motions of reality. You may believe
your house is a real "rest frame" in the universe,
but it is no more so than the peak of a wave breaking
upon the beach, and no more so than the Sun itself:
All of them are in the process of changing, and
"permanent" only in the "picture" snapped & filed away
by our memory.] It is, of course, no different than,
say, water seeking a form it can use (lowest level), or
trees seeking a form they can use (trunks long enough
to lift its leaves above the shade of other trees)...
We are not separate from Nature but part of her.
The human brain searches from among the chaotic jumble
of "abstract forms" (clouds, say) and "finds" a form
"there" it can recognize: We "see" an elephant in a
passing cloud, but is there really an elephant there?
No: The elephant is not an indispensable shape, it just
happens to be the shape of a curious/unique creature
we stumbled on... but once we have seen the elephant
we remember its form as meaningful, and thereafter we
search for the elephant form almost everywhere we look
and even manage to find it where there are no elephants!
This is also true with all our memories. The "shape of
Yesterday" is not an indispensable shape, it just happens
to be "a" shape we stumbled upon and remembered (and
forever after will "seek" to find again... the feeling
of deja vu, fore example). This mechanism is extremely
useful to us, regardless whatever shortcomings, because
in comparing "the shape of yesterday" to/with "the shape
of today" we can easily enumerate the differences and
enjoy the days of our lives, unlike a dog, in sequence
from the first (day we remember) to the last (yesterday).
This creates in us a feeling both of personal doom (we
know we're going to die), but, oddly enough, it also
gives us the opportunity to create a feeling of personal
immortality as well... as we "know" our erstwhile works
will outlive us, and that everything we achieve in the
short days of our lives therefore has some real meaning
above & beyond what it means just simply to us. [An eternal
being might never have a reason to do anything, we mortals
are only too well aware that if we do not accomplish it now
it might never be accomplished at all: There are SO MANY
things which will NEVER be done if YOU don't do it!]
> What we call "past" is the discovery that there is something
> that has happened before, that we may learn from it.
>
> What we call the "present" or "now" is the discovery that
> there is a fleeting moment in time that has never come before,
> and will never come again; a moment that is worth living to
> its fullest.
>
> What we call the "future" is the discovery that there is a
> kind of time that we have not seen yet, a kind of time that
> if we use wisely, while learning from the past and while
> enjoying the present to its fullest, we can invent things
> that we can happily look forward to.
>
> The discovery of time was made long before humans evolved.
> At one time in the past, hunters of other species flourished.
> They knew of the seasons of time. They knew that in a certain
> season, at a certain time, a certain kind of game would migrate
> through their hunting territory. They knew this from their
> knowledge of the past. They knew that their hungry bellies at
> least had this to look forward to. And they were seldom if ever
> wrong.
Putting aside your over-anthropomorphizing of dinosaurs,
say; we agree on the basics, and differ only on the proper
way to look at them: My principal interest is to arrive at
a description of the universe which is as free as possible
from our human prejudices (perhaps impossible, but always
helpful for a profounder (closer) understanding of reality).
> Or are we to believe that these early hunters, perhaps lions,
> or maybe dinosaurs, or perhaps even one-celled amoebae were
> the inventors of "time?" --
This is certain: They never even gave it a thought!
This does not mean they understood the universe "better"
than we. Nor even that they enjoyed more natural (care
free) lives. I enjoy thinking, even with all its baggage.
And I even enjoy mortality, even with all its doom. It
simply means that, for them, existence was mindless
[mindless = timeless]. But notice that they did not need
TIME in any way, shape, or form to exist, to continue.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> --
> Indelibly yours, "inter nos"
> Paine
> http://painellsworth.net/ <<<!>>>
> xoxoxox \*.*/
> www.themestream.com/authors/83519.html Or-
> http://home.att.net/~paine_ellsworth/TS.htm
S D Rodrian
"Phil Taylor" <tayl...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't it have been easier just to say
> that if the universe is eternal
> then time is irrelevant???
Easier perhaps, but not as much fun.
> To someone immortal, time is also irrelevant.
> Our calulation of time is actually a way to
> measure where we are in relation
> to the sun in our solar system, nothing more.
Actually Einstein's "space-time" is a method
by which to locate anything in the universe:
That's right... a map. That's all.
> This was basically due to the
> fact that crops needed to be planted at
> a certain season and harvested at a
> certain season.
> Enterprising people have turned time into
> a neat way to make money
> without working for it (interest),
Objection please: Man A work very hard for money
he put in Investment (that = his work). Man B then
borrow Investment to work for him and he got to pay
for work Man A's very hard work doing for Man B .
ergo: Man A sacrificed/not spending Investment
but instead putting it (his very hard work)
to work: He very smart because now his very
hard work is earning him some very serious $$$
(that all).
> or calulating the worth of
> labor, (wages) or to make educated
> wagers on lifespans (insurance).
> Therefore our calulation of time is
> clearly man's invention as is our
> perception of time. If we had no concept
> of our mortality, and believed
> that we would never end, then time
> would be a meaningless concept. However
> the concept of mortality was the wage
> we paid when we became intelligent and
> in so doing the idea of time and time
> keeping was created. Since our
> perception of time is nothing more
> than that... perception, then clearly
> time is an invention of man.
>
> Its very existence is contingent on
> our own perception based upon being on
> planet earth, third planet from the sun,
> then time at someother place which
> moves differently must reasonably be
> different. (SEE EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF
> RELATIVITY which is nothing more than
> an extention of Newtonian relativity
> and conservation of motion)
. Bounce a ball on a moving ship then it bounces
> relative to the motion of the ship.
> Bounce a ball on a stationary object,
> then it bounces relative to that object.
> Perceive time as a human on planet
> earth, then that perception is relative
> to that place. Perceive time on a
> rocket ship going near light speed
> and your perception is something else
> entirely. Scientists have actually
> proven that time is different on fast
> moving objects by placing super accurate
> time pieces on the shuttle and the
> same ones on earth syncronized, and
> after a few weeks in space going several
> thousand miles an hour, the time
> on the shuttle was different from the time
> on earth.. microseconds, but still different.
> Therefore, earth based time
> invented by man does not work in
> different environments, proving that it is
> not a constant force, but a relative one,
> and one that can be perceived
> differently.
>
> Here is an interesting time problem....
> Does time exist at absolute
> ERO -that place where all molecular
> and atomic movement stops? If it does
> not, then absolute zero = eternity.
Well, I think most people equate eternity
with never-ending continuation (while
absolute zero would really be No Existence
Whatever): Keep in mind that the universe
consists ONLY of a number of motions (there
are NO fundamental particles, no really
ultimate solidity at the bottom of it all).
Therefore: Stop all motion and it all
ceases to exist (it's NOT as if the whole
shebang would freeze over like Hell).
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
The ONLY fundamental "thing" in the universe
is ENERGY (whatever the Hell that is).
S D Rodrian
"Mark Lewis" <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> Hey SD, good fun.
Ain't it, though!
> Have you read David Kelley's
> A theory of perception?
The "Evidence of the Senses" guy? How about this:
Why did God make shit so disgustingly offensive
(I mean, why couldn't we crap nicely minty-scented
sausages? Really!) [Putt'n aside a snide remark
I once made: "Because there are too many shit-
eaters in the world as it is.] The answer may
just be something as whimsical as all that:
After all... to flies a good hot solid pile of
crap is about as close as it comes to Paradise
(and dung-rolling beetles couldn't even complete
their life-cycle without good ole merde: that's
where they gently lay their own sweet babies).
> IS what we phenomenologically experience
> spatio-temporal time slices of
> 4-coordinate space-time?
Nope: It's good ole ONE-hundred % American crap.
> Like [as] in this present moment (since
> the present moment is all we ever
> experience), you are reading, and the
> word in this sentence that you are
> focusing on changes in each moment,
> in a systematic pattern moving from left
> to right. In each moment, you are not
> aware of the whole sentence, but only
> parts. However, the experience you have
> is not the words on the page, but
> includes the meaning of the sentence,
> and your thoughts about it.
I just reads, I don't count the letters,
the words, or the spaces. But the feeling
that you are experiencing ANYTHING (whatever)
is just a feeling: You are not God, just
a bag of bones & blood doing some fancy chemistry
at the cellular level, that's all. If the
colony of cells that constitutes YOU reaches
the consensus that in order to "keep you happy"
and make you procreate you must be driven mad
by the mere sight of another same-species cell
colony of the opposite sex... your wallet is in
for a ride, so hang on! [People who take certain
drugs experience the conviction that they have
achieved Ultimate Enlightenment and have at last
understood World, God, and Truth. And many of them
swear to you they really DID understand The Truth
... it's just that they can't remember what the hell
The Truth is/was ... once the drug wears off.]
I mean: Would you go out with a female ape? Well,
male apes go ape when a female ape so much as walks
by in a tight-fitting dress. Now, put Marilyn Monroe
completely naked in front of a rooster, and... nothing.
"Like" she'd been rotting-dead for years or something.
> In other words, if there is no time,
> if it is a mere construct of mind, does
> that mean that consciousness is inhertenly
> outside of the space time matrix,
> and that is what allows it
> to experience continutity?
A feeling. It's just a feeling, like being
tickled, feeling cold/hot... a feeling is
just all in your head (Hell, you can even be
hypnotized into feeling all kinds of crazy
things: the feeling you're an umbrella, that
you're a squirrel, a hat, even... a good person
--What a feeling! And without even having to
actually BE good, too!)
> It seems that in your system, consciousness
> must be outside of time,
> literally eternal, in order to
> experience more than one space time
> coordinate simoltaneously. For example,
> this thought, "the cat jumped over
> the dog" requires the concept of
> unitdirectional time to be understood.
You can even get the irrefutable feeling
that your toupee is on crooked when it isn't
really.
> When I understand that thought, or
> visually experience a cat jumping over a
> dog, I am in a world of linear time.
If that's what you're feeling, more power
to you (when I experience that I get the
feeling I'm at the circus).
> However, if that world is an illusion
> created by my mind, then I must be
> outside the illusion to be able to
> experience it. All understanding of
> any type requires linear time.
An illusion is merely a misinterpretation
by the brain of what it's seeing. (A delusion
is a misinterpretation by the brain of what
it's NOT seeing... just a blind feeling. A
sick mind experiences all sorts of false
feelings... and they may be more real than
any "real" feeling the five senses can
give rise to in the same brain).
> Although a dog might not have the
> concept of linear time while humans do,
> are you suggesting that the patterns
> the we experience in linear time are
> not inherent to existence?
The mind is an electro-chemical "process"
and our memories are not "copies" of what
we "remember" ... as if one were filing away
photos: The brain is always building associations
which must be re-assembled. The reason why, as
we age, we can recollect our childhood memories
better than last week's is because the brain
has "reassembled" old memories many more times
than more recent ones (and just as, the longer
one practices a piece of music the easier it is
to play it, our brains are masters at old memories
so even though the brain loses its dexterity in
recreating memories from the associations "in
which" they are "stored" ... it has played the
older pieces of music so many times it's second
nature). As such: Our brains are a true mirror of
the universe... composed of an almost infinite
number of never-ending, smooth, unbreakable motions
which our consciousness (just a feeling) arbitrarily
"pattern" into impossible "rest-frames." But NO
SUCH "rest-frames" (absolute rest) exist(s) anywhere
in the brain... any more than in the universe: The
experience of "permanence" is just a feeling; and
ALL feelings are "sustained" in the brain by a
never-ending electro-chemical "process" which if
halted (oxygen cut to the brain for four minutes
of more)... is no different than/from an electrical
gadget's juice being cut off: Whatever it was doing
it will do no more (except, of course, that what
gadgets do can be resurrected with more juice, but
what dead brains were doing is lost for good & all).
> In other words, are the patterns (understanding,
> knowledge) we experience as so regular
> we call them natural laws actaully
> inherent in the universe,
> or do they only exist in a mind that experiences
> linear time. To clarify, I do not mean
> the thoughts we think, but the
> patterns in reality that they are
> describing. Do the patterns themselves
> exist independently of a mind
> that experiences linear time?
The brain evolved to "pick out" whatever
patters helped its creature's survival:
The patterns are therefore arbitrarily
defined by us; but this does not mean that
they are "created in the world" by us!!!
We arbitrarily "set" a beginning, a middle,
and an end ("from" among the never-ceasing
innumerable motions around us) as a useful
(meaningful/logical) pattern: "Life never
ends, but one individual dies & another is
born." Motion never stops, but from sunrise
to sunrise "lives" a day. And so on: Nothing
really ever comes into existence (but everything
--shape/form-- we recognize "seems" (to us)
to have a "real" beginning BECAUSE our brains
can ignore for the sake of convenience the
indispensable shift from one form to the next).
Nothing ever ceases to exist (but "out of sight
is out of mind" ... and once you eat that
ice cream cone--it's gone).
May you feel well & good
all the days of your life,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
> mark
S D Rodrian
"Tony Cook" <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Vladimir <top_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hYHD5.11502$9o3.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...> > news:8rltae$7v7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <39DE01...@geocities.com>,> (snipped)
> > > [mindless = timeless].
>
> Nope.
> Time transcends everything,
> including that which does not exist.
Well, if you're saying that time = does not exist
I agree with you. However, if you're saying that
were there absolute Nothingness everywhere
"time" would still exist... you're basically saying
that if you'd never been born
everybody you now know would still know you.
> It is the master dimension
> of all dimensions, and all that exists.
Twilight Zone Mantra.
> All other dimensions may disappear, but never time.
Hello? Did you know Tony?
--What you mean the guy who never existed?
> > > But notice that they did not need
> > > TIME in any way, shape, or form to exist, to continue.
>
> Of course they did.
Tony: Motion is what hath always been
(no motion = no existence). Time is
merely a term invented to describe our
divers addictions to timing motions:
Motion is indispensable to existence,
Time is only useful to Man.
> Just because they may not have measured it,
> it still "occurred".
Indeedy-do: Motion need not be measured.
> Whilst motion can ONLY
> occur with time duration,
> it's not essential to it and
> therefore does not equal it.
A duration is a motion (therefore
the word TIME is superfluous in your
statement above, which basically
says "motion can ONLY occur with motion"
... so true, & so charmingly silly of you).
> Roddy, you have not explained your concept of time
> sufficiently well that others can understand.
Tony, you can't teach calculus to your dog.
And you can't teach ANYTHING to a roach.
> That is YOUR failing Roddy, not ours,
> for YOU are telling the story.
I can teach calculus to some folk. And
I can teach (almost) ANYTHING to a select few.
> Maybe you should try a completely different tack.
I think I'll skip it instead (I might step in it).
> Repetition of your existing explanations
> is not working.
I know: It's having fun.
> So far, you don't get the science grant.
Thank God I don't need it. In this case
the thought really IS what counts,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
> Cheers,
> TC
S D Rodrian
"Tony Cook" <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Tony Cook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:8rnpqu$igv$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> >
>
> Suggestion for Roddy:
>
> Tell us what your idea of a photograph is,
> relative to time.
A photograph is the same as "what we see."
That's it; that's all there is to that.
> Here's my version:
>
> A photograph an unmoving/frozen
> record/replica/impression of a very
> short time duration that we can only
> see/experience because further,
> and subsequent sequential time duration
> is continuously occuring.
> Now, did I miss something?
Yep, you sure did:
A photograph is the same as "what we see."
START QUOTE
The brain evolved to "pick out" whatever
patters helped its creature's survival:
The patterns are therefore arbitrarily
defined by us; but this does not mean that
they are "created in the world" by us!!!
We arbitrarily "set" a beginning, a middle,
and an end ("from" among the never-ceasing
innumerable motions around us) as a useful
(meaningful/logical) pattern: "Life never
ends, but one individual dies & another is
born." Motion never stops, but from sunrise
to sunrise "lives" a day. And so on: Nothing
really ever comes into existence (but everything
--shape/form-- we recognize "seems" (to us)
to have a "real" beginning BECAUSE our brains
can ignore for the sake of convenience the
indispensable shift from one form to the next).
Nothing ever ceases to exist (but "out of sight
is out of mind" ... and once you eat that
ice cream cone--it's gone).
The mind is an electro-chemical "process"
END QUOTE
A photograph is the same as "what we see."
The difference is that the photograph remembers
very little in massive detail, while the brain
remembers a massive amount of "things" with
very little details (except if you're an idiot-
savant, in which case you remember so much detail
that your brain's ability to understand (it)
is about as "good" as the photograph's ability
to understand its image).
> Now if nothing whatsoever had happened
> (no motion whatever) from the
> beginning to end of my above explanation
> - the SAME time duration
> would have occurred quite independently
> of whether there was motion or not.
There are faster motions, and there are
slower motions, but all there is is motions.
Can you see hair growing? A virtual photon?
Your brain is a process (of) never-ceasing
motions. [Some brains are quicker than others.]
> Therefore time can never equal motion.
[apropos]
> If something is totally motionless
> - time doesn't stop, it still passes.
> Now, did I miss something?
Yep: THERE IS NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE
THAT IS TOTALLY MOTIONLESS.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
>
> TC
S D Rodrian
"Midwinter" <midw...@no.mail.please> wrote:
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> >
> > You are only pooh-poohing & trying to
> > establish a row of yes/no/yes/no...
> >
> > explained why there is no past/no future: Because
> > existence is all that exists: What you call past
> > dough and kneed it... make one form and then make
> > another form ad infinitum: What has been created?
> > What has been destroyed? SHAPES. FORMS. What are
> > shapes and forms? They are meaningful ONLY in
> > the human mind (we determine what forms they are
> > and what shapes they are). So too with the universe:
> > The universe only knows Existence (the past and
> > the future are mere transitional coincidences
> > among its motions... and it is only in the human
> > mind that such transitional coincidences remain
> > AS IF such impossible rest-frames had any reality).
>
> so I don't know what the actual
> point under debate is.
Then you're about where most of the participants
find themselves after the entire chore.
> Nor do I make any attempt to come in on anyone's
> "side". But I wanted to ask about this.
>
> You say time does not exist. I can accept
> that as a hypothesis. (I'd be
> more reluctant to accept it as a fact.)
> Now (bearing in mind my lack of
> formal education in physics, before anyone
> else pulls me up on anything I
> might get wrong) is it fair to say that
> human beings have a certain
> PERCEPTION of time?
Sure, but it's more accurate to say
that all living creatures have evolved
to "use" the three-dimensional universe
(the nature of which is an "almost" infinite
number of "almost" independent motions:
this is what all life has to adapt itself to).
> You make an argument here that our perception
> of time is rooted simply in
> our recognising the changing shapes
> and location of matter. If, as you
> suggest, we had no perception of linear time,
> we would have difficulty in
> living our lives, since we act from day
> to day (a time concept in itself)
> according to laws of cause and effect.
> You want to start the car, you turn
> the key, because you know that doing so
> will turn the starter motor and so
> on. You know (or can make a reasonable
> guess) what will happen *in the
> future* as a direct result of the actions
> you take. You say "we do not
> sense time". With respect, this is a nonsense,
> surely? If we did not sense
> it, we would not have so many expressions
> of our sense of it: "Time flies
> when you're having fun", for example.
> It is rare that we can measure it
> precisely through perception alone,
> I agree, but the sense is undeniably
> there.
>
> > In a universe where ALL that exists is motion
> > you will have to define "time" without reference
> > to motion (if you can do that then you have indeed
> > proved that time is NOT motion). Good luck!
>
> I don't think anyone's trying to define
> time without reference to motion -
> you couldn't do it, I agree. But you
> also surely can't have motion without
> some concept of time?
Yes: You can have motion without
giving it any thought at all.
> The concept of motion
Motion is not a concept
but a reality. "Good" & "Evil"
are concepts.
> depends on the perception of
> time. Speed is an integral
> component of motion. Speed = distance / time.
Speed is irrelevant to the universe.
Speed is ONLY a measurement useful to Man.
> Your "motion only" view of the Universe
> surely depends on the presence of
> time? If time is a human-generated
> concept placed on a non-linear Universe,
> then motion too is a human-generated
> concept. A Universe without linear
> time would surely not possess motion?
> I understood space and time to be two
> sides of the same coin...
Space-time is merely a MAP which is useful
(to us) for pinpointing something in a universe
in which there is nothing at absolute rest.
A map is meaningless to the universe (however
essential it may be to you and me).
> > Then you agree with me: All that exists are
> > shapes/forms (made of energy which cannot be
> > created/destroyed, or E=MC^2). Now, that
> > wasn't that unpleasant, was it!
>
> Does E=MC^2 address the Conservation of Energy?
> I understood it expressed
> the amount of energy which could be released
> from a given mass of matter?
In its most common interpretation the equation
translates into, "There's a whole lot of energy
in matter." Matter therefore is WHERE energy is
conserved.
> > Well, as long as you concede this, why
> > not simply concede (the same thing
> > expressed differently) that motion is
> > what exists... and time is
> > just our "spin" on it?!?!?!?!
> >
> > Hard to concede I'm right, eh!
>
> Speaking for myself (and by definition
> speaking out of turn), I would be
> perfectly prepared to concede that
> time is an artificial filter we place on
> the Universe. For myself, I'm
> questioning how you explain a Universe
> without linear time as being solely motion.
Read carefully: http://web.sdrodrian.com
What you seek is there in plain English.
> There's a lot more to the post than this
> , but since I'm inviting myself into
> the discussion in any case I'll leave
> it at this. Please don't consider
> that I'm "challenging" your views
> - treat this as a respectful request for
> information from someone who doesn't
> claim any great scientific expertise.
It's only through human exchanges
that our humanity is expressed:
Humanity is of no meaning whatsoever
to the universe, but practically
everything to us poor humans... who
must learn it from each other.
What objection can there ever be
to the free exchange of ideas
except an inhuman one?
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
> ama semper quisquis noces
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> midwinter
"Always love those you would like
to always love you. Just don't punch out
those you wouldn't like to punch you out." --SDR
S D Rodrian
dav...@aol.comeherebob (DBC) wrote:
> In article <8rjju3$eff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> po...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >> > > Time doesnt not exist...... at least in
> >> > > the traditional sense of the
> >> > > word.. Time is just a measurement of
> >> > > motion..
> >absolutely agreed
> >the amazing thing is how long it
> >takes for intelligent people to
> >understand it.
> >and there are other examples of
> >unexplained 'stiffness of mind'
> >(to put it mildly)
> >of physicists.
> >
>
> So in some sense you could actually re-create
> a scene in time with the exact
> arrangement of atoms.. this would (at least
> in my theory) yield the same
> results as it did when that scene in time
> actually occured, because of
> conditioning.
Never thought of it that way: I suppose that
if it was left to its own continuity it would
indeed repeat exactly as before. However, since
we're talking about a (scene) in isolation
I don't see how the circumstances would be exactly
identical in every last respect (a breeze that
blew from the west and knocked a hat off forcing
somebody to pause, not blowing in on the recreation
would eventually alter everything).
> But it would be very impossible to do,
> as you'd have to somehow
> record ever atom's position at that time
> in order to re-create it. I think
> Rodrian made some comments relating to this
> before - it's impossible to record
> every atom's arrangement at any given time.
I never claimed that it would EVER be practical:
This is strictly ONLY possible as a thought experiment.
> Maybe what we have to do is start little,
> with a few electrons' positions
> recorded, then try to re-create that.
IMPOSSIBLE (in practice) because even the
"slightest" of subparticles is almost a universe
of more fundamental complexities.
> Many would argue that this isn't
> changing time because the outside world
> hasn't changed. But even if you
> changed the whole universe, it wouldn't
> be changing time.
We're not talking about "changing" things
(basically that IS the universe in sum).
What we would need to do is reverse EVERY
motion in the universe (including the flow
of gravity).. photons would stop and go back
they way they'd have been coming (into the
Sun)... so your eyes would "shoot" photons
like Superman's X-ray vision (except the
brain's process would also reverse and it
wouldn't THINK). It'd be an unraveling of
existence back into its womb, dumb, dark, and
quite impossible. [There are no impossibles
in the universe, only in the human mind.]
> And it wouldn't even
> satisfy the ones who were trying to
> travel through time. Because if you
> changed everything in the universe to
> the specifications of one moment in the
> past, then that means that the arrangement
> of atoms inside the people who hoped
> to time travel woul dbe re-arranged
> to their older self..
Well, as long as we're dreaming here, I'd
exempt my "body" from the reversing process
and that way I could... waitaminute, I'd also
need a flashlight, and an oxygen supply, and
a pressurized environment...
Cancel my ticket.
> I dunno.. I can't clearly explain it..
It's every man's duty to understand, but
only some poets' duty to put it perfectly.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
> ~David
S D Rodrian
"Midwinter" <midw...@no.mail.please> wrote:
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > You say time does not exist. I can accept
> > > that as a hypothesis. (I'd be
> > > more reluctant to accept it as a fact.)
> > > Now (bearing in mind my lack of
> > > formal education in physics, before anyone
> > > else pulls me up on anything I
> > > might get wrong) is it fair to say that
> > > human beings have a certain
> > > PERCEPTION of time?
> >
> > Sure, but it's more accurate to say
> > that all living creatures have evolved
> > to "use" the three-dimensional universe
> > (the nature of which is an "almost" infinite
> > number of "almost" independent motions:
> > this is what all life has to adapt itself to).
>
It's so refreshing to actually hear from
a man who does just claim to be honest but
who actually behaves honestly!
> Everything that exists has a built-in
> concept of "time". Every living thing
> is aware (although perhaps not able
> to express the idea) of cause and effect.
> If not, why does the wildebeest
> run from the lion?
Because the lion chases her (and the lion's
hunger chases him... ad infinitum): This
chain of cause/effect was set in motion
at the beginning of the universe. [Moreover:
I don't believe most people would claim that
plants, which are quite alive, "think" much
about time's sequences et al.]
> > > I don't think anyone's trying to define
> > > time without reference to motion -
> > > you couldn't do it, I agree. But you
> > > also surely can't have motion without
> > > some concept of time?
> >
> > Yes: You can have motion without
> > giving it any thought at all.
>
> Yes. As time will continue to pass without
> our giving it any thought. We
> cannot remove time simply by "not thinking
> about it", any more than we could
> fly simply by "not thinking" about gravity.
Motion is indispensable to Time.
Vanish Motion and you vanish Time.
Motion is all there is & all there need be.
Motion does NOT require the mentioning of Time.
This is because Motion is all that exists
and "time" is a superfluous "description"
of it which only "exists" in our minds:
Time and Motion are two different definitions.
The only possible definition of Motion is
exactly what motion is. But there are as
many distinct definitions of "time" as there
are methods of measuring Motion.
You cannot do the same thing with Gravity:
ANY definition you give to gravity will be
identically and exactly the same as gravity
because gravity is a real thing (whether we
think about it one way or another way or
not at all).
> It may have been possible for
> Arthur Dent, but in the real world
> it simply wouldn't work. But in truth
> this is academic - we cannot stop thinking
> about time, any more than we
> could stop thinking about motion.
> We move, the world moves, through space
> and time. Everything we know ages.
We move in the directions made possible by
the 3-dimensional nature of the universe.
The universe is made up of an almost infinite
number of mostly independent motions (here
"independent" means they can be considered in
isolation by us, of course)... some slowing
down, others speeding up (in interactions
which can best be comprehended overall by
Newton's laws of motion & gravitation). You
must understand that all these motions exist
in such interaction within our universe that
the only way for one of them to slow down or
speed up if for some other motion(s) to speed up
or slow down! This effectively means that there
is NO way for us here inside the universe to
ascertain the absolute "age" of the universe:
We may "know" our cat's age, or the earth's age,
or the Milky Way's age, or even the age of
a vast part of our local area on the universe,
but we can never know the age of the entire
universe without a measurement outside of it.
Had there never been a brain in the universe
all you would have had ... is a continuation of
all those motions (until they ran out of energy,
or spent their energy, or returned their energy
whence they got it). NONE of those motions would
cease absolutely (they would be absorbed by other
motions or themselves absorb other motions)...
Therefore it's possible to say that the number of
those motions may grow or lessen, BUT there will
always be an overall balance (as the universe only
has a finite amount of energy) however that finite
amount of energy may be distributed among its many
motions. [As the universe implodes, the energy used
to power those motions is decreasing, of course, but
because the motions themselves are "shrinking" ...
less and less energy is needed to power them... with
the result that for us here inside the universe...
it will all continue to the end exactly as it has
been going since the beginning (it's impossible to
really tell exactly in which way the universe is
aging outside of saying that the energy which is its
only fundamental reality MUST be "running out from
the forms of matter in which energy is conserved").]
This means that motion is real, but for us to make
any claims about time (age) is premature. Moreover,
as you can see: The overall energy value of all the
universe's motions always remains the same (for us
here inside the universe)... i.e. the universe is
ageless. Only those individual motions (considered
in isolation) can therefore ever really be "used"
by us to make any sense of "time." In effect: Because
nowhere IN the universe is there anything at absolute
rest... there is NO ONE TIME throughout the entire
universe to which we might set our watches (we can
ONLY set our watches by synchronizing one arbitrary
local motion to some other arbitrary local motion(s):
Each and every one of those motions (some speeding up,
others slowing down) IS therefore ITS OWN TIME). All
those motions are fast/slow relative to each other
only... therefore all the different "times" we may set
in the universe will also ONLY be "relative" times.
The universe DOES have a "direction" but it's a
direction from the highest amount of energy in
the form(s) of matter (the universe of matter) to
the lowest amount of energy in the form(s) of matter
(the universe of energy)... and it's not so much
that one follows the other as that when the universe
of energy is increasing, the universe of matter is
decreasing: You can picture this as a disk, say,
representing the universe of energy... which
"shivers" (sends a wave to its center--because
gravity) when the laws of thermodynamics demand
that it restore its whatever homogeneity: That
"shiver" (or wave) IS the universe of matter (a
jumble of seemingly chaotic motions which compose
all the forms of matter as they gather up and
redistribute the unbalanced energy values throughout
the universe of energy). That is the "complete
universe" ... and because entropy increases for
"the universe of matter" even as it decreases
for "the universe of energy" = Time is symmetrical
for the complete universe (time does not really
move forwards or backwards, nor forwards and then
backwards, but in a completely/absolutely meaningless
cycle). [Again, for the complete universe: Time
does not exist: All that exists, here in the universe
we know, the universe of matter... as we ride its
implosion (because gravity), is a jumble of mostly
independent motions (some slowing down, others speeding
up)... and what we call the forward-directionality of
time is only our brain's ability to make some sense
out of the otherwise abstract chaotic patterns which
result from all those motions: The seeming paradox
of which came first life or its environment is really
not a paradox at all because life may modify its
environment but it must first adapt to it and not
the other way around. The animal brain evolved to
"predict" the direction of "a great many" (as many
as possible) of these motions. The "report" it presents
our Consciousness is structured as a sort-of impossible
sequential rest-frames (we get a "picture" of Yesterday
and compare it to/with a "picture" of today, deducing
the details). This process of comparing impossible
rest-frame with/to impossible rest-frame is our "sense"
that "time is passing." But it's only a feeling, exactly
like every other feeling we have--and what does the
universe care if we feel cold or hungry or afraid?]
> But what if we DO think about it?
> What is motion without time? Motion by
> its nature simply cannot exist without time,
> or without some concept of it.
> Motion requires that a body
> moves through space and time.
Try to imagine that the 3-D universe consists of
only two motions, cycling in opposite directions
like a pendulum: THAT is ALL this particular magical
universe consists of (magic does not require energy
... in order to keep our model extremely simple).
NOTICE that there is motion (and that ALL it requires
is the 3-dimensionality in which it moves).
[Remember that there is no time without motion (so
time = motion) and there is no motion without "a"
direction.]
Therefore in this particular magical universe [of ours]
time moves forwards AND then backwards ... or backwards
AND then forwards (we can not make a definitive judgment
either way) while in our charmingly human "idea of time"
time CAN NEVER move backwards first AND then forward
(effectively matter creating energy without first having
energy created matter).
Now --I hope-- you understand that Motion is not only
possible without Time, but that Time is an impossibility:
The universe only "knows" possibilities (impossibilities
only "exist" in the human mind). No only does Time NOT
"exist" but it's not really possible for it to do so.
> > > depends on the perception of
> > > time. Speed is an integral
> > > component of motion. Speed = distance / time.
> >
> > Speed is irrelevant to the universe.
> > Speed is ONLY a measurement useful to Man.
>
> If you base your Universe on "motion" then
> speed is very relevant. After
> all, an object without speed is not in motion.
The point is that the "speed" of a motion is
not meaningful to the universe (it's impossible
to say that ANY specific motion is absolutely
speeding up or absolutely slowing down... the
relativity of the universe's motions IS that
its motions are fast/slow ONLY relative to other
motions which may be slow/fast ONLY relative to
still other motions ad infinitum). We DO NOT KNOW
the absolute "speed" of the universe (but it is
ONLY meaningful to someone standing outside the
universe). Speed of motion = a timing (and Time = 0).
> > Space-time is merely a MAP which is useful
> > (to us) for pinpointing something in a universe
> > in which there is nothing at absolute rest.
> > A map is meaningless to the universe (however
> > essential it may be to you and me).
>
> Of course, since the Universe is not
> (so far as we know) a consciousness in
> itself. But to us, from the only
> standpoint we can effectively argue from,
> that map is vital. And a map with a
> "bit missing" is useless.
Space-time makes the most marvelous map we have.
> > > Does E=MC^2 address the Conservation of Energy?
> > > I understood it expressed
> > > the amount of energy which could be released
> > > from a given mass of matter?
> >
> > In its most common interpretation the equation
> > translates into, "There's a whole lot of energy
> > in matter." Matter therefore is WHERE energy is
> > conserved.
>
> Right...
>
> > > > Hard to concede I'm right, eh!
> > >
> > > Speaking for myself (and by definition
> > > speaking out of turn), I would be
> > > perfectly prepared to concede that
> > > time is an artificial filter we place on
> > > the Universe. For myself, I'm
> > > questioning how you explain a Universe
> > > without linear time as being solely motion.
> >
> > Read carefully: http://web.sdrodrian.com
> > What you seek is there in plain English.
>
> Yes, it seems to be common practice when
> someone asks a question to provide
> a link to a website which will "explain it all"
Well, the alternative is to include it all here
and some of these posts are already large enough!
> - but not on the newsgroup.
> I have looked at the site - but I'm not
> sure it's in "plain English" as I
> understand the term. I'd like to quote
> one passage which you've presented
> in explanation of your views on time:
>
> >>> Time is unpredictable in the absolute: If I roll
> a beachball 10 yards in 1 minute you cannot predict
> how long it will take that beachball to roll 10 yards
> (as long as you know I am rolling it): You can only
> make the prediction if you are too stupid to know
> I am rolling it.
>
> This means I can warp Time, and thus... Time is not
> controlled by the laws of physics = it does not "exist"
> (since everything that exists is controlled by the laws
> of physics, not my own arbitrary laws).
Not to me: To me it says that "time" cannot be "set"
by some absolute clock: The beachball roller (above)
is the Quantum Unknown... if you bet him he will roll
the ball very fast, he's likely to win that bet: Bet on it.
However... you are correct that the laws of physics
make only some things possible in the universe (and
time, as I showed before, is an impossibility, or idea).
<<<
>
> Forgive me, but I didn't understand a word
> of this. You say I could not
> predict the time it would take that beachball
> to roll 10 yards - that simply
> isn't so.
No: You could not predict how fast the roller
will roll it (because the roller is made up of
so many intricate/complex motions that it would
be impossible for you to calculate them all).
> I admit it would be exceedingly difficult
> (assuming you hadn't
> already told me it would take 1 minute),
> but given the correct apparatus and
> other data (the mass and weight of the ball,
> the friction between ball and
> surface, the speed the ball left your hand)
> it would be possible to produce
> such a prediction. It would have to be
> done very quickly, but it could be
> done.
Yes: You could point a gun at the roller.
But then you would be de facto rolling the ball.
> But I have to say I don't understand
> why your first statement leads
> to your second, even if the first is true.
> Why does an onlooker's inability
> to predict the time taken for the ball
> to travel the 10 yards enable you to
> "warp time"? And if THAT doesn't hold,
> then you can't really claim that
> time isn't controlled by the laws of physics.
>
> Do you see why I'm having problems
> with the plain English?
Even plain English sometimes is problematical.
But I hope this post helps somewhat. (You
must also take into consideration that you
are not trying to understand gum-chewing
but a piece of the puzzle of existence: Give it
time.)
> > It's only through human exchanges
> > that our humanity is expressed:
> > Humanity is of no meaning whatsoever
> > to the universe, but practically
> > everything to us poor humans... who
> > must learn it from each other.
>
> And it is something to be valued - as
> the song goes: you don't know what
> you've got 'til it's gone.
But, fortunately, not always!
> > What objection can there ever be
> > to the free exchange of ideas
> > except an inhuman one?
>
> There will never be any such
> objection from me.
It does not surprise me: For some time
now you've struck me as a decent sort.
Lucky you & luckier those who know you!
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> --
> ama semper quisquis noces
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> midwinter
Larry Phillips
> You are not God
Nobody is. Perhaps that's significant.
SDRodrian
> > In article <8rnrdr$mgv$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>,
> > "Tony Cook" <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tony Cook <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:8rnpqu$igv$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Suggestion for Roddy:
> > >
> > > Tell us what your idea of a photograph is,
> > > relative to time.
> >
> > A photograph is the same as "what we see."
> > That's it; that's all there is to that.
> >
> > > Here's my version:
> > >
> > > A photograph an unmoving/frozen
> > > record/replica/impression of a very
> > > short time duration that we can only
> > > see/experience because further,
> > > and subsequent sequential time duration
> > > is continuously occuring.
> >
> > > Now, did I miss something?
> >
> > Yep, you sure did:
> > A photograph is the same as "what we see."
>
I said it more succinctly.
> Only I went on to say what it
> "represented" as well.
> I was hoping you might do that, but
> you have carefully avoided it
> for some reason.
Superfluous. It's all superfluous!
> But also, you can't even see the photo
> unless you have time duration to see
> it in.
Superfluous: Once you add the photo to
"what you're seeing" it's just another
detail. See!
> Then, when you do see it, you will
> rightly recognize it as I've described
> above.
I doubt it: We only see what we want to see.
> The universe, as I see it, is a
> wee bit like that photo.
Your view is stuck in an impossible rest-frame
and there are no impossible in the universe,
only in our human brains (or, why do you think
it is that we need ERs?).
> Well, more like a immense 3D movie actually,
> where time "frames" are generated at
> the speed of light.
Boy, that must be SOME Kodak!
> When we glance at the sun, we're
> always seeing it as it was
> approx. 8 minutes ago for example.
Not me: I never look at the Sun.
Only turkeys look at the Sun.
> Faster than what? Slower than what?
Some motions are faster than other motions.
> I fail to see the significance of these aspects.
> The same time duration still passes, regardless.
No motion = no time / time = motion
Each motion = its own time
If you want to set a time in the universe
you must time one time against some other time
What time is it then? You will never know:
All you will EVER know is that one motion
is faster/slower then some other motion(s).
Do you wish to synchronize your watch with
your mother's watch? The you will both need
to synchronize them against/to the same motion
(if you synchronize your watch to Motion A
and Mommie synchronizes her watch to Motion B
it will only lead to the usual arguments).
The ONLY reason Time is relative is because
motions are relative: No motions = no time(s)
> > Can you see hair growing? A virtual photon?
>
> Does it matter?
To a barber it's vital.
> > Your brain is a process (of) never-ceasing
> > motions. [Some brains are quicker than others.]
>
> Yes, but does it matter?
Not to the guy whose brain is too slow
for him to appreciate how much it does matter.
(Apparently.)
> > > Therefore time can never equal motion.
> >
> > [apropos]
> >
> > > If something is totally motionless
> > > - time doesn't stop, it still passes.
> >
> > > Now, did I miss something?
> >
> > Yep: THERE IS NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE
> > THAT IS TOTALLY MOTIONLESS.
>
> Says you - with no proof.
Easy to disprove: Name something which
exists in the universe without ANY motion (to it).
And please don't name NOTHING (or some other
synonym)... please!
> Even if this were so, and I don't believe it is.
> Time would still pass.
Motion is time: No motion = no time!
> It also bothers me that your notion of
> time seems to actually "depend"
> on the notion that nothing in the
> universe is totally motionless.
> Motionless? Relative to what?
Fair enough: The universe (a misnomer)
does NOT consist of ONE SINGLE motion ALONE:
The notion of 1 single motion existing
is a mental impossibility (like the sound
of one hand clapping & other nonsense like that).
> Time has to be "essential" to
> our universe, because it provides the
> constant consequential sequencer of all
> function and non function.
You cannot have Motion without A direction (of
motion, of course). That is all ye need to know,
and all the nose you need (unless you're a Durante
impersonator). [Time is an absolute determination
"it is now 4:59 PM" and as you may/may not know
by now all times are relative in the universe
because all its motions are relative: Say Time (an
idea) is "a" motion--what specific motion is that?
The difference between some two or more "real"
motions in the universe. Ergo: That particular motion
only REALLY exists in the mind & not in the universe.]
All that is needed is MOTION. All that is needed for
motion to take place is 3 dimensions in which to
have a direction and the energy to produce it: Motion
is a result of its being possible in our 3-dimensional
universe, Period. Everything else is utterly & absolutely
superfluous to this matter.
> Without time, the universe would neither
> function nor even exist.
Motion has always existed. Then along came Man
and got into the habit of timing motions.
> Without motion - it could exist, but
> would be totally devoid of all energy
> and matter.
Translation: Nothingness exists!
You will only get agreement from lunatics
there. For most persons Existence consists
of things which exist (as opposed to things
which don't).
> I don't disagree with your explanations of human
> brain functions, but I see no
> correlation or indication that this process
> indicates our perception of time is
> either false, or a misconception,
> or simply a trick of the light.
No trick: There just IS no other way for
the brain to function except to balance out
our feelings into some "sanity" which enhances
our chances of survival: And if that requires
that we "think" we are masters of our Fate
and have Free Will and can control the universe
just by praying to God, then so be it.
Whatever it takes to keep us happy.
> I can certainly agree that no time = no motion,
> but not the reverse.
Being a half-wit is better than
being completely witless, I suppose.
> And I still think there is a lot
> to be said for the expression:
> The speed of light = the speed of time.
That's too involved a concept for a simple
yes/no: If you understand the imploding
nature of our universe, and why the speed
of light is a constant in identical mediums,
then you must also eventually understand
that there is SOME truth to you statement
(above). But, nothing is absolute (where
there is nothing there is nothing ad infinitum).
> I realise Politicians are the
> scum of the earth,
And lawyers... until we really need
one of the sonnababitches. Then they're
practically a Godsend.
> but I thankyou for your patience
> in putting up with my
> probably most unscientific
> utterances and protestations.
> Understanding is everything to
> those who seek knowledge -
> Unfortunately, it sometimes still
> eludes us even when we try.
That's why I've always avoided teaching
like the plague: Oh, I have the patience to
teach, but I would never have the patience
to wait out those who must take some time
to learn. I'd break out in sarcasms first.
> TC
>
> p.s. BTW - you still don't get the science grant.
O well, another obligation vanished
from my life! Might you be giving out grants for
watching the river flow from under a shady tree...?
Good luck,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
"taichi" <tai...@eastwind.net> wrote:
> Greetings SDR,
> Considering the fact that particles
> are always in motion and exchanging
> relationships with other particles
> forming physical objects that are
> constantly moving, while it appears that
> things are not moving sometimes,
> they actually are moving all of the time.
I wish some folks here would also know this!
> Time is not a singular entity , it is a
> process of change of relationships.
Indeed: Newton codified that some years ago.
> At any single instant, there is a
> still frame of total reality. The next
> instant, every relationship has changed.
Sorry: There are no pauses in the universe:
Its motion is unceasing ever. Period. You and I
might consider something we see for some time,
but that's just something that takes place in
our minds... in reality mountains grow and
erode away, entire continents drift like balsam,
stars blink in and out, and we grow old and
pass away, and the rocks remember us not.
> When two airplanes are traveling at
> the same speed in the same direction
> without any other reference points,
> it appears that neither airplane is
> moving when looking from one airplane
> to the other airplane. The same
> phenomena is happening when we look at
> things that remain in a constant
> relationship to us.
I imagine that's why most airplanes
synchronize their motions of the ground
instead of with each other.
> It is possible that other physical
> realities existing in the same space are
> creating a totally different reality
> that are visible to other life forms.
It's also possible that Superman will
battle Santa Claus in an upcoming dream.
But there are no impossibles in the universe:
only in our minds: Ours is a three dimensional
reality. Period. Anybody proposes any additional
dimensions/realities... they're all in his/her
head.
> It would then be possible to transport
> from one reality to the other by
> switching to a different wave length
> just like changing channels.
Yes. I've seen this done many times
in many great Science FICTION dramas
since the dawn of the cinema. And it's
always great fun (I just don't go out
strafing the streets with a machine gun
every time I come out of a gangster movie).
> It is possible that apparitions are a
> condition when wave lengths from
> another reality coincide.
It's more possible that they are dreams,
waking or sleeping, sweet or terrifying.
> What we call heaven may be another reality at a
> different wave length and be realized only
> as ghosts to life forms in this
> reality.
Heaven and Hell are man-made. Some people
make a Heaven for themselves by creating
Hell for others. And then there are a few
who prefer to make a Hell for themselves
as long as they can also make a Hell for
everybody around them. Takes all kinds:
There are also a very rare few who prefer
to greate Heaven for others even when it entails
a Hell for themselves.
> This concept may not be able to be proved
> at this time but who knows what
> the change of relationships might bring forth.
> Dave
It can never be absolutely disproved BECAUSE
it's impossible to prove a negative absolutely.
Under such circumstances... we can only go
with the fact that ghosts do not answer or attend
when called by scientists to their formal
inquests into them. I think you will agree
that they are a rather arrogant bunch.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
"wonko the sane" <dosto...@microflash.com> wrote:
>
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
>
> sorry to butt in, i don't mean to offend...
> but is it not quite possible
> that those three dimensions are
> all in our heads, too?
Our heads are counter-punchers: They but
react to the environment (that's why all US
animals can rely on the infallibility of our
brains--also, evolution is not a kind and
forgiving process: If a brain fails = death
... and now you know why they must be infallible).
> how wide is a table? where does a table
> end, and the air around it begin?
You're questioning your senses
and that's senseless. (But everything IN the
universe is relative: There is nothing wide,
just wider/less wide.)
> is there a distinct line between
> table and not-table?
Yes, in our minds: There's no real "distinct
line" between the materials which went into the
table and the table nor between the table and
whatever form it will become next... except our
mental knack for arbitrarily distinguishing
one distinct form from another one--even if
the truth remains that there is NO true point
you can single out as THE PLACE where one form
became another... except our mental knack to
arbitrarily determine "a" beginning and "an" end
to those forms which we are considering in
isolation for the sake of convenience: But the
universe is ONE jumble of innumerable motions
(each of which can be considered in isolation,
but) all of which form ONE highly complex and
never-ceasing interaction. The problem inherent
in the human condition is that "we only think
we think" --in reality, it is not we but the
universe that determines what we think: No possum
will ever turn a corner one moment... and hope
St. Louis beats the Mets the next.
> an exciting book (and a real mind-bender,
> in places) is "Physics as
> Metaphor," written by Roger S. Jones.
> his theory: physics can only relate
> to itself, by accepting the unproven assumption
> that we can ever accurately
> measure *anything,* be it height, width,
> distance, time, or what have you.
He's wrong: It's the simplest thing in the world
to prove that most everything in the universe is
but only relative. In fact, you can't even say
that the universe is either big or small (as
it's the only thing that exists). [The notion that
Absolutes exist AT ALL, even outside the universe,
is rather problematical and perhaps never capable
of being proved. It is only a convenient contrast
used to understand the relativistic nature of the
universe.]
> i don't know if you're familiar with
> the book... if not, i'd recommend
> giving it a read - if you can show that
> Mr. Jones is wrong, please do... if
> you are familiar, what do you think of it?
His basic premise (that all our values are only
meaningful to us) is correct, of course: All our
so-called certainties are ultimately based only
on a handful of fundamental assumptions (which
we take as true in spite of the fact that they
elude our ability to prove them true: A marvelous
example of this is Bertrand Russell's massive
project to prove that 1+1=2 ... the brilliant
mathematician ruined his health over this and
eventually published a huge book of his "proofs"
which convinced practically no one that he had
indeed proved the thing). Basically, we base all
our truths on the assumption that we are sane:
And one so seldom finds a lunatic who proclaims
his/her insanity... that one is almost tempted to
believe that only a complete lunatic would ever
claim to be completely sane.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
> </babble>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
S D Rodrian
> every possible reality exists.
Well, in all of existence there is not one
creature that can tapdance without legs
(and I don't excuse those people who cheat
and "tapdance" only with their mouths).
> That
> means that anything that we can
> imagine exists somewhere.
I often imagine riding Pegasus
instead of British Airways. (And I often
imagine Pegasus and the BA pilot having
heart attacks, so mostly I just walk.)
> While I agree that there is a continual
> change of relationships within
> space. Relationships can be not
> changing in relation to each other.
> It is also possible that there is
> imperceptible still frames of physical
> reality where there is no motion.
Physically impossible ... Newton say:
"If something stop it stopped by something
stopping it AND if something start moving
something started moving it." (I believe
him right chop chop.) This means motion
NEVER stops (just "conserves" itself in
(into) "other motions" ... which is simply the
physical flip-side of the law of conservation
of "non-physical" energy).
The notion you speak about is purely the
result of a desire by the human brain
for the world to behave as the brain thinks
the world ought to behave (a mere conceit
for the sake of understanding): And we all
want to take a break now & then: It's human
nature ... not Nature.
> It is also possible that at absolute zero,
> there is no motion because the
> particles are not moving.
If they exist they are moving (this is
no different than frozen water, which
you would not propose as an example of
water having ceased to exist). Keep in mind
that "heat" is a nuclear process (peculiar to
particle interactions), as we understand it;
and that the "force" of gravity does NOT
engage in nuclear interactions [E=MC^2
here means that particles may indeed be
brought to a state of relativistic non-motion
no different than a ball rolling to a stop, but
NEVER to an absolute state of non-motion
where the energy of which the particles are
composed... has left them: Remember again
that that fundamental energy of existence
can NOT be destroyed (and what is energy?)
except by an impossible thought IN a mind.]
> Maybe it is true that nothing is impossible.
Usually absolute statements can mean the
exact opposite of that they seem to be
stating: If nothing is impossible then
certainly Nothing is made possible by it:
Well, language is certainly vague enough
for those statements to be "true" (and I have
often enough tried to talk folks out of
the mistaken feeling that Nothing is also
Something that exists!). But there are no
impossibles in the universe (only in the
mind... where we can think of ourselves in
Heaven/Hell ... and even disbelievers can
imagine themselves dead... and yet quite
gleefully congratulating themselves to have
found at last that they were right after all
and there really WAS nothing after death!).
I myself have often enough (for a fraction of
a second or so) imagined myself, after death,
just "being there" contemplating Absolute
Nothingness ... and chewing gum. [noun/verb]
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
> Dave
>
> --
> Electrostentialism - creative people in
> a constructive society and a quality
> environment.
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:8sbkd0$tt9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8s5fjj$ld8$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "Chad L" <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > : Sorry: There are no pauses in the universe:
> > > : Its motion is unceasing ever. Period.
> > >
> > > Granted, I know you are the leading authority
> > > on the universe,
> >
> > Ah! We've met before.
> >
> > > and that
> > > you've been to every "known" place that
> > > has ever existed in the universe,
> >
> > Only the rabble goes there: I've been
> > to places that never existed until
> > I got there.
> >
> > > that you are semi-omnecient,
> >
> > omnancient = as old as all get out
> >
> > > and that you know of every single particle of
> > > matter that exists... but are you absolutey
> > > POSITIVE that you haven't
> > > overlooked some thing in your travels of
> > > the universe that perhaps,
> > > possibly... does not move or change... ever?
> >
> > Well, there's Bill Clinton's obsession
> > with being kissed... and my car's addiction
> > to gas...
> >
> > > : You and I
> > > : might consider something we see for some time,
> > > : but that's just something that takes place in
> > > : our minds... in reality mountains grow and
> > > : erode away, entire continents drift like balsam,
> > > : stars blink in and out, and we grow old and
> > > : pass away, and the rocks remember us not.
> > > :
> > >
> > > :
> > > : > It is possible that other physical
> > > : > realities existing in the same space are
> > > : > creating a totally different reality
> > > : > that are visible to other life forms.
> > > :
> > > : It's also possible that Superman will
> > > : battle Santa Claus in an upcoming dream.
> > > : But there are no impossibles in the universe:
> > >
> > > except for a thing that does not move?
> >
> > That which does not move does not exist.
> > (This will explain the absence of sex
> > with one's wife of many years... women
> > may disagree.)
> >
> > > Your number one fan,
> > > Chad L.
> >
> > Hey! Now I know where we met: It was a hot
> > and muggy day... there was no air-conditioning
> > but any number of fans... I remember picking one
> > and THERE YOU WERE!
> >
> > Keep smiling,
Darn! I should've said: "Keep your motor running."
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> Thus spake SDR:
>
> >(And I have often enough tried to talk folks out
> >of the mistaken
> >feeling that Nothing is also
> >Something that exists!).
>
>
> What is space?
Space is what tells us where things
that exist are: They are NOT there
and/or elsewhere than there.
> Is the "vacuum" of space pure nothingness, pure
> non-existance, pure nada?
Nope: There is no perfect vacuum IN
the universe (and maybe not even in
all of Nature, since outside/beyond the
universe of matter spreads the universe
of energy... to God-only-knows where).
> Or is space a seething, pre-existant,
> energy-dense Matrix upon
> whose "surface" the material creation
> coalesces as a secondary effect?
This presupposes the physicality of energy
(something our current human level of
knowledge has yet to ascertain). What we do
know is that when we speak of matter as solid
the universe does not know what we're talking
about; and when the universe speaks of energy
as nonphysical WE do not know what it's talking
about: Will there always be this disconnect in
the interaction between Mind and Nature? This
may be the one matter Time may answer after all.
> The parable of the fish and the ocean
> sees the fish unable to
> comprehend the "ocean" in which it swims.
What is comprehension in a fish? (Try the
simpler: What is intelligence in a man?)
> The fish's sense-based logic
> decrees the "ocean" does not and cannot exist.
> The fish "is" and the ocean "is not".
> So are we in the position of the
> fish, bound by what appears to our senses
> - out of touch with the
> much-denser Ocean in which we are embedded?
Well, many fish took it upon themselves to
leave the ocean: What does that monkey-wrench
do to the claim of those fishes' inability to
know they lived in the ocean?
> What does this say about
> the issues of "being" vs. "not-being"?
There are no impossibles in the universe:
It would never occur to the universe to give
the "existence of non-existence" a thought. Only
the mind may "witness" another mind's dreams and
nightmares; only the mind may consider that
"Something is there" (when Everything is really
in motion, and the correct statement is closer to
"Something was there")... Only the mind can see
"what was there" and thereby give existence to
"what is not there" [something the universe will
always find rather... nutty, to say the least].
> And if it turns out that space IS
> a pre-existant, superdense
> Matrix, what does this say about gravity
> - is gravity the
> pressure-driven FLOW of space
> itself, rather than an "attraction"?
That's like asking: What's happening inside
a black hole? Do our ordinary laws of physics
apply in there? [It's all speculation.] But
the imploding universe IS a "sort of" black
hole (albeit a really big one). Yet, although
here we are, inside this great cosmic black
hole of ours... there are so many things about
exactly how the laws of physics work here
right in front of our eyes... which we can even
begin to comprehend!
The laws of thermodynamics demand that energy
flows... it's just that we haven't yet quite
determined how something which is not matter
can possibly "flow" (it's like proposing motion
without "something" moving)... It may all be
beyond our ability to fathom; or it may all be
an inevitable irrationality inherent to the brain
without which the brain would find it difficult to
function as efficiently. [e.g. All of us believe
in God, in whatever form, because we all need
to believe that we can control our environment
and it's impossible to believe THAT unless it's
"apparent to us" that we can really control All
Our Environment and not simply this or that bit:
But we really can't (we cannot control one of
the most crucial aspects of our environment...
whatever unpredictable circumstances may confront
us next). And so, in order to keep us "relatively
sane," evolution compromises by allowing into
the brain a bit of insanity: We may not be able
to control Fate directly, but we can certainly
control it by controlling a God whom Fate obeys.
It's really quite an elegant compromise: While
it's impossible to say one knows there is a God
(unless one is delusional or a confidence trickster)
... it's quite acceptable to say one believes in
God (and there actually is No Greater Sign/Proof
of Faith than to say that one believes in God even
though one knows of NO proofs that God exists).
Just keep in mind that "things are NEVER
as confusing as the confused make them out to be"
... this is the nature of the brain's Prime
Directive: Think for yourself, ole boy! And
if you don't do all right in the world, you'll
probably do better'n most.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com ... you get the idea.
> oc
S D Rodrian
"Midwinter" <midw...@no.mail.please> wrote:
> SDRodrian <Don_Q...@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:8rreg5$42f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > Everything that exists has a built-in
> > > concept of "time". Every living thing
> > > is aware (although perhaps not able
> > > to express the idea) of cause and effect.
> > > If not, why does the wildebeest
> > > run from the lion?
> >
> > Because the lion chases her (and the lion's
> > hunger chases him... ad infinitum)
>
> regardless of the fact that
> they could not express the concept, nor
> even possess conscious knowledge of
> it, the fact is that the lion in
> the example has an in-built understanding
> of cause and effect. "I am hungry, therefore
> I must eat. To eat I must
> catch and kill the wildebeest. To catch
> the wildebeest I must chase it."
All biological processes can be described in
terms of steps, yes. But ALL are processes which
have evolved in response to environmental needs
and not as a result of lifeforms devising them:
In a very real sense it is the environment which
designs its creatures (no conscious intent involved).
> Likewise the wildebeest runs from the lion
> because it *knows what is going
> to happen if it doesn't*. It understands
> the cause (the lion catching it)
> and the effect (the wildebeest gets
> killed). Every living thing - life
> itself - has an understanding of cause
> and effect, even though they couldn't
> stand here and have a debate about it.
> All living things of which we're
> aware are constructed to function within
> the constraints of linear time.
The animal brain evolved to predict the future:
The more primitive the brain the less far (into
the future) it can predict (the future). The
ability of the human brain to predict the future
is limited ONLY by how much knowledge it can
get hold of (to the extent that it can predict
that if it had perfect knowledge it could predict
the future perfectly)... and so, because this is
basically its raison d'être, the acquisition of
(more) knowledge has become its main mission.
> > Motion is indispensable to Time.
> > Vanish Motion and you vanish Time.
>
> Vanish time and motion goes with it.
> The two are inextricably linked. I'm
> going to run briefly through the rest of
> your post and highlight some
> interesting phrases you've used, if I may?
>
> > The universe is made up of an almost infinite
> > number of mostly independent motions (here
> > "independent" means they can be considered in
> > isolation by us, of course)... some slowing
> > down, others speeding up
>
> > Therefore it's possible to say that the number of
> > those motions may grow or lessen
>
> > [As the universe implodes, the energy used
> > to power those motions is decreasing
>
> > because the motions themselves are "shrinking" ...
> > less and less energy is needed to power them...
>
> > Each and every one of those motions (some speeding up,
> > others slowing down) IS therefore ITS OWN TIME).
>
> > that one follows the other as that when the universe
> > of energy is increasing, the universe of matter is
> > decreasing
>
> > and because entropy increases for
> > "the universe of matter" even as it decreases
> > for "the universe of energy"
>
> And so on. Now, if you look, you'll see that
> the points you've argued here
> (amongst several others) are that
> *things change*. Everything is always
> speeding up/slowing down, increasing/decreasing,
> expanding/shrinking, and so
> forth. And all those changes are happening
> *over time*. If there was no
> time, then nothing would speed up, slow
> down, increase or decrease. Time is
> not only *not* an impossibility,
> it is an essential.
The point I'm interested in conveying here is that
Motion is the nature of the universe (in fact
it's all there is to it, as the ONLY fundamental
"thing/stuff" in the universe is energy/gravity).
Motion has existed as long as the universe has
existed. We do not know how fast/slow that motion
is/has been (so it is literally "timeless" motion).
But, as a function of our brains' main mission to
acquire more knowledge... we began timing one motion
by/against the only thing we could find to time it
... namely some other motion(s). The once thing we
now know is that the only "time" we can ever define
is the very local one of measuring one local motion
against some other local motion(s)... and this
basically means that we only know time as relative
to which motion is measured by which other motion.
Whether you want to believe that there cannot be
motion without time (which is like saying that if
an event goes unwitnessed it does not really occur)
or you choose to believe that time can exist where
nothing exists (which is like saying that Nothingness
exists... and how do you define that things exist if
there is no difference between things that exist
and things which do not?), you're free to do so.
But the result will be that you will have to struggle
through needlessly confusing Rube Goldberg constructs
in order to get to even the simplest understanding.
> Now, in one sense, you're right - everything
> is constantly in motion. Hell,
> everything IS constantly in motion - you're
> certainly right that there's no
> objective "stationary" in the Universe.
> All movement is relative. But what
> you have to understand when you're arguing
> against the existence of time is
> that *something* enables you to perceive
> these changes.
Perception is not a connection between God
and the universe but an electrical-chemical
reaction in a brain: It's just a feeling (and
a feeling need not have ANY connection with/to
the reality outside the brain... as anyone who
has taken some artificial "feeling-producing"
drug knows).
> If there were no
> time - or at least nothing you
> perceived as time, you would not detect this
> motion.
We not only detect motions but emotions too.
> You couldn't. Because a fundamental
> aspect of the concept of
> motion is the time it takes for that
> motion to complete, or the speed with
> which that body is moving. You can't argue
> against it: motion = velocity,
> velocity consists of speed AND direction
> (direction without speed would be
> meaningless), speed = distance/time.
> Therefore, without time, there is no
> speed. Without speed, there is no motion.
Translation: "Without time there is no motion"
... yes, you've said it before. But you keep
missing the point: The speed of the motion
is NOT crucial to its existence (it only matters
to those few persons to whom it's relevant
for whatever reason). "Speed" refers to a specific
value assigned to the motion, while the motion
need not be of ANY specific "speed" to be a motion.
You are trying to fabricate (rationalize) a mental
measurement into an item independent of the mind:
It's not possible. It's physically impossible, and
it's in your head because somewhere along the line
you've been thrown into confusion by the confused:
Things are NEVER as confusing as the confused
make them out to be: As long as something is still
not absolutely simple (in your understanding) you
have not achieved a full understanding of it.
> > Try to imagine that the 3-D universe consists of
> > only two motions, cycling in opposite directions
> > like a pendulum
>
> A pendulum travels with measurable speed.
> That speed is reliant on the
> existence of time.
If the only thing that exists in the universe
is that pendulum... its speed is impossible to
determine.
> > [Remember that there is no time without motion (so
> > time = motion) and there is no motion without "a"
> > direction.]
>
> Looking from the standpoint of the Universe,
> there is no time without
> motion.
You are slowly approaching a greater understanding.
> Or at least, there is no known
> time at which all is or was or will
> be stationary. (The moment before
> the Big Bang, perhaps?)
No Big Bang (it's sheer myth). The universe
is imploding. See: http://web.sdrodrian.com
> Looking from MY standpoint, the Coke
> can on my desk is currently stationary
> with relation to the monitor (also on my desk).
> Motion is relative.
> But there is certainly no motion without time.
> There cannot be motion
> without time.
> Time is also relative.
> Both exist, or at least, we perceive both.
Every motion in the universe (considered in
isolation) IS ITS OWN TIME. The problem is
that as soon as you consider a motion in isolation
it's like considering that it is the only thing
that exists... so its "speed" is impossible to
ascertain [Time does NOT exist]. It is ONLY when
someone compares two motions (the speed/time of
one with the speed/time of the other) that "a" time
("a" speed) is determined [Time only exists IN the
mind]. Then, of course, there is the complication
that the universe is a jumble of innumerable motions
each of which (considered in isolation) may be
slowing down or speeding up... so what time it is
always depends on which two motions are being
synchronized [Time is relative to where one is
observing motions, or Time is relative to which
particular motions you happen to be comparing].
Because the speed of each motion in the universe
is irrelevant to its being a motion... it's ONLY
when someone compares two motions' speeds that
Time comes into existence IN that someone's brain:
Before then the speed of every individual motion
is absolutely meaningless to whether there exists
of does not exist motion in the universe.
> > Now --I hope-- you understand that Motion is not only
> > possible without Time, but that Time is an impossibility:
>
> I certainly don't understand why time is an impossibility.
Not yet. But you will once you understand that
there are no impossibles outside the mind, only In it.
> > Space-time makes the most marvelous map we have.
>
> With time, presumably, an integral component of that map?
Absolutely: The entire enterprise (of any map) depends upon
dynamic measurements to determine the location of X.
> > Not to me: To me it says that "time" cannot be "set"
> > by some absolute clock: The beachball roller (above)
> > is the Quantum Unknown... if you bet him he will roll
> > the ball very fast, he's likely to win that bet: Bet on it.
>
> I said if you took measurements *as the ball
> left the hand* you could
> predict how long it would take the ball
> to come to rest. This calculation
> itself relies on the concept of linear time.
You would most probably calculate it with errors
from some overlooked variable (such as friction of
that particular surface, or wind-resistance, et al).
> Before the ball is rolled I cannot predict
> how fast it will be moving, how
> much energy will have been imparted to it,
> nor even if it would be rolled at
> all. Until it IS rolled, it is
> "Schroedinger's Ball" (ahem - sorry,
> Schroedinger). This is because I cannot predict
> the future. And why can I
> not predict the future?
Because your brain don't work? I've a suspicion
you're fibbing there: You CAN predict the future
(to the full extent of your knowledge, of course).
> *Because time is flowing from future to past
> and not the other way around*.
> Therefore, time exists, or at least, some
> very real perception of time
> exists.
Rather: Things are changing ever, and the
direction in which they are changing we call
that forward (Future), and the things they are
changing away from... we call that The Past.
But existence is ALL that exists (there is no
Past because the forms/shapes which we think of
as the Past are merely transitional forms/shapes
and NEVER items of existence ceasing to exist
or coming into existence)... It's not unlike
kneading dough and making form after form after
form: the ONLY thing changing are the forms
while the dough itself never ceases to exist.
But the one thing this analogy reveals is that
any previous form can be formed again; and if
it is, then there is NO objective way to tell
for sure in which direction "Time" is moving
(considering the ball of dough as the only thing
that exists, of course... just as the universe
is the only thing that exists).
> > Even plain English sometimes is problematical.
> > But I hope this post helps somewhat. (You
> > must also take into consideration that you
> > are not trying to understand gum-chewing
>
> Go on, then - explain gum-chewing!
> :o)
If you have to have it explained to you
then don't do it (but, take hope, my dog
can chew gum and I never even had to
explain it to him).
> > but a piece of the puzzle of existence: Give it
> > time.)
>
> With respect (because I DO happen to believe
> in it) - I'm trying to
> understand your interpretation of
> a puzzle of existence.
And the most crucial tool for achieving
Anything... is perseverance.
> > > And it is something to be valued - as
> > > the song goes: you don't know what
> > > you've got 'til it's gone.
> >
> > But, fortunately, not always!
>
> Fortunately for *some*, yes...!
>
> > It does not surprise me: For some time
> > now you've struck me as a decent sort.
> > Lucky you & those who know you!
>
> Thank you.
You're welcome,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
> ama semper quisquis noces
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> midwinter
>
>
General L. Bradford Jr.
same coin (a mass sponge of nothing more than holes and horizons, more holes
and more horizons), a coin which on edge differing the sides for us, and for
existence for that matter (if you'll pardon the pun), is how distant, how
far, the "time."
Brad
"S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:8sfqj3$4pk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
S D Rodrian
"Adam Marczyk" <bj9...@ANTISPAM.binghamton.edu> wrote:
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> >
> > The animal brain evolved to predict the future:
> > The more primitive the brain the less far (into
> > the future) it can predict (the future). The
> > ability of the human brain to predict the future
> > is limited ONLY by how much knowledge it can
> > get hold of (to the extent that it can predict
> > that if it had perfect knowledge it could predict
> > the future perfectly)... and so, because this is
> > basically its raison d'être, the acquisition of
> > (more) knowledge has become its main mission.
>
> the universe is fundamentally indeterminate.
Bzzt. So does Quantum Stupidity, Quantum Ignorance
AND Quantum Laziness. But these are all mere thoughts
passing in the Night of the human brain. And I am
inclined to the opinion that Nature knew more about
the universe when it evolved the Brain [ever to
predict a predictable "future"] than any number of
"brains" know of a universe they cannot fully,
perfectly, absolutely understand. Remember, children:
Things are NEVER as confusing
as the confused MAKE them out to be.
Getcha tattoo kits out, heah!
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
> [lots of stuff snipped]
S D Rodrian
"Ivan Prenosil" <ipre...@wolny.cz> wrote:
> But in QM there is nothing like
> motion, only a 'change of state' and
> nothing between that.
Quantum Theory is a tool for understanding,
just as the brain itself is a tool for
understanding... and neither of them
are "descriptions" of reality: "Rest-frames"
ONLY exist in the brain, NOT in reality:
they are no different than hours, minutes,
inches, and miles.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> SDR cogently commented regarding the "flow" of space:
>
> >The laws of thermodynamics demand that
> >energy flows... it's just that we haven't yet
> >quite determined how something which is not
> >matter can possibly "flow" (it's like proposing
> >motion without "something" moving)... It may
> >all be beyond our ability to fathom; or it may all
> >be an inevitable
> >irrationality inherent to the
> >brain without which the brain would find it
>
> My point exactly. Our brain is hardwired to
> construct a reality based on
> the immediate input of the senses..
It would be more accurate to put it in the
traditional form: The mind does not have direct
access to reality, but must "decipher" exactly
what that reality is through the filter of the
five senses. Remember that when we are born
our eyes' lens project an up-side down picture
of all we see to the back of the eyeball, but
by slowly "understanding" this.. every baby
eventually gets into the habit of "seeing"
the world right-side up without even thinking
about it.
> a "consensus reality". Such a
> consensus reality gave us the flat earth
> - what immediately appears to
> the senses really IS flat.
This is exactly what happened to the scientists
of the last century when Hubble "saw" that
galaxies were receding from each other: The first
thing that popped into their heads was that the
universe was "expanding." But just as it took
from Aristotle to Copernicus to realize that there
was a profounder truth to the "view" that the
Heavens orbited the earth... it has taken nearly
a hundred years for it to be possible for us
to now realize that there is a profounder truth
here too, and that the universe is really imploding.
> In cosmological thinking, sense-based
> logic gave us the geocentric universe,
> then grudgingly, the heliocentric
> universe. In each jump, sense-based logic
> had to expand its horizon to
> accept another 'consensus reality'.
> And so here we stand at another cosmological
> horizon, with yet
> another consensus reality ("consensus paradigm",
> actually), all based on
> the logic of WHAT APPEARS to the
> tried-and-true scientific method.
> We have the ensemble of the "Singular Big Bang",
> "Hubble Constant equals
> perpetually expanding universe",
> space as "vacuum", "the speed of light
> is the ultimate velocity", etc. etc.
> Objectors to the BB and perpetual
> expansion, AGAIN using sense-based logic,
> concoct "oscillating"
> cyclical-return models powered by
> "shrinkage of forms", and various "big
> bang - big crunch" scenarios powered by
> - what?.
Energy, that most illusive, most fundamental
reality of all. But, as I have often said:
It's (almost) never a matter of intelligence
as much as a matter of knowledge (which is
only acquired by accumulation). As long as
we do not "forget" any of what we have learned
... the history of knowledge will always be
one of ever increasing knowledge (and hopefully
maybe even ever increasing wisdom). Who knows?
> The scientific method has yet to
> accept INTUITION as a valid
> method of inquiry.
Because it's impossible to follow its
line of reasoning (facts, proofs)...
> To see beyond what appears to the senses,
> one method
> is EXTRAPOLATION based on what IS seen.
> Look at the forms of spiral
> galaxies and the smaller and smaller
> fractalizations of those forms into
> stellar systems, planet/ ring systems,
> planet-moon systems, all the way
> down to the proton-electron
> pair of the hydrogen atom.
> Extrapolating upward from the
> galactic level, intuition
> would see the fractal form again at
> the 'Megagalactic' or macrocosmic
> level - the primal form of the universe
> itself. Here, the universe
> becomes a perpetually-running Process.
> It needs no step-point or 'Bang'
> to get started. Its central core 'Engine',
> a hypermassive black hole,
> knows no constraint of "our" speed
> of light, and from its spinning
> equator, SETS our speed of light as it
> spins off the Creation.
> Perpetual creation, spacetime unwinding
> equatorially like rope off a
> spool - expands into the two hemispheres
> and the 'Main Sequence' of the
> universe. Gradually slowing and entering
> the Contraction phase, and
> finally the Implosion phase as the old,
> spent creation begins its final
> plunge into one of the two poles of
> the Primal Particle - the
> gravity-driven Engine of the universe.
> The spiral form is evident in the
> emerging Creation as well as in the
> accretion vortices of the two poles.
> The 'little fractals' seen in the
> galactic forms and at all levels
> throughout nature speak of this UNSEEN
> form of the universe itself - a
> flattened sphere or 'donut' with
> a spinning nucleus.
>
> But there's still another horizon to
> ponder: What is the
> 'fuel' that powers gravity?
> (No, it ain't "shrinkage of forms".)
Visit thou: http://web.sdrodrian.com
Unlike matter, gravity IS fundamental
(at least, as "far" as we might ever be
able to look into it from the human level).
Therefore it would be hard to make a hard
distinction between gravity and energy:
the energy is in matter, and matter is
inseparable from gravity.
> With gravity seen as the flow of space
> itself, what is the overpressure that
> vents it into the poles of the Primal
> Particle and into the poles of the
> proton (as the 'strong nuclear force')?
The understanding is much more elegant: The
universe (of matter) is an evolution. To propose
that it evolved from any number of different
(distinct) "forces" is like asking who made man
and being told it was God: In that case, if we
wish to know where it all came from one must
cease studying anything having to do with man
and begin the quest of finding out who made God.
Basically... matter (all the forms of matter)
had to evolve from a very simple form (energy)
into more complex forms (the plutonium atom).
> For that matter, from whence would come
> the energy to power an
> 'oscillating' universe?
From a simple rule: "If, to exist, Existence
would have had to have a beginning... it would NOT
exist." But it does. This means (something always
from something and never from nothing), this means
that existence has always existed (and that whatever
form/shape it may take/has taken is entirely due
to the laws of thermodynamics). Fundamentally:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed (although
it can be conserved, as IN the forms of matter).
That's all there is to it: Once you understand this
you understand what the universe is doing & why,
and how: The laws of thermodynamics create matter
and the energy in that matter can 1) NEVER remain
IN said matter forever 2) eventually all the forms
of matter return their energy whence it came AND
3) this clearly demands that matter NOT be
fundamental (it must "shrink" because the so-called
energy released in nuclear reactions is NEVER
returned whence it came but ONLY "continued to be
conserved in OTHER forms of matter."
> Even positing a "shrinking in place" model, a
> source OUTSIDE the system has to input
> the energy to power the next
> cycle. That's why "shrinking in place",
> of and by itself, does not
> answer the question.
It does. All you have to realize it that Energy
cannot be created or destroyed... it ALWAYS stays
in the system (if that system is correctly described
as the complete universe, and not just applied to
its halves: the universe of matter and the universe
of energy): Energy is ALL that exists fundamentally
and matter is only energy conserved temporarily
(the universe does not understand matter as physically
solid, or fundamental... only we interpret it that way
because that's where we can put our collective finger).
But even if we do not yet fully understand what the
universe is saying to us when it speaks of energy, at
least we have finally begun to understand that when
we speak to it about the physical solidity of matter
we are basically expressing a reality which is only
real to us. That's a good place to begin, I think.
> Intuition, although it cannot empirically
> PROVE it, would see
> infinity stretching forever upward and
> outward into the cosmos, with our
> universe a mere atom (probably
> hydrogen) in the higher Cosmos.
Since we do not really know what it is exactly,
it's better not to give intuition any better a
seat in at the table of science than any other
whiff of inspiration we may feel in our gut.
Since we can NEVER know what lies "outside" our
universe, we will never be able to categorically
dismiss the possibility that the Greater Reality
may consist of innumerable universes like ours
(existing side-by-side by the same laws as galaxies
exist in our universe side-by-side).
> Similarly, every atom in our cosmos is
> a complete universe in itself,
> with infinity stretching forever downward
> into matter. This is simply
> extrapolation in both directions, based
> on what IS seen. It is mathless,
> and indeed needs no math.
But it's still possible to say that there is
no "bottom" to our "down" beyond which "matter"
will not "split" further: A true fundamental
particle can NEVER come into existence because
everything in our universe is created by
something else (or, as we understand it: Everything
that exists (matter) is but a structure build up
from/by/upon simpler structures). [You cannot "put
together" anything without doing it with at least
two other things.] The only way a fundamental particle
can "come into existence" is if God creates it
(which I am sure will produce a myriad of religions
whose dogma will be based on the existence of some
fundamental particle or other... human nature, you know).
> And the flow of space - gravity - is
> driven by the overpressure
> of Infinity Above into Infinity Below,
> through the poles of every
> singularity
No fundamental particle = no singularity
> - whether at the macro-scale of
> the Primal Particle or the
> microscale of the proton.
No fundamental particle = no Primal-Particle
> The flow-of-space model of gravity
> does not conflict with the
> "bending of space" or the "ball on
> the rubber sheet" models. Yet it
> still beggars the question of the
> next horizon - What powers the
> pressure of space itself?
Although I would be the first to conceive
to some "real" universal pressure being exerted
in an imploding universe sooner than in an
expanding one... ANY such anti-gravity "pressure"
would not cause a gentle expansion but a true
eternal explosion (and that's NOT our universe).
Gravity is the antithesis of pressure (the nature
of which is always outward). Albeit, this only
applies to the universe of matter--Exactly what
the universe of energy is doing is a little beyond
us (about all we know of it is that it creates
the "momentary" universe of matter). And that's
usually enough for us.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
> oc
S D Rodrian
"Grumpy" <howe_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I obviously missed a few of the earlier
> posts but, judging by the subject
> line, your discussing whether or not
> "Time is an invention of man. What I'm
> reading so far seems to be a major
> hang-up on the inter-dependency of motion
> and time.
>
> If you want to follow this line of logic
> 'motion' will have to be broken
> into the more basic components of
> distance and speed and 'time'.
The proper basis for a measurement, yes:
Notice that you are taking into consideration
arbitrary "components" (of something which
really exists: Motion) which themselves are ONLY
of relativistic reality: No determined distance
between any here & any there is ever absolute;
no determined speed is ever absolute; no set time
is ever absolute... they all exist only, purely
in our "consideration" of one arbitrary measurement
between here & there, this & that, or now & then:
Only Motion has absolute existence in our universe
regardless of any of its relativistic qualities.
Only Motion is of a fundamental (primal) requirement
in the same sense that a human being is of primal
requirement regardless of what his character may be:
One would never propose (a strictly relativistic
reality such as) "kindness" without there first being
a person absolutely "there" who was kind; and one
would never propose "quickness" without there first
being there something absolutely moving. [Albeit it's
not at all uncommon for careless thinkers to propose
Good/Evil as absolutes, not requiring the existence
of some evil/good person first.] The only distinction
that yet remains to be established (clarified) stems
from the fundamentality of energy: At the human level
we tend to describe "matter" as fundamental when it
really is NOT (and thereby, perhaps even because of
this way we have of thinking about matter, we find it
extremely difficult to establish (describe/ascribe) the
fundamentality of energy: We understand that the
universe of energy MUST obey the laws of thermodynamics
but we cannot square that with the "conviction" that
one must first have something physical (which we can
only think of as matter) moving... but moving it MUST be.
And so, at present, we have this dichotomy between
the "fact" of "something" which is not matter is moving
(or motion being fundamental) and energy "embodying"
that motion (or energy, not matter, being fundamental).
In spite of E=MC^2 (which is usually simply restricted
to the potential energy IN matter), we have yet to fully
come to terms with the fact that matter IS energy (that
matter is merely, only a state of energy being conserved
in the FORM(s) of matter... and therefore ALWAYS liable
to be "reduced" ALL THE WAY back into energy--and
not just simply, merely re-conserved from one form of
matter to some other form(s) of matter).
> Obviously, in order to determine
> motion you require time.
THAT, in a very succinctly-put sentence
is the crucial point which I have been
trying to convey for "some time" now...
namely, that Time is ONLY required to
"determine" (strictly a function of the brain)
motion--NOT to permit it: The ONLY thing
motion requires to exist (to take place) is
a three-dimensional room (place) where it
can move. To understand the primal nature of
Motion all you have to do is to think of ONLY
One Single Motion as existing in the entire
universe: What is its speed? No such thing
possible (you need two motions to set a faster
and a slower motion). What distance has it
traveled? No such thing possible (you need
a place where it's been and a place where it
now is, and once you set a place where it's
been then that One Motion is not the only
thing that exists). What is its time? No such
thing (here time is motion/motion is time, and
there being but One Single Motion alone... it
is timeless in every sense of that word). But
still there is Motion... even to the exclusion
of all else. [With the absolute exception of
energy, without which there really can be NO
motion... which, as Newton described it, are
so intertwined that it hardly seems possible for
us to even so much as think of one without it
also meaning the other. And, by the way, this is
also why we cannot imagine motionless energy
even when we cannot imagine the materiality of
that same energy!]
> All the rest
> regarding fixed locations, relative
> vantage points, and what-not, only
> enable the viewer to measure distance and time.
>
> Time must be 'measured'. In order to measure
> something there must be a
> scale to hold it up against (ie.
> seconds, radioactive emissions, sunsets,
> meals, fleas jumping off a cat, whatever)
> and there must be an intelligence
> (maybe sentience would be a better word)
> to create and utilize that scale.
>
> Therefore, Time cannot be an invention
> of man (the birds and the bees do
> it)......only our units of measure were.
>
> Maybe I have a slightly simplistic
> view of this, if so I apologize for
> wasting your time.
It's never a waste of time to think (even if
it's only thinking about time itself). At any rate
you are correct in your conviction that time
is not an invention of man but rather a development
of the brain: All brains evolved (aside from
doing so to regulate/coordinate our internal
biology) to predict the future [and I must qualify
this for some folks: the immediate future, not
all the future]: If the future were in any way,
shape or form unpredictable... the brain could NOT
function (imagine your dog trotting into the
kitchen: he's been there before... so he does not
stop at the door and check to see if the kitchen
is still there)... the brain could not function in an
unpredictable reality--Therefore it MUST have
evolved to "work" in a nearly flawlessly absolutely
predictable universe... for it works here that way
rather neatly. [And if the universe were NOT
deterministic at SOME level, it would necessarily
reflect this nature at ALL levels. So remember that
things are NEVER as confusing as the confused
MAKE them out to be.]
And always think good thoughts,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
>
> is not evena fundamental concept (as
> explained below).
>
> Time is the ordering of spacetime points
> by the relation of "before-after".
Gee, I wonder who's doing the ordering?
Order is only the brain's method of
making sense of the universe, the universe
itself only concerns itself with motions
(an unbreakable chain of cause/effect bent
by gravity into all sorts of marvelous forms
and shapes). But the universe does not make
sense of itself--only we make sense of it
> And nobody invented this structure.
> It's inherent to the universe.
> Nor is this ordering a trichotomy
> "before-after-or simultaneous", except in
> Newtonian spacetime. In Minkowski spacetime
> -- the spacetime
> essentially of our universe -- it's a
> relation which not only has the property
> that
> (A before B) but (C neither before
> nor after A or B) is possible
> (which makes it impossible to even define
> "at the same time as"
> or "present"), but has in fact enough
> structure to allow one to completely
> define the logic of spatial and geometric
> relations including even the
> concepts of angles and congruence!
Lord! What a practical illustration of the fact
that things are NEVER as confusing as the confused
MAKE them out to be:
Space-time is ONLY a map of the universe and not
an understanding of it!
Just take the so-called clock paradox, which deals
with two twins, Peter and Paul. "Peter remains
on Earth (regarded as at rest in an inertial
system) while Paul is shot off in a rocket at
half the velocity of light, rapidly decelerated
at Alpha Centauri (about four light-years
away), and shot back to Earth again at the
same speed. Assuming that the period of
turnabout is negligible compared with those
of uniform velocity, Paul, as a
four-dimensional object, lies along the
sides AC and CB of a space-time triangle, in
which A and B are the points of his departure
and return and C that of his turnaround.
Peter, as a four-dimensional object, lies
along AB. Now, special relativity implies that
on his return Paul will be rather more than
two years younger than Peter. This is a
matter of two sides of a triangle not being
equal to the third side: AC + CB < AB. The
"less than"--symbolized < --arises from the
semi-Euclidean character of Minkowski
space-time, which calls for minus signs in
its metric (or expression for the interval
between two events, which is
ds = c2dt2 - dx2 - dy2 - dz2 ).
The paradox has been held to result from
the fact that, from Paul's point of view,
it is Peter who has gone off
and returned; and so the situation is symmetrical,
and Peter and Paul should each be
younger than the other--which is impossible.
This is to forget, however, the asymmetry
reflected in the fact that Peter has been in
only one inertial system throughout, and
Paul has not; Paul lies along a bent line,
Peter along a straight one."
All that complexity of thought, when all it
boils down to is the fact that relative greater
velocities slow down nuclear processes! In
the above paragraph you have completely needlessly
created and dismissed a paradox (when there are NO
paradoxes in the universe, only in the mind). What
do you think MUST result from such confusion?!?!
Again: Space-time is only a dynamic map. Period.
It is slightly more useful than saying, "There it
goes!" and pointing with one's finger.
> This was first proven by A.A. Robb in 1914.
>
> Motion is a derived concept whose essence
> is "at one place BEFORE at
> another place". Note the relation to
> Continuation "at one place BEFORE
> at the same place". Since there is no
> such thing as an absolute "same
> position" (e.g., the 'same' position
> in New York at two different times
> is -- in the galactic frame of
> reference -- are separate by millions of
> miles), then that means Motion and Continuation
> are two forms of the same
> thing.
Translation: "As long as Motion continues it is motion."
But confused dreamers will never acquiesce to put it
that was because it's very much more difficult to
construct a dream with a simple fact than with one
million abstract/convoluted hints of that simple fact.
This is why confused/confusing dreamers are so loath
to abandon the "dimensionality" of Time: Baby, you can
actually stuff a dimension with just about anything
you'd like (while you can only hide maybe a cyanide pill
in the average watch).
> In some human langauges this fact is
> ingrained at the most basic levels. For
> instance, in Japanese, the same term
> can be used for "to go", "to come" and
> "to be at". In German, as in archaic
> English, only those verbs which have to
> do with motion or [dis]continuation take
> "is" for the past tense, instead
> of "has". The archaic "Is Died" means
> has died and "Is Come" means has come.
Need anything else be said?!?!?! The history
(development/evolution) of language is one of
"motion" towards more accurate exchanges of
information, and "continually" away from confusion.
Always keep this mantra in mind: "Things are Never
as confusing as the confused MAKE them out to be."
S D Rodrian
S D Rodrian
<SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> writes:
> >In article <8rt2sf$do3$1...@uwm.edu>,
> >whop...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) wrote:
> >> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >> > Motion is indispensable to Time.
> >>
> >> Motion is irrelevant to Time and
> >> is not evena fundamental concept (as
> >> explained below).
> >>
> >> Time is the ordering of spacetime points
> >> by the relation of "before-after".
> >
> >Gee, I wonder who's doing the ordering?
>
> No, not 'ordering' that way. Ordering
> as in a mathematical partial
> ordering relation.
Gee, I wonder who's doing the mathematics?
> There is no argument that can deny
> the objective existence of the relation
> of "beforeness" in (trigger pressed)
> before (nuclear bomb set off).
We live in a universe which is entirely in
the grip of cause/effect: There is no need
to think this to death. "EVERYTHING that
happens in the universe is caused by what
caused it!" Where reason sometimes fails us
is when we fall into the fallacy that there
is an absolute "forward" direction and an
absolute "backward" direction: Not so! It's
ALL always strictly cause/effect (practically
ANY statement you can imagine probably has
its "undeniable" equivalence in one or
another part of a closed system--so that only
when we look at such a limited part of the
whole closed system can you find "it" moving
with an absolute direction which ALWAYS really
is ONLY a relativistic direction in said
complete closed system: YOU can choose to
consider parts of a closed system as complete
closed system themselves, but the universe does
not enjoy that privilege! As you may be able
to tell from the following thought experiment:
In a reality where the only thing that exists
is a pendulum (swinging because gravity and
powered strictly by the energy of imagination)
... the only motions are back & forth--or, is
it forth & back? [You may, as I said before,
choose to consider only a short portion of one
of the swings and claim that you have ascertained
that there is an absolute direction (to time);
and since within the short portion of the entire
closed system which you have chosen to consider
(in isolation from the rest of it) there is only
one direction, it may be tempting to believe that
there is such a thing as an absolute direction to
the chain of cause/effect... something which will
be quickly exposed as a fallacy the instant you
"pull back" and consider the true complete system:
Regardless of which swing you chose to pick your
"bit" from (the one going one way or the other one
going in the opposite direction)... because it is
impossible to absolutely determine which direction
THAT particular swing has (forward or backward),
it is just as impossible to tell what absolute
direction any portion of "whichever swing" itself
"really" has... with the result that cause/effect
works in ANY direction since all directions are
only relativistic INSIDE a closed system. We may
think that our reality really moves in the direction
in which "some items" of cause/effect are moving,
but in a profounder truth which most of us never
get to consider... there is no Past and there is
no Future: There is only motion which, obeying
Newton's laws of motion, produce the unbreakable
chains of cause/effect we take to have a direction
but are really much more chaotic than we can see.]
> Not only is the relation NOT a construct
> of the brain -- the exact opposite is
> true: the brain is a construct of IT.
The brain evolved to MAKE SENSE of the chaos of
existence: If in order to paint an overall sane
picture (understanding) of reality it must do so
by adding some bits of insanity here & there...
it will do so: I do not blame you, therefore, if
you believe that the brain evolved to accept
an absolute direction to motion (time, et al).
The truth is that the brain evolved to consider
only (mostly) a small "bit" of the complete system
TO BE a complete system itself--SOMETHING IS ALL
(which rationalizes giving your life in some act
or other the achievement of which could never
really repay you commensurately, et al)... in effect
the way the brain makes sense of a chaotic reality
is NOT to recognize it for what it really is, but
to create the very useful delusion that there is
order in that chaos (since the brain only has to
deal with a very limited number of cause/effect
"chains" and not an unwieldy number of them).
This may explain why it is that the brain finds it
so problematical to understand fundamental problems
(which by definition encompass more general themes
than just the usual mere handful that describes
our mortal (limited) lives).
> It's YOU that is a figment of the mind
> (literally: a figment of your own
> mind), not spacetime.
Spacetime is a nifty method by which to make
some very accurate predictions (about what's
going to be there/elsewhere). It is a map. But
in the final analysis... what we seek to do
is to understand, and not just to be accurate
in our coordinates.
General L. Bradford Jr.
impossible, because, once more as Einstein said, it takes three dimensions
to describe a point (or the zero-dimensional singularity to the
one-dimensional string). Once the point is reached and described by finite
linear dimensions, the infinite (and infinitesimal) dimension is reached
(attained) and described. There is no next time or space dimension beyond
this infinite point dimension, this infinite contraction, compression, or
collapse (complexity and chaos) dimension. This third dimension that in and
of itself is the return of all dimensionality to infinite-zero-point is it.
Your argument against the Big Bang and for the Big Crunch is a circular
argument since all you really do is make them out to be one and the same
thing, which, you know from months ago, I myself have argued for. But I
argue that since we will never detect "infinite" or "infinitesimal"
mass/space from the very nature of [it], we will detect a collapsing,
reductionist, horizon (the reduction of "everythingness" for the lack of a
better word) as a distant and distinct entity that will take the form of Big
Bang/Big Crunch. And "infinite" has gravity that will pull or attract out
from everywhere to itself (everywhere else), thus an appearance of expanding
universe; an expansion always evenly and precisely accelerating in expansion
(pull) everywhere you look out there. Pulling to the infinite outside which
also happens to be everywhere. You could return from the grave 300 billion
years from now, or 300 billion times 300 billion years from now, and still
see the universe existing (galaxies and all, just different galaxies and
all), expanding exactly as we see it now to be expanding, and would have
seen it expanding 300 billion years ago, as well as 300 billion times 300
billion years ago. You could travel a hundred trillion trillion trillion
light years and more away from the Milky Way and still see the expansion as
we see it now to be, and still detect the same Big Bang/Big Crunch
"everythingness" reduction in the farthest space-time horizon reachable by
instrument. It would have receded before your advance, opening up space, and
followed you distantly behind with a closing of space into that same
horizon. Such is the multiverse.
Brad
James Hunter
"General L. Bradford Jr." wrote:
> Yes there are impossibles. More than three dimensions of space are
> impossible, because, once more as Einstein said, it takes three dimensions
> to describe a point (or the zero-dimensional singularity to the
> one-dimensional string).
Einstein was a bonehead though, so get back to work on
a *non* Fig Newton theory of time.
General L. Bradford Jr.
who took his findings out of context and tried to give them "unlimited domain"
were the boneheads. Einstein himself said his findings, his advancements on
others' earlier works, were never meant to have "unlimited domain," just as the
"flat universe" does not have the unlimited domain far too many
politically-socially correct (limited brain capacity and vision) scientists try
to give it. I finally stopped taking others word for what Einstein did and said
and read Einstein's own writing on his subject in his little book "Relativity."
Then I began to find quotes from those who had actually known the man and had
had many discussions with him. He did not take his findings that seriously, did
not consider his findings all that valid if valid at all, outside of very
specific circumstances quite limited in parameters. Takes quite a brain to
realize that. He didn't think much of the "mediocre minds" who tried
continuously to take his work out of context, nor of those who listened to them
or listened to his critics who themselves did not bother to research what he had
actually done and said. I was one who had done both, listened to both for too
long. Never too late to learn better, I hope.
Brad
James Hunter
"General L. Bradford Jr." wrote:
> Einstein turns out not to be the bonehead I too once thought him to be.
He wan't as much of a bonehead as the boneheads that followed
since he never said anything about time being a human discovery.
S D Rodrian
> > > are always in motion and exchanging
> > > relationships with other particles
> > > forming physical objects that are
> > > constantly moving, while it appears that
> > > things are not moving sometimes,
> > > they actually are moving all of the time.
> >
> > I wish some folks here would also know this!
> >
> > > Time is not a singular entity , it is a
> > > process of change of relationships.
> >
> > Indeed: Newton codified that some years ago.
>
> on this. Newton believed empty
> euclidean space with absolute time
> was unquestionable "hypotheses
> non-fingo". Leibniz said that analysis situs
> was need to find what space
> best fit the relationships of the matter
> in it, and "empty" space had no
> meaning. Newton insisted in percussive causality
> in time, Leibniz showed
> the fault there.
You are off the rail and rolling at a clip
because, by editing out the remainder of my
paragraph, you leave the impression that the
word "that" is what you are now talking about
instead of what I was talking about then. This
gives me leave to go into a more pertinent
direction: Newton described the relativistic
nature of matter (while Einstein merely described
the relativistic nature of space (time). The
unfortunate consequence of Einstein's description
of the universe in/as "pure" geometry is that
a tendency has developed to assign a "reality"
(existence) to "time" AND to "space" which,
normally, no normal mind would think of assigning
(and therefrom giving rise to such mathematical-
only "realities" as multi-dimentions). I prefer
to focus on things which actually exist in the
universe, since what I'm really after is the root
cause of effects... even if I am never be able
to get close enough to them to acquire much more
than a fuzzy furtive glimpse; while Einstein was
much more interested in accuracy... and about the
only discipline that permits undisputed accuracy
IS mathematics--even if at the expense of any
connection with a reality (ours, need I say), with
a reality which is fundamentally forever at odds
with the brain's very method of processing reality.
If you wish to contemplate the universe you sit back
and take in its entirety at once, but if your aim
is to understand the universe... that can only be
done by eternally sifting through its details.
> > > At any single instant, there is a
> > > still frame of total reality. The next
> > > instant, every relationship has changed.
> >
> > Sorry: There are no pauses in the universe:
> > Its motion is unceasing ever. Period. You and I
> > might consider something we see for some time,
> > but that's just something that takes place in
> > our minds... in reality mountains grow and
> > erode away, entire continents drift like balsam,
> > stars blink in and out, and we grow old and
> > pass away, and the rocks remember us not.
> >
> > > When two airplanes are traveling at
> > > the same speed in the same direction
> > > without any other reference points,
> > > it appears that neither airplane is
> > > moving when looking from one airplane
> > > to the other airplane. The same
> > > phenomena is happening when we look at
> > > things that remain in a constant
> > > relationship to us.
> >
> > I imagine that's why most airplanes
> > synchronize their motions of the ground
> > instead of with each other.
> >
> > > It is possible that other physical
> > > realities existing in the same space are
> > > creating a totally different reality
> > > that are visible to other life forms.
> >
> > It's also possible that Superman will
> > battle Santa Claus in an upcoming dream.
> > But there are no impossibles in the universe:
> > only in our minds: Ours is a three dimensional
> > reality. Period. Anybody proposes any additional
> > dimensions/realities... they're all in his/her
> > head.
>
> Riemann did. Reality is riemannian.
Rather, more correctly: His geometry is Riemannian.
While our "description of reality" may indeed be
more "accurately" carried out by describing space
surrounding "electrical charges" mathematically
(which unquestionably will enhance the accuracy
of orbit descriptions), this method frustrates the
fundamental inquiry into the nature of "electrical
charges" (i.e. "energy" or "matter" et al) themselves.
> In fact the naive Euclidean space is
> all in the head and does not correspond
> to reality.
I prefer naiveté to self-deception: In trying
to describe Reality, I prefer to put it all
together piece by piece EXACTLY BECAUSE in
trying to describe Reality all at once we
sacrifice the essence of Reality (what really is
"real") for the sake of a mere overall view
devoid of all pertinent details... while it is
easier to be misled by a well-done painting
than by a tack up the naked sole of one's foot
(I never said there was no price to be paid for
keeping one's feet on the ground).
> Of course Einsteins
> use of Riemann is flawed.
Einstein did not question that we are living
in a non-Euclidean universe! Duh! The nature
of our universe is its three-dimensionality.
But Einstein's reality is a dynamic one (a living
map, if you will)... and such a map requires
the addition of a fourth "dimension" (something
which throws a monkey wrench into "classical"
Riemannian geometry as it seems to imply that
"it might just be possible" that "with time"
hyperbolic and elliptic parallelism may not just
only extend "logically" ad infinitum but might
also "turn or wiggle around & back/forth" until
the once hyperbolic becomes elliptic & vice versa.
Einstein's non-Euclidean geometry is not "wrong"
but simply "describing a different view of reality"
[something which might suggest that there are more
ways than just one to view reality... not all of
which may be categorically "wrong" just because
another way to view it may be categorically "right"].
> Best to check Riemann's habilitation paper.
Like Riemann checked Nikolay Lobachevsky's and
János Bolyai's papers?... Sure: Just as soon as
my focus shifts to dealing with "position" and
"place" instead of "measure" and "quantity," yes.
Like everyone else, I too rather like to do that
which will advance my direction (even if it takes
editing out "that" which forces me to go where
I do not wish to go).
Good luck,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
re:
S D Rodrian
> of Riemann's geometry.
> Normally I would consider the "brains method
> of processing reality" like
> our senses - they only show us shadows
> of reality. Science must start
> with this, and find ways to use anomalies
> and parodoxes to get better
> universal principles. Riemann says that
> these principles take the place
> of dimensions.
Regardless: There are only THREE dimensions to
our universe (this is a conceit of convenience, but
we all know what is meant). There ARE two "halves"
to the complete universe (the universe of matter
and the universe of energy), but these are NOT
different dimensions, as the relation between the
two halves of the universe are not unlike that
between a black hole and its "singularity" (if
it's really down there, of course). And as for
Einstein's (or anybody else's geometrical models
of the universe... if they're not Euclidean and
flat: they're warped).
> Commonly misunderstood. Check what Riemann
> said about dimensions, and
> the process of adding a new one.
Ay ya ya ya ay... Mathematical "dimension" are like
leggo pieces: You're trying to build a geodesic sphere
and you find that you only have THREE leggo pieces [you
really don't have any inevitable/unavoidable NEED to
build the damn ball, but as long as you're gonna]...
you find you need another leggo piece, and another
one, and another one... so you simply reach into your
Handy-Dandy Bottomless Bag of Purely Mathematical Leggo
Dimensions... and take out as many of'em as you need
to make your ball "round" (since, there is NO PHYSICAL
PROHIBITION to adding as many dimensions as you need
to make your leggo equations avoid disagreeing: e.g.
finishing your beautiful geodesic sphere).
> > While our "description of reality" may indeed be
> > more "accurately" carried out by describing space
> > surrounding "electrical charges" mathematically
> > (which unquestionably will enhance the accuracy
> > of orbit descriptions), this method frustrates the
> > fundamental inquiry into the nature of "electrical
> > charges" (i.e. "energy" or "matter" et al) themselves.
>
> Well using euclidean Newtonian empiricism
> does definitely frustrate any
> such inquiry.
Not in the least, I assure you, as it NEVER
frustrates the understanding of reality to
inquire INTO REALITY. It's only when the confused
look into a stuffed turkey with the belief that
they're peering into the very belly of Veritas
that we get the kind of "turkey reality" of
today's conventional astrophysics, et al.
> Riemann said get rid of all axioms, pre-
> conceived notions of geometry.
> Only then is there a chance of progress.
And my neighbor Ed Monton said empty your mind,
forget words, grunt (and he said more, but it all
sounded like unintelligible grunts to me; although
the kid who was pushing his wheelchair that morning
(a certain Van Couver, by name) said that it had
"something to do with very stupid fowls."
> > > In fact the naive Euclidean space is
> > > all in the head and does not correspond
> > > to reality.
> >
> > I prefer naiveté to self-deception: In trying
> > to describe Reality, I prefer to put it all
> > together piece by piece EXACTLY BECAUSE in
> > trying to describe Reality all at once we
> > sacrifice the essence of Reality (what really is
> > "real") for the sake of a mere overall view
> > devoid of all pertinent details... while it is
> > easier to be misled by a well-done painting
> > than by a tack up the naked sole of one's foot
> > (I never said there was no price to be paid for
> > keeping one's feet on the ground).
>
> If one reads Plato's allegory of the cave,
> naivete becomes self-deception
> when the former prisoner tells the rest
> that those shadows are _caused_ by
> people moving puppets in front of a fire.
Plato was more a poet than philosopher. We
mustn't take every metaphor he used as
his scientific/philosophical attempt to picture
reality as he "saw" it.
> > > Of course Einsteins
> > > use of Riemann is flawed.
> >
> > Einstein did not question that we are living
> > in a non-Euclidean universe! Duh! The nature
> > of our universe is its three-dimensionality.
>
> That's the flaw. He did not use Riemann
> geometry correctly, instead
> banalized it.
Did not! Einstein description of the universe
is an astonishingly perceptive insight into its
nature... for its time, and for the facts/truths
and "proven" observations available at the time
(note how quickly he adapted his equations to
Hubble's discovery that galaxies were in recession).
> Gauss told Bolyai that he had made these
> discoveries but was afraid
> to publish. Riemann completely changed
> geometry as Gauss saw. That is why
> it is very important to read the introduction
> to the Habilitation paper.
> It is not
> what we are told by hand-waving.
> And even today is revolutionary.
It is important to rear the encyclopedia and
as many of the "revolutionary" books published
in the Western Tradition. I'll assume you have
access to a recent/competent encyclopedia; and
you can find a number of my own basic reading
(non-scientific, I promise you) recommendations at:
http://www.geocities.com/rodrian/books2.htm
Good luck,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
re:
> > > > to create Heaven for others even when it entails
S D Rodrian
"Scot Mc Pherson" <behomet@hom_e.com> wrote:
S D Rodrian wrote:
> > Regardless: There are only THREE dimensions to
> > our universe (this is a conceit of convenience, but
> > we all know what is meant). There ARE two "halves"
> > to the complete universe (the universe of matter
> > and the universe of energy), but these are NOT
> > different dimensions, as the relation between the
> > two halves of the universe are not unlike that
> > between a black hole and its "singularity" (if
> > it's really down there, of course). And as for
> > Einstein's (or anybody else's geometrical models
> > of the universe... if they're not Euclidean and
> > flat: they're warped).
>
> There are more than three dimensions...
> A dimension is defined as a direction
> of travel or orientation of reference.
Agreed, but we formally speak of them as THREE
because there is no practical way to pin down
the exact number of directions in which we could travel
outward from the center of a sphere.
> If you can take a cartesian
> coordinate system, and tilt it, move it
> or move something around it, spin
> it, whatever.. in any direction you have
> demonstrated the 4th dimension of
> time.
Actually all you're demonstrated is
just how dizzy a fellow can make himself
by discombobulating his brain.
> It is easy to conceive and
> demonstration that there are other
> directions one can take which simply move
> from one place to another along a
> line.
It's easier still to demonstrate how one
can be stretched flat-out on a bed and then
find oneself walking as one is spinning...
backwards into a dot while turning into
an elephant... which then...
> This is the theory of relativity,
> that what seems a straight line from
> one point of reference may seem
> curve from another. I.e. A train is moving
> from point A to B. A person on the train
> drops a ball. From that person's
> point of view the ball falls straight down.
> From the embankment, a person
> sees the ball fall in a hyperbolic curve.
> An observer watching from a
> vehicle moving in a completey different
> direction sees the ball not only
> curving hyperbolically, but also
> either approaching or retreating. A person
> on the ball does not see the ball move,
> but sees everything else moving.
And now you know why they won't let people
play with their balls in trains! (It drives
everybody crazy.)
> As far as conceiving Time AND Space
> together as being ab-normal, I don't
> know what you are talking about...
> If you mind didn't think thusly, you
> wouldn't be able to function...
> To conceive of space without time is to think
> about that which never moves or changes state.
Actually, I believe my mind is able to
function because of billions and billions of
years of just the right sort of evolution.
> The universe is not 50% energy and 50% matter
> ...Matter and Energy have been
> proven to be exactly the same thing
> just observed differently...
Pretty much like water and ice (but I still
prefer to be hit with a bucket of water (minus
the bucket) than with a bucket of frozen water
(bucket or no bucket).
> very much
> the same way that water can be a solid,
> liquid or gas....Matter and Energy
> are different aspect of the same thing,
> and the aspect are not distributed
> evenly...energy has as much matter in it
> as matter...its just moving faster.
Actually "energy" doesn't "move" at all in
any physical sense EXCEPT AS "matter" (any
more than "motion" can "exist" without
"some thing" moving)...
BEGIN QUOTE
> No, energy is the ability to do work, period.
Sure. But that doesn't tell us anything concerning
how energy can "cause" the "effect" you call work:
In ordinary experience it is always the case that
the "work" (what energy is "doing") seems to be what
is producing energy... as the human brain cannot
conceptualize energy without the work it's doing.
For that reason alone, it's much more helpful if we
simply go ahead and posit as ultimately fundamental:
[ energy = motion ]
(That there can be no energy without motion is
already implicit in our ordinary experience that
there can be no motion without "some thing" moving.)
But now consider the origin of "things" (so-called
"physical" matter: "particles," or more accurately:
"gravitational systems") as, purely, "systems" (or
natural mechanisms) by which to conserve energy.
If you adhere strictly to this "conservation of
energy" as an expression of the fact that:
[ a slow large motion = a fast small motion ]
... you can "begin" to understand how energy can become
(more accurately: evolve into) matter... as monstrously
immense masses/volumes at the beginnings of the universe
of matter (obeying but the simple laws of thermodynamics)
went from (almost) being [at] absolute rest... to evolving
into (becoming) ever more compacting and ever more coalescing
"gravitational systems" forever "conserving" (even by
something as simple as acceleration) the vast amounts of
"energy" [they "ripped out" of the universe of energy, or
infinite (scalar) mass] "IN/into" ever-compacting, shrinking
volumes of "matter" [and by describing "energy as conserved
FROM massive "slow" motion "INTO/in" "faster" motion in lesser
volumes which yet still "hold" within them (most of) the "energy
value" (quotient) they had held (been made of) before the advent
(manifestation) of the universe of matter... we can at last begin
to understand the "natural evolution" of the universe of matter
(as this first step in defining "energy" AS "motion" sets us
on the path of an eventual, inescapable description of the birth
of the universe of matter FROM the universe of energy). And all
because of a simple reconsideration of our basic definition of
what the term "energy" MUST mean "in human terms" [which is
always with the purpose of making "understanding" possible].
> >Rather, say the meaning of "energy" cannot be
> >reduced beyond "motion" (for, in our material
> >reality, it's already beyond the capabilities
> >of our minds to conceive of motion without
> >"some thing" moving).
> >
> Not only a velocity differential but a pressure
> differential can do work too.
And many other methods as well, chemical, electrical,
and going to the office 9 to 5 as well.
> >... matter is not really ultimately "physical" but
> >only... such a high degree of energy involved
> >in a gravitational system that it has become
> >very hard for "other" gravitational systems to
> >exchange energy contents with it: But ultimately
> >there is nothing to all such fundamental
> >"gravitational systems" but "motion" (or, energy)
> >in spite of our irrational minds' inability to
> >separate "motion" from "the thing moving."
> >
> Entirely wrong, based on lack of a
> correct definition or understanding of "energy".
Entirely wrong, based on lack of a
correct definition or understanding of "energy".
> Energy is the ability to do work. It is
> possessed by matter, which is that real
> and physical and everywhere totally familiar
> substance out of which all bodies,
> including atoms and molecules and sticks
> and stones and people and bones are made of.
Momma mia! Hasn't anybody explained to you yet
that stick/stones only present an electromagnetic
barrier to the atoms of/in your fingers/hand?
Ultimately: Matter is so infinitely "divisible"
that it's impossible to determine an absolute
"bottom" beyond which it cannot/will not "divide"
(regardless of what anybody whose iron bowl is
stuck on CERN might tell you). The ONLY fundamental
thing in this reality of ours IS motion ["energy"]
even if it's for no other reason than that we poor
mortals may never be able to fathom reality beyond
that/there: Already it's extremely difficult for us
to come to terms with a fundamental definition of
that primordial concept (energy) detached from its
modern/present day usage [as you can see even here]
when we can't get past the concept that it is
a body (in whatever relativistic "motion") that
produces/carries/embodies "energy" (which is putt'n
the egg before the chicken when we know better).
[ Please! ]
> >> mass is the combined atomic weight of all particles
> >> in the matter, and density is the volume
> >> the mass assumes due to the gravimetric
> >> properties of the bonding elements v.s.
> >> the radiant signature (energy) trying to
> >> pull it apart combined with the
> >> gravimetric responses of other nearby objects.
> In the present equations of Physics
> mass IS a weight,
> although an "atomic weight" doesn't
> have nor assume a volume.
Regardless: The best definition is always the one
that will promote a more comprehensive understanding.
And this dictates that we define mass as the quantity
of inertia it possesses [Newton's 2nd law m=f/a, or
a force divided by acceleration]... while weight,
as a force, is a mass multiplied by an acceleration
[Newton's 2nd law]... as it's ever confusing to blur
in practice the distinctions between the two definitions.
> Being a measure or the weight of
> a particle made of matter, mass
> is neither a quantity of matter
> nor a quantity of energy.
Unless, of course [E=MC^2]. that is: "matter is energy
in another form" ... In which case, again, the ONLY
fundamental "thing/stuff" that exists IS "energy,"
and "matter" is simply a "pool" of "conserved energy"
... This being the case (energy hath no "weight"), if
matter has mass, then energy MUST also have mass
EVEN IF infinitesimally so (because there really is
no absolute "magical" dividing line between "energy"
and "matter" we can point to with absolute specificity).
Moreover, the mass of a particle which is "mostly"
energy (as ALL particles MUST be defined as matter
even if infinitesimally so) is much more likely to
behave the same way that energy behaves IN the universe
of energy [or, absolute rest & infinite (scalar) mass)
... even IF, as with the case of the photon, it also
"exists" in the universe of matter]. Consider that our
"complete" universe behaves not unlike a "black hole"
(with the universe of matter forever imploding at its
"center," and the universe of energy forever exploding
"around" that "singularity" of matter). This means
that the universe of matter is effectively "moving" at
truly astronomical speeds with respect to the universe
of energy (in the direction of shrinking)... even as it's
obvious to our very eyes that the photon IS moving at
the "speed of light" with respect to the universe of
matter--Even though we might never really know its
"absolute speed" with respect to the universe of energy
(or, absolute rest). We can only say definitively that
ordinary matter is "moving" faster than the photon (by
the speed of light) with respect to the universe of matter,
but we cannot say (just yet?) exactly "how fast" either
photon/ordinary matter are "moving" with respect to the
absolute rest embodied by infinite (scalar) mass.
END QUOTE
End post.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
re:
> > > > > > > At any single instant, there is a
> > Ay ya ya ya ay... Mathematical "dimensions" are like
...
S D Rodrian
> > inches or gallons" (sorry). We sense colors and
> > odours and textures and sounds (and some of us
> > even have a sense of taste--again: sorry). What
> > we do with "time" is to remember "the previous form"
> > long enough to compare it to "the present form"
> > and maybe even, if we're smart, calculate what
> > form the future will take (that's what the animal
> > brain evolved to do, along with other sundry
> > full-time duties, such as breathing...).
> >
>
> Try modeling this without a sense of time.
Sure:
The river does NOT "sense time" any more than
yardsticks "sense inches or gallons" (sorry).
Cameras sense colors, bomb sniffers odours,
fingerprint kits textures, and microphones sounds
(and some styles even have a sense of taste--again:
sorry). What a CD does with "time" is to remember
"the previous form" long enough for it to be compared
by a computer it to "the present form" (to determine
if it's a CD or a coaster)... and maybe even, if
the computer is advanced enough, calculate what form
the future will have take to burn more CDs and
fewer coasters (that's what computers have evolved
to do, along with other sundry full-time duties,
such as crashing...).
There: No sensibilities involved, ergo:
No ability to sense time or any other
headaches.
S D Rodrian
wisdom.findhere.org
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
John Savard
<SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote, in part:
>There: No sensibilities involved, ergo:
>No ability to sense time or any other
>headaches.
No, we do not sense time.
But we are clocks: certain things we do tend to take about the same
amount of time each time we do them.
How long it takes for us to get hungry after a meal.
When we walk from point A to point B, if it takes us a certain amount
of time, we are walking; but when we do so in less time, we can feel
that our movement is different - we know we are running.
The beating of our hearts.
Time doesn't have the kind of physicality that lets us "sense" it the
way we sense light with our eyes, or sense sound with our ears. But
there certainly _is_ a reality that prevents me from walking a mile
.. in one minute.
Maybe calling that reality "time", and treating that word as a noun,
is not a perfect fit to reality, but I think concern about that asks
too much of language, and ignores the fact that the category of nouns
can legitimately include abstractions.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Jure Sah
> The river does NOT "sense time" any more than
> yardsticks "sense inches or gallons" (sorry).
But the question is: Does S D Rodrian sense the presence of intelligence
in his brain anymore than physics has something to do with AI?
Guess not.
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
Happy new year and this time the new millennium too. ;)
Those that are interested in the Mind project might look at:
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/mind.html (updated: 24.11.00)
457863656C656E742120596F75206465636F646564206D79207365637265
74206D6573736167652E20576F756C6420796F75206C696B6520746F2067
6574206120636F7079206F662074686520736F6674776172652049207573
656420746F20656E636F6465207468697320746578743F20446F6E277420
776F7272792C2049206D61646520697420616E6420492063616E20676976
6520697420746F20796F7520666F7220465245452E
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
S D Rodrian
Jure Sah <jure...@guest.arnes.si> wrote:
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> > The river does NOT "sense time" any more than
> > yardsticks "sense inches or gallons" (sorry).
>
> But the question is: Does S D Rodrian sense
> the presence of intelligence
> in his brain anymore than physics has
> something to do with AI?
>
> Guess not.
Translation: Does a computer sense
the presence of the electrical intelligence
in its memory banks any more than physics
should have anything to do with the paranormal?
I'm pretty sure... not.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
>
> --
>
> Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
> reply.
>
> Happy new year and this time the new millennium too. ;)
>
> Those that are interested in the Mind project might look at:
> HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/mind.html (updated: 24.11.00)
>
> 457863656C656E742120596F75206465636F646564206D79207365637265
> 74206D6573736167652E20576F756C6420796F75206C696B6520746F2067
> 6574206120636F7079206F662074686520736F6674776172652049207573
> 656420746F20656E636F6465207468697320746578743F20446F6E277420
> 776F7272792C2049206D61646520697420616E6420492063616E20676976
> 6520697420746F20796F7520666F7220465245452E
>
> GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
> HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
>
>
S D Rodrian
j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
> In article <91nk85$ljh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> >The river does NOT "sense time" any more than
> >yardsticks "sense inches or gallons" (sorry).
>
All human exchanges eventually become silly:
It's our inheritance from our primogenitor
the mighty monkey.
> Time is a direct consequence
> of the 3 laws of thermodynamics.
> You can go to a physics book to find out
> what the difference between
> reversible and irreversable processes are.
Would that it were that simple. Unfortunately
here the camps are divided into those who
cannot conceive how an uncaused effect ca
possibly exist (among them myself), and those
whose superstition is that uncaused effects
happen all the time (at the QM level), and that
therefore it's impossible ever to return home.
I'm going home now: Good night and may you
always only dream Euclidean dreams!
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
jsa...@fNrOeSePnAeMt.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:28:39 GMT, S D Rodrian
> <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote, in part:
>
> >There: No sensibilities involved, ergo:
> >No ability to sense time or any other
> >headaches.
>
> No, we do not sense time.
>
> But we are clocks: certain things we do
> tend to take about the same
> amount of time each time we do them.
Not for me: It's been getting harder and longer
for me to get going in the morning for years now.
> How long it takes for us to get hungry after a meal.
Nope: You can switch from for/five meals
a day to just one and you will find that
you get hungry about the time you're used to
eating. [This does not work with intervals
of three-five days, by the way.]
> When we walk from point A to point B,
> if it takes us a certain amount
> of time, we are walking; but when we do so
> in less time, we can feel
> that our movement is different
> - we know we are running.
Not for me: I'm a long-time walker [no pun]
and I don't believe I've ever done
my rounds in the identical span of time
although it's the exact distance every time.
> The beating of our hearts.
All our individual hearts have different ways
of playing along with life... some people
groove to the rhythm of a soft-shoe, while
others jump to their own rim-shots.
[You'd've come close with body temperature,
though: No matter which human animal you
pick... you will find that we all share
nearly the same body temperature.]
> Time doesn't have the kind of physicality
> that lets us "sense" it the
> way we sense light with our eyes, or
> sense sound with our ears. But
> there certainly _is_ a reality that
> prevents me from walking a mile
> .. in one minute.
Time hath NO physicality at all (it is merely
only a human measurement, and the hour has no
more a material existence outside the human mind
than the inch or the gallon).
And, by the way, I've walked a mile way/way
under a minute many times. The secret is to
do it in a moving truck. Now you know.
> Maybe calling that reality "time", and
> treating that word as a noun,
> is not a perfect fit to reality, but
> I think concern about that asks
> too much of language, and ignores
> the fact that the category of nouns
> can legitimately include abstractions.
No matter how you may put it: Time only exists
in the human mind. And once we're extinct, the
motions of the universe will forever go untimed
(unless the Martians invent the clock, of course).
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
> John Savard
Tom McWilliams
Check out "The End of Time" by for the long exposition of the real
'timeless' theory.
-Tm
--
* . * '^
,.. " . *
,
' Tommy Mac
Tom McWilliams
>
> In article <G5tqH...@research.att.com>,
> j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
> > Time is a direct consequence
> > of the 3 laws of thermodynamics.
> > You can go to a physics book to find out
> > what the difference between
> > reversible and irreversable processes are.
That tells you the direction which we perceive time to be moving, but if
our experience of time is only an illusion, based on the existance of
proximate records, the fact that there is a direction is not a
sufficient test for concluding that time is not an illusion.
If there is a point in our 'past' which had a maximum level of order,
then those on the other side would perceive time to be moving in the
opposite 'direction.'
S D Rodrian
Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >
> > In article <G5tqH...@research.att.com>,
> > j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon
> > and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>
> > > Time is a direct consequence
> > > of the 3 laws of thermodynamics.
> > > You can go to a physics book to find out
> > > what the difference between
> > > reversible and irreversable processes are.
>
> That tells you the direction which we
> perceive time to be moving, but if
> our experience of time is only an illusion,
> based on the existance of
> proximate records, the fact that
> there is a direction is not a
> sufficient test for concluding
> that time is not an illusion.
Time is NOT an illusion! It is
a measurement (you know: so much time
for this motion to move A to B) exactly
like volume measurements (you know:
so much water to fill "it" A to B) and
exactly as any/every other measurement
(you know: so much tinsel for the size of
this tree & so much mashed potatoes for me!).
The idea of time depends on a physical
impossibility, namely "breaking up" one or
more of the motions of the universe into
discreet "units" (this NEVER happens in nature
where ALL the motions of the universe follow
ONLY Newton's laws and NONE of the motions
of the universe either pause or stop altogether
without their being "conserved" into some
other also non-pausing, non-stopping motion
or motions).
> If there is a point in our 'past' which
> had a maximum level of order,
... of LACK of motion(s)
> then those on the other side would
> perceive time to be moving in the
> opposite 'direction.'
... then anyone who "looked" upon it
would find NOTHING because everything
that exists consists ONLY of MOTION(s)
and this is why "energy" ultimately does
NOT consist of any physicality (as we
understand that term) because the ONLY
stuff which our mortal understanding can
endow with "materiality" is "matter"
(and "energy" is as the breeze that sends
a shiver through the foliage... where
the foliage is all we can ever see
from behind those windows of our intelligence
beyond which only our minds may venture).
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
> -Tm
Jure Sah
> But the question is: Does S D Rodrian sense
> the presence of intelligence
> in his brain anymore than physics has
> something to do with AI?
S D Rodrian wrote:
> Translation: Does a computer sense
> the presence of the electrical intelligence
> in its memory banks any more than physics
> should have anything to do with the paranormal?
Ha! Logic:
"S D Rodrian" = "Computer"
"Intelligence" = "Electrical intelligence"
(Gotta tell this one to Cordi ;)
"Brain" = "Memory banks"
"AI" = "Paranormal"
But if you are a computer, you just passed the turing test by talking to
me. You are an AI. Are you paranormal? You're surely not normal, if you
cross post things to a physics and an AI newsgroup. But yet you are
normal enough to claim that the brain is the same thing as memory banks.
You're a strange intellect S D Rodrian. Are you going to change that?
S D Rodrian
> >"the previous form" long enough for it to be compared
> >by a computer it to "the present form" (to determine
> >if it's a CD or a coaster)... and maybe even, if
> >the computer is advanced enough, calculate what form
> >the future will have take to burn more CDs and
> >fewer coasters (that's what computers have evolved
> >to do, along with other sundry full-time duties,
> >such as crashing...).
> >
> >No ability to sense time or any other
> >headaches.
>
> something that can compare present
> with past. Brain damage can eliminate
> the sense of time by removing memories
So can a hard drive melt-down.
> of the past. Computers are designed by people
> who know what time is from the
> comparators in their brains.
So are people... who were "designed" by
a universe which does not know anything
except motion/energy... a equal-opportunity
and wise universe who never gave a thought
to making comparisons between its children.
> We only exist at the present moment.
It's more accurate to say that Existence
is "all there is." And that therefore
all that has existed and all that will exist
is (still/aways) right here with us (just
in, for the present, an unrecognizable form).
NOTE: This makes existence a jumble of
self-interacting motions forever re-shaping
and giving form to all it shapes & forms.
(And therefore... if you wish to understand
the universe: Always start with Newton.)
> Perhaps everything else too?
Absolutely: The superstition that we humans
are somehow "apart from Nature" is as
unworkable as a claim by some nut (holding on
for life) that it is not part of the mechanism.
> Roland Cook
Mark K.
Jure Sah <jure...@guest.arnes.si> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > But the question is: Does S D Rodrian sense
> > the presence of intelligence
> > in his brain
> > anymore than physics has
> > something to do with AI?
>
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> > Translation: Does a computer sense
> > the presence of the electrical intelligence
> > in its memory banks any more than physics
> > should have anything to do with the paranormal?
>
> Ha! Logic:
> "S D Rodrian" = "Computer"
> "Intelligence" = "Electrical intelligence"
> (Gotta tell this one to Cordi ;)
> "Brain" = "Memory banks"
> "AI" = "Paranormal"
>
> But if you are a computer, you just passed the turing test by talking
to
> me. You are an AI. Are you paranormal? You're surely not normal, if
you
> cross post things to a physics and an AI newsgroup. But yet you are
> normal enough to claim that the brain is the same thing as memory
banks.
>
> You're a strange intellect S D Rodrian. Are you going to change that?
Leave out the intellect bit and you will find the answer is that and
idiot is incapable of change.
>
Mark
Tom McWilliams
>
> In article <3A408547...@msu.edu>,
> Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > S D Rodrian wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <G5tqH...@research.att.com>,
> > > j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon
> > > and tiring philalethist) wrote:
> >
> > > > Time is a direct consequence
> > > > of the 3 laws of thermodynamics.
> > > > You can go to a physics book to find out
> > > > what the difference between
> > > > reversible and irreversable processes are.
> >
> > That tells you the direction which we
> > perceive time to be moving, but if
> > our experience of time is only an illusion,
> > based on the existance of
> > proximate records, the fact that
> > there is a direction is not a
> > sufficient test for concluding
> > that time is not an illusion.
>
> Time is NOT an illusion!
How do you know?
> It is
> a measurement (you know: so much time
> for this motion to move A to B) exactly
> like volume measurements (you know:
> so much water to fill "it" A to B) and
> exactly as any/every other measurement
> (you know: so much tinsel for the size of
> this tree & so much mashed potatoes for me!).
> The idea of time depends on a physical
> impossibility, namely "breaking up" one or
> more of the motions of the universe into
> discreet "units" (this NEVER happens in nature
> where ALL the motions of the universe follow
> ONLY Newton's laws and NONE of the motions
> of the universe either pause or stop altogether
> without their being "conserved" into some
> other also non-pausing, non-stopping motion
> or motions).
Time may well be an illusion. I encourage you to check out Julian
Barbour's "The end of Time" for the full treatment of the theory.
You 'reasons' that time exists all depend on the assumption that it
exists, so your circular reasonsing offers no criteria for answering the
question.
As Mach showed that there is no absolute space, Barbour has proposed
that the experience of duration is based on proximate records, and the
dimension which we experience as time is akin to another spatial
dimension, where the 'past' is simply the direction in which our records
lie.
Ultimately, as you imply above, the current 'time' is based only on the
current state of the entire universe. No meter is meaningful without
comparison to others.
> > If there is a point in our 'past' which
> > had a maximum level of order,
>
> ... of LACK of motion(s)
>
> > then those on the other side would
> > perceive time to be moving in the
> > opposite 'direction.'
>
> ... then anyone who "looked" upon it
> would find NOTHING because everything
> that exists consists ONLY of MOTION(s)
> and this is why "energy" ultimately does
> NOT consist of any physicality (as we
> understand that term) because the ONLY
> stuff which our mortal understanding can
> endow with "materiality" is "matter"
> (and "energy" is as the breeze that sends
> a shiver through the foliage... where
> the foliage is all we can ever see
> from behind those windows of our intelligence
> beyond which only our minds may venture).
Well, ignoring the fact that matter and energy are the same thing,
repectively convergent and radiant, you nearly happen upon the reason
time may be an illusion.
That 'motion' could very well be simply the formation of records within
your perceptual apparatus, which records are just another part of the
vastly complex standing wave-function which is the Universe. Remember
those wave-packets youo made with fourier transforms? You designed them
so that the function only existed in a discrete region, but the universe
is under no such obligation.
It's a tough idea to get a handle on, but if you get the book, you'll
find it much easier than listening to me.
Your conception of 'motion' assumes time, again, so simply offering your
conception of time as proof that it's not an illusion just begs the
question.
James Hunter
Tom McWilliams wrote:
Q: How is that 'wisemen' know so such about time fallacies,
but nothing about space fallacies?
A: Because they are mostly standing waves, standing
in the way of logic.
S D Rodrian
All human being are a mixed-bag. I can
tell I AM an artificial intelligence
(as I am the "product" of my upbringing,
and had I been raised a Palestinian
I'd probably have the intellect of a
life-long rioter). As for paranormal:
That no one can say--No, that's too arrogant
[Correction Please]... That is something
I cannot say is true or false--But don't
you remember how nice it was to believe
in Santa Claus? PLUS: I post things to
an AI group because, as you yourself have
realized I am an artificial intelligence,
unlike bugs and other simpler lifeforms.
> You're a strange intellect S D Rodrian.
> Are you going to change that?
A leopard cannot change its spots. And
I have NEVER known a human being to change
his/her nature from the time he/she was
a baby to the time they were ready to
kick the buckit--And I've studied quite
a number of the curious creatures myself, so:
Be happy with yourself! Because you
just can't FIND happiness in the world
... only in yourself.
>
> --
>
> Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
> reply.
>
> Happy new year and this time the new millennium too. ;)
>
> Those that are interested in the Mind project might look at:
> HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/mind.html (updated: 24.11.00)
>
> 457863656C656E742120596F75206465636F646564206D79207365637265
> 74206D6573736167652E20576F756C6420796F75206C696B6520746F2067
> 6574206120636F7079206F662074686520736F6674776172652049207573
> 656420746F20656E636F6465207468697320746578743F20446F6E277420
> 776F7272792C2049206D61646520697420616E6420492063616E20676976
> 6520697420746F20796F7520666F7220465245452E
>
> GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
> HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
>
>
S D Rodrian
Mark K. <mark_k...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A40C973...@guest.arnes.si>,
> Jure Sah <jure...@guest.arnes.si> wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > But the question is: Does S D Rodrian sense
> > > the presence of intelligence
> > > in his brain
> Very funny! The answer is yes,
> unfortunately he's 100%wrong!
Sorry, Mark, but: Nothing is 100%
(Not even this truism--that's how
true it is!)
[This will probably be over Mark'sr head.]
But: If "idiot is incapable of change" ...
amaze me and prove yourself no idiot
by changing (yourself) and becoming more
civil and less obnoxious. Dare'ya.
Here's a little extra incentive to sweeten my
challenge: If you change before me, you
will in fact prove me the bigger idiot of the
two of us! So, here's your golden chance,
my boy!
S D Rodrian
"Roland Cook" <wrc...@nwi.net> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian wrote in message <91qkl6$5d6
>
> >It's more accurate to say that Existence
> >is "all there is." And that therefore
> >all that has existed and all that will exist
> >is (still/aways) right here with us (just
> >in, for the present, an unrecognizable form).
>
> kind of religious doctrine, or
> shades of the old 'clockwork' universe.
It certainly ought to sound familiar
as it's just a real-world language
expression of the law of energy conservation!
> But a clock knows nothing of the past,
> only the present so that isn't what
> you're thinking.
>
> I wonder what it is?
I am thinking of a universe
not a single bit of which depends
one whit on what anybody's thinking.
I am working on how the universe
created us... by concentrating on
eradicating our cherished superstitions
regarding how we created the universe.
> Roland Cook
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Tom McWilliams
>
> In article <TK606.4615$bj7.5...@den-news1.rmi.net>,
> "Roland Cook" <wrc...@nwi.net> wrote:
> >
> > S D Rodrian wrote in message <91qkl6$5d6
> >
> > >It's more accurate to say that Existence
> > >is "all there is." And that therefore
> > >all that has existed and all that will exist
> > >is (still/aways) right here with us (just
> > >in, for the present, an unrecognizable form).
> >
> > This sounds vaguely familiar, like some
> > kind of religious doctrine, or
> > shades of the old 'clockwork' universe.
>
> It certainly ought to sound familiar
> as it's just a real-world language
> expression of the law of energy conservation!
So, quantum-level particles don't share in 'existence', then? How,
then, do we perceive them, or exist, ourselves?
> > But a clock knows nothing of the past,
> > only the present so that isn't what
> > you're thinking.
> >
> > I wonder what it is?
>
> I am thinking of a universe
> not a single bit of which depends
> one whit on what anybody's thinking.
I don't suppose you recognize the contradiction (and hence, necessary
falsehood) in this statement? IOW, you can't think of such a universe.
Change 'thinking' to 'perceiving' or 'living in' and the problem becomes
a little clearer. It's frequently known as the anthropomorphic
principle.
> I am working on how the universe
> created us... by concentrating on
> eradicating our cherished superstitions
> regarding how we created the universe.
Good luck. The phenomenological necessity of any conception of Universe
makes you task difficult at best, and untestable, at worst.
What does every test require? Observation.
Simply put, the Universe is the sum total of all experiences, nothing
more. The existence of a separate, external 'reality' is both
unprovable, and completely unnecessary for the accurate modelling of
repeatable experiences.
S D Rodrian
George Bajszar <gy...@usa.net> wrote:
> In article <91ph68$9uu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> > In article <91oait$a41$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > George Bajszar <gy...@usa.net> wrote:
> > > And what does any of this has to do
> > > with Artificial Intelligence?
> > > Please stop xposting irrelevant topics.
> >
> > And what does any of this has to do
> > with this particular thread here?
> > Please stop posting irrelevant topics.
> >
> > Please note that tomorrow's great breakthrough
> > in AI will come from "neural networks" which
> > necessarily must mirror the brain. And what we
> > are discussing here is how the brain deals with
> > and "recognizes" its environment and reality.
> >
> > In future, please use your own brain (instead of
> > those of other people) to figure out for yourself
> > what relevancy a thing has to... another thing
> > or something.
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > wisdom.findhere.com
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > sdrodrian.com
>
> The point is that your xposting is
> extreamly annoying to everyone, and
Gods! Will these dictator-wannabes ever
be honest enough to say, "I don't like you
and that's why I want you killed!" instead
of this brazenly hypocritical claim of theirs ever
to be speaking for The Whole of Humanity!
> most usually is off topic.
I don't suppose you'd care to cite an instance.
> But you fail to understand the simple
> internet etiquette about that.
Nor do you, my potential friend: IF you
don't wish to read me: Do not read me. But
attempting to prevent others from reading me
is both hopelessly doomed to failure, and
pathetic (as it reflects awfully on you).
If you cannot intelligently counter the points
being made here... slither away to that place
where the points are dull enough for your
sensitivity. Screaming at the top of your voice
will not get you the sweets of your addiction.
> To see a thread with 20 xposts coming
> from you is annoying to everyone.
Perhaps to the universe itself! However, to
the twenty individuals who would never
receive a single copy if I did not specifically
send them to 20 different destinations... but
why do I get the feeling that this is all Greek
to you!
> There are posts that I and others
> prefer to keep within the limits of one forum.
Try telling the newspapers of the world
that you'd prefer that only one of them
publish any one given story. Good luck.
> Its about basic
> intelligence to understand why this
> bothers other people.
I see it's not going to be easy then
making it easy for you to understand, but
I can only try: You see, Science, civilization itself,
is ultimately based upon the free exchange of
ideas--and NOT upon the exchange of approved
ideas: That is the death of civilization and the ruin
of science. So I say to thee: It is a very small price
to pay that you and several other small persons are
annoyed to read things you don't want to read... but
eventually some of you will realize that all you need do
is to NOT to read them. "Those who demand that
"their" world adjust to them will usually be found to
not be too successful adjusting to their world..."
> When you
> crosspost, its not just your post
> that gets crossposted but the entire
> thread of all other people's conversations.
That is factually incorrect. I post only ONE
copy of whatever post to every single
newsgroup where that post is on-topic.
If you read ONLY one of those newsgroups
you will see only ONE copy of my post.
PERIOD.
It's when YOU choose to use a reader
such as the DejaNews reader (which
downloads the entire thread including
every copy sent to any NG)... that you run
into YOUR problem. Take it up with the
author of your reader, and not me. Or,
might I suggest you FIND a reader which
accommodates YOUR reading idiosyncrasies?
> It is plain blindness from
> your side not understanding this etiquette.
Tell me about it! You'd be surprised
how many people spend all their lives
cursing the darkness (even buying rather
expensive megaphones) when all they'd
have to do is buy one lousy little candle!?!?!
Are you enlightened now? Why do I
seriously doubt it?...
S D Rodrian
"Mark K." <mark_k...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <91rbik$qpg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> usele...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I'm more inclined to think
> > of man as an invention of Time.
> >
> And SD Rodent as a complete waste of it.
> Mark
I am thy God, Mark. It kinda saddens me
that one day you will realize this and
stop worshiping me. But I'm a big god:
I'll get over it, when you wise up.
However, until then: Yeah, Baby!
S D Rodrian
wisdom.findhere.org
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>Check out "The End of Time" by for the long exposition of the real
>'timeless' theory.
Well, there was that Discover article which seemed to imply some
physicists think time is only a kind of space, but nothing really
changes.
This was supposed to give people hope that we were 'immortal' in a
way. I don't see how that could be, because our subjective experience
is still limited in extent, and moves one way through time, whichever
'direction' it points in; and, anyhow, that people who were treated
badly in their lives would eternally be in those lives instead of
going to Heaven or some such thing isn't a source of consolation
similar to that provided by religion anyhow.
That 'real timeless theory' seems to be making a "distinction without
a difference", as they say...
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Tom McWilliams
That's true - all the math is preserved, as are current observations.
The only difference is the removal of the absolute 'arrow of time,'
since said arrow is based on the relative amounts of order on either
side of a maxima or minima.
How one would observe past such maxima or minima is the hard part.
S D Rodrian
> >> This sounds vaguely familiar, like some
> >> kind of religious doctrine, or
> >> shades of the old 'clockwork' universe.
> >
> >It certainly ought to sound familiar
> >as it's just a real-world language
> >expression of the law of energy conservation!
>
> was a human invention or
> conception about the universe
> -- how will you dispose of or reinterpret
> that?
Rather simply, I think: "Baby, the rain
must fall" is also a human (ditty). Yet
the universe obeys that ditty without
question/protest whatever.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
> Roland Cook
Mark K.
S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> Rather simply, I think: "Baby, the rain
> must fall" is also a human (ditty). Yet
> the universe obeys that ditty without
> question/protest whatever.
>
> S D Rodrian
> web.sdrodrian.com
So you think the above load of shite warrants posting to 12 NG's you
senile dimshit?
Mark
Jure Sah
> All human being are a mixed-bag. I can
> tell I AM an artificial intelligence
> (as I am the "product" of my upbringing,
> and had I been raised a Palestinian
> I'd probably have the intellect of a
> life-long rioter).
Hmm, I think I sense... ... ___ ... INTELLIGENCE!
> As for paranormal:
> That no one can say--No, that's too arrogant
> [Correction Please]... That is something
> I cannot say is true or false--But don't
> you remember how nice it was to believe
> in Santa Claus? PLUS: I post things to
> an AI group because, as you yourself have
> realized I am an artificial intelligence,
> unlike bugs and other simpler lifeforms.
But you know there is a special news group that was reorganized
especially for AI's to post there: news:comp.ai.edu.
> > You're a strange intellect S D Rodrian.
> > Are you going to change that?
>
> A leopard cannot change its spots. And
> I have NEVER known a human being to change
> his/her nature from the time he/she was
> a baby to the time they were ready to
> kick the buckit--And I've studied quite
> a number of the curious creatures myself, so:
>
> Be happy with yourself! Because you
> just can't FIND happiness in the world
> ... only in yourself.
Then why don't you post to yourself?
Now, why don't we both go back to news:alt.philosophy.debate or maybe
news:alt.life.universe.everything and finish the discussion there?
Jure Sah
> Time is NOT an illusion!
Tom McWilliams wrote:
> How do you know?
Oh, come on! Time is a number, a variable to use with equavilations, so
that they can be solved. It's an illusion if you call maths illusion and
it's not if you don't call maths an illusion.
That's all that's too it.
S D Rodrian
Mark K.
S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> In article <91t22m$3ej$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Mark K. <mark_k...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <91t1ec$2v8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Rather simply, I think: "Baby, the rain
> > > must fall" is also a human (ditty). Yet
> > > the universe obeys that ditty without
> > > question/protest whatever.
> > >
> > > S D Rodrian
> > > web.sdrodrian.com
> >
> > So you think the above load of shite
> > warrants posting to 12 NG's you
> > senile dimshit?
> > Mark
>
> Yep.
>
> SDR
> curse.findhere.com
>
all 70000 every time??
Mark
S D Rodrian
Jure Sah <jure...@guest.arnes.si> wrote:
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> > All human being are a mixed-bag. I can
> > tell I AM an artificial intelligence
> > (as I am the "product" of my upbringing,
> > and had I been raised a Palestinian
> > I'd probably have the intellect of a
> > life-long rioter).
>
> Hmm, I think I sense... ... ___ ... INTELLIGENCE!
I COMPUTE I COMPUTE ... something artificial.
> > As for paranormal:
> > That no one can say--No, that's too arrogant
> > [Correction Please]... That is something
> > I cannot say is true or false--But don't
> > you remember how nice it was to believe
> > in Santa Claus? PLUS: I post things to
> > an AI group because, as you yourself have
> > realized I am an artificial intelligence,
> > unlike bugs and other simpler lifeforms.
>
> But you know there is a special
> news group that was reorganized
> especially for AI's to post there:
> news:comp.ai.edu.
I was waiting for your permission.
Thank you. Now I will.
> > > You're a strange intellect S D Rodrian.
> > > Are you going to change that?
> >
> > A leopard cannot change its spots. And
> > I have NEVER known a human being to change
> > his/her nature from the time he/she was
> > a baby to the time they were ready to
> > kick the buckit--And I've studied quite
> > a number of the curious creatures myself, so:
> >
> > Be happy with yourself! Because you
> > just can't FIND happiness in the world
> > ... only in yourself.
>
> Then why don't you post to yourself?
Because for me it is enough
to post for myself: Posting to oneself,
that's what old people do when they
start slipping into the Twilight Zone
and find Rod Serling smoking and filling up
the damn place with smoke in spite of
all the clearly marked signs all over the place
asking people not to--Oh, I'm doing it again!
Hate it when I show my age.
> Now, why don't we both go back to
> news:alt.philosophy.debate or maybe
> news:alt.life.universe.everything
> and finish the discussion there?
Acknowledged. But keep in mind
that I am not afraid of barking dogs.
Nor do I feel their bites, old boy.
SDR
Tom McWilliams
>
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> > Time is NOT an illusion!
>
> Tom McWilliams wrote:
> > How do you know?
>
> Oh, come on! Time is a number, a variable to use with equavilations, so
> that they can be solved. It's an illusion if you call maths illusion and
> it's not if you don't call maths an illusion.
>
> That's all that's too it.
Since you've only asserted the assumption, by invoking observation, let
me be more clear; how do you know the experience of duration is not an
illusion?
S D Rodrian
George Bajszar <gy...@usa.net> wrote:
> One addition: What the moral fuck
> is wrong with you,
Always the mathematician to the last!
O well: As long as it's moral I don't mind it
being wrong one bit. (Can't speak about my
partner, though: That's up to you.)
> how can someone be so blind?
Through hard work--How'd you think?!
You think Jesus gave the other cheek
the first time: No! He probably got whacked
a couplahundred times in the "la panza" before
He finally understood the wisdom of politely
asking brutes to please slap Him instead.
> When you reply to someone by
> crossposting your reply to that
> person's message to 20 other groups,
> you are exposing that person's
> message for other people
> in other forums to read.
Ah! But when I crosspost my replies
without posting what I'm replying to
I am exposing my potential readers to
the peril of my driving them more insane
than they already are. It's a simple
moral equation: The subsequent exposure of
those who have chosen to expose themselves
vs.. the sanity of countless innocents.
I believe there is no question that the
service I perform for humanity by not
posting "questionless" answers far, far
exceeds the horrors of making my innocent
correspondents well known across a greater
spectrum of strangers than they merit or
deserve (although I can understand the
trepidation in your case--and others'--at the
thought of your "two cents' worth" falling under
the scrutiny of a greater audience). Sorry!
> And you appoint
> yourself to do that without asking
> permission from the person you are
> replying to.
I am extremely familiar with the copyright
laws of the U.S. (as I have registered many,
many original works throughout the years).
And I can assure you that I am well within
my right to quote what I quote for the reason
I quote it. You could always sue me, of
course... but I would be astounded if you
found an attorney who'd take the work
even for money--and warmly satisfied if
you do find one, as that one would have to be
one desperate/incompetent attorney indeed.
> I may have personal stupidities
> exposed in one forum that
> I may want to keep away from being
> exposed to other more serious forums.
Me... I can't remember the last thing
I've ever said in public that's later come
back to haunt me. [Just common sense.
Might I suggest you get some?] Practically
every time I act stupid... I am acting.
> Your crossposting is getting into other
> people's faces. Don't you see
> why that can be very annoying?
Well, IF you, who find it annoying, were to
detail the reason(s) why YOU find it so
annoying... I'm sure we can work out a
mutually satisfactory solution (which might
involve some compromise on both our sides
--unless you find it annoying because you'd
rather it was written in Chinese or some such).
Try this. Sit down and write, dispassionately
and as objectively as you can, the specific
(naturally, in your opinion) legitimate reason(s)
you find crossposting to be bad. Here, I'll even
start the ball rolling by letting you know that
when one crossposts a message... servers along
the line only need to store a single copy of it...
with only links to it in the specified newsgroups
(this, I take, is of greater value to the servers than
the practice of sending one copy to every one
of the NGs you want them to appear on, forcing
them to keep several copies of the same post).
> Also massive crossposting
> fucks up the clarity of threads for all
> newsgroups readers. Threads end up
> showing up as broken portions, and
> newsgroups become filled with
> broken and irrelevant threads, and forums
> become junk and annoying.
Translation: In the name of Humanity: Shoes
that need to be laced need be banned because
they're too complex/complicated! O, how many
many innocents have probably committed suicide
because they've suffered the anguish & frustration
[pun: been frustrated to death] while tying up their
shoelaces!! O, O, O, O will noone rid me of
this meddling priest!? [What time is it now?]
> You are the ultimate main contributor to
> lowering the quality and possible enjoyment
> of newsgroups.
No kidd’n? Do I get a kupie doll or
something? (I hope this isn't one of those
honors where all they give you ’s the honor
of honoring you: Hate being honored with
a handshake--Hell, even my old man was
named Honorato!)
> Annoying
> things take away the interest of people
> to pursue healthy discussions.
Really?! I would've thought boring chitchat
among people without strong opinions and/or
a pathological inability to upset others by
daring to disagreeing with them (or: standing up
for themselves)... was what killed the interest
of (actually) thinking people. But that’s just me.
> Forums were invented to keep order
> and managability to threads and
> threads are meant to be managable
> as one complete piece.
Do you find it impossible to pass a frame
hanging cockeyed on a wall without stopping,
taking out your pocket level, and straightening it
while all around you wait until you come out of
your coma? Need I ask?
> Crossposting is a general bad habit
> that causes too many problems and
> annoyments to all of us.
It's “anointings" and not "anointments.” But [sic]
you’d be surprised how many people’d
like to be anointed (im massage parlors esp.).
> How can you think of yourself as smart
There’s your problem right there: I think of
myself as horridly, horridly stupid... practically
a spit-dripping moron: Thereby always forcing
myself to express my thoughts in terms even I [elaborate
understand. (I’m sorry you can’t understand this. conceit]
But, take hope! There must be something you
understand in YOUR world–And for you... that
is all you need understand of your world.)
> if you fail to understand such
> basic basic things, that even the dumbest
> people have seemed to
> understand naturally without anyone
> having to specifically explain it
> to them.
Boy, that paragraph sure needs work!
But keep trying, George: God bless you!
And Merry Christmas to All!
SDR
re:
> In article <91tait$b0v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> George Bajszar <gy...@usa.net> wrote:
> > There is piece missing from
> > your intellect called awareness.
What was that? Did you say something?
> > It is a psychological disorder indeed.
Has my analyst been blabbing again?
> > You lack basic common
> > sense.
Naturally! I am a blue blood
(freaks out the nurses every time).
> > And again, you crossposted
> > your reply to me to 20 other
> > groups.
That's SO like you! Hey: Does it always
have to be about you? I crossposted my reply
to 20 other groups (you were just a small
player in our larger crossposting scheme).
> > Not one person in this world does
> > what you do with these
> > idiotic xposting habits. Why?
And not one person in the world does
what you do with these
idiotic xposting-complaining habits. Why?
Because you and I are wonderfully unique
idiots in this world! And there's even a distinction
between you and me: I enjoy being an idiot
while you're one of those idiots for idiocy's sake
types.
> > Because they realize that
> > it is wrong simply because it is
> > annoying to all of us,
That's what those strange people in the elevator
with me said the other day: I had simply horrid
bad breath and they all wanted me to stop breathing
--Yeah, like I'm doing'em any favors! So I turn
around & let go with: "Hey! It could be a lot worse,
you know!" And they looked at me like I was some kind
of loony (well, ok, I do have an unkempt appearance).
So I let one go; and you know something: When I say
again things could be worse: this time they believed me!
> > something you fail to understand. Etiquettes are rules
> > designed to make this a better place for all of us.
And vinaigrettes are acrid wine and oil concoctions
designed to make grass taste better (for) us all:
So what else is new?!
> > The NG etiquettes ask specifically
> > to restrain crossposting
> > to no more than 4 realted groups.
The US vinaigrettes ask specifically
to retrain crossdressing chefs
to no more than 4 malted of'em to a group.
> > Why do you think they ask
> > that? Do they have a reason? Hm?
Why does your wife ask you to put the seat
down after you use the head? Does she have
a reason? Hm? Why don't you ask her to
put it up after she uses it next time? Don't
you have a reason? Hm?
> > Can you explain the reason why
> > all people in the world seem
> > to understand that except you?
Oh, yeah? Then how come everybody
in the world's always going around
asking, "What's that? What's that?"
> > There are many loonies here
> > but only one in this world xposts
> > out of control, the rest of
> > the loonies manage to understand
> > even this basic rule.
Those loonies are enslaved by the brain-
washing mind-control techniques of teckies
like you (and that Captain Cork fellow)...
while I am an emancipated loony! A loony
for all time! A loony who is never too far
from a bicycle... just in case the guys in
white from the CIA world-conspiracy show up.
> > Deja keeps threads in one piece,
Ha! If they keep "them" in one piece
then you should have said: "DejaNews
keep the/a thread." And left it at that.
> > a very nice organization
> > tool. Once you xpost, the thread
> > spreads to other groups,
You must mean "unravels" to other groups.
> > while deja keeps it in one readable
> > and manageable piece.
Knew a guy could write on a thread once
but if he tried to write again on it
he'd have to erase what he'd written there
before.
> > By xposting to so many groups,
> > your reply to each message
> > appears 20 times.
In which newsgroup? I've never seen any
newsgroup with more than two copies of any
post (from when people click on the POST
button twice by mistake).
> > So when I see a thread containing 200
> > posts, 179 appears from S D Rodrian,
> > making the thread
> > appear completely unreadable
> > and unorganized, *very annoying*.
The solution is simple (if you have
the brains)... pour a little perfume on
that segment of the thread that is not
by this S D Rodrian guy... and "Presto, Bimbo!"
you will always be able to find your way there
with your eyes closed!
> > Don't blame it on Deja, it is
> > if not the nicest newsgroup
> > organization system as it keeps
> > threads in one piece and
> > very nicely readable and organized
> > until you show up and
> > fuck up threads.
I can't help it: It's like bestiality
except with cloth. I have sinned!
> > Your contributions are of zero value,
Oh, that's why some guy said that zero
was equal to infinity! (Or was it Zorro?)
> > I never cared to read
> > your pet posts.
They're my best ones! I can repeat the one
about Cha-Cha "la" Cucaracha here because
it's too intellectually complex. And the one
about my cat Bob involves an abortion, so it
might be too delicate for this group (these).
And the one about Pedro (my pet rock) is too
tragic for the season (he was run over by a car
when I threw too far ahead of the bastard
driving away from me as I raved & shouted at
him). I've really had bad luck with all my pets
with the one exception of Tom (my tape worm)
who has faithfully stuck with me for the longest
time... through thick and thin and bread & water
while I was in prison for that silly little
felony thing.
> > I won't be waisting my time
Oh, do you have a pet tape worm too?
> > talking to a
> > complete blind blind blind minded loonie.
How about if I tell you I can tapdance
and smell a truffle a thousand millimeters
away? (Not at the same time, duh!)
> > Perhaps you could
> > do all of us a favor by maybe
> > realizing that I and the rest
> > of the world who criticize you
> > for your xposts may have
> > reasons that rely
You misspelled "rarely."
> > using simple human reasoning.
Sorry: I don't have much faith on
the reasoning of simple humans.
> > Most "normal" people try
> > follow habits formulated around
> > avoiding things that are annoying to others.
Not me: Not only do I like to
challenge others, I'm also not
"normal" I'll have you know.
> > You care less
> > at other people's etiquettes
> > and you care less if you make
> > others uncomfortable.
That murdered sentence would makes me
uncomfortable it it wasn't obvious who
the murderer was. Less than what/whom?
> > Yes it is about rules
> > as everything revolves around rules that
> > people invent to make life a nicer place.
Yes, but are these rules ruled by
gravity, or do they simply roll along
on invisible channels warped on the space
around everything?
> > I also break the
> > rules sometimes and annoy others
> > but at least I have the
> > ability to realize my mistakes
> > and learn to try to avoid them
> > in the future.
Ah! Then you do it by mistake!?
> > These rules were invented to
> > make this place better for all
> > of us.
That is Fidel Castro's Motto!
Word for word! You a Cuban?
I'm a Cuban.
> > I am not complaining simply
Not in a 1000-line post. Definitely!
> > because you keep braking
> > the internet etiquettes,
I'm not mechanically-minded: ALl I know
is... you press the brakes when you want to go
and step on the accelerator when you want
to stop.
> > but because you have over and over
> > caused me personally inconveniences
> > by seeing fucked up
> > threads caused by you,
> > including some of my threads in the past.
I am addictive, ain't I! But so's eating chocolate
... and scratching. (Not at the same time, duh!)
> > I pointed this out to you once
> > and won't do it again, nor will
> > I continue this as a discussion.
If I gave you a mirror... would you
reflect on it? And would you continue it
as a rumor?... As a chain letter, perhaps?
> > It would be meaningless anyway
> > to try to explain something to a wall.
That's just prejudice: Walls are among the
best, most patient, and least judgmental
listeners on earth. And if you cover them
entirely with graphics... they can become
all ears.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
DISCLAIMER: Portions ghost-written by
Goucho Marx (may he rest in peace now).
re:
> > In article <91s29v$che$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
SDRodrian
Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >
> > In article <TK606.4615$bj7.5...@den-news1.rmi.net>,
> > "Roland Cook" <wrc...@nwi.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > S D Rodrian wrote in message <91qkl6$5d6
> > >
> > > >It's more accurate to say that Existence
> > > >is "all there is." And that therefore
> > > >all that has existed and all that will exist
> > > >is (still/aways) right here with us (just
> > > >in, for the present, an unrecognizable form).
> > >
> > > This sounds vaguely familiar, like some
> > > kind of religious doctrine, or
> > > shades of the old 'clockwork' universe.
> >
> > It certainly ought to sound familiar
> > as it's just a real-world language
> > expression of the law of energy conservation!
>
> So, quantum-level particles don't share
> in 'existence', then? How,
> then, do we perceive them, or exist, ourselves?
There is a chasm between believing they exist
because they represent an existence we have no
easy way to observe directly, and believing that
they are coming into existence out of the voids.
I personally do not believe in magic, nor ever
will--If for no other reason than the indisputable
fact that we poor humans are so easily deceived
by even the least competent trickster--Imagine me
before God, then... when He performs a miracle
and asks whether I believe it was a miracle: My
thoughts would quickly run back to that street
hustler who could "magically" make a little marble
disappear under three shells... and how would I
even be able to definitely recognize a miracle by
God, when I can't even tell under which cup that
trickster stashed the marble... or whether he even
stashed it under any of the cups at all~!?!?!?!
> > > But a clock knows nothing of the past,
> > > only the present so that isn't what
> > > you're thinking.
> > >
> > > I wonder what it is?
> >
> > I am thinking of a universe
> > not a single bit of which depends
> > one whit on what anybody's thinking.
>
> I don't suppose you recognize the contradiction
> (and hence, necessary falsehood) in this statement?
It is marvelously ironic, but not self-contradicting
because there are no paradoxes in nature (reality)
... only in the mind:
> IOW, you can't think of such a universe.
"You may/must not think of such..."
> Change 'thinking' to 'perceiving'
> or 'living in' and the problem becomes
> a little clearer. It's frequently known as
> the anthropomorphic principle.
You see: That's why i confine all my
thinking to thinking, all my perceiving to
perceiving, and all my paying rent to
the landlord. My motto hath been, since
the age of three: "First things first, second
things second, and third things third..."
> > I am working on how the universe
> > created us... by concentrating on
> > eradicating our cherished superstitions
> > regarding how we created the universe.
There, you see: What I'm trying to do IS
to eliminate anthropomorphism from the
equation. [Told ya that's what I was up 2.]
> Good luck. The phenomenological necessity
> of any conception of Universe
> makes you task difficult at best,
> and untestable, at worst.
Fortunately I've read tons of novels and other
fictions to know by now how easy it is for
most folks to create their own little worlds
and move right in (to) them! Some people even
believe their imagined universe is he real one
and not "ours" to such extent that they must be
put away in those special little worlds with
padded walls we've created for people like that...
> What does every test require? Observation.
I don't know... I have a humongous IQ, and I never
saw it coming: I'd hate to judge even the most
average of magicians and then try to describe
what I saw in sane and logical terms...
> Simply put, the Universe is the sum
> total of all experiences, nothing more.
I have a slightly different take on that: I'd say
the universe is the sum total of everything in it;
and our experiences usually extend no further than
our greatest treasure of begrudgingly accepted
knowledge... or the most cherished oceans of
ignorance in which we drown. Since the beginnings
of the human mind... we have loved our dreams
far, far better than we have ever learned to live
with our lives.
> The existence of a separate, external
> 'reality' is both
> unprovable, and completely unnecessary
> for the accurate modelling of
> repeatable experiences.
> -Tm
Tom, I think you may be greatly surprised
to find (when you do) that most of the mind's
labor involves the comparison of things real
with things in he mind possible and impossible.
And whether we, each one of us, achieves the
correct match... pretty much depends on the
integrity/soundness of those mental images
we carry around with us (of what is possible
and/or impossible) being compatible with the
reality outside our thoughts: Any number of
times it's possible for life to go on much un-
affected by our being totally wrong (we did
believe for centuries that the universe orbited
the earth)... but sometimes it's the littlest
things that kill us (witchdoctors telling us
that bullets would have no effect on us if we
wore... a few thin twigs shaped like a bear).
See'ya at the asylum, buddy!
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
abcd...@my-deja.com
>
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Why has China so many traitors and flatterers?
> > > >
> > > > Where is chinese intellectuals?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Without democracy, we have no freedom!
> > > >
> > > > What is academic freedom?
> > > >
> > > > Academic freedom is a part of Human Rights, it means the freedom
> > > > of reading, teaching, researching, logical writing and
discussing.
> > > >
> > > > What is economics? What is New Economics? What is Knowledge
> > > > economics? Why should one study economics?....... Could you
> > > > distinguish socialism from communism?....
> > > >
> > > > Could any economist, economics-professor, or Nobel Prize
receiver
> > > > answer the following simple questions logically in open?
> > > >
> > > > 1) Is value the basis of economics? Why?
> > > >
> > > > 2) Could anybody produce your subjective value? How?
> > > >
> > > > 3) Is knowledge subjective or objective value? Why?
> > > >
> > > > 4) Where does knowledge come from? How?
> > > >
> > > > If you need to know the answer, please, look at the home page:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.angelfire.com/ga/chaok , you could find more.
> > > >
> > > > Reading without thinking is nonsense; reading without
> understanding
> > is
> > > > in vain!
> > > >
> > > > > > > > -
S D Rodrian
EE...@nunyabiz.net wrote:
> I should know better by now than
> to reply to anything from SDRodrian,
> but I can't leave this one alone.
Well, at least you started your stumble
on the right foot.
> Time monitoring (watches, clocks, calandars,
> etc) is a convention of
> man designed to monitor, log, track,
> the passing of days, seasons, etc
> in a manner that is most understandable
> from our perspective. If we
> did not do this, time would still pass
> just fine without us. Nobody
> and nothing needs to be cognizant of
> its passing. Just as the tree
> that falls in the woods with nobody
> to hear it DOES make a sound, time
> passes without observers regardless.
> Granted, it becomes cumbersome
> to define something when you use
> that something as part of the
> definition, however, anytime you can say
> there was a day before and
> there will be a day after this day
> that we now exist in, you have just
> defined to a degree, that events come
> and go, they take a span of our
> lifetime to accomplish this, and we
> have labeled this span.....time.
I am glad you understand that (which is universally
true, so it can be reduced to, "Things do not come
in/out of existence but merely change forms"). But
not everyone has a head on his shoulders like you;
and it's not unusual to find people who cannot make
the distinction between OUR being there to time the
changes AND the fact that said changes continue
whether we're there to time them or not.
> Our present method of labeling the
> passing of time is based strictly
> on our planetary movement within a larger
> moving field (planets within
> solar systems, solar systems with
> galaxies, galaxies within the
> cosmos, ad nauseum) and is segmented
> to take into account the geometry
> of our planet, dividing it into
> 24 segments that enable us to
> continuously divide time down into
> manageable segments that we can
> apply to our daily routines. Why 24?
> I have no idea. I suppose we
> could have just as easily divided it
> into 10, or 50, or 13.446.
Perhaps not as easily: From the earliest times
it was a lot more important to keep track of the
year's months than of the day's hours, so the
system of hours inherited its conventions from
the older (traditional) system of months. The
lunar year is approximately 29.5 days long, so
there are "about" 12 lunar months in a year (of
354 days, of course). It is therefore no great
mystery why practically every early civilization
on earth placed a high premium on the "sanctity"
of the number 12... since it was a matter of
life/death that those early agricultural societies
make sure their crops were planted about the same
day every year. [I know there are 10 fingers to
a man; but those early societies were not heavily
"into" mathematics or accounting.] However we do
owe the development of Science itself to the dire
repercussions to early societies if they did not
reconcile with crucial accuracy the discrepancies
between the lunar and the true "solar" year (which
we basically inherit from the Egyptians... probably
as a result of the yearly flooding of the Nile
being more important to them than the lunar 12).
> Maybe someone out there knows why
> we chose 24. If I remember
> correctly from my high school days
> some 25+ years ago, it has
> something to do with the half life
> of an atomic element (strontium?)
> that enables us to precisely measure
> the passing of a particular time
> segment (one second?), but I'm not sure.
> If memory serves, I believe
> it was because this time segment that
> could be so accurately and
> consistently observed, just
> mathematically worked out to 24. At the
> same time (no pun intended) I don't think
> mankind knew about this
> element thousands of years ago, or
> even 100 years ago so...there you go.
Well... it went on far longer than it was
justified to go; but, trust me on this one:
The modern hour comes out of the fact that
an egg takes exactly 3 minutes to be done to
perfection ... and that it was a weakness of
Samson, few knew about, to always have exactly
twenty 3-minute eggs for breakfast... which
weakness Samson was so faithful to that people
soon realized that if they but timed Samson's
breakfast and multiplied it by 24 it resulted
in a day almost perfectly divided into 24 of
Samson's breakfasts... which would result not
only in Samson taking exactly "one hour" for
breakfast, but in that he could not start on his
eggs at exactly the same time every morning (as
well as making him very strong AND less tragic
that he died the way he did, since odds are he
would've died from arteriosclerosis at an early
age anyway). Not to mention our traditions of
having eggs for breakfast AND having breakfast
at the start of the day (instead of somewhere
in the middle of it).
Just kidding,
re:
> EEng
>
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:22:50 GMT, S D Rodrian
> <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <Fbq86.2$qU3....@news.intnet.net>,
> >"John Leonard" <remove_for _spamjohn...@wwc.com> wrote:
> >> If time doesn't exist, then how can
> >> SR predict the relativity of
> >> simultaneity of events?
> >
> >Are you asking how two watches can tell time
> >while existing apart from each other... and, if
> >by some chance the guys wearing them meet and
> >notice that their watches are showing different
> >times... how they can be synchronized?!
> >
> >I'd say... rather easily (provided one of the
> >two men works for the other man, so there's no
> >doubt whose watch is on time & whose isn't).
> >
> >S D Rodrian
> >web.sdrodrin.com
> >
> >re:
> >
> >> "François Bourassa" <franc...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:Zxo86.1594$pY3....@weber.videotron.net...
> >> >
> >> > "SDRodrian" <Don_Q...@mindless.com> a écrit dans le message
news:
> >> > 93io32$lkg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> > > In article <93g960$ndo$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> >> > > "sprinkle" <spri...@probability.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > > > > ... To put it simply: The
> >> > > > > ONLY "thing" that's required for motion to exist is
> >> > > > > only the three dimensions of existence alone. If ever
> >> > > > > something that exists (necessarily three-dimensional)
> >> > > > > can exist in some greater/lesser number of dimensions
> >> > > > > I'd sure like to see that! [But if all you wish to do
> >> > > > > is to create mathematical manifold dimensions and
> >> > > > > stuff them with mathematical manifold objects... in
> >> > > > > your dreams (wakeful or asleep), then God bless you
> >> > > > > for I often have had such dreams myself... albeit,
> >> > > > > mostly when I've been very soundly asleep--I snore.]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> thanks for the fascinating and bewildering subject.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If I wanted to travel to a distant galaxy,
> >> > > > and I already have a spacecraft
> >> > > > capable of taking me there, what dimensions
> >> > > > would I need to input into my
> >> > > > navigation computer to get me there?
> >> > >
> >> > > Only the zero ["0"] dimension, as you are
> >> > > already there [here]. Far out, man! *
> >> > >
> >> > > S D Rodrian
> >> > > web.sdrodrian.com
> >> > > wisdom.findhere.org
> >> > >
> >> > > * And you didn't even have to fill'er up
> >> > > or nutt'n.
> >> >
> >> > Ohwa, cool:)