Prev: A conjecture involving Goldbach and twin primes
Next: A trinom equality ...
From: Zerkon on 12 Jul 2010 12:13
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:07:40 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

> If there is a arrow of time is there a arrow of space?

Or.. what's the point?

Is space independent of objects or imagined parameter (eg: point) a space
is between? If not, space is object dependent, it is as objects define
it.

There is one but usually two Arrows of time. Each at the end of a hand.
One hand is big the other small. They point to numbers in a closed
circle, a circle that very badly wants to be thought of as a line but
down deep knows it is a curve.

>
> If there is a "temporal becoming" is there a "spacial becoming"?
>
> Time has only one dimension

If on the other pointy hand if time is actually change, change must be
forced into measurable dimension only by pointing out a very specific and
incomprehensibly minuscule aspect which is weak since change is relative
to all things at once.

If on the other hand if change can be measured only as consequence (past)
of immediate potential existing now, all dimensional bets are off.

> while space has three, and that physical
> events presuppose both space and time while mental events presuppose,
> directly at any rate, only time.
>
> There are, however, other differences between the two. It has generally
> seemed natural to people to speak of a passage of time; nothing similar
> seems appropriate to space.
>
> To speak of the passage of time in that way is of course to invoke a
> metaphor, and one that becomes even more explicit when reference is made
> to the river of time or time's arrow. Whatever may be the case with the
> metaphor of the river, time's arrow can be conceived as moving in
> alternate directions according to whether we think of ourselves or
> possibly events as moving from the past, through the present, into the
> future or of events as coming towards us from the future and receding
> behind us into the past.
>
> Another way of regarding the matter is to think of events as
> progressively coming into being, and this has become known as 'temporal
> becoming'.

If umbrellaed under change 'temporal becoming' is at best a redundancy.
Temporal is a for wimps. Sequencing is for sissies. Time Territory (the
past, the future) is for babies. Are we not REAL reality? We'll take it
neat with no melting rocks that thin things down!! >>>> Becoming

> There has been much dispute whether the phenomenon is objective or
> subjective in the sense that it is a feature of the mind's view of
> events rather than of events themselves.
>
> While the metaphors that I have noted presuppose, through the idea of
> movement, a reference to space, it has sometimes been suggested that the
> view of time that they convey should be distinguished from that
> presupposed by physics, where there is a more direct analogy with space.
> Thus Henri Bergson claimed that the time of physics (le temps) involves
> a direct spatialization of time, in that physics is content to view
> events simply as related to each other in terms of the relations of
> before and after. The notions of before and after are not spatial ones
> in themselves. We can think of things as being spatially before and
> after others, but there is also a temporal sense of these words, as well
> as the sense presupposed in a logical ordering; in the series of natural
> numbers we speak of one number as coming before or after another. But,
> as Bergson pointed out, the measurement of time is normally carried out
> via the distance covered by a body moving at constant velocity, relative
> to the units provided by a constant periodic movement such as the swing
> of a pendulum or the rotation of the hands of a clock over its dial.
> Bergson therefore concluded that physics tends to think of time in terms
> of movement along a line (Newton, it will be remembered, spoke of time
> as flowing equably). By contrast, the time of consciousness (la duree)
> involves no such constancy, no repetition of events, but a kind of
> development, an unfolding of events into the future, which Bergson tried
> to explain by reference to the notion of an elan vital.
>
> Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlyn
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/

WIKI:

elan vital:

"The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze attempted to recoup the novelty of
Bergson's idea [elan vital] in his book Bergsonism, though the term
itself underwent substantial changes by Deleuze. No longer considered a
mystical, elusive force acting on brute matter, as it was in the vitalist
debates of the late 19th century, élan vital in Deleuze's hands denotes a
substance in which the distinction between organic and inorganic matter
is indiscernible, and the emergence of life undecidable."

If "emergence of life [is] undecidable" maybe so to is any single
beginning point of emergence.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: A conjecture involving Goldbach and twin primes
Next: A trinom equality ...