The Dimension of Time
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity Researcher: Increase Your Research Productivity with the Leading Web 2.0 Research Portal
Next: Radio Waves, Photons, and Wave Speed.
From: Inertial on 29 Dec 2009 01:50 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f7b24366-5ecc-4385-852d-7f0e6c61395e(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... [snip] > And I think at the moment theoretical physics is stuck in terms of > talking about asymmetry, because today physicists again find > themselves unable to question the very foundations of their conceptual > models. Then you don't understand where modern physics is. Its the opposite of what you're claiming it is. [snip] > I don't have a problem. I was just acknowledging that I know the > difference between "unfalsifiable" and "not yet falsified", I'm not sure you do > and then I > went on to reflect comically on the fact that the only scientific > theories that will not eventually be falsified are those that are > unfalsifiable. Yeup .. I was right .. you don't understand the meaning of those terms as they apply to science. it is very difficult discussing scientific matter with someone like you who does not even speak the language. You do know that there is no such thing as a scientific theory that is not falsifiable? [snip] >> Where? Do you know what a light cone is? > > No, and with respect I don't think I want to know, There is your problem. You don't even want to understand the language of physics. How do you expect to have a rational discussion without being able to use the language? > because something > that includes the "past and future" model of time is bound to confound > me. It is a very simply notion .. if you even bothered to ask or find out. [snip] > My point is that "cause and effect" are an arbitrary classification to > describe something of meaning to human. It is a description of what is observed in nature. > The reason the "past" can > never be "affected" in a "causal" manner is because, by its very > definition, cause always precedes effect No .. the definition of cause and effect does NOT mean it cause must precede effect. You keep stating that nonsense as if it were fact desipte being corrected on that point. > in the forward-flowing model > of time. And, as pointed out, there are experiments where future events cause an effect in the past. > Another, symmetric, model of time would say that every process has an > equal an opposite process so that all forms of energy, including > momentum, are ultimately conserved. Only that model does not fit with reality. > "Cause and effect" can only exist > in the ever-forward flowing model of time. No. There is no reason why a model that had time no always moving forward would NOT still have cause and effect. It would simply mean the cause would not always precede effect. > Process and counter-process > know no concept of flowing time They do .. otherwise there would be no difference between them > (because one never happens absolutely > "before" or "after" the other, You've not stated anything the would imply that > the two having occurred, and continuing > to occur, for all eternity in a reciprocal, symmetrical, motion). You've also not said anything that implies a reversible process *must* reverse and must continue to happen. You are not very good at constructing a logical argument. You simply make assertions. [snip] >> But he HASN'T gone backwards in time. He's aged -- that's FORWARD in >> time. It's just that his Earth buddy has gone forward in time faster. > > But that's because "going backwards in time", to you, means someone's > age reducing in *absolute* terms. No .. in realtive terms. And that does not happen in the twins 'paradox'. > To me, the fact that one twin is > younger than the other is evidence that one has gone back in time > *relatively*. No .. just forward at different rates. If one of them had gone backward in time, they would be younger at the end of the journey thant at the beginning of the journey. That does not happen. Your argument does not hold. > Remember, the absolutism of classical mechanics doesn't stop that > theory having use-value even today. But I look forward to people > talking of "classical time" - so we can say that the astronaut has > aged 2 years less in classical time, whereas he has aged -2 years in > relative time. That would not be a terribly useful concept. But you could put it that way if you like. But it still does not mean one has gone backwards in the 'flow' of time .. simply not moved forward by as much. [snip] >> No, relativity says nothing of the kind. Perhaps you need some >> guidance on your reading of relativity. > > I think perhaps others need reminding about the implications of > relativity. You don't KNOW the implications because you clearly do not understand what it says, let alone what it implies. You have made numerous incorrect statements about what you think it says. They are worthless comments. > People just about seem happy with relative positions in > space. They seem less happy with relative positions in time. Its fine with me to talk about things that happened at a time relative to some other time. Physics regularly deals with measurements of elapsed time that are positive or negative, and times that have positive or negative values, and depends on frame of reference, just as do spatial measurements. You really need to know more about what physics does, how it works, and what terminology is used and what it means before engaging in discussion on the subject. Otherwise you appear foolish and ignorant.
From: Ste on 29 Dec 2009 05:03 On 29 Dec, 06:50, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f7b24366-5ecc-4385-852d-7f0e6c61395e(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > [snip] > > > And I think at the moment theoretical physics is stuck in terms of > > talking about asymmetry, because today physicists again find > > themselves unable to question the very foundations of their conceptual > > models. > > Then you don't understand where modern physics is. Its the opposite of what > you're claiming it is. I doubt it. But nothing really turns on the issue. > [snip] > > > I don't have a problem. I was just acknowledging that I know the > > difference between "unfalsifiable" and "not yet falsified", > > I'm not sure you do I think you'll find I do. > > and then I > > went on to reflect comically on the fact that the only scientific > > theories that will not eventually be falsified are those that are > > unfalsifiable. > > Yeup .. I was right .. you don't understand the meaning of those terms as > they apply to science. it is very difficult discussing scientific matter > with someone like you who does not even speak the language. > > You do know that there is no such thing as a scientific theory that is not > falsifiable? Only insofar as the two are taken as synonyms. > [snip] > > >> Where? Do you know what a light cone is? > > > No, and with respect I don't think I want to know, > > There is your problem. You don't even want to understand the language of > physics. How do you expect to have a rational discussion without being able > to use the language? > > > because something > > that includes the "past and future" model of time is bound to confound > > me. > > It is a very simply notion .. if you even bothered to ask or find out. I already understand the principle - that eventually something is so far away in space that it cannot have caused an event - but as I say I find the model utterly counter-intuitive. > [snip] > > > My point is that "cause and effect" are an arbitrary classification to > > describe something of meaning to human. > > It is a description of what is observed in nature. Indeed. But "cause and effect" has a lot more conceptual baggage than just a description of plain observation. > > The reason the "past" can > > never be "affected" in a "causal" manner is because, by its very > > definition, cause always precedes effect > > No .. the definition of cause and effect does NOT mean it cause must precede > effect. You keep stating that nonsense as if it were fact desipte being > corrected on that point. I've already been through this. The definition in the OED *says* cause precedes effect. If the cause does *not* precede the effect, then you have mis-labelled the events - because the event that occurs *first* in time is always the cause, by definition. Incidentally, I don't subscribe to the nonsense about action at a distance. There is no action at a distance. It is the model that is faulty. > > in the forward-flowing model > > of time. > > And, as pointed out, there are experiments where future events cause an > effect in the past. Name them, and we'll discuss them. > > Another, symmetric, model of time would say that every process has an > > equal an opposite process so that all forms of energy, including > > momentum, are ultimately conserved. > > Only that model does not fit with reality. I think you'll find it does. Not that much turns on the issue. > > "Cause and effect" can only exist > > in the ever-forward flowing model of time. > > No. There is no reason why a model that had time no always moving forward > would NOT still have cause and effect. It would simply mean the cause would > not always precede effect. But that is syntactically absurd. The cause *necessarily* precedes the effect in time. That is what the words *mean*. If the cause appears to follow the expected effect, and I challenge you find such an experiment, then you need to revise your theory. > > Process and counter-process > > know no concept of flowing time > > They do .. otherwise there would be no difference between them That's the point. There isn't any difference between them, except that whatever happens during the process is utterly undone during the counter-process. > > (because one never happens absolutely > > "before" or "after" the other, > > You've not stated anything the would imply that It is implied in the conceptual model. A motion that began before time started, and will continue after time ends, has no absolute start or finish. It can only be described relatively. > > the two having occurred, and continuing > > to occur, for all eternity in a reciprocal, symmetrical, motion). > > You've also not said anything that implies a reversible process *must* > reverse and must continue to happen. The laws of physics say so. If energy and momentum are always conserved totally, then a mechanism will never stop moving. It is only when energy or momentum is lost that a mechanism might stop, but then the question is where does the energy go - and if you can describe where it goes, then you haven't lost the energy. > You are not very good at constructing a logical argument. You simply make > assertions. I'll have to try harder. > [snip] > > >> But he HASN'T gone backwards in time. He's aged -- that's FORWARD in > >> time. It's just that his Earth buddy has gone forward in time faster. > > > But that's because "going backwards in time", to you, means someone's > > age reducing in *absolute* terms. > > No .. in realtive terms. And that does not happen in the twins 'paradox'. > > > To me, the fact that one twin is > > younger than the other is evidence that one has gone back in time > > *relatively*. > > No .. just forward at different rates. > > If one of them had gone backward in time, they would be younger at the end > of the journey thant at the beginning of the journey. That does not happen. > > Your argument does not hold. My argument holds, once you realise that you cannot go "back in time" in the sense you mean, where all the forces of nature take on an equal but opposite character, while a traveller retains the effect of the "normal" forces of nature. Frankly the concept is ludicrous, a figment of the imagation, and should not be taken seriously in the realm of physics. > > Remember, the absolutism of classical mechanics doesn't stop that > > theory having use-value even today. But I look forward to people > > talking of "classical time" - so we can say that the astronaut has > > aged 2 years less in classical time, whereas he has aged -2 years in > > relative time. > > That would not be a terribly useful concept. But you could put it that way > if you like. But it still does not mean one has gone backwards in the > 'flow' of time .. simply not moved forward by as much. I know you can put it that way. The equations work fine without a forward flow. So that proves that "backwards in time", at least according to relativity, is the phenomenon observed in the twins paradox. Any travel back in time in the sense you mean, where the universe returns to a previous state around the time-traveller, and past events re-occur, is not a concept described or predicted by relativity to be possible. > [snip] > > >> No, relativity says nothing of the kind. Perhaps you need some > >> guidance on your reading of relativity. > > > I think perhaps others need reminding about the implications of > > relativity. > > You don't KNOW the implications because you clearly do not understand what > it says, let alone what it implies. You have made numerous incorrect > statements about what you think it says. They are worthless comments. I think you'll find I know a great deal in many subjects, and the fact that I don't know every mathematical detail of theoretical physics, and which I freely admit to be the case, does not mean I do not understand what we're dealing with here. > > People just about seem happy with relative positions in > > space. They seem less happy with relative positions in time. > > Its fine with me to talk about things that happened at a time relative to > some other time. Physics regularly deals with measurements of elapsed time > that are positive or negative, and times that have positive or negative > values, and depends on frame of reference, just as do spatial measurements. Then if that is the case, why are people here not freely admitting that the forward flow of time is *not* a concept known to modern physics, in the same way that describing absolute motion in space is not a concept known to modern physics?
From: glird on 29 Dec 2009 12:47 On Dec 20, 11:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >< I ask the question in all seriousness, and because it strikes me that there is nothing that suggests an absolute constant movement forward along any spacial dimension, so why is there an assumption of constant movement forward along the time dimension (which introduces absurdities like traveling into the past)? On the subject of traveling into the past, how would traveling backward in time be distinguishable from simply restoring the universe to the same physical state as in the past (but which had not actually traveled "back in time" in any meaningful sense)? ... I'm interested to know whether the assumption of forward movement is not just a product of subjective human intuitions (and bearing in mind that every paradigm shift in science has involved throwing out what was previously held as unquestionable). > Consider the following possibility: Our memory is restricted to what happened to each one of us at given times and places. Suppose there is a Being in the universe who is everywhere at any time at all, and whose memory is therefore unrestricted. Suppose, then, that It wanted to think about what happened yesterday or a billion years ago. IT would simply do that just as we can think of whatever happened since we were 3 years old. Suppose, though, that IT wanted to think about what -- to us -- will be 1000 years later. By extrapolating from conditions everywhere "now", IT would know exactly what they would be then, or AT ANY TIME at all, past, present, and future. Accordingly, to IT, "time" would not exist in the way it does to us. IT could put itself anywhere at any time at all, and the universe would be whatever it was, is, or will be, to us. Though that is a difficult concept for us to fathom, if you are interested go to http://www.lulu.com/content/1411915 and download a free copy of the audio file of a conversation relevant to this subject. glird
From: PD on 29 Dec 2009 13:18 On Dec 29, 12:21 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 28 Dec, 23:48, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Sure it can. I'm comparing two states, A and B, with different values > > > > of entropy. > > > > State B has a higher numerical entropy than state A. I can do this > > > > without any labeling with time at all. > > > > Lol. Ok I'll run with this for now. > > > > > Now, what I observe in nature is that in a closed system, and while > > > > measuring time, state B happens to be always after state A in that > > > > time sequence. > > > > There is no obvious reason why this should be. It could have been just > > > > as likely that state B occurred before state A. > > > > But it DOESN'T. > > > > But in some cases state A *never* becomes state B. So does that mean > > > time stands still when entropy doesn't change? > > > Not at all. Why would you say that? > > The question is about whether there is any preferential order in time > > from the point of view of physical processes. If it there were no > > preferred order or arrow of time, then all physical processes would be > > observed to be symmetric in time -- running just as often from state A > > at earlier time to state B at later time, compared to state B at > > earlier time to state A at later time. > > But there's an asymmetry OBSERVED. > > I get your point. What I'm saying is that the theoretical model we > have to explain our observations needs to be questioned. There is no real interpretation involved other than simple observation. Either the processes occur symmetrically or they don't. It's observed that they do not. There is no point in having a "theoretical model" that says they are really symmetric after all. > People once > saw the Sun move over the sky, and assumed that the Sun orbited the > Earth. And the credibility of that model, and the credulity of the > very best and brightest, remained long after a better and more simpler > model had been conceived - that of the Earth orbiting the Sun. > > Indeed the problem is that humans are apparently very poor at > developing perspective. Physical processes may well be symmetric in > time - in that every transformation of energy can ultimately be > reversed by the fundamental forces of nature. And indeed I think that > is true, and it is a snug fit with other laws like energy > conservation. That is true, it is consistent with OTHER observations. But the model would ALSO have to be consistent with the *observed* asymmetry of physical processes and the *observed* one-way growth of entropy in closed systems. If the model is not consistent with those observations, then it is wrong. > And yet, we cling to the model of time flowing ever- > forwards, of entropy ever-increasing - and clinging to this model > means that every new discovery puts a new epicycle into contemporary > theoretical physics, in the same way that in the middle ages every new > star discovered, every new telescope developed, put another epicycle > into the contemporary astronomer's model of the sky. What is epicyclic about entropy? > > That is why I don't place any value on the existing maths in > theoretical physics, because a model begins life in its most > mathematically refined state, to which only epicycles can then be > added. And if you commit yourself to fitting your theories around the > existing hoard of counter-intuitive epicycles, What is counterintuitive about entropy? Furthermore, let's get one thing straight: In a confrontation between experimental observation and intuition, intuition must and always does lose. > you'll spend a life's > work at the rump of your subject. > > Indeed if there is one thing I know from my broad knowledge in many > subjects, it is that those who talk of asymmetry, of complexity, of > change, of difference, actually don't have perspective on their > subject, and those who can talk *convincingly* of symmetry, of > simplicity, of constancy, of similarity, do have perspective. ??? This doesn't have to do with perspective. It has to do with whether nature EXHIBITS in EXPERIMENT an asymmetry or not. This isn't philosophy. It's physics, which is a study of how nature ACTUALLY BEHAVES, not how we think it ought to behave. > > And I think at the moment theoretical physics is stuck in terms of > talking about asymmetry, because today physicists again find > themselves unable to question the very foundations of their conceptual > models. > > > > > And this observation is where we recognize that there > > > > is an arrow of time such that states of higher entropy in closed > > > > systems happen after states of lower entropy. > > > > Indeed, but where in the known universe can I find such a "closed > > > system". If anyone can show me where, I'll show you a man with a wild > > > imagination. > > > Closed systems are like inertial frames. They are closed if the > > transactions across the boundary are smaller than the resolution of > > the experimental detection. This can be achieved pretty > > straightforwardly. > > Indeed. > > > This idealization of systems is essential to physics. > > Not at all. Science is supposed to be about idealising the model in > the first place, and then making allowances for it's practical > implementation. I completely disagree. All models of all types are idealizations -- that is, there are factors that are neglected in the treatment of any real system. In reality, every real system is distinct from every other real system, which means that a strictly correct treatment would be a one- off in every case. But the value of science is to aggregate various real systems so that they can be treated with a common model, to the extent that the differences can be ignored for the purposes of the prediction being made. A first-semester physics book has a chapter on 2D kinematics and projectile motion. With that model, application after application is drilled into students, even knowing that air drag, air lift, variations in g, curvature of the earth, rotation of the earth, etc., are all being ignored. > Thermodynamics was once at the cutting edge - > industrialists knew ash didn't combust into coal, furnaces never > became spontaneously hot, ores didn't spontaneously form into finished > metals. Of course, they knew *in practice* it was difficult to keep > any system truly closed, but the conceptual model, in its idealised > form, rested on the foundation that they could *theoretically* keep a > system thermodynamically closed. > > Science now having moved on however, we know that you *cannot* keep a > system closed in the thermodynamic sense, *even theoretically* - the > only possible closed system is the universe itself. At the very least, > there is no known mechanism for excluding the force of gravity from a > system. > > Why, then, people are referring back to thermodynamics as a > theoretical proof of any modern concept is beyond me. Thermodynamics > is to chemistry what classical mechanics is to physics - a relatively > simple rule of thumb for everyday purposes, but its theoretical > underpinnings are long since superseded. > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > unfalsifiable (like multiple universes). If we start to think of the > > > > > > > universe in terms of having no flow of time, then we eliminate those > > > > > > > contradictory/unfalsifiable predictions immediately. > > > > > > > Multiple universes is not contingent on a one-way flow of time. Nor is > > > > > > it obvious that this is unfalsifiable. There is work afoot to > > > > > > *experimentally* detect other branes. Do you need some pointers to > > > > > > that work? > > > > > > Only if the work has produced results. > > > > > OK, then please note the distinction between "yet to be falsified" and > > > > "unfalsifiable". > > > > Indeed. Reminds me of a joke actually, that there are only two types > > > of scientific theory... > > > And so your problem with this is what? > > I don't have a problem. I was just acknowledging that I know the > difference between "unfalsifiable" and "not yet falsified", and then I > went on to reflect comically on the fact that the only scientific > theories that will not eventually be falsified are those that are > unfalsifiable. OK, so what does this have to do with whether a theory of multiple universes is unfalsifiable? It seems there are experimental tests... > > > > > > > > No. Reversing time would surely consume energy somewhere, and > > > > > > > therefore increase entropy somewhere. > > > > > > > What? Now you're just making a science fiction babble about a time- > > > > > > reversal machine. This doesn't have to do with the physical nature of > > > > > > things with respect to time. > > > > > > I'm merely voicing the speculative ideas of others. If time is > > > > > flowing, then by definition is must be theoretically possible to > > > > > navigate the flow in both directions. If it is not possible to > > > > > navigate the flow in both directions, then the concept of the past is > > > > > a meaningless, and superfluous, concept. > > > > > Why? Why does symmetric travel have to be present for the past to make > > > > sense? > > > > > In nature, we have causal events separated into future light cones and > > > > past light cones. They are not identical, but then again they do not > > > > have to be. > > > > I'm afraid you've lost me. > > > Where? Do you know what a light cone is? > > No, and with respect I don't think I want to know, because something > that includes the "past and future" model of time is bound to confound > me. Well, here's a problem then. You propose a philosophical statement about time that imposes symmetry and make the claim that it is BETTER than any model that acknowledges asymmetry of time. But you also acknowledge that your comparison is hampered by the fact that you don't even understand any model that acknowledges asymmetry of time, and that moreover you don't even want to know any more about any model that acknowledges asymmetry of time because such a model would confound you. This is known commonly as the "My model is right because I understand it" fallacy. It is fairly commonplace among crank circles. I would have thought you would not want to associate yourself with this kind of nonsense. > > > > > > > > If energy is consumed in the future in order to send matter back in > > > > > > > time, > > > > > > > What makes you think this is consistent with the laws of physics? > > > > > > Which part? I certainly don't think time travel is consistent with the > > > > > laws of physics, because my very position is that I don't accept that > > > > > time is flowing at all. > > > > > I don't know that time travel is consistent with the laws of physics, > > > > either. Who says it is? > > > > It is not so much that anyone is saying that time travel is consistent > > > with the laws of physics, only that the current laws of physics > > > themselves seem to suggest such a possibility, for if you can go > > > forward in time, then you must be able to go backward in time - > > > otherwise the concept of backwards and forwards becomes meaningless. > > > That's nonsense. The forward is accessible to us in a causal manner, > > the backwards is not. This doesn't render one of them meaningless. Nor > > does having meaning associated with both imply that we would be able > > to causally influence the past. > > My point is that "cause and effect" are an arbitrary classification to > describe something of meaning to humans. The reason the "past" can > never be "affected" in a "causal" manner is because, by its very > definition, cause always precedes effect in the forward-flowing model > of time. On the contrary, cause and effect doesn't imply time ordering. What it states is that given two conditions A and B, altering A always alters B. This is how we determine whether A causes B, not by what sequence they have in time. Please pay attention to controlled experiment and terminology like independent and dependent variables. > > Another, symmetric, model of time would say that every process has an > equal an opposite process so that all forms of energy, including > momentum, are ultimately conserved. "Cause and effect" can only exist > in the ever-forward flowing model of time. Process and counter-process > know no concept of flowing time (because one never happens absolutely > "before" or "after" the other, the two having occurred, and continuing > to occur, for all eternity in a reciprocal, symmetrical, motion). > > > > Indeed, if we must use backwards and forwards notation, then I would > > > say the astronaut twin has gone "backwards" in time, if only in the > > > sense that when he returns to earth, the homebody is ahead of his > > > brother in age, and the astronaut is astern of his brother in age. > > > But he HASN'T gone backwards in time. He's aged -- that's FORWARD in > > time. It's just that his Earth buddy has gone forward in time faster. > > But that's because "going backwards in time", to you, means someone's > age reducing in *absolute* terms. To me, the fact that one twin is > younger than the other is evidence that one has gone back in time > *relatively*. That would be an interpretation carried by you, rather singly. > > Remember, the absolutism of classical mechanics doesn't stop that > theory having use-value even today. But I look forward to people > talking of "classical time" - so we can say that the astronaut has > aged 2 years less in classical time, whereas he has aged -2 years in > relative time. > > > If you have two cars that only have forward gears, and one of them > > travels forward faster than the other, this doesn't mean that the > > slower one has suddenly acquired a reverse gear! Are you thinking > > straight? > > No, I'm thinking *relative*. Are you? > > > > Of course most people don't accept this notation. They say only that > > > the astronaut has gone "slower forwards". > > > > However, on my reading of relativity, it does not actually require an > > > absolute forward flow of time, relativity merely suggests that events > > > can move either ahead, or astern, of other events. > > > No, relativity says nothing of the kind. Perhaps you need some > > guidance on your reading of relativity. > > I think perhaps others need reminding about the implications of > relativity. People just about seem happy with relative positions in > space. They seem less happy with relative positions in time. I think you could use a little better background on what relativity really says, rather than you just taking a comic book exposure and then layering your own pseudo-scientific interpretations on top of it. Would you like a reading reference?
From: Ste on 30 Dec 2009 01:48
On 29 Dec, 17:47, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 11:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >< I ask the question in all seriousness, and because it strikes me that there is nothing that suggests an absolute constant movement forward along any spacial dimension, so why is there an assumption of constant movement forward along the time dimension (which introduces absurdities like traveling into the past)? > > On the subject of traveling into the past, how would traveling > backward in time be distinguishable from simply restoring the universe > to the same physical state as in the past (but which had not actually > traveled "back in time" in any meaningful sense)? > ... I'm interested to know whether the assumption of forward movement > is not just a product of subjective human intuitions (and bearing in > mind that every paradigm shift in science has involved throwing out > what was previously held as unquestionable). > > > Consider the following possibility: > Our memory is restricted to what happened to each one of us at given > times and places. Suppose there is a Being in the universe who is > everywhere at any time at all, and whose memory is therefore > unrestricted. In other words, a being that is not "in" the known universe at all, but who operates outside of it. > Suppose, then, that It wanted to think about what > happened yesterday or a billion years ago. IT would simply do that > just as we can think of whatever happened since we were 3 years old. > Suppose, though, that IT wanted to think about what -- to us -- will > be 1000 years later. By extrapolating from conditions everywhere > "now", IT would know exactly what they would be then, or AT ANY TIME > at all, past, present, and future. > Accordingly, to IT, "time" would not exist in the way it does to us. > IT could put itself anywhere at any time at all, and the universe > would be whatever it was, is, or will be, to us. > Though that is a difficult concept for us to fathom, if you are > interested go to > http://www.lulu.com/content/1411915 > and download a free copy of the audio file of a conversation relevant > to this subject. I appreciate your reply, but I am only interested in why people continue to hypothesise that the universe is somehow anthropocentric ("... suppose a being wanted to think about..."), or why they continue to hypothesise about what might exist outside the universe itself. I mean, we all have our Walter Mitty moments, but I like to think I maintain a strong line between my imagination, where anything can happen, and productive inquiry into the nature of the material world. |