Time, sequence, determinism
in [Logic]
|
Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?
From: Sir Frederick on 2 Apr 2010 08:22 On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 01:34:56 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism. > Could 'Time' = 'God'? Actually, any story works. The PBS Nova program a couple of weeks ago, mentioned that the Maya culture may have included the taking of time as God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization See the PBS web site for any Internet replay.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 2 Apr 2010 08:23 On Apr 1, 9:45 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 1, 5:34 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism. > > > I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do > > not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A > > comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather > > than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B". > > > I have never dealt with the objection that without some sort of > > independent ordering medium, such as Time, then we ought have no reason > > to expect any order at all among world-events. Without Time, there > > doesn't seem to be any reason why A should always be associated with C. > > Time seems to give us the law of sequence and causality, but > > "association" seems to bring no laws at all. > > ...there are two distinct viewpoints on time. (1) - One view is that > time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a > dimension in which events occur in sequence. Time travel, in this > view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a > film strip, spread out across the time line. Sir Isaac Newton > subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to > as Newtonian time. (2) - The opposing view is that time does not > refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move > through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part > of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and > number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second > view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds > that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself > measurable nor can it be travelled... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time > > (1) & (2) could be true at the same time. > > > Of course, if there are no laws then determinism vanishes. Let us then > > try and keep the idea of Time as Association, and by doing so break the > > harmony and order of determinism. > > > To do that - to keep the idea of "time as association", rather than > > "time as sequence" - we must tackle the objection I made against it, > > above: why is it that some events are always (atemporally) associated > > with other events? Is there a law at work? > > > No, there is no law at work. It should come as no surprise, for example, > > that there can be more than one example of an object. We can divide each > > of such objects into parts, and these parts will always be associated > > with each other... that is why A is always associated with C... In other > > words, we have replaced temporal sequence with physical patterns. We > > can, in turn, dispose of physical patterns by noting that what counts as > > a pattern comes about through the imposition of limits, limits that > > aren't actually found in the world itself. There is nothing in the world > > itself that tells us where one object starts and another ends. Just as > > there is no before or after, so there is no here or there, except as > > these are the terms in which association, rather than sequence, is cashed. > > > Logicians and mathematicians should have helped develop this idea years > > ago. The idea I have presented here, that Time comes to us as a matter > > of associations rather than sequence, is also a very unpopular Kantian > > idea but it has, surely, been endorsed by a modern mathematics that has > > its sequenced numbers arranged in non-sequenced "sets". And sets are > > associations. The fact that the mathematicians switched from making a > > sequenced to an associative link between objects (numbers) without > > making the full Kantian gesture of doing the same for Time is either an > > oversight, or a lack of familiarity with, or interest in, Kant, or a > > traditional stance taken on behalf of a sequenced Time and its determinism. Nowhere in the descriptions does the unidirectional nature of time come to words. This is just where the consistency arises. Consider not the real number, but half of a real number as the medium of time. To fully understand that simple ray, it is productive to generalize first, and so the polysign number generalization (within which I've just suggested going from two-signed numbers to one-signed numbers, but generally we can consider three-signed numbers or n-signed numbers): http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned Now, what we witness is that dimension is tightly related to sign and that those one-signed numbers are zero dimensional, even while they are unidirectional. A representation can be made along the ray of accumulating time, but the graphing of that number does not produce any geometry as we know it in modernity. This zero dimensional view of time is entirely corroborated by observation. As we consider space to be three dimensional we see freedom in space to move an object about within those three dimensions. No such freedom exists for time. We are not free to move an object either ahead in time some amount or backward in time, and so the zero dimensional interpretation is already supported by existing observation. Further, this method develops support for spacetime via and algebraic behavioral breakpoint at P4. - Tim
From: Yap on 2 Apr 2010 09:09 On Apr 2, 8:34 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism. Unclear sentence. > > I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do > not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A > comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather > than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B". Now, A to B fits nicely in sequence. Then A to B to C is also a sequence. But why would you equate the two, since A to B will never reach C? If your premise is going to confuse yourself, how can the rest of your message going to make sense? <snip> > > I have never dealt with the objection that without some sort of > independent ordering medium, such as Time, then we ought have no reason > to expect any order at all among world-events. Without Time, there > doesn't seem to be any reason why A should always be associated with C. > Time seems to give us the law of sequence and causality, but > "association" seems to bring no laws at all. > > Of course, if there are no laws then determinism vanishes. Let us then > try and keep the idea of Time as Association, and by doing so break the > harmony and order of determinism. > > To do that - to keep the idea of "time as association", rather than > "time as sequence" - we must tackle the objection I made against it, > above: why is it that some events are always (atemporally) associated > with other events? Is there a law at work? > > No, there is no law at work. It should come as no surprise, for example, > that there can be more than one example of an object. We can divide each > of such objects into parts, and these parts will always be associated > with each other... that is why A is always associated with C... In other > words, we have replaced temporal sequence with physical patterns. We > can, in turn, dispose of physical patterns by noting that what counts as > a pattern comes about through the imposition of limits, limits that > aren't actually found in the world itself. There is nothing in the world > itself that tells us where one object starts and another ends. Just as > there is no before or after, so there is no here or there, except as > these are the terms in which association, rather than sequence, is cashed.. > > Logicians and mathematicians should have helped develop this idea years > ago. The idea I have presented here, that Time comes to us as a matter > of associations rather than sequence, is also a very unpopular Kantian > idea but it has, surely, been endorsed by a modern mathematics that has > its sequenced numbers arranged in non-sequenced "sets". And sets are > associations. The fact that the mathematicians switched from making a > sequenced to an associative link between objects (numbers) without > making the full Kantian gesture of doing the same for Time is either an > oversight, or a lack of familiarity with, or interest in, Kant, or a > traditional stance taken on behalf of a sequenced Time and its determinism.
From: John Jones on 2 Apr 2010 11:19 Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > On Apr 1, 9:45 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Apr 1, 5:34 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism. >>> I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do >>> not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A >>> comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather >>> than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B". >>> I have never dealt with the objection that without some sort of >>> independent ordering medium, such as Time, then we ought have no reason >>> to expect any order at all among world-events. Without Time, there >>> doesn't seem to be any reason why A should always be associated with C. >>> Time seems to give us the law of sequence and causality, but >>> "association" seems to bring no laws at all. >> ...there are two distinct viewpoints on time. (1) - One view is that >> time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a >> dimension in which events occur in sequence. Time travel, in this >> view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a >> film strip, spread out across the time line. Sir Isaac Newton >> subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to >> as Newtonian time. (2) - The opposing view is that time does not >> refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move >> through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part >> of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and >> number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second >> view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds >> that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself >> measurable nor can it be travelled... >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time >> >> (1) & (2) could be true at the same time. >> >>> Of course, if there are no laws then determinism vanishes. Let us then >>> try and keep the idea of Time as Association, and by doing so break the >>> harmony and order of determinism. >>> To do that - to keep the idea of "time as association", rather than >>> "time as sequence" - we must tackle the objection I made against it, >>> above: why is it that some events are always (atemporally) associated >>> with other events? Is there a law at work? >>> No, there is no law at work. It should come as no surprise, for example, >>> that there can be more than one example of an object. We can divide each >>> of such objects into parts, and these parts will always be associated >>> with each other... that is why A is always associated with C... In other >>> words, we have replaced temporal sequence with physical patterns. We >>> can, in turn, dispose of physical patterns by noting that what counts as >>> a pattern comes about through the imposition of limits, limits that >>> aren't actually found in the world itself. There is nothing in the world >>> itself that tells us where one object starts and another ends. Just as >>> there is no before or after, so there is no here or there, except as >>> these are the terms in which association, rather than sequence, is cashed. >>> Logicians and mathematicians should have helped develop this idea years >>> ago. The idea I have presented here, that Time comes to us as a matter >>> of associations rather than sequence, is also a very unpopular Kantian >>> idea but it has, surely, been endorsed by a modern mathematics that has >>> its sequenced numbers arranged in non-sequenced "sets". And sets are >>> associations. The fact that the mathematicians switched from making a >>> sequenced to an associative link between objects (numbers) without >>> making the full Kantian gesture of doing the same for Time is either an >>> oversight, or a lack of familiarity with, or interest in, Kant, or a >>> traditional stance taken on behalf of a sequenced Time and its determinism. > > Nowhere in the descriptions does the unidirectional nature of time > come to words. > This is just where the consistency arises. Consider not the real > number, but half of a real number as the medium of time. To fully > understand that simple ray, it is productive to generalize first, and > so the polysign number generalization (within which I've just > suggested going from two-signed numbers to one-signed numbers, but > generally we can consider three-signed numbers or n-signed numbers): > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned > Now, what we witness is that dimension is tightly related to sign and > that those one-signed numbers are zero dimensional, even while they > are unidirectional. A representation can be made along the ray of > accumulating time, but the graphing of that number does not produce > any geometry as we know it in modernity. > > This zero dimensional view of time is entirely corroborated by > observation. As we consider space to be three dimensional we see > freedom in space to move an object about within those three > dimensions. No such freedom exists for time. We are not free to move > an object either ahead in time some amount or backward in time, and so > the zero dimensional interpretation is already supported by existing > observation. Further, this method develops support for spacetime via > and algebraic behavioral breakpoint at P4. > > - Tim I was endorsing the view that the reason why we can't move through time is because there is no time, and not because there is time with zero-dimensions or other.
From: Zerkon on 3 Apr 2010 08:41
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:19:29 +0100, John Jones wrote: > I was endorsing the view that the reason why we can't move through time > is because there is no time, and not because there is time with > zero-dimensions or other. zero duration |