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: John Jones on 20 Apr 2010 20:36 Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > On Apr 17, 10:12 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> huge wrote: >>> Rick : >>>> huge wrote: >>>>> Rick : >>>>>> John Jones wrote: >>>>>>> huge wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and >>>>>>>>>>>> heart transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind >>>>>>>>>>>> of response to explain why you persist in this obscurantism? >>>>>>>>> The definition you were working to. >>>>>>>> Non-response again noted. >>>>>>> The definition you were obviously working to and rejecting. HERE IT >>>>>>> IS AGAIN: >>>>>>> "I don't know of any mathematical definitions of a sequence that >>>>>>> **DO** use time." >>>>>> distance = time * velocity >>>>> That is the definition of *distance.* It is not the definition of >>>>> "sequence" itself. >>>>> You want a definition of sequence like this one from Planet Math: >>>>> http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=397 >>>>> ___________________________ >>>>> Sequences >>>>> Given any set X , a sequence in X is a function f:X from the set of >>>>> natural numbers to X . Sequences are usually written with subscript >>>>> notation: x0x1x2 , instead of f(0)f(1)f(2) . Generalized sequences >>>>> One can generalize the above definition to any arbitrary ordinal. For >>>>> any set X , a generalized sequence or transfinite sequence in X is a >>>>> function f:X where is any ordinal number. If is a finite ordinal, then >>>>> we say the sequence is a finite sequence. ___________________________ >>>>> That is only one among several ways to define a sequence. >>>> Time is a sequence then: >>>> authors.library.caltech.edu/3523/01/FEYpr49c.pdf >>> Correct, time is a sequence. >>> But you cannot define a sequence by that, >>> in the same way you can't define the set of animals by >>> noting that a dog is an animal. >> That's the only way you can define a sequence. By referencing time. > > Now JJ you've directly contradicted yourself, for your OP states: > "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 don't mean to shove words into your mouth, but if you are proposing > a coherent concept you'll be happy to disambiguate this contradiction > cleanly. > > It is your own construction. Construct cleanly. Definition is fine, > even loose definition, but you have the word 'association' mixed up > with 'sequence' whereas I do not believe that any ordering is implied > by association. That word is nondirectional. It is less structured > than sequence. If A is associated with B then so is B associated with > A. If we investigate the associativity property of an algebra we see > the behavior > ( x y ) z = x ( y z ) > which is nearly the deletion of ordering of a sequence. Still, the > expression reads as a sequence as does all of our text. You may be > onto something, but it may be that you need to communicate more > clearly. This is a matter of construction and interpretation into > terms that the existing language can handle. Keep going, but time is > an ill defined concept and the discrete/continuous quality of your own > assumption has to be resolved. I'd argue that time is continous and > that sequence is strictly discrete. Functions are nearby. > > - Tim It's OK. I made no contradiction. When I said that the only way that sequence is represented is through time then I wasn't affirming the reality of either of them or both of them. Events themselves do not fall on time-lines. Events are constructed like Russian dolls. The fact that we do, in fact, talk about sequence is an extrapolation into metaphor of our sense of duration, a duration that is independent of any physical events that may or may not accompany that duration. |