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: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 3 Apr 2010 19:48
On Apr 2, 11:19 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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.

Pure arithmetic suggests that the 'nothing' of your own viewpoint can
be had with a unidirectional algebra. This has been overlooked because
nobody bothered to generalize sign. The behavior of one-signed numbers
allow them to have an algebra even while their geometry is nill, or
nearly nill. The spacetime paradigm of unification of space with time
is probably a more apt paradigm. I'm guessing that you refute the
spacetime paradigm.

Through polysign the spacetime paradigm is of structured spacetime
P1 P2 P3 ...
There is a natural breakpoint in product behavior in P4+ so the
progression can go onward and still maintain support for spacetime
with unidirectional zero dimensional time. Incidentally there is a ten
dimensional form as P5- that is inherently branish. I call this T5,
and the P3- version would be T3.

- Tim
From: John Jones on 3 Apr 2010 22:19
Zerkon wrote:
> 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

That's a tautology. Time of "zero duration" necessitates the concept of
temporal duration. The fact that it is zero doesn't absolve it from that
necessity.
From: John Jones on 3 Apr 2010 22:22
Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
> On Apr 2, 11:19 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Pure arithmetic suggests that the 'nothing' of your own viewpoint can
> be had with a unidirectional algebra. This has been overlooked because
> nobody bothered to generalize sign.

You must pay close attention to the grammar and style of writing. What
is "generalize sign"? If you are disposed to technical languages don't
compromise plain English for it.


> The behavior of one-signed numbers
> allow them to have an algebra even while their geometry is nill, or
> nearly nill. The spacetime paradigm of unification of space with time
> is probably a more apt paradigm. I'm guessing that you refute the
> spacetime paradigm.
>
> Through polysign the spacetime paradigm is of structured spacetime
> P1 P2 P3 ...
> There is a natural breakpoint in product behavior in P4+ so the
> progression can go onward and still maintain support for spacetime
> with unidirectional zero dimensional time. Incidentally there is a ten
> dimensional form as P5- that is inherently branish. I call this T5,
> and the P3- version would be T3.
>
> - Tim
From: John Jones on 3 Apr 2010 22:23
Zurab57 wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:03 pm, Sanity's Little Helper <elv...(a)noshpam.org.invalid>
> wrote:
>> It is an ancient John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com>, and he posteth:
>>
>>> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism.
>> Johnny Bach, getting fooled by himself again.
>>
>> --
>> David Silverman
>> aa #2208
>> Want to know what truth is? It's what wise people know how to look for, and
>> the foolish only ever encounter by accident.
>> Not authentic without this signature.
>
> There exists 4D world and in our brain we must have appropriate 4D
> representetion and determinism is not necessary :) (as well as the
> meditation).

Is there clubcard points?
Are you from PLuto?
From: John Jones on 3 Apr 2010 22:26
Zerkon wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 01:34:56 +0100, John Jones 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Ok "time as association". Time was first associated with and determined
> by celestial movements which themselves were associated with changes in
> immediate environment, like seasons or herd movement. Time then became
> associated with ordered numerical systems, then actual physical spaces on
> as an aid to navigate a globe. Now, Spacetime and the 'points' and
> 'arrows' of time. 'Time' also will decided if something is wrong with
> this picture.



No no - by "association" I meant, and I repeat,

'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"'


> The sequence yo

u refer to might be based more upon motion than if/then
> associations. The sun moving across the sky, from one position to
> another, as an example.
>
>> 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.
>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
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?