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 1 Apr 2010 20:34 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. 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: Immortalist on 1 Apr 2010 21:45 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.
From: Sanity's Little Helper on 2 Apr 2010 06:03 It is an ancient John Jones <jonescardiff(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.
From: Zurab57 on 2 Apr 2010 06:30 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).
From: Zerkon on 2 Apr 2010 08:16
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. The sequence you 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. |