What are space and time? [Logic]

Prev: NP+complete-problem navigation, search In computational complexity theory, the complexity class NP-complete (abbreviated NP-C or NPC), is a class of problems having two properties: * It is in the set of NP (nondeterministic polynomial time) pr
Next: Continuity and Uncountability

From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:46

On Jul 9, 6:06 am, Errol <vs.er...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 7:00 am, Michael C <michaelcochr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 10:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> > > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional
> > > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; that is to
> > > say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can
> > > be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an
> > > existence in their own right.
>
> > > It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and
> > > processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and
> > > substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.
>
> > > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the
> > > objects and events that they contain?
>
> > > Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space
> > > and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more
> > > complex than just sustained perceptual constants?
>
> > > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
>
> > Immortalist,
>
> > I think a moment in time is a certain configuration of the
> > universe. Now, it's not enough to just know where the atoms in the
> > universe are located in that "moment in time". You'd have to include
> > things like momentum and the directions they are "currently" moving.
> > Now, does this definition still allow time to be the fourth
> > dimension? Well, if a moment in time is a configuration of the
> > universe, then it seems that knowing what moment in time the universe
> > is currently at would be enough to describe everything, length, width
> > and height and then some of all the objects in it. Is time an all
> > inclusive dimension - does dimension simply mean piece of information
> > about an object? If you know what time it is, would you know the
> > length, width, height and locatons (and anything else) of all the
> > universe's objects?
>
> > Michael C- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think that each configuration of the universe along the space-time
> continuum is an act of observation by the universe of itself (whether
> by human observation or interactions of particles). This particle
> interaction helps explain the explicable state of twinned particles at
> a distance as well. Eternity might separate observations, but it is
> unnoticed by sentient consciousnesses such as humans.

But for you to notice that it goes unnoticed, isn't that a paradox?
Unless you're not
human that is...

From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:50

On Jul 8, 4:42 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 8 July, 03:40, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional
> > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; that is to
> > say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can
> > be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an
> > existence in their own right.
>
> > It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and
> > processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and
> > substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.
>
> > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the
> > objects and events that they contain?
>
> > Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space
> > and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more
> > complex than just sustained perceptual constants?
>
> > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
>
> I think one fundamental aspect of Einstein's idea of spacetime is that
> it is a single 'thing'.

In four dimemsions. When is 1 = 4? A family? When the things on each
side of the equation aren't of the same type.

Sometimes philosophies that fit in a nutshell, belong there.

From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:51

On Jul 11, 7:08 pm, Wordsmith <wordsm...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2:42 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 July, 03:40, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> > > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional
> > > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; that is to
> > > say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can
> > > be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an
> > > existence in their own right.
>
> > > It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and
> > > processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and
> > > substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.
>
> > > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the
> > > objects and events that they contain?
>
> > > Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space
> > > and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more
> > > complex than just sustained perceptual constants?
>
> > > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
>
> > I think one fundamental aspect of Einstein's idea of spacetime is that
> > it is a single 'thing'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As an organic totality, yes, but scientists and
> philosophers love to pick 'em apart.
>
> W : )

Please define "organic totality".

From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:53

On Jul 8, 7:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/8/10 6:26 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/8/10 3:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
> >> On Jul 7, 7:40 pm, Immortalist<reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> >> Guess who said this:
>
> >> "It will be helpful to distinguish space and time into absolute and
> >> relative. Relative space and time are measurements."
>
> >> That's Newton in the Principia. Einstein did quite a bit to reinforce
> >> that notion.
>
> >> Of course, that's also more or less Plato, Buddha, and the first words
> >> of the Tao and the Bible.
>
> >> Make of that what you will.
>
> > Scientific idea live with the support of empirical data.
>
> Perhaps a better statement: Scientific idea live that fit
> current observations, are not contradicted by an observation
> and make fruitful predictions.

Something about experiments and testing need to be added to that.

From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:56

On Jul 9, 8:36 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 12:51 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > >On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >What are space and time?
> > >> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> > >Space is matter, it exists regardless of man's mind, time is a man
> > >made mind dependent concept.
>
> > Hogwash.
>
> How much were ewe paid to say that?
>
> MG

I rarely agree with Fred McCall, but this time I do. Space is not
matter and time is not man made. Tools to measure time are man made.

What do you call what exists between matter in space? More matter?!?