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: John Stafford on 9 Jul 2010 07:17

In article
<28fd67e0-84b3-4a72-a7ea-c3609fd6437f(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Errol <vs.errol(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Excellent. And human consciousness is the universe is experiencing its
creation through one of its created.

From: Michael Gordge on 9 Jul 2010 08:36

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

From: Errol on 9 Jul 2010 09:04

On Jul 9, 2:36 pm, 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

And the tax he paid on that gratuity is all being spent by guvvmint
MIB holding a gun to his head while they concoct Global warming
conspiracies, I suppose?

From: jmfbahciv on 9 Jul 2010 09:39

[spit a newsgroup]

Michael Gordge 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?
>

You still have no ability to learn. Space and time are
the things you use to avoid getting hit by a semi truck.

/BAH

From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 9 Jul 2010 10:50

Michael C 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

Nice perspective Michael. I work on an alternative theory built around
polysign numbers:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
which do provide arithmetic support for spacetime, with unidirectional
time. What I like about your perspective is that the configuration
should be a fundamental perspective. In that it claims to isolate time
and space, then what should we make of including an objects velocity
within the configuration? If it was to be fundamental, then it should
not have values containing references to itself. Here is an opening that
could prove to be useful. Most of physics makes use of position, first
derivative, and second derivative. Why stop there?

Space and time comprise four dimensions in modern theory. Well, I can
falsify that. More important is the progression itself, and if there
were an overlap with the calculus that makes modern physics tick then
all the better. Why? Because polysign are capable of providing that
breakpoint, which is most clearly exposed via product behavior. Still,
the idea that the higher dimensions (and higher derivatives) could still
play a part is present. This is nearby to conservation theory and the
law that is in play is very much about conservation of distance, and
breaking with that conservation principle under some operation; the
arithmetic product.

Weyl titled one of his books Space-Time-Matter though he never did open
up to a new possible philosophy at this level of unification. Instead he
built support for relativity theory by building up dizzying accounts of
the math, and attempting to cripple criticism of relativity, which we
may come back to see as a weak perspective, for the hope of a new
opening is going to be via careful criticism of the existing theories.

Relativity is actually a first instance of a structured spacetime. The
metric itself exposes this, all the while claiming to fit the tensor
structure. Well, this is a lie. The isotropic stance must take in time
on the same footing as space if the tensor is to hold. This is not the
case, therefor the math is not actually tensor math. It is a
pseudotensor form. What we should take as truth is that spacetime is
structured. The polysign progression I believe is the next form that
humans will work with. It even provides room within the progression for
10D (plus 0D time) at T5
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
out a few places beyond the T3 spacetime support
P1 P2 P3 .
Though I have not found a natural breakpoint at T5 in terms of
arithmetic behavior, the T3 breakpoint is loud and clear.

This approach may be quite a grandiose shuffle, yet there are numerous
overlaps with existing theory, including electromagnetic behavior within
spacetime itself. The antisymmetric tensor happens to share the same
format as the polysign progression, though the new form has the
redundancy removed, and has added structure to the geometry itself,
which is as it should be if electromagnetic behaviors are truly built
into spacetime itself.

The polysign numbers provide a new construction of the real number, and
much more, for within the same rule set we can have unidirectional zero
dimensional time, the complex numbers, and the higher dimensional forms
as well, all algebraically well behaved. If we have gotten the real
number wrong then what else could we have misconstrued along the way?
The human mind, no matter how strong, is caught within the mimicry
effect that allows the propagation of information, and so to break free
and find a better answer is challenging for us. I have only half of an
answer, but it is quite a pretty half. I hope someone else can fill in
the rest, but I still try myself.

- Tim