What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: Michael Gordge on 18 Jul 2010 18:38 On Jul 19, 7:02 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You people know that the majority of the newsgroups you're > crossposting to are 'sci' groups 'sci'fiction, you mean. > and this sloppy touchy-feely > alt.philosophy shite just doesn't get it, don't you? Science is philosophy dependent and not the other way round. MG
From: Immortalist on 18 Jul 2010 18:53 On Jul 14, 2:48 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jul 12, 11:53 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 8, 2:01 am, 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. > > > Is that a human theory, that matter exists necessarily or that > > something being necessary makes it an irrefutable fact? > > Does that question make any sense to you? > Yes, theoretically though it cannot be determined either true or false with certainty, a lot of good evidence points to the conclusion that matter exists. The problem is that the representational modal of reality which you and I are debating about, is not the reality. The real question is how you have such faith that the theory of necessity is absolutely true and you conclude that something must exist, simply based upon this faith in basic logical representations of theoretical events in the world. Think man, your not getting of easy. > MG
From: OwlHoot on 18 Jul 2010 20:10 On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 10:15 am, OwlHoot <ravensd...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > If one works on that assumption (and I fully concede it may be kooky) > > then broadly speaking studying particle physics amounts to eludating > > the conditions and symmetries under which particles don't or somehow > > can't, or are least likely to, or are slowest to, go back and "murder > > their ancestors". > > The existence we lead seems to be more stable than your construction > allows. To me this is a part of the fundamental puzzle that we should > try to address. > > [...] I'm sure you're right. I really just threw the idea up in the air, with little conviction, to see what people might make of it. > I have some heavier posts that are not in sci.math or > sci.space.history groups of this thread you might like > to read; they are in alt.philosophy and sci.physics and > sci.logic. I'll try and check them out, but as I'm sure you're aware the search function of Google Groups is completely broken. So results are patchy to say the least. (I must have made thousands of maths & physics usenet posts over the last 20 years; but only a handful show up on Google Groups, although for some of the missing ones that's no bad thing ;-) Actually, I prepared a longer reply, but this has now reached epic lengths and I think would be better placed on a blog I have just started. So I am currently working on that and, FWIW, will post a link when ready. Cheers John R Ramsden
From: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 20:38 On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > In article > > > <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5ed...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > [1] Relativity > > > > > > > [2] HUP > > > > > > > [3] WP-Duality > > > > > > > [4] A correct understanding of causality > > > > > > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime > > > > > > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > > > > > > > Length > > > > > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > > > > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in > > > > > > > physics > > > > > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important > > > > > > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've > > > > > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain > > > > > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand. > > > > > > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures, > > > > > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall. > > > > > > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- > > > > > Hide > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine. > > > > Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide > > > quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims > > instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool > > cannot fix another. > > > Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read > > my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that > > you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply. > > IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional > interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language. That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No > delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that > humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has > no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text - That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's head ?
From: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 22:40
On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5ed...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > [1] Relativity > > > > > > > > [2] HUP > > > > > > > > [3] WP-Duality > > > > > > > > [4] A correct understanding of causality > > > > > > > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime > > > > > > > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > > > > > > > > Length > > > > > > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > > > > > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in > > > > > > > > physics > > > > > > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important > > > > > > > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've > > > > > > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain > > > > > > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand. > > > > > > > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures, > > > > > > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall. > > > > > > > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- > > > > > > Hide > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine. > > > > > Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism..- Hide > > > > quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims > > > instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool > > > cannot fix another. > > > > Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read > > > my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that > > > you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply. > > > IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional > > interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language. > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No > > delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that > > humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has > > no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic..- Hide quoted text - > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, and probably havent been laid in years. |