The elimination of Time and Space

try to make your arguments without relying on the very words you wish to deny.

You don't get out much do ya?

For example, I ask a question (event 1) and you reply (event 2). Event 1 does not come before or after event 2. We simply communicate.

Man ( the human observer) is the measure of all things

WE both know you couldn't have read it between the time of my posting and the time of your replying. Is this called trolling?

Quote:

For example, I ask a question (event 1) and you reply (event 2). Event 1 does not come before or after event 2. We simply communicate.

No. It should be obvious that the size of "an event window" is arbitrary, that's all. All you have done is extend the event window to be "the communication".

The rest of your conjecture seems to ignore that the measurement of the single entity space-time is relative to an observers frame of reference and the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. As Einstein showed "sequencing" itself depends on this.

Quote:

WE both know you couldn't have read it between the time of my posting and the time of your replying. Is this called trolling?

You nust think that you've written something worth spending time over. I read it and picked out the weakness right off

Time and Space can be eliminated without upsetting the natural order.

"Communication" identifies two events - my talking and you replying. A reply can only be said to come after or before my talking if a third event is referenced. like a clock event. However, that third event also cannot be said to be before or after except by reference to a fourth event, ad infinitum.

Concluding, the elimination of Time and Space is, in fact, a clarification of temporal sequence and length, a clarification which removes any relative distinctions normally associated with before, after, and longer, shorter.

Time and Space can be eliminated without upsetting the natural order.

1) The elimination of TIME
Events do not come before or after other events. Before and after are themselves the names of events that have not been described.

For example, I ask a question (event 1) and you reply (event 2). Event 1 does not come before or after event 2. We simply communicate.

If we say that event 1 comes "after" event 2, then we are actually associating one of these events with a third event, such as the position of the hands of a clock. We then call that association "before" (or "after").

Who, exactly, would treat event 2 as if it occurred after event 1?

2) The elimination of SPACE
The length of a line is the number of events on the line.

For example, line 1 is longer than line 2 because there are more events on line 1 than line 2.
line 1 ---^-----
line 2 ------------------------------------

Normally, we say that line 2 is longer than line 1, even though line 1 has more events. However, "longer" is itself the name of another event, an event that is invisible or rarely described. We construct that event ourselves, by making a new geometrical construction. We might use the limits of the page or margins for our new construction. This construction will incorporate line 2 into a line that has more events than line 1. We then say that line 2 is longer than line 1, even though we are not talking about line 2, but about the longer line that incorporates line 2.

Concluding, the elimination of Time and Space is, in fact, a clarification of temporal sequence and length, a clarification which removes any relative distinctions normally associated with before, after, and longer, shorter.

Quote:

"Communication" identifies two events - my talking and you replying. A reply can only be said to come after or before my talking if a third event is referenced. like a clock event. However, that third event also cannot be said to be before or after except by reference to a fourth event, ad infinitum.

Of course "ad infinitum! ! Segmentation is a function of human need to "window" their experiences in chunks. At what point shall we start with the event call "your post"?.....the act of copulation which conceived you ?
And you speak about "the natural order" without reference to the second law of thermodynamics which ostensibly gives "the direction of time". Now it be the case that "increasing entropy" also requires a human observer to define it, but as Ros has implied, philosophical deconstruction of all scientific terms tends to be a fruitless exercise in sophistry.

All that we call "measurement" starts at the nominal level ....i.e. naming/ counting "a thing"....and "thinging" is essentially a function of human needs to segment via a socially acquired set of spectacles called "language". You appear to be attacking "naive realism" without reference to its functionality, and without knowledge of the philosophy of language.

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Concluding, the elimination of Time and Space is, in fact, a clarification of temporal sequence and length, a clarification which removes any relative distinctions normally associated with before, after, and longer, shorter.

After two hours of struggle, poor Hugo finally got the glue-balls detached from the blades of the ceiling fan. But then they slipped and flew downward from his tugging grasp to firmly stick against the lounge chair and the lamp shade. "Those damn things are about something yet again!" he cursed.

http://plus.maths.org/content/cognition-brains-and-riemann

Modern neuroscience suggests that number, space and time aren't so much features of the outside world but more a result of the brain circuitry we evolved to move around in it. And this circuitry is all about judging less than/greater than relationships. In the 19th century the mathematician Bernard Riemann suggested that the mathematical ideas of space, quantity and measure should not depend on the outside world, but defined abstractly and in relation to each other. Joselle DiNunzio Kehoe finds some interesting parallels between these two ideas...

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Time and Space can be eliminated without upsetting the natural order.

1) The elimination of TIME
Events do not come before or after other events. Before and after are themselves the names of events that have not been described.

"Before" and "after" are not, in fact, "names" -- they are descriptive terms, usually used as an adverb, which implies, that despite your strange and absolutely, unsupported declaration, they must necessarily pertain to described events. The terms "before" and "after" are, in English, pretty essential to regulate the narrative structure of events...

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

For example, I ask a question (event 1) and you reply (event 2). Event 1 does not come before or after event 2. We simply communicate.

If we say that event 1 comes "after" event 2, then we are actually associating one of these events with a third event, such as the position of the hands of a clock. We then call that association "before" (or "after").

Who, exactly, would treat event 2 as if it occurred after event 1?

i agree that event 1 and event 2 are related by a common causal structure, and rarely occur unlinked, but it is ridiculous to think that their sequence within that structure is arbitrary. After all, if a person were to walk around saying' " A carrot, a carrot, a carrot..." were to be asked, "Do you know of an orange root vegetable?" --- The two halves of that exchange would not be the same if two people were engaged in conversation, and one asked, " Do you know of an orange root vegetable?", and the other answered, "A carrot." "Event differentiation" is not a significant factor, but "language sequence" and its importance representing the former is...

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

2) The elimination of SPACE
The length of a line is the number of events on the line.

For example, line 1 is longer than line 2 because there are more events on line 1 than line 2.
line 1 ---^-----
line 2 ------------------------------------

Normally, we say that line 2 is longer than line 1, even though line 1 has more events. However, "longer" is itself the name of another event, an event that is invisible or rarely described. We construct that event ourselves, by making a new geometrical construction. We might use the limits of the page or margins for our new construction. This construction will incorporate line 2 into a line that has more events than line 1. We then say that line 2 is longer than line 1, even though we are not talking about line 2, but about the longer line that incorporates line 2.

I feel as if you are still writing about time here...and you do recognize that you're being silly here, yes? The "line", in this debate, only exists as a representation of events -- what does it represent otherwise? -- and so the length is determined by the number of events. If one timeline is to be represented as longer then it must incorporate the representation of more events/actions. If you want to create a system of temporal representation that does not depend upon a "timeline" format, then do so, but don't try make your poor attempt at subverting a current method of temporal representation seem impressive by insisting upon some half-assed typological change.

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Concluding, the elimination of Time and Space is, in fact, a clarification of temporal sequence and length, a clarification which removes any relative distinctions normally associated with before, after, and longer, shorter.

Quite the contrary, "before" and "after" are clarifying terms, the only use of which is about individual components that causal systems involve.

"Longer" and "shorter" are, in fact, terms subject to measurement and representation, but the scale of each is neither applicable or reducible to abstract systems. They only have meaning when referred to unique objects...thus "space"/ old school "extension" cannot quite be eliminated...

There was an interesting scifi play on TV a while back, I forget the title, but a scientist has some sort of accident in the lab, and when he regains consciousness in a hospital bed, a colleague visits him and they begin chatting and asking questions about the accident.
But the injured scientist seems to be talking disjointed jibberish and it's impossible to hold a conversation with him.
But when watching a tape of the chat later, his colleagues realise that the guy is answering questions BEFORE THEY'VE BEEN ASKED, as if his accident has somehow jumped him forward in time, so that he now exists in a different "time stream"..

I already said that before and after were descriptions that had not been explicitly presented.

The initial absurdity of my post was the challenge to overcome, not regurgitate.

Lines and duration can be measured, but measurement introduces a whole new geometry based on the situation being measured.

Lines and duration can be measured [...]

...but measurement introduces a whole new geometry based on the situation being measured.

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

I already said that before and after were descriptions that had not been explicitly presented.

Actually, no, that's not what you wrote; you wrote that "before" and "after" were "names of events that have not been described" not descriptions of events both past and present (that may or may not have "been" [how does that work, tense-wise?] "named"). Both "the past" and "the present", seem to be, as aspects or concepts, instrumental participants in the description of observed/experienced events, precisely as regards their temporal sequence.

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

The initial absurdity of my post was the challenge to overcome, not regurgitate.

An example of not-so-oddly, defensive word-salad. How am i to interpret your challenging "absurdity"? You started off your statements by not trying too hard to make much sense, in the hope that others could and would make sense of your exposition for you? Without, you hoped, repeating your nonsense to you? Que?

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Lines and duration can be measured, but measurement introduces a whole new geometry based on the situation being measured.

Huh? What?

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Lines and duration can be measured [...]

Yep?...

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

...but measurement introduces a whole new geometry based on the situation being measured.

How so?