The nature of time

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

North and some of you other fellas might have wondered why my replies haven’t been contributing much to the discussion, it’s because a2k doesn’t have a “Stop Following This Thread,” and so in the “My Posts” listing it will flag any thread to which I might have reason to reply

In a2k’s defense however, some of the forums using purchased software don’t have that provision either. But I really miss email notification

don't really know what that means , but now that we know , no problem

just do what you can

north

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

don't really know what that means ,

Forgive n=me North but that what

Quote:

but now that we know , no problem

My apologies but this seems to contradict that above

Quote:

just do what you can

That’s all I can do

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I do have a fling for Occam´s Razor, when it comes to dimensions I prefer to reduce then to stretch them...not saying that there can´t be 10 dimensions but saying that probably they can be reduce or integrated in the 1 one...

Did you not read my post about dimensions? Perhaps you didn't understand it. You cannot "reduce" three spatial dimensions into one and still have three dimensional space.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I do have a fling for Occam´s Razor, when it comes to dimensions I prefer to reduce then to stretch them...not saying that there can´t be 10 dimensions but saying that probably they can be reduce or integrated in the 1 one...

Correct... We have to work with what we can prove..

1 Reply

@Fido,

Except that what he's talking about isn't relevant to occam's razor... Fil is back, but he's still Fil, it seems.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

So you think 10 dimensions instead of less is n´t relevant for Occam´s razor...okidoki... Wink

...if you can do with less the same you can do with more...needless to say as usual you missed the point...not surprising at all...

...not my problem that your capacity of associating ideas is short lived obviously any reasoning person understands that given the hypothesis A is true, namely that Reality is Mathematics, then 1 dimension suffices to describe all other attributes of reality, laws of nature, functions at large, other simulated dimensions of space, matter energy etc...

...as usual I am not the one addressing you in first place with empty clearly false provocative comments...

...first of all I am not saying I am sure that Maths is reality I am saying the idea appeals to me and some other guys around in the scientific community...second, given such hypothesis is freezable, the reasoning upon a unique dimension rather then 10 is quite easy to get...in fact other clearly clever readers immediately got the point across...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

That is precisely the point. You can't do with less. Not if you want your mathematics to describe all "attributes of reality, laws of nature, functions at large, other simulated dimensions of space, matter energy etc.."
According to those who are trying to do just that, you need at least ten dimensions for the math to come out right.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...listen n try to get it OK...you can have the other 9 dimension inside a math continued string !
geeeee, got it now ? (dimension is just another function)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Whether or not the whole thing can be derived from something simpler is another matter entirely. A seed is not a flower. You may have the means to describe reality with your one dimension, but to actually describe it you have to involve all.

And now I'm done talking to you Fil. Let's just move on.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Are you suggesting mathematics has to include itself ? lol
Mathematics IS itself ! (it does n´t describe it IS...what it describes is all the other stuff...)

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil, Cyr I’m really pleased at having started such an extensive thread even tho the Average Clod (me) might not be capable of following

But the reason for this entry—and I hope somebody more important to a2k than us is listening—is that aw2k doesn’t possess a “Stop Watching this thread” link to remove it from our subscribed threads facility (here called “My Posts”) so I submit this post in order to flag it

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Are you suggesting mathematics has to include itself ? lol
Mathematics IS itself ! (it does n´t describe it IS...what it describes is all the other stuff...)

Not exactly... In math, one is one, and in fact, all numbers are based upon one as a number... In reality one is never one, as the equal of one must be... No two humans are alike let alone equal, and the same with all units of any matter... In our conception of one we allow for a certain error, generalization, or average, and it is perhaps out of average equality that math can be correct, and it is correct to itself mainly because there, one is one... It may be freely said that math is a true concept in every sense of the word, meaning not more nor less than it intends... Yet; if you only consider the axioms that cannot be proved in spite of being obviously correct so far as our reality goes, it weakness as a concept will be evident... Math cannot prove math correct... Reality must prove math correct...

1 Reply

@Fido,

1 - ...according to your own credo, who´s reality, yours or mine ?
2 - in a previous post I just did left a video providing exactly the opposite idea regarding the marvellous exactness of things in nature...I know you and the likes of you detest exactness mainly because you cannot thrive in any exact environment a problem of incompetence that necessarily clouds your impartial judgment on this matters... you are doing nothing but trying to save your genotype´s ass all around these threads...no matter what´s is the theme you n your pals always drag the subject towards what we don´t or can´t know and on how any theory is ultimately relative...on that regard if people like you were the majority in science community´s a couple of century´s ago we would still be discussing up to this day if microbes exist or if they are a human mind construction or any sort of similar nonsense...if anything, you all, Fido and gang, should be participating in a forum against philosophy and in favour of opinion, but hell no, you love to pick on those who are actually interested in getting forward...now let me ask you why don´t you philosophize among yourself´s all the crap you love to say...again no, you have to evangelize the good news to everybody else...damn hippies...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...the actual is the proof of correctness from the suppositions on the possible !
meaning that if the supposed possible is truly possible then it is actual...
Mathematics, if ultimate reality, is not to be justified rather it is the justifier !

(Justification is a temporal demand that has no claim upon an atemporal domain...that would be inherently self contradictory)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

…………….

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Perception depends on light c. Question: if the speed of c is halved, how long does it take light to travel from the sun to earth? There in lies the answer.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Here's a late reply...

dalehileman wrote:

My equally ignorant understanding insists on its objectivity as demonstrated by relativistic phenomena such as its slowing in a moving environment

What if time doesn't slow down in a spaceship, but rather the mechanisms inside a spaceship that measure time slow down?

1 Reply

time has no " nature " at all , not naturally

time only shows up in mathematics

0 Replies

@thack45,

Quote:

What if time doesn't slow down in a spaceship, but rather the mechanisms inside a spaceship that measure time slow down?

Time Thack actually goes slower, all phenomena time dependent are slowed. The astronaut comes back younger than if he’d stayed home

Quote:

time has no " nature " at all , not naturally...time only shows up in mathematics

North we might have a semantic issue. Surely it’s the nature of time to slow with motion

0 Replies

Quote:

time has no " nature " at all , not naturally...time only shows up in mathematics

Quote:

North we might have a semantic issue. Surely it’s the nature of time to slow with motion

but this slowing is NOT based on time but by the object that is slowing down

1 Reply

The nature of time

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know