Re: religion

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
> news:wXywf.80084$6K2.54082@edtnps90... 
>
> If you consider matter to be energy that is moving "slower" than the speed
> of light, and energy to be what matter converts to  when it approaches the
> speed of light (both gross but "useful" oversimplified distortions of
> physics), then you can imagine time arising out of space and space arising
> out of time. Relativity certainly implies that time is derived from
> movement, and movement certainly implies space.
>
> It is all interesting speculation; for myself, I cannot conceive space and
> time as being anything other than interrelated.
>
> (Gotta stop now as I have no more space or time :-))
>
> Pete.

Suppose we consider a volume of space in which time does not exist. A
complex organism, such as a human being, may evolve and occupy that
volume of space. Such an organism may remember a past and may be able
to predict a future without the existance of the fourth dimension. Such
an organism may conceive of a fourth dimension even though that
dimension does not exist and there is only 'now'.

That is how I can say that time is not a real dimension. However, it is
only a debated topic and is not widely accepted. But then the (digital)
universe may in fact be virtual and not real.

In article <1136900927.606227.97620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Pete Dashwood wrote:

[snip]
 
>
>Suppose we consider a volume of space in which time does not exist. A
>complex organism, such as a human being, may evolve and occupy that
>volume of space. Such an organism may remember a past and may be able
>to predict a future without the existance of the fourth dimension. Such
>an organism may conceive of a fourth dimension even though that
>dimension does not exist and there is only 'now'.

Mr Maclean, language begins to break down under such circumstances.
'Past' and 'future' are, by definition, not 'now'; if all that exists is
'now' then memory and prediction would seem to be impossible.

(I recall a class during my Kollidj Daze when a fellow-student asked 'Can
we ignore time for just a minute?'... and I noticed that he included a
measurement of time in his request.  Difficult thing to ignore, it seems.)

DD

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:13:26 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>(I recall a class during my Kollidj Daze when a fellow-student asked 'Can
>we ignore time for just a minute?'... and I noticed that he included a
>measurement of time in his request.  Difficult thing to ignore, it seems.)

We can ignore time - but I've learned that time doesn't ignore us.

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1136988756.015434.172030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Back to the one/two/three dimensional worlds. If a one dimensional
> being perceives a dark point expand and break into two points which
> move apart, move back together and then become a singular point, then
> he may deduce the existence of a dark circle (and a second dimension)
> having passed through his uni-dimensional world.
>
> A two-dimensional creature may perceive that the dark point expands to
> a dark circle before contracting back to a dark point again. That
> creature may deduce the existence of a sphere  and a third dimension.

I think most creatures of dimensionality N "perceive" an image in
dimension N-1. Of course, the only samples I have to work with are 3
dimensional creatures (namely life on earth), but it seems like a reasonable
conclusion when you think of perception (or vision anyway) as being mostly
the result of receiving rays (of light) that reflect against matter.

For example, us, being 3D creatures, receive via each eye, a 2D image of
the world around us (or directly in front of us, anyway). Most people have
at most two eyes, so we can receive up to two images, and we can use the
minor differences between each to try to infer some information about depth,
but we don't "see" in 3D, in the sense that we can't see the backside of an
object. If you're looking at a standard 6 sided dice, and you see the side
marked "6", you will not be able to see the side marked "1" simultaneously.

Similarly, imagine a 2D creature on a sheet of paper, and you draw a
circle onto that sheet. The 2D creature cannot see the "other side" of that
circle. He only sees the side facing him. So this 2D creature would probably
receive a 1D image, which is a line. Perhaps the 2D creature will have 2 (or
more) eyes, and can then infer some depth information about this line, and
decide that what he sees is probably a circle, though he cannot see the
backside, so he cannot know for sure until he walks around and checks it
from all angles.

Now, instead of a sheet of paper, imagine the 2D creature lives on a
flat Euclidean, Cartesian, infinite 2D plane that travels through our 3D
universe. The creature is only capable of moving along the plane, having no
organs to allow it to travel along a 3rd axis. Let's say we push a sphere
through the plane, very slowly, so that the creature has time to move around
the sphere, and inspect it from all angles. At any one point in time, the
creature is still receiving only a 1D image, but using the power of
abstraction and his mind, he can determine that the 2D slice that he is
seeing is a circle. As we push the sphere through the creature's plane of
existing, it would seem that a tiny circle appears out of nowhere, grows for
a while, and then shrinks again, and finally disappears again.

If this were to happen to me, the first thing to jump into my mind is
not "There must exist other dimensions" but rather "I guess matter is not
conserved after all." Occam's Razor and all that.

- Oliver