Desription and arguement - el Infinite

Quantum Heraclitus:

You were evidently leading yourself to a point based on my answers to your questions.

Don't you have one to make still?

And I'll give it some thought and get back to you. It is just rather meaningless to me to appeal "to the mob".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah I guess I do...as usual...ha

There was a book published years ago with the title:
"All the things I need to know I learned in Kindergarten"
it was a book used in the highschool reading list year 11 I think.
I often think back to it when I get into situations like this one.
I remember one of the most important lessons in life that one can learn is the lesson of futility.

To know when it is futile to proceed and when it is not. A two year old child throwing a tantrum on a supermarket floor is an example of such learning in progress.
To continue this discussion with out peer review is one such occassion.
there I made a point....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see how our argument would change with other people voting?

Are you seriously expecting reality to be demonstrated by vote?

Anyway, yes, if you think this is futile, let us be done with it.

I have to go for several hours anyway. I shall post in 7+ hours from now.

Farewell for now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

never mentioned anything about a vote....nothing to do with popularity and ego but all to do with good thinking and scientific process.

bye

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

What's this but a vote?

 

a vote for what?

Just requesting other intellects to apply their knowledge and skills to this issue.

I know for example that most persons fail to understand the light cones and in making their comparitive mathematical assessments we could all learn something about them.

Also in the process we would see mathematical approach to your infitesimal time segment issue.
Also in the process you may come to understand how a continuously changing event horizon even though generating a continuous event of zero duration can still present what we experience around us daily.

 

I'm not especially interested in spectating/contributing to a huge debate on the matter. It is frankly something which would be too much to handle and I don't especially see as very fruitful.

We'll have two sides. One will support mine, the other yours. If it is as intractable as between us, we'd get no where. I also don't suppose much support will be drummed up on either side.

 

Of course it would not be fruitful as you have quoted:

There is no way any one no matter how incorrect you may be is going to change your position.

Doubt is always necessary, in the right balance of course, but once I hear "I have no doubt what so ever" then that is when I reach for my book about futility.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and notes on psychiatry.

Am I wrong in my assessment of the situation....most probably and not only am I open to refutation I am open to change. Which is why I post to these fora any ways.

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

Read the bold carefully, my good man.

 

yes I read " you are open to arguement to the contrary but that does not mean you would change your position regardless of that arguements validity.

So far science is telling you that the light cones are touching.

You have agreed that if the infinitely sharp edges of two similar analogues are touching the separation is zero.

Then you state that the light cones cannot be touching as the present would not exist if the separation between past and future was zero. [ contradiction #1]

I say that it can exist and am willing to explain how this is so as an event horizon of continuous change. You have declined to accept the offer.

You refuse to entertain the possibility that the Light Cones are right therefore fly in the face of conventional and well accepted science.

And you say you are open to refutation....[contradiction #2] .....sorry but this has proved not to be the case...at least not when talking with me on the subject.

Which is why I suggested a peer assessment [ to remove me from the situation], which again you decline to participate in....so


......what is a person supposed to think?

 

Possibly if your were able to put aside your strongly held belief and deal with the problem in abstraction you may find that the light cones offers a considerably more efficient alternative to infinitesimal time segmentation.

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

LOL. I'm sorry, but that is some blatant misreading of my position, good sir! I explicitly referenced I am open to refutation. Please, re-read twenty times over, because I seriously cannot see how you could have mistaken my words twice at this point.

I hate to say it, my good man, but truly speaking: I am thinking you are more liable to the charge of failing to admit refutation.

Two things:

1. Science says no such thing.

2. Who are you to talk about the validity of science? You throw out photons! You have made an entirely new systems of physics! You have no right to discuss the authority of scientific gosepl even if it was gospel. Heretics cannot speak about orthodoxy.

Indeed, quite so. Thta is what it is meant by "touching". That there ceases to be any space between them.

Not a contradiction in the least. In the first case we have two things: Sword one, sword two.

In temporal relations, we have three things: Past, present, and future.

The present is sandwiched between the past and future which are both relative to it. It cannot be zero in duration, or it would not exist, and as such, neither would past or future (as they are relative to it). Also, as time would cease to have any moments, everything would be 0 + 0 + 0...or in other words, time itself would have zero duration, leading to a collapse of time as a whole.

You also have never given a refutation for how temporal relations are really two, not three. If you would care to do that, please do so. But do not simply affirm the opposite, while I present a contrary view with reasoning behind it. It's somewhat rude.

You're affirming absurdity: Zero-duration cannot have "continuous change". Change cannot occur in zero-duration.

Again: Heretics cannot preach orthodoxy.

 

If you are up to proving otherwise, please do so. But this stands as my counterpoint.

 

Of course change cannot occur in zero duration. However what we experience in the present moment is of zero duration and do so for eternity.

imagine a peep hole in a sheet of laminate. you look through the hole at another infinitely long laminate sheet sliding underneath at the rate of 'c'.
What do you see through the hole?
You see something that has zero stasis that continues to change for eternity at the fixed rate of 'c'

 

If you were the observer standing on our hyperspace present as shown in the light cones diagram you would be like looking through a peep hole at the point where the cones touch watching time go by at the rate of 'c' and what you are actuallly seeing is the present moment in constant change.
Now if we take another step:
Because the observer is also changing at the same rate as what he observes the outcome is the observation of relative rest or stationary mass or even moving mass etc etc...yet change is constant yet appears to be relatively still.
so energy has zero statis and lasts for eternity [ I would anticipate this as part of an extension to the laws of thermodynamics as well - especially conservation laws]

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

It certainly is eternally flowing, but time is of such a nature as to discuss static points consistently. Were I to appreciate every single moment of time, I would see it as progressing past infinitesimals of space and time. I would recognize it as constant motion, but also note how very much time is like ticking seconds on the face of a clock.

We certainly experience a relative present moment (we're actually experiencing an indeterminate amount of moments all lumped together in our clumsy macroscopic time scale), but if this moment is truly "zero-duration" then all other times must be, too. One cannot get anything but zero if you keep on adding zero to it.

No, you would actualyl see a 4-d representation of the eternity of that point in space if we were in hyperspace. In essence: The shape made up from every change in that point of space ad eterniam.

 

Further clarification.
if we refer to the laminate and the peep hole
because the observer is changing at the same rate as the laminate under the top sheet the sheet below appears to be stationary when both the top, bottom and observer are changing at 'c'
So the observer would see no change in this case. This assumes a universe that is entirely uniform in balance [ entropy at the max ] But because energy is distributed unevenly around the universe we have movement that we can witness and change that we can witness. [ something appears to be moving when you are not sort of thing or relative v as SRT would say]

 

yet this is merely a subjective opinion and not physical reality....the universe doesn't use a clock so to speak only us humans do for our convenience too I might add.

The distinction needs to be made as you can segment time however way you want.
BTW delete the words zero duration and replace with zero stasis. Should clarify things a bit easier.

 

I am making reference to the lightcone diagrams use of the word hypersurface my mistake....sorry

 

The time of observation is zero duration however the time itself is eternal. note distinction between observation and time.