<001f01c0f423$01003f40$0a00a8c0@proneuron>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-moq_focus@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: moq_focus@moq.org
Hi Jonathan, Elephant and Bo
Jonathan:
> It appears that Magnus and Elephant take Kant's view:
>
> MAGNUS
> > I don't mean to make fun of the second law, and maybe I'm just old-fashioned
> > about this time concept, but time seems to be a more basic concept than the
> > rest of the second law.
>
> I think we all agree that time is some sort of pattern of value, but is Kant
> right that it is somehow "more real" than other patterns?
No, but you might say that they (and by "they" I mean time, space, gravity, etc.)
are more basic because other, higher level, patterns are dependent on them.
Some of you have raised objections against my quantum level ideas regarding
time but I frankly don't know why. I agree that time belongs to the same level
as space, gravity, mass and so on. I see evidence for this in all the physical
formulas containing different kinds of inorganic patterns, like e = m*c^2,
v = s/t, etc. I don't know if you take such formulas as evidence but I think
we should. Such formulas are valid as long as we stay in the inorganic realm,
but when we approach the quantum realm, regardless of whether that means reaching
relativistic speeds or sub-atom sized particles, they aren't applicable anymore.
What I'm trying to say with my quantum level ideas is that these inorganic
patterns, or values, depends on lower level patterns. That is one of the most
basic rules of the MoQ so why should time, space or gravity be exceptions?
Further, to ask questions like, "what is time?", or "what is taste?", is
to ask, "what patterns does time depend on?" and "what patterns does taste
depend on?".
With taste, we know one answer. Chemical processes gives input to sensors
relaying information to the brain. The answer isn't really an answer to the
question, "what is taste?", but it does answer the question, "what patterns
does taste depend on?".
With time on the other hand, we don't even have that second answer. Nor do
we have it for gravity, space or any other inorganic pattern.
That's why I'm digging into a lower level. I think we would understand the
inorganic realm much better if we knew some of these dependencies. And I
also believe we would be wise to use the MoQ in the process.
> Jaap raises some interesting points as to what sort of pattern time is.
>
> > - An other question is whether you need time in order to have Dynamics - you
> > need time in order to have (fysical) movement, but is DQ thinkable "outside"
> > time ? If it isn't is it permitted at all to think of time as a stattic
> > pattern, or are we then forced to regard time as the very manifestation DQ ?
>
> Could it be that the pattern we call time precedes or eludes the
> static/dynamic split?
> This is not good for the MoQ . . .
No, don't worry. Time does not escape the SQ/DQ split. Of course DQ is thinkable
outside time. And time is a *very* static pattern, it is in a sense more static
that gravity because gravity is much easier to circumvent than time.
To think of DQ outside time, imagine quality events ocurring in a space-less
void without sense of time. To not have the sense of time means that patterns
in this void have no states, every event just happens to a pattern and then it
returns to its previous state-less condition. However, DQ is there and might
introduce states into this void. Guess what happened at the Big Bang...
DQ introduced the 3 space-dimensions plus time, which are 4 of the state-
dimensions that inorganic patterns can value. The 3 space-dimensions plus
time makes sure no two inorganic patterns occupies the same spot at the same
time. Patterns are more or less free to move around in the 3 space-dimensions
but all inorganic patterns travel through the time dimension like an army,
strictly conducted by the static time-law of the inorganic universe.
What physics has been doing is to come up with relationships between these
different state-dimensions that DQ invented at the Big Bang. The 3 space-
dimensions plus time makes 4, I guess energy would be the 5:th state-dimension,
(which can take different forms such as heat, speed, mass, etc.) Anymore?
Magnus
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST