"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by LemonJello
The idea that if you "freeze" everything time will cease to exist only holds under some reductionist view of time. Not everyone agrees and this has been a source of debate for generations. So, as usual, you're declaiming on a topic, pretending like it's black and white, without having done your homework first. Below is a very cursory entry that discusses this.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#RedPlaResTim

When I talk about shaving away one side of a board twhitehead presumes it is meant to impart some deep meaning about the universe. And when I talk about one aspect of time, are you presuming I should take into account every theory of time that has come down the pike? Why presume anything not expressed or implied, and how can simple illustrations not meant to encompass the entire universe or sum of all knowledge be so difficult to understand?

Originally posted by lemon lime
"In your minds eye take any real three dimensional object (like a board) and start shaving away one of those dimensions until it is only one atom thick. Then shave the last remaining (third dimensional) atom thick layer off and look at what you have left... what do you see?"

I see a two dimensional slice through the object. I am afraid the question still does not 'speak for itself' and you still have not said what you see.

"I don't know how freezing time can make it a constant, or did you mean something else? It's not like time is an object that can be literally frozen, I simply meant imagining cause and effect stopping and all motion ceasing. In that scenario time can not be a constant because it literally ceases to exist."
I am really not sure at all what you are saying here. Do you know what a constant is? Do you realise I did not mean constant speed, but constant value? If you take a time t= midnight 1980, then that is a constant. And it does exist.
I am ignoring for now the complexity of relativity which makes it impossible to actually make a slice through time.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If there is this god you speak of, we can no more control our connection to that god than a fish can control whether it needs oxygen. This god would never let anyone out of it's care, whether you are a saint or Hitler.

It is just the man made view of what we think a god SHOULD be like, not what a god really is.

This whole artifice of religion, ALL r ...[text shortened]... certainly can, that god will just say to itself, nice experiment but I can do better next time.

You have your back to God and you are saying where is God.

God is never in a persons life ......because that is what the person wants.

When the desire of the heart is genuine to have that relationship with God and the person acts in positive ways to acquire that relationship , that is the time we will perceive the relationship bloom.

Your closed eyes and closed mind and lack of genuine desire is your own fault ........but it is also what you want.

God gives us what we want .

And we get what we desire.

Your spiritual blindness is your own doing.

Originally posted by Dasa
You have your back to God and you are saying where is God.

God is never in a persons life ......because that is what the person wants.

When the desire of the heart is genuine to have that relationship with God and the person acts in positive ways to acquire that relationship , that is the time we will perceive the relationship bloom.

Your closed eyes a ...[text shortened]... s us what we want .

And we get what we desire.

Your spiritual blindness is your own doing.

Even if there is this so-called god you think you speak of, the misery sown in the world over the last several thousand years, hundreds of millions of people dying in war, millions more to disease, poverty killing people by the age of 30, infants born with vaginal cancer, all that points clearly to the fact this so-called god cares little for the lives of living humans. God doesn't exist, humans have no interactions with a non-existent god, god does exist, it is strictly hands off and therefore out of the human equation. Either way, living humans are on their own.

If there is this god you believe in, let it speak to me directly. No? Well, it just shows it has as much interest in me and humans in general than I have in it, so we are even.

Any god that would favor certain people over others just proves it ain't a god, it is an emotional wreck, needing worship and so forth like in the bible god.

A god, being omniscient, can just as easily speak to every human on Earth at the same time as to a select few who 'pass the word'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see a two dimensional slice through the object. I am afraid the question still does not 'speak for itself' and you still have not said what [b]you see.

"I don't know how freezing time can make it a constant, or did you mean something else? It's not like time is an object that can be literally frozen, I simply meant imagining cause and effect s ...[text shortened]... ause it literally ceases to exist."
I am really not sure at all what you are saying here.

I see a two dimensional slice through the object.

Does this mean you can literally see a two dimensional object?


Do you know what a constant is? Do you realise I did not mean constant speed, but constant value? If you take a time t= midnight 1980, then that is a constant. And it does exist.


It exists as a point on a chart showing t=midnight 1980. Yes, I get that. I'm afraid I didn't give a very complete picture of what I intended to show. We could also express time as a value shown on a chart in my example, but if we imagine time stopping (using the same board as in my first example) then the 4th dimension of time is clearly no longer one of the dimensions belonging to a 3 dimensional board. The board still exists, but time as a 4th dimension ceases to exist, because it wasn't a true dimensional aspect belonging strictly to that board.


So taken altogether, you may assume I am saying that board's very existence is absolutely dependent on a full three dimensions of space, but is not dependent on an extra 4th dimension of time.

Originally posted by lemon lime
When I talk about shaving away one side of a board twhitehead presumes it is meant to impart some deep meaning about the universe. And when I talk about one aspect of time, are you presuming I should take into account every theory of time that has come down the pike? Why presume anything not expressed or implied, and how can simple illustrat ...[text shortened]... i] meant to encompass the entire universe or sum of all knowledge be so difficult to understand?

No, I'm presuming that you'd have a better go at it if you bothered to do more homework before declaiming on such topics. I think it would enable you to be more responsive to the incredulity of others when they say they find your "simple illustrations" to be neither simple nor illustrative. Then you wouldn't have to resort to charging them with being either "dim witted" or "playing dumb on purpose". Clearly, neither of those actually apply to twhitehead here.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I see a two dimensional slice through the object.

Does this mean you can literally see a two dimensional object?


Do you know what a constant is? Do you realise I did not mean constant speed, but constant value? If you take a time t= midnight 1980, then that is a constant. And it does exist.


It exists as a point on a chart ll three dimensions of space, but is not dependent on an extra 4th dimension of time.[/b]

Sorry, your argument just does not make sense to me. You say that if you have a board and then freeze time, the board still exists (whereas you claim time ceases to exist). So you claim the board's existence does not depend on time and hence time is a not a "true dimension". Well, first of all, like I have already said, you haven't actually justified whatever reductionist view of time is implicit in your claim that time ceases to exist if you "freeze" everything. But, even ignoring that, I doubt your argument makes any sense. You've started with a time during which the board is in existence to "freeze" everything. But, for a typical board which is an impermanent thing, there are times before which and times after which that board exists. If you pick some other time to "freeze" everything, no reason to think this board exists. So you haven't shown the existence of the board does not depend on time, and you haven't shown that time is not a true dimension. Furthermore, even for times over which the board exists, this board can change and acquire different properties (while still retaining the same identity). If you freeze one of these times rather than another, the board will exist in both cases but with different static properties. So, not only is the existence of the board dependent on time, but the different properties the board can take on should be temporally indexed in some way as well. How do you account for these considerations if time is not a dimension?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Does this mean you can literally see a two dimensional object?

Yes. Of course there won't be much substance to it, so my eyes can not actually see it personally, but then I can't see electrons or other small objects either.


It exists as a point on a chart showing t=midnight 1980. Yes, I get that. I'm afraid I didn't give a very complete picture of what I intended to show.
I know, which is why I kept asking for clarification. I still don't know why you went to so much effort to avoid giving any clarification, claiming it 'spoke for itself'.

We could also express time as a value shown on a chart in my example, but if we imagine time stopping (using the same board as in my first example) then the 4th dimension of time is clearly no longer one of the dimensions belonging to a 3 dimensional board.
Yes, thats kind of true by definition.

The board still exists, but time as a 4th dimension ceases to exist, because it wasn't a true dimensional aspect belonging strictly to that board.
It doesn't 'cease to exist', it simply never is part of a 3 dimensional space. Similarly when you slice up the board and retain a 2 dimensional slice, the third dimension does not 'cease to exist', it simply is not part of the 2 dimensional plane.
However the plane still does have a position in the 3 dimensional space and the 3 dimensional space still has a position in 4 dimensional time.
The extra dimensions still exist whether you choose to ignore them or not.

So taken altogether, you may assume I am saying that board's very existence is absolutely dependent on a full three dimensions of space, but is not dependent on an extra 4th dimension of time.
Yet if the 3D object was Hitler, then it would absolutely be dependant on time.
So if I burn your board, what then? Will it still exist after I burn it? What if I cut it into several pieces? Will it be unchanged because it is independent of time?
Or did you simply not think it through?

[edit]
I see LemonJello has done a better job than me of explaining the time dependencies.

I am also not sure about your incredulity about seeing a two dimensional object. I realise that space is mostly empty and a two dimensional slice will be virtually empty. I also realise that sight requires all 4 dimensions to function. I also realise that quantum mechanics introduces complexities to the whole situation. But given a hypothetical 100% solid 2 dimensional object, I see no reason why one could not 'see' it in 4 dimensional space time.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, I'm presuming that you'd have a better go at it if you bothered to do more homework before declaiming on such topics. I think it would enable you to be more responsive to the incredulity of others when they say they find your "simple illustrations" to be neither simple nor illustrative. Then you wouldn't have to resort to charging them with being ei ...[text shortened]... playing dumb on purpose". Clearly, neither of those actually apply to twhitehead here.

It is good you are here to lend support to twhitehead. Perhaps working together in concert (using both of your intellects) this may become somewhat clearer for both of you. Clear enough to where I may then move onto my next point, the next one being the main point and the one I intended to make from the outset.

However... this time I will not allow myself to become distracted and sidetracked, nor be offended by the occasional outburst of projectile diarrhea, and will move on to my next point regardless of whether it has become clear to you or not.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It is good you are here to lend support to twhitehead. Perhaps working together in concert (using both of your intellects) this may become somewhat clearer for both of you. Clear enough to where I may then move onto my next point, the next one being the main point and the one I intended to make from the outset.

However... this time I will ...[text shortened]... rhea, and will move on to my next point regardless of whether it has become clear to you or not.

What's become clear to me is that your time argument is a real stinker of an argument. Perhaps there's an argument out there that would show that time is not a "true dimension"; but it's clear to me that it's not the argument that you have presented.

If your next point (your "main point" ) hinges on the success of your time argument, then don't bother presenting the next point unless you can satisfactorily address our concerns about your time argument. If, on the other hand, your next point can stand on its own, independent of your time argument, then okay.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. Of course there won't be much substance to it, so my eyes can not actually see it personally, but then I can't see electrons or other small objects either.


[b]It exists as a point on a chart showing t=midnight 1980. Yes, I get that. I'm afraid I didn't give a very complete picture of what I intended to show.
I know, which is why I kept aski object, I see no reason why one could not 'see' it in 4 dimensional space time.[/b]

Yes. Of course there won't be much substance to it, so my eyes can not actually see it personally, but then I can't see electrons or other small objects either.

Okay, you believe there won't be much substance to it after that last one dimensional layer of board has been removed. So how much substance are you suggesting could be there after an entire one dimensional layer has been removed? All I am able to see is an imaginary outline of the remaining two dimensions. What do you see?

[WORD TOO LONG]

The illustration is obviously a thought experiment. I don't necessarily mean something that can been seen with literal eyes, or through a literal microscope. But even if you only examine this in your minds eye, then given the contitions I've already outlined (in the illustration) you should have no trouble in working this out and being confident of your answer... and just because there may only be one answer to this, that fact alone in no way works to invalidate an answer. Sometimes there is more than one answer to a question, and sometimes there is only one answer.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It is good you are here to lend support to twhitehead. Perhaps working together in concert (using both of your intellects) this may become somewhat clearer for both of you. Clear enough to where I may then move onto my next point, the next one being the main point and the one I intended to make from the outset.

However... this time I will ...[text shortened]... rhea, and will move on to my next point regardless of whether it has become clear to you or not.

If your second point relies on your first then don't bother.

Apart from the objections raised by twitehead and LemonJello which you have not
answered... I have a whole heap of extra ones.

A tesseract can only be fully expressed in 4 spacial dimensions, and only a shadow
(or slice) can be observed in 3 dimensional space.

Does this mean that nothing can exist in three dimensional space without the fourth
[spacial] dimension?


The fact that three dimensional objects can't exist in two dimensional space does not
mean that 2 dimensional objects can't exist in either two or higher dimensional space.



When you get to questions as to the precise nature of time and space then you are getting
into Grand Unified Theory territory. High energy particles, the big bang, cosmology...

Stuff to which the best minds in the business with the biggest toys on Earth do not know the
answer because they have not figured it out yet.


There are formulations of physics in which time does not exist...
Formulations where it is a dimension you can move back and forwards in...
Formulations that allow time travel, and those that don't...
Formulations that have 2 or more time dimensions, and some with none...

So if you want to stand there are tell us you KNOW the answers as to the nature of time
then I say show me your Nobel prize.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If your second point relies on your first then don't bother.

Apart from the objections raised by twitehead and LemonJello which you have not
answered... I have a whole heap of extra ones.

A tesseract can only be fully expressed in 4 spacial dimensions, and only a shadow
(or slice) can be observed in 3 dimensional space.

Does this mean that n ...[text shortened]... tell us you KNOW the answers as to the nature of time
then I say show me your Nobel prize.

I'm not referring to any imagined (or theoretical) higher dimension of space, so as interesting as that concept might be to explore there are expected and necessary limitations governing the construction of thought experiments designed for answering specific questions.

Nice try, but a tesseract appears to exist in 4 dimensions because of its ability to fool our senses into seeing a 4th. But it too is limited (in our universe) to the same 3 dimensions we will find in anything else.

And I'll eventually get to my second point, but not before allowing the three of you to first illustrate that point with your attempts to distract and sidetrack... it's an added bonus to my next point that I hadn't anticipated (but probably should have) but seeing as how it is being so freely offered, I'll take it!

Originally posted by lemon lime
Nice try, but a tesseract appears to exist in 4 dimensions because of its ability to fool our senses into seeing a 4th. But it too is limited (in our universe) to the same 3 dimensions we will find in anything else.

Looks like you had the same (limited) education as RJHinds!

A tesseract (or hypercube when I was at school) can only exist
in 4 (or more) spatial dimensions. It has nothing to do with fooling our senses!

You are confusing a 2D representation of a tesseract with the actual thing itself!

It would be like looking at a picture of a cube and saying that cubes only exist in 2D and that the artist has used perspective to fool us into believing cubes are 3D objects.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Okay, you believe there won't be much substance to it after that last one dimensional layer of board has been removed. So how much substance are you suggesting could be there after an entire one dimensional layer has been removed? All I am able to see is an imaginary outline of the remaining two dimensions. What do you see?

If we ignore quantum mechanics for a moment and assume that all fundamental particles are single points in space, then I could, with careful selection, find a plane that intersects 3 fundamental particles. Considering the random placement of fundamental particles, I could probably not find a plane that intersects more than 3. So I should see three particles or less.