08 Jan 07
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour objections seem pedantic because I get the feeling that if Dawkins was using a similar analogy technique to describe an idea of his you might be less critical. Infact he uses the idea of the "selfish" gene , I could argue that it doesn't work because genes have to have a mind and a will to be "selfish". But I accept it because I can see what he is saying , even though his world view is threatening to me. I get the impression that whatever analogy I came up with you would find a way of picking holes in it. I understand this because I guess you have to do this...... , you come to the analogy with a loaded dice.
I just fight my own corner by looking for all the ways that things don't work. AGERG
I am not personally offended my friend. How can I be offended by a computer screen? I am pointing out to you that if you look for all the ways that something doesn't work then that's precisely what you will find. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. If you said " Ah , se I guess you have to do this...... , you come to the analogy with a loaded dice.
But Dawkins actually stresses on more than one occasion the potential confusion caused by his terminology...selfish is not taken to mean that the gene thinks and screws everything over to suit itself...more that as a non thinking entity, the survival of that gene is based on it's ability to be successful over other genes..regardless of how dire(?) the consequences are for the losers. A gene proliferates because it was better built for a certain function than it's competitors, we humans by inspecting those genes might perhaps percieve them as being selfish where in reality the way they function simply tends to be the most economical and successful way of replicating again...this way of functioning then becomes a blue print for successive genes to pass on...Dawkins does a far better job of describing this idea than me btw...additionally, I'm being totally honest in that if Dawkins had used your analogy for a different purpose where it was still errant I'd be thinking to myself "wtf???"...for some strange reason he has not found it necessary to use such an analogy.
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by Agerg...but if i am point A, and my position is specified with respect to point B, then in this self contained system if my position shifts as a result of the earth's rotation...so does B's!...therefore my position from B need not be given in any other dimensions other than x,y,and z to know where I am AGERG
[b]Something cannot be said to exist at point A because in time point A is not static . The earth for example is not in the same place in the universe as it was a million years ago so to locate it accurately you need to specify the time as well as location.
(I anticipated this particular counter but for brevity, didn't build it into my reply)
I disa ...[text shortened]... we can say that x is roughly equal to (60^2)*24*365*300000 km...time is redundant here[/b]
This is fine if the person who is locating you is also in the same dimension of time as you and is always at point B are but unless you are at point A forever then you would need to say at which point in time you were at point A. If you were only at point A for 5 minutes and then went to point F I might not locate you if I did not have the precise time co-ordinates. It's self evident that in order to locate anyone or anything you need the right time co-ordinates as well. Even if we both stood at points A/B for years, point A and point B cannot be static points on the earth unless time stops completely because the earth is expanding / contracting and the earth's crust is in flux. So the distance between point A and B is bound to fluctuate constantly due to time passing (even if it's only by a thousanth of a micron). You can't take time out of the equation because it's always there changing stuff!
Imagine an alien looking at the universe from the outside . If he is to locate you , he needs to be able to know on which dimensional "axis" of time you are on. Are you at point A a 4 billion years after the big bang or 5 billion years after. If he goes to point A but with the wrong time co-ordinates he won't find you. ! Incidentally , I went to the supermarket the other day to pick up my wife , my time co-ordinates were out by 10 minutes so her location had changed. (LOL) I got all the 3 dimensional axis right ! Why wasn't she there??? Let's think...mmm...
So I know this is pedantic to be talking about microns and all that but for the purposes of your argument being true a micron might as well be a million miles. The universe is in constant flux. Your analogy doesn't work by the same logic you attacked mine ....... circles may not talk but neither do we live in some ultra static mathematically perfect universe. But then I never pretended my analogy was anything other than a neat story.
09 Jan 07
15 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is fine if the person who is locating you is also in the same dimension of time as you and is always at point B are but unless you are at point A forever then you would need to say at which point in time you were at point A. If you were only at point A for 5 minutes and then went to point F I might not locate you if I did not have the precise time co-ordinates. It's self evident that in order to locate anyone or anything you need the right time co-ordinates as well. Even if we both stood at points A/B for years, point A and point B cannot be static points on the earth unless time stops completely because the earth is expanding / contracting and the earth's crust is in flux. So the distance between point A and B is bound to fluctuate constantly due to time passing (even if it's only by a thousanth of a micron). You can't take time out of the equation because it's always there changing stuff!
...but if i am point A, and my position is specified with respect to point B, then in this self contained system if my position shifts as a result of the earth's rotation...so does B's!...therefore my position from B need not be given in any other dimensions other than x,y,and z to know where I am AGERG
This is fine if the person who is locating you iverse. But then I never pretended my analogy was anything other than a neat story.
KM...you are free to subdivide units of measurement as far as you wish such that the result is fit for a given purpose, but the location of some object with respect to another is (in simple terms) some amount left or right (x), some amount up or down(y), and some amount infront or behind it (z)...given that you know these quantities, where does time come in?...you are biting upon granite
Time is indeed important when we know that the position of an object is likely to change, we know that it will become displaced or undergo rotation etc... and based on our lack of ability to measure all distances instantaneously we would have to add to our initial measurement of the objects position at t1 what we predict will be (or just add what was) the duration and magnitude of these changes such that we can find where it is or was at t2...the important point though is that for each subdivision of that time interval the object's position relative to another is a specific value specified only in 3 axes (whether or whether not we have the means to measure it instantaneously)
Imagine an alien looking at the universe from the outside . If he is to locate you , he needs to be able to know on which dimensional "axis" of time you are on. Are you at point A a 4 billion years after the big bang or 5 billion years after. If he goes to point A but with the wrong time co-ordinates he won't find you.
an alien looking into the universe from the outside that can be wherever it likes in time eh?...firstly this is a hypothetical *crutch* that I don't buy into...secondly, the object he wishes to find relative to himself does not exist in a different time...(I don't buy this time travel, multiple time lines, and existing outside of time stuff... if you assert that such things are facts then bring to the table the reasons why these cannot be anything other than true)... if he is in the universe x billion years after the big bang then so are you! either he knows what general direction to travel in (how strong should be his displacement in each of the 3 axes) or he doesn't (if he doesn't he won't find you)...His perception of the passage of time may be different but for some person that exists x years after an event, there is not another person who exists x+1 years after the event whilst you still exist x years after it...you are talking pseudo-relativity KM.
! Incidentally , I went to the supermarket the other day to pick up my wife , my time co-ordinates were out by 10 minutes so her location had changed. (LOL) I got all the 3 dimensional axis right ! Why wasn't she there??? Let's think...mmm...
Your analysis of her position in those 3 dimensions was not right!...it was completely wrong, her position in those 3 dimensions was somewhere else....she tricked you!
So I know this is pedantic to be talking about microns and all that but for the purposes of your argument being true a micron might as well be a million miles. The universe is in constant flux. Your analogy doesn't work by the same logic you attacked mine ....... circles may not talk but neither do we live in some ultra static mathematically perfect universe. But then I never pretended my analogy was anything other than a neat story.
No we don't live in an ultra static mathematically perfect universe...but at any given point in time all objects exist in a certain position specified by 3 axes....time does not specify location, never has and never will...it specifies how the state of an object has, hasn't, is or isn't changing. Will or will not is based upon our predictions, sound or unsound with respect to how well we understand the universe (the exception being that time will progress forwards to a different state (such is the nature of something that is the duration between one event and another)...this I add to counter what I predict will be your comeback: "so are you saying that there might not be a tomorrow?" etc...) The future is not pre-determined
09 Jan 07
Originally posted by AgergYour analysis of her position in those 3 dimensions was not right!...it was completely wrong, her position in those 3 dimensions was somewhere else....she tricked you! AGERG
[b]This is fine if the person who is locating you is also in the same dimension of time as you and is always at point B are but unless you are at point A forever then you would need to say at which point in time you were at point A. If you were only at point A for 5 minutes and then went to point F I might not locate you if I did not have the precise time co- ...[text shortened]... t there might not be a tomorrow?" etc...) The future is not pre-determined
What does "her position in three dimensions was somewhere else" mean ? I thought you only needed 3 dimensions to specify a position in the universe . If you are right then why did I not find her there???. I got all 3 dimensions correct and you say that's all I need!!! Also , note how you can never really escape using time based words like "was" , you see , even you can only locate her using a reference to time. !!!! Without realising it you have just proved the very point I am making!!!
This is garbage plain and simple. You are saying that you don't need the dimension of time in order to locate a person!!! Ok , I'll give you a test. The test is to find my wife. I will give you the three dimensional co-ordinates but nothing more . According to you you should have no problem locating her. The 3d co ordinates are directly beneath the Eiffel Tower in Paris ----Ok genius - do your locating stuff!!!!
Now , I'm guessing you might be having trouble locating her and that's not because you don't live 2 minutes away from the Eiffel tower I guess !!! Do you think you have a chance of locating her? Shall I give you ALL the co ordinates now? Try 11am 4th June 2007 (hopefully) you can also try 8th July 1990 but you may have more difficulty with that one.
"....time does not specify location, never has and never will...it specifies how the state of an object has, hasn't, is or isn't changing. " AGERG
You forgot that objects don't just change state but they also move location. So 3d location is only useful for totally static objects.
09 Jan 07
9 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat does "her position in three dimensions was somewhere else" mean ? I thought you only needed 3 dimensions to specify a position in the universe . If you are right then why did I not find her there???. I got all 3 dimensions correct and you say that's all I need!!! Also , note how you can never really escape using time based words like "was" , you see , even you can only locate her using a reference to time. !!!! Without realising it you have just proved the very point I am making!!!
Your analysis of her position in those 3 dimensions was not right!...it was completely wrong, her position in those 3 dimensions was somewhere else....she tricked you! AGERG
What does "her position in three dimensions was somewhere else" mean ? I thought you only needed 3 dimensions to specify a position in the universe . If you are right then wh hey also move location. So 3d location is only useful for totally static objects.
She told you she was at the supermarket...the co-ordinates of that spot in the supermarket where you expected to find her are not the co-ordinates of the spot where she actually was. She changed her location, simple as that!
With regard to was, will etc.. time specifies duration between events...at event A your wife was at the supermarket. At event B she was somewhere else...both positions are specified in 3 axes; the time at which these locations were true has nothing to do with with defining an objects position and orientation.
This is garbage plain and simple. You are saying that you don't need the dimension of time in order to locate a person!!! Ok , I'll give you a test. The test is to find my wife. I will give you the three dimensional co-ordinates but nothing more . According to you you should have no problem locating her. The 3d co ordinates are directly beneath the Eiffel Tower in Paris ----Ok genius - do your locating stuff!!!!
At this point there exists a position below the Eiffel tower in Paris that your wife will be at...so if we let the Eiffel Tower be our origin...she lies somewhere below, somewhere left or right, and somwhere infront or behind the origin...3 axes was sufficient to describe this location
Now , I'm guessing you might be having trouble locating her and that's not because you don't live 2 minutes away from the Eiffel tower I guess !!! Do you think you have a chance of locating her? Shall I give you ALL the co ordinates now? Try 11am 4th June 2007 (hopefully) you can also try 8th July 1990 but you may have more difficulty with that one.
At this point there still exists a position below the Eiffel tower in Paris that your wife will be at, and it is still specified by 3 axes!...I just know that you now *predict* she might be there at a certain time
You forgot that objects don't just change state but they also move location. So 3d location is only useful for totally static objects.
Not really, I alluded to this on more than one occasion...also, If I want to know where my car is...I'd say it is outside my house parked down the hill. From this one can infer that it is below my current position and somwhere left, right, infront of or behind it. Knowing it's nearly 11 o'clock doesn't really factor into my assessment!
To get back on track KM a circle is defined to be an object that exists on a plane for which all points that lie on it are equally distant from the circle's centre.(For any wise-ass that claims the circle could be specified by 3 dimensions by inclining the plane I would add that the value of all points on this circle in an axis perpendicular to that plane is zero.. you just chose not to incline the axes along with the plane) A sphere is an object that exists in 3 dimensions for which all points on it are an equal distance from it's centre...the time at which it is round is irrelevant.
Your analogy *tried* to use the principle that an object specified by 2 axes being different from one specified by 3 axes can reconcile the notion that a person specified by 3 axes cannot understand a dimension that has nothing to do with describing physical location...the analogy was incorrect
Originally posted by AgergShe told you she was at the supermarket...the co-ordinates of that spot in the supermarket where you expected to find her are not the co-ordinates of the spot where she actually was. She changed her location, simple as that!
[b]What does "her position in three dimensions was somewhere else" mean ? I thought you only needed 3 dimensions to specify a position in the universe . If you are right then why did I not find her there???. I got all 3 dimensions correct and you say that's all I need!!! Also , note how you can never really escape using time based words like "was" , you see ing to do with describing physical location...the analogy was incorrect[/i][/b]
Actually what happened was she gave me all the right 4 dimensional co-ordinates I needed to find her. She could not have given me just 3 co ordinates because that would just be trusting to luck . Her position in time was relevant and I misheard one of the co ordinates , the time co ordinate , I thought she said 5 past the hour when she actually said 5 to the hour. My 4th co ordinate was 10 minutes out and I couldn't locate her. But according to you I only needed 3 co ordinates! How queer !
Fortunately , our 3 dimensional co-ordinates were not far away from each other . Once or twice we were both in the same 3d coordinates , but it was only when we finally matched up all 4 together that we located each other.
In the end she forgave me for my lack of dimensional understanding and let me locate her co ordinates for a full hour after some wine. 😀
11 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterActually what happened was she gave me all the right 4 dimensional co-ordinates I needed to find her. She could not have given me just 3 co ordinates because that would just be trusting to luck . Her position in time was relevant and I misheard one of the co ordinates , the time co ordinate , I thought she said 5 past the hour when she actually said 5 to the hour. My 4th co ordinate was 10 minutes out and I couldn't locate her. But according to you I only needed 3 co ordinates! How queer !
She told you she was at the supermarket...the co-ordinates of that spot in the supermarket where you expected to find her are not the co-ordinates of the spot where she actually was. She changed her location, simple as that!
Actually what happened was she gave me all the right 4 dimensional co-ordinates I needed to find her. She could not have gi mensional understanding and let me locate her co ordinates for a full hour after some wine. 😀
Fortunately , our 3 dimensional co-ordinates were not far away from each other . Once or twice we were both in the same 3d coordinates , but it was only when we finally matched up all 4 together that we located each other.
3 of those dimensions specify location, the 4th establishes the duration for which those 3 dimensions are relevant (if not relevant, another 3 are needed)...position has nothing to do with when, only *where*.
In the end she forgave me for my lack of dimensional understanding and let me locate her co ordinates for a full hour after some wine. 😀
hehe (moving swiftly on...)
12 Jan 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Agerg3 of those dimensions specify location, the 4th establishes the duration for which those 3 dimensions are relevant (if not relevant, another 3 are needed)...position has nothing to do with when, only *where*. AGERG
[b]Actually what happened was she gave me all the right 4 dimensional co-ordinates I needed to find her. She could not have given me just 3 co ordinates because that would just be trusting to luck . Her position in time was relevant and I misheard one of the co ordinates , the time co ordinate , I thought she said 5 past the hour when she actually said 5 to her co ordinates for a full hour after some wine. 😀
hehe (moving swiftly on...)[/b]
In a sense all you are doing is swapping the word dimension for duration as if that somehow makes time less of a dimension. However , you still implicitly accept time's relevance to locating. The difficulty is because we are moving through time it's the one dimension we tend not to accept or see so easily. It's like looking through your own sunglasses but not realising they are there. I still need all the 4 dimensions right if I am to share the same position as my wife. I need to get my position in time correct as well.
Scientifically there is no way to define an exact postion in 3 dimensional space anyway it's a myth. Let's say that you define the postion of the Eiffel tower as being 100 miles exactly from the centre of Calais , in the time it's taken me to write this sentence that distance will have changed by maybe a billionth of a milimetre due to geological changes , continental drift etc etc.In a 1000 years that postion may have changed by metres. I would need to either specify at what position in time I believed this postion to be true or accept that the position I had defined was a topographical approximation more suited to computer models than real universes. There is no way I know of to keep two points completely static because the whole universe is vibrating with energy , radioactive decay and quatum fluctuations. At best it's a mathematical approximation. And that's just trying to establish two positions relative to each other.!Once you start to try to define positions or cordinates within the universe in real terms you realise that the universe is constantly moving so time becomes even more relevant.
In simple terms position (or what you call "where" ) has everything to do with when. Because there is no position in the universe that stays in one place relative to another without reference to it's position in time. In the time it takes you to say where it is it's no longer there. Even when you see something in a "position" as you call it you can only ever say that's where it "was" because of the time it takes for the light to travel from the object to your eye. When you look into the night sky you are not looking at 3 dimensional objects in certain static "positions" , you are looking into the past , you are looking at when .
Of course you can continue to freeze time artificially in your imagination if you want to and I would be fine with this if only you would let me have circles talk!
12 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterBesides the motion of the Sun through the galaxy, the motion of the milky way galaxy towards Andromeda, the motion of them both in referance to the local cluster, the local cluster's motion within the super cluster's motion and the possible spin of the universe itself kinda makes a joke out of trying to figure out absoulute co-ordinates. For instance, the Earth is corkscrewing its way through space as it goes around the sun and the sun is in a giant orbit around some central point of the milky way, so it shreds any attempt to find a real co-ordinate system.
3 of those dimensions specify location, the 4th establishes the duration for which those 3 dimensions are relevant (if not relevant, another 3 are needed)...position has nothing to do with when, only *where*. AGERG
In a sense all you are doing is swapping the word dimension for duration as if that somehow makes time less of a dimension. However , yo ...[text shortened]... to and I would be fine with this if only you would let me have circles talk!
12 Jan 07
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree!!! Tell this to Agerg not me , he's convinced that position can be established without time . Maybe he's frozen the universe with huge amounts of liquid hydrogen?!!
Besides the motion of the Sun through the galaxy, the motion of the milky way galaxy towards Andromeda, the motion of them both in referance to the local cluster, the local cluster's motion within the super cluster's motion and the possible spin of the universe itself kinda makes a joke out of trying to figure out absoulute co-ordinates. For instance, the E ...[text shortened]... me central point of the milky way, so it shreds any attempt to find a real co-ordinate system.
12 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeistergrrr...so if someone says "i'm behind you" that their location could not possibly be ascertained without knowing what time it is???
I agree!!! Tell this to Agerg not me , he's convinced that position can be established without time . Maybe he's frozen the universe with huge amounts of liquid hydrogen?!!
I grow weary of this silliness...you've had me going at great lengths trying to show you that x,y,z defines where something is...t defines when it is...you believe in Doctor Who and Back to the Future stuff, I don't.
and all this because you think a circle's or sphere's roundness is in someway linked to time!!!
12 Jan 07
Originally posted by AgergNot really, I alluded to this on more than one occasion...also, If I want to know where my car is...I'd say it is outside my house parked down the hill. From this one can infer that it is below my current position and somwhere left, right, infront of or behind it. Knowing it's nearly 11 o'clock doesn't really factor into my assessment!AGERG
[b]What does "her position in three dimensions was somewhere else" mean ? I thought you only needed 3 dimensions to specify a position in the universe . If you are right then why did I not find her there???. I got all 3 dimensions correct and you say that's all I need!!! Also , note how you can never really escape using time based words like "was" , you see ...[text shortened]... ing to do with describing physical location...the analogy was incorrect[/i][/b]
Yes it does because if you were not at the 11 o clock coordinate you might not find your car. You only take this for granted because you are on the 11 o clock co ordinate already and so is your car . That bit of dimensional locating has been done for you already, all you have left is the 3 dimensional work . You are searching along the 11 o clock dimension of time as opposed to the 12 o clock dimension (when it could be stolen for example) so you think you don't need the time dimension but you do. You are just looking through your glasses but you don't realise they are on.
God can see all the 4 dimensions including time stretched out in front of him just as you can see all the 3 dimensions of your car in front of you. That is unless it's been stolen by my wife who's fed up of waiting for me at the supermarket.......
🙂
12 Jan 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI really couldn't care a damn for this argument whether I can find something or not...time specifies when...up, down, left, right, in front, behind of specifies where.
Not really, I alluded to this on more than one occasion...also, If I want to know where my car is...I'd say it is outside my house parked down the hill. From this one can infer that it is below my current position and somwhere left, right, infront of or behind it. Knowing it's nearly 11 o'clock doesn't really factor into my assessment!AGERG
Yes it n stolen by my wife who's fed up of waiting for me at the supermarket.......
🙂
Are circles only sometimes round???
12 Jan 07
Originally posted by AgergIf someone says they are behind you then you are starting with the assumed premise that you are in the same dimension of time.
grrr...so if someone says "i'm behind you" that their location could not possibly be ascertained without knowing what time it is???
I grow weary of this silliness...you've had me going at great lengths trying to show you that x,y,z defines where something is...t defines when it is...you believe in Doctor Who and Back to the Future stuff, I don't.
and all this because you think a circle's or sphere's roundness is in someway linked to time!!!
In any case in a way we are both right . One cannot prove that time is a dimension because dimensions don't actually exist . Things exist , but dimensions are mathematical constructs of the mind. I think I have shown that it's quite rational to think of time as a dimension and as such it can be superceded by further dimensions.
Back to spheres and circles???