I have only one complaint with your interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Likewise, I defined another numerical index, which I called x, to identify a specific noumenon making up a specific “present”.
|
well, yes. X is not just one thing or one identity. Otherwise you'd have just called is snorky or something. |
x is an index, a number which is available to refer to that specific noumenon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
At this point you should see that “the present” has been conceived as possibly consisting of more than one noumenon. If that is the case, I am going to further state that “order”, with respect to one another, cannot be a characteristic of these simultaneous (simultaneous meaning “occurring at the same time”) noumenons as “time” was introduced for that exact purpose.
|
Here I suspect that you mean 'order' in the 'sequence of events' sense. So, X(1) of T(5) is not dependent upon or the result of X(2) of T(5). By definition it would be 'caused' by things in T(4), etc. |
Causality is an aspect of an explanation and is not yet an issue here. In fact, if it were (and we were in fact trying to come up with an explanation, causality does not necessarily require the causing event to be prior to the event being caused. Oh, in our common world view it does, but I can conceive of an explanation where the cause and the consequence are simultaneous. In fact, in common physics, any cause mediated by a photon can be seen as simultaneous in the photon's frame of reference.
The real issue here has to do with representing these indexed items as positions in that x coordinate. When that step is taken, any order in these indices which might be significant is lost. I am afraid you are looking at the numerical indices as yielding order information which they certainly are not. These indices are being used as numerical labels and no information resides in their actual value at all: i.e., order is a separate issue and, if order is important, that information is lost when the index is represented by a position on the x axis.
It is a little subtle but I will try to make it clearer if you have problems.
And Qfwfq, the private message was meant for you. If you were referring to the Dilbert cartoons, my comments would have made sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Have fun -- Dick
