Science Forums 2

[arkain101]

Edited

What strikes me while reading this is the idea of something moving in the dimension of time (regardless of the number you give it: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th).

When we say an object moves, it is the same as saying the object has traveled in the 4th dimension.

Change and Time are intertwined concepts. However, if we consider change to occur, or time to flow in separate "chunks", by means of acquiring a specific state for a given position in space; ie, object @ state 1-position 1 , state 2-position 2, state 3-position 3. Then, this would suggest that time is not a valid dimension without a relative counterpart. That relative counter part would be memory.

In order for time to flow, which means, for any given state to have a connection to any other given state, it needs a relative item, just as a position of an object requires a secondary relative position for the "event" of "position" to exist.

This would mean that Time and Memory are linked. Noting that The medium of memory has remained undefined, but still realized.

To support these notions. Consider the differences of a spacial dimension and a time dimension. We can consider a 3 dimensional cube at a given state, at a given position. It does not demand memory, because one could say that it IS memory, such that, it is a state of memory. What we can see is that the difference between an object and a dimension (ie time) is that an object in a 'state' is full of valid relative counter-parts (formed out of other smaller divided states and positions). How I understand time is often conceived (or at least how you are conceiving it Moontaman), is that, it is conceived with the exclusion of a relative counter-part (an element of its own kind so to speak)

If spacial dimensions are valid via means of relative spacial points. Then should we not consider that time is only valid via means of memory points?

Earlier I mentioned that material was akin to memory and that time and memory are unified, when declaring time "flows". Which basically translates into the old space-time continuum. Space=memory=time.

The Term memory as I am using it can be thought of as simply representing a dimension. For example. Consider the Life of the universe. From beginning to end of this dimensions points A and B are trillions^ trillions of tiny tiny tubes which are to be considered as the view of a particles "life" seen in the dimension of memory(time). When we place slate in this dimension it represents a point in time. Moving this slate along, through the tiny tubes, creates events on the plate, the events determined by the orientation of the tubes. Orientation being, direction and size of the tubes (spirals and curls, narrows and buldges). So the dimension the tubes travel through is times dimension. The body itself is the memory(the connection of time points). The slate, well that is the present.

But this example is a manner of placing the medium of memory to the outter world.. such that it is a place "out there" , physical in some possible way, as opposed to the consciousness and applying memory within, which is a whole other story.

But I am not sure if you can escape the demand of memory, if something is also declared to have passed through the dimension of time, while upholding the notion that the universe flows, as opposed to pops in and out.

On the other hand, if the incentive is to uphold the notion that universe does not flow through a dimension of time, but rather pops in and out, and each pop is entirely disconnected from any previous or post pop, then in this case, memory or even time, would seem to me, to lack any importance.