Quote:
Originally Posted by Boerseun
When we consider a brew-bucket filled with your latest homemade beer to ferment, time is just a pain in the ass.
|
Indeed!
Quote:
|
If you take it to be a dimension, I put it to you that time is the very first dimension, and not the fourth. If you lived in a one-dimensional world where only straight lines are possible, how would you even perceive it in the absence of time?
|
This is quite a valid point. One that I have not heard before, but this makes good sense, imho. Time is fundamental. Even the idea of dimensions has no meaning without time, as you say. The first dimension...it's really quite insightful...dare I say "Brilliant"!
Quote:
Alternatively, the following:
Each object exist universally, in every conceivable location in the universe. If you have Moontan's 6" cube in your hand, that is clearly not the case. That cube is in your hand, and nowhere else. But, that cube has the potential to be everywhere. At the quantum level, the particles appear and disappear at random. There's a common name for it, but not being English, I've forgotten it. But bear with me:
This 6" cube's location in space is the statistical mean of the quantum uncertainty of the whereabouts of all the particles it consist of. If you were to kick this cube into the air, you impart a moment to all constituent particles, which will in turn reflect in the quantum uncertainty of all particles involved. At the macro scale, you see it as a cube flying through the air. But as far as time is concerned, the cube existed in all the points in its trajectory already (being a hypercube and all) - all you did was to raise the chances of which cube will next be observed. And time is just the linear progression of the statistical coordinates of any given object - which already exist in all possible locales in the universe, but can only be perceived one at a time because time itself is quantized?
|
Yes, this is another staggering problem with time.
When we quantize time (which is necessary for observation) do we also stagnate our understanding? If so, how is it possible to avoid this?
I seem to recall some appropriate rejections of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but I can't remember the sources. But, they may present answers to at least some of our questions. (I'll try to find them presently)
Quote:
|
Not having English as a first language really sucks in this regard...
|
You're kidding, right?
Dude, your English is phenomenal!
I had no idea that it wasn't your first language!
I'm continually impressed by the grasp of English from many different nations. It really makes me a bit depressed.
I have a pretty good grasp of Spanish, but I could never reply to technical or philosophical questions in Spanish (at least not yet).
I'm quite impressed and you should feel no shame at all. Your text is not only perfectly coherent, it's also missing any spelling errors and semantical errors that could occur. Kudos and thanks for the brain fodder.
