/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

	ohhh...
	Posted By: MrHen	Date: 12/19/06 5:44 a.m.
	In Response To: Re: right, yeah, that is the identity problem (Forrest of B.org) : When I'm talking about "me" or "you" or "your : great-great-great-grandfather", I'm talking about our bodies. As : enduring things, these bodies necessarily are four-dimensional objects, : not merely three-dimensional objects, so long as you are considering time : as a dimension and not as something else entirely. Ohhh... okay, that helps. I do not see "me" or "you" or "my ancestor" as enduring 4D objects. At least, not yet. Things get way too messy metaphysically. I am considering time as a dimension, but I do not think of something as holding "volume" in that other dimension. The reason for this is because my models of identity begin to break down if I do. : That was the gist of my : question: whether you feel comfortable saying that there are other times, : in the exact same sense as there are other places; that in a tenseless : sense, there is a past Earth "somewhere back there", in a : direction which we are unable to point in in 3D space, exactly the same : way as there are other planets "up there" in the sky. Oh, okay. My answer is still really complicated, and I think it was in the other post. : As a four : dimensional physical object, I extend 24 and a half years into the past : and I don't yet know how many years into the future. And as a four : dimensional physical object, I do not move through time at all. I begin in : time 24ish years ago and I end some time in the future. The distance in : time from by birth to my death is my duration, which is a measurement : precisely like my height, width, and length. It is how big I am in time. This does not happen in my model. Things do not "extend" into the past. You can look at the past and say, "that is me," but that is not the same you that was there. The same thing happens when you look at your physical body. If you take a 2D plane from top to bottom and show it to someone, no-one will consider it you. You are not there. Nowhere in your body can "you" be found. You can replace every single part of your body (which we basically do, if I remember correctly) and still be the same person. We have changed, but we are still the same identity. Temporally, the same thing happens. Instead of thinking about things extending into the past to match up with the spacial dimensions I explain things without extending in any of the dimensions. Those extensions are nothing more than us trying to identity things. When you break it all apart, you can see the changes. It makes sense to explain you as extending backward roughly twenty-four years, but that extension is not necessarily stable or locked in. Just like your extensions in the spacial dimensions are constantly changing, shifting, moving. : But I, my body, does not move through time; for movement is a change, and : change requires another dimension to move across, so if I were in fact : moving through time at all, even just moving forward at a steady rate : along with everything else, that itself would require some sort of : hyper-time. There are already other dimensions. In fact, we have three of them. Why do these not work for moving through time? And change happens anyway. Why does your model suddenly "stop"? What defines it? : However, my perception appears to "move" through time; or time : appears to "flow" past me. But the best way I can think to : describe this is thus: imagine you have a graphic novel, drawn in the : first person. You see hands and parts of a body and everything that the : main character (whose view you are watching from) sees. You look at one : panel and things are one way; then you look to the next panel and things : are different. And so on. But nothing about the graphic novel itself : actually changes; you could still look back at earlier panels. Now, it : seems that our perception, however that works, it tied up to moving at a : fixed rate from one panel to the next, more like frames of a movie; but : even in a movie, the film itself isn't changing as it plays. It's just : playing. The past frames are still there. They're just past. That makes sense, but I see movement in time in the same way as I see movement in the other three dimensions. You can take a snapshot of any point in the graphic novel and notice that nothing is moving. But things do move. This is nothing more than Xeno's paradox applied to another dimension. This is where Calculus comes in. Movement in the spacial dimensions can be stop-framed at any point of there travel. At any point, you can look back and say, "they are not moving." Time is the same way. It just gets weird when using the words "looking back" because we are not actually looking back in time to see time, we are looking at the over all change. Your 4D models make sense, and it is a rather cool way to see things. But you are right, in that model, there is no change. Nothing moves, nothing actually does anything. It is merely a projection of change that the time-god could see if he cared to. But the implications of that are really strange in metaphysical terms. But now I understand why you see things as either a time-loop or hyper-time. If I had to take a pot-shot at what the fundamental difference is between our two models, I would guess it is because I see the model as nothing but constant change and you see it as a stable arena with no change at all. Interesting. Your model is pretty cool, actually. :) It still does not solve my identity problem, however. Actually, it makes it worse. But whatever. :P : Perhaps a better highway analogy would be to speak of highways themselves, : not cars on them. Say a highway single lane road in the countryside. As it : goes along toward the big city, it grows into a two lane, three lane, four : lane... eventually getting up to a huge ten-lane highway in the middle of : the big city. People driving down the highway would say, by the time that : they got to the city, that it "used to be" a single lane highway : back in the country. But technically, it still *is* a single-lane highway : back in the country; the people just aren't looking at that part of the : highway anymore. Now, these people in their car are other physical objects : actually moving down along the highway, but imagine instead that the : highway somehow had some sort of consciousness, where every slice of : highway was aware of being that slice of highway, and remembered having : been the previous slice of highway, all the way back to when it was just a : little single-lane highway back out in the countryside. Yeah, that makes sense. In my view, this example makes no sense because the highway is not moving. This is why I kept trying to put cars on the highway. : (This everything-is-a-4D-object thing is why I said is makes no sense for : something to move backwards in time, without somehow stepping outside the : timeline entirely first. Imagine if I asked you to build a highway that : went in a straight line from point A to point B, and then in a straight : line from point B halfway back to point A. How would you build the second : segment, from B halfway back? How would you even conceive of that? The : task makes no sense; what would I even be asking you to do? There's : already road there in that space. Are you supposed to dig it up and lay : new road? What?) Again, this makes sense in your everything-is-a-4D-object model. In my model it would make no sense to try and bend the highway back on itself because the highway is the axis. This sort of paradox only happens when moving things around in 1D space. Moving back in time would require "pushing" things out of the way while traveling. It would be like swimming: the water must move out of the way. This completely botches everything in terms of space, but it would work itself out because everything is fluid. The only problem would be a head-on collision where two time-travelers would be heading in the opposite direction and neither would move out of the way. Just like trying to drive backwards on a highway. No one every said time-travel was safe. :) The movement to dodge things when traveling on the time-axis is already in place because of the three spacial dimensions. And like I mentioned earlier, this already happens on an extremely small scale. They have proven that people can slow down there rate of movement in regards to time. The objects "passing" them on the fourth dimension did not run into them. : If these highways could talk to each other, spelling words out in the : changing patterns of their reflector dots ("changing" in the : sense that in one segment of highway the patterns are one way and in : another segment the patterns are another way; not that the dots actually : rearrange themselves "in time", since time just is the length of : the highway), this highway might say that it used to be a little one-lane : country highway way back when, before it got to the big city. But to us : humans, who are not bound up in the two-dimensional world of the : highway-people (one of those dimensions being the highway-people's : "time", what we'd call length, and the other, what we'd call : width, being their space), we would look back and say that the highway IS : a one-laner out in the country and that it IS a ten-laner in the big city. : It "changes" only in that it is different between one point and : another; not that any change actually occurs in time. If any change did : happen to the highway in what we consider time, then that would be like : altering a timeline for the highway; our time would be the highway's : hyper-time. Right, yeah, that again makes sense in your model. In my model nothing really "exists" in that sense. What we call a highway is nothing more than a label for what we think is a three (or four) dimensional object. : Us being able to see the highway as a 2D image, with time being another : dimension to us, allows us to see all of the highway's history at once; we : are outside the highway-people's time. If changes to the highway were made : by building over on top of the old highway, instead of actually changing : the old highway in our time, then we would also be outside of the : highway-people's hypertime; we would see all their alternate timelines at : once. What we humans consider time would be, to the highway-people, : hyper-hyper-time; a dimension across which one could perceive the addition : or removal of alternate timelines (rather than just seeing them all : existing, statically). Yeah, that makes sense. In my model what you just described is redundant. :P So, in your model, this hyper-time works like Star Trek's wormhole? It is just a point-to-point jump from one time to another? : So, going back a bit, when I asked if there is a time when your : great-great-great-grandfather exists, I don't mean are the particles of : his body still around scattered around the Earth somewhere (the answer to : which is clearly "yes"), nor am I asking if such particles count : as "him" (the answer to which doesn't even interest me; I think : identity metaphysics are kinda silly). :P I happen to enjoy metaphysics. And since my model is nothing but change, identity metaphysics are rather important. : I'm basically asking if the past : really exists, like other places exist; it's just somewhere else, : separated from us along a fourth axis instead of the familiar three of : space. If you say yes to that, I don't see how anything but what I've been : describing could be the case. The only way I can imagine anything else : working is if you're not thinking of time as a proper dimension at all, of : the same sort as a dimension of space. Saying the "past" really exists is a misconception. It would be like asking if a particular plane "exists" in 3D space. Of course it exists, but that means nothing about what exists on the plane. The past exists, but the past is nothing more than a measurement on an axis. Time is nothing but a measurement. It has no spacial qualities and nothing can exist in terms of time alone. Each, individual object requires a four-point coordinates. It has an exact position in all four dimensions: three spacial, one temporal. The object, at that point, will not be there if you change any of the coordinates. If you knew how to identify my ancestor by mapping some function to the coordinates, you could "find" him. He would have a range and a domain and all that mathematical goo.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

	The Garden of Forking Paths	Document	11/29/06 8:50 p.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Forrest of B.org	11/29/06 10:11 p.m.
	*sniff* Duality *sniff *NM*	treellama	11/30/06 2:51 a.m.
	That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 5:26 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	McNutcase	11/30/06 5:40 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 8:51 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	McNutcase	11/30/06 9:25 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 9:59 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	D-M.A.	11/30/06 10:05 a.m.
	Re: That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 10:22 a.m.
	Ahaa, I see what you mean now, point taken. *NM*	D-M.A.	11/30/06 10:33 a.m.
	define "well"	MrHen	11/30/06 10:24 a.m.
	Re: define "well"	RyokoTK	11/30/06 11:31 a.m.
	Re: define "well"	Aaron Sikes	11/30/06 12:19 p.m.
	Re: define "well"	Forrest of B.org	11/30/06 1:26 p.m.
	Re: define "well"	Aaron Sikes	12/1/06 6:01 a.m.
	Mmm... House of Leaves	MrHen	11/30/06 8:00 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Vid Boi	11/30/06 8:13 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	sdwoodchuck	11/30/06 12:39 p.m.
	So, what was your conclusion? *NM*	Frungi	11/30/06 3:57 p.m.
	Re: So, what was your conclusion?	sdwoodchuck	11/30/06 6:18 p.m.
	in your theory, the dreams...	MrHen	12/1/06 4:44 a.m.
	Re: in your theory, the dreams...	thermoplyae	12/1/06 6:42 a.m.
	Re: So, what was your conclusion?	Frungi	12/4/06 6:31 p.m.
	Re: So, what was your conclusion?	Forrest of B.org	12/4/06 9:07 p.m.
	Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods	Forrest of B.org	12/4/06 9:25 p.m.
	Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods	Frungi	12/5/06 8:46 a.m.
	Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods	Forrest of B.org	12/5/06 4:29 p.m.
	heck, I would buy 'em	MrHen	12/5/06 6:39 p.m.
	Philosophy anyone?	Icarus	12/6/06 8:29 a.m.
	Re: Philosophy anyone?	Forrest of B.org	12/6/06 10:46 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths *LINK*	Hamish Sinclair	12/2/06 5:06 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Document	12/2/06 6:17 p.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Document	12/4/06 7:03 p.m.
	Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/7/06 7:00 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Bob-B-Q	12/7/06 10:14 a.m.
	Define "all"	MrHen	12/7/06 10:20 a.m.
	Re: Define "all"	Document	12/7/06 4:20 p.m.
	Re: Define "all"	Document	12/7/06 4:21 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/11/06 10:28 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/11/06 12:00 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/11/06 12:03 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	MrHen	12/11/06 1:45 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon? *LINK*	Frungi	12/11/06 3:22 p.m.
	uh, thanks...	MrHen	12/11/06 6:01 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/11/06 9:44 p.m.
	I like being confused...	MrHen	12/12/06 5:13 a.m.
	Re: I like being confused...	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 3:53 p.m.
	Re: I like being confused...	Frungi	12/12/06 5:51 p.m.
	Re: I like being confused...	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 9:42 p.m.
	timelines and their glory	MrHen	12/13/06 5:14 a.m.
	Re: timelines and their glory	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 8:05 a.m.
	Mmm... trippy...	MrHen	12/13/06 8:20 a.m.
	Re: timelines and their glory	Frungi	12/13/06 1:43 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/12/06 12:37 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 4:02 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/12/06 4:43 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 9:52 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/13/06 4:17 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 6:06 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/16/06 5:42 p.m.
	what? why?	MrHen	12/16/06 5:47 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	kyjel	12/16/06 6:40 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/17/06 4:13 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/18/06 5:09 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/18/06 8:47 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/18/06 9:22 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/22/06 9:58 a.m.
	questions and answers	MrHen	12/22/06 12:44 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/22/06 1:24 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/18/06 10:21 p.m.
	rabbit trail, sorry...	MrHen	12/13/06 5:23 a.m.
	Re: rabbit trail, sorry...	Chris Biberstein	12/13/06 4:29 p.m.
	and the problem was... where?	MrHen	12/13/06 7:06 p.m.
	Re: and the problem was... where?	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 9:13 p.m.
	ah, my bad. I understand. :) *NM*	MrHen	12/14/06 4:54 a.m.
	Re: ah, my bad. I understand. :)	Forrest of B.org	12/14/06 1:22 p.m.
	I am the same way. ;)	MrHen	12/15/06 5:18 a.m.
	Re: I am the same way. ;)	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 7:27 a.m.
	Branching	MrHen	12/15/06 9:46 a.m.
	Re: Branching	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 11:04 a.m.
	Actually, I think I did understand.	MrHen	12/15/06 4:32 p.m.
	Re: Actually, I think I did understand.	Forrest of B.org	12/17/06 11:55 a.m.
	Oh, okay, then we do disagree.	MrHen	12/17/06 6:50 p.m.
	Re: Oh, okay, then we do disagree.	Forrest of B.org	12/17/06 10:08 p.m.
	so where do you get hyper-time?	MrHen	12/18/06 5:13 a.m.
	Re: so where do you get hyper-time?	Forrest of B.org	12/18/06 8:20 a.m.
	whoops... no... that is not what I meant.	MrHen	12/18/06 9:49 a.m.
	Re: whoops... no... that is not what I meant.	Forrest of B.org	12/18/06 1:58 p.m.
	right, yeah, that is the identity problem	MrHen	12/18/06 4:41 p.m.
	Re: right, yeah, that is the identity problem	Forrest of B.org	12/18/06 9:55 p.m.
	ohhh...	MrHen	12/19/06 5:44 a.m.
	Re: ohhh...	Forrest of B.org	12/19/06 9:20 a.m.
	back to the math ;)	MrHen	12/19/06 11:07 a.m.
	Re: back to the math ;)	Forrest of B.org	12/19/06 1:36 p.m.
	wait, so my model is too... real? ;)	MrHen	12/22/06 1:57 p.m.
	Sort of.	Forrest of B.org	12/22/06 3:22 p.m.
	and the light turns on...	MrHen	1/7/07 4:41 p.m.
	Re: and the light turns on...	Forrest of B.org	1/8/07 8:12 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/13/06 8:11 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/13/06 4:34 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/14/06 8:01 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/15/06 8:02 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 8:51 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/15/06 9:22 a.m.
	hehe, Infinity	MrHen	12/15/06 9:51 a.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 11:16 a.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 12:18 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:15 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 2:09 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 3:15 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 4:12 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	Frungi	12/15/06 6:34 p.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/16/06 3:38 a.m.
	So... do I have this right?	MrHen	12/16/06 6:35 a.m.
	Re: So... do I have this right?	treellama	12/16/06 11:25 a.m.
	Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 2:21 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	treellama	12/15/06 9:55 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 11:12 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:20 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 9:32 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	MrHen	12/15/06 9:49 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	treellama	12/15/06 9:56 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 11:09 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:34 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:39 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	ukimalefu	12/15/06 6:29 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 10:23 p.m.
	awesome, thanks! *NM*	MrHen	12/16/06 6:49 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/16/06 5:51 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	kyjel	12/16/06 7:08 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/18/06 8:36 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/18/06 9:48 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/22/06 10:00 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/22/06 10:19 a.m.
	what he said	MrHen	12/22/06 12:38 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/18/06 10:23 p.m.
	*sigh*	MrHen	12/17/06 5:08 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/11/06 3:35 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/12/06 12:23 p.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/13/06 7:56 a.m.
	Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 8:32 a.m.
	another example (albeit overused)	MrHen	12/13/06 8:57 a.m.
	Re: The Garden of Forking Paths *LINK*	irons	2/23/18 1:11 a.m.
	LOKE *NM*	W'rkncacnter	2/23/18 4:06 p.m.
	Re: LOKE *NM* *LINK*	irons	2/23/18 4:14 p.m.
	LOKE *NM* *NM* *NM* *NM* *NM* *LINK*	W'rkncacnter	2/23/18 11:09 p.m.
	Re: LOKE *NM* *LINK*	irons	2/24/18 3:31 a.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts