back to the math ;)


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

back to the math ;)

Posted By: MrHen Date: 12/19/06 11:07 a.m.
In Response To: Re: ohhh... (Forrest of B.org)

: That seems very strange to me then; if something only existed for an
: infinitesimal instant at one moment in time, then it would be as
: incorporeal as a true plane or line with no volume.
Why is that a problem? But whatever. The real stuff is down below.
: I'm just speaking of identity in the gross common sense. If it helps at all
: we can talk about rocks instead of people. [snip]
: Likewise, just because it's different in the past than it is now, presents
: no problem for it being a part of the same rock.
The problem, for me anyway, is that identity in the gross common sense does not help when showing change. We see a rock and identify a rock, but these are nothing more than perceptions. We, being human, are really nothing more than pattern recognition machines.
The rock, as it moves through time, does change. We will generally ignore this change and continue calling it the same rock. But the labels "rock" or "my great-great-great-grandfather" are nothing but perceptions. An easy example of why this common sensical identification does not help when talking about the specifics of travel would be this: if someone showed me a picture of my ancestor and asked what it was I would say, "that is my ancestor." Obviously it is not, but our language allows us to say that it is.
So, to ask if my ancestor existed at time X would be to ask me if I can find something I recognize as my ancestor.
: Tricky identity problems like the Ship at Sea or Star Trek replicator ethics
: only arise because strictly speaking there is no rock, there is no ship,
: there are no true objects at all besides the most fundamental particles,
: whatever they may be; everything else is a roughly approximate term
: referring to some aggregation of them.
Yeah, right. That is my whole point.
: But most of the time those rough
: terms like "rock" and "ship" and such work well
: enough, and I don't see that we're having trouble identifying one such
: object from another in our time-travel stories here. I'm not asking
: anything about when your grandpa ceased to be "your grandpa",
: i.e. at what point in time the aggregate of matter was sufficiently
: unaggregated to no longer qualify for identification as that object.
: That's a completely different question.
I disagree. I see it as a very relevant distinction. To just make things easier, assume that a rock is the simplest thing there is. It is a whole thing with no subparts. In the model you are using, the rock is identified solely by its content. In my model, it is being identified by its content and its coordinates. As soon as anything about it changes, including its position on any axis, it is now a different rock. In the standard model, it is considered the same rock.
This is why, in the standard model, it would be absurd for it to suddenly turn around and exist twice in the same time. In my model, they are already two different rocks so no such collision occurs.
The problem with my model is attempting to dictate how one thing turns into another thing. In my model it would seem that everything is randomly moving around. I have a hunch that cause and effect holds some promise and my suspicion is that the common sense identification relies on some sort of cause/effect chain to denote what is what.
Rock caused Rock' so they both get the label "Rock". Rock' "travels" backward causing Rock''. Rock and Rock'' are now both labeled "Rock" and a paradox ensues.
: Change is just some variation across some dimension. The rock above
: "changes" in size between the pointy end and the round end;
: despite the fact that, us sitting there looking at it, it's not moving or
: changing at all.
No, it does change. It changes along the spacial axes.
Oh, wait... Okay, I think I see what you are saying. Its identity is not changing. But this identity is nothing more than a label, which I consider to be arbitrary.
In my model, if the rock does not change on any of the axis it would be nothing more than a point in space/time.
: If you look at the rock as a 4D object, you can see that
: it "changes" from the past to the present in exactly the same
: way; it was bigger back then and then has slowly gotten smaller as bits of
: it have broken or eroded off.
Mmm... using the standard model, I can see what you mean.
: The only difference with the fourth
: dimension is that "we" observers (whatever the heck an observer,
: a subject of experiences, is) can only perceive 3D slices of the 4D world,
: and only in a particular order.
Right, okay.
: That's why I was making the comic-book /
: movie analogy; each frame of the comic/movie is a static 2D world, but all
: the frames stacked together make a 3D world, where the 3rd dimension is
: their "time". But we can only look at a given 2D slice at a
: time; and in a movie, the order that they are presented to us (in the
: theater audience) is fixed too.
Okay, yeah, in the standard model that makes sense. But everything is still changing. Even if you took all of those 2D slices and began to show them in sequence you could see the changes. If you graphed them out and took a 2D slice of one of the spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension you could see the same 3D model. It would look weird, but you could do it.
The same things happens in relation to space/time. There is a 4D model and we see 3D slices. If you switch the slice to reflect two spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension you could still see the same 4D model. All of the numbers are the same.
: [snip] All frames exist
: "simultaneously" to us in 3D space, looking at the comic strip
: or the film reel; despite the fact that in the 2D world portrayed via
: those frames, each frame is a different point in time, and to a character
: in the comic or movie, only the frame that they are in, their present,
: "exists".
Whoa, no, that is not right. If each page depicts one point in time of a 2D world than the comic is truly 3D: two space, one time. Time still exists in relation to the events that happen in the comic or the movie. The comic-time does not match our time, just as the 2D spacial world does not match our spacial world. The "universe" is self-enclosed. We can see the events and pages, not because of our 3D space, but because we have all the data.
: But when they refer to the past, we in the 3D world
: can look back to an earlier frame in the comic, or rewind the movie, and
: see the past that they're talking about still existing.
But this is where the terms get confusing. The past "exists" in the sense that we can label it. We look at it and say, "this caused that effect" and we see the relative changes. The past that "exists", as we speak of it, is either referring to a point on the time or a particular event or state. To say that my ancestor exists on page nine is to say that, circa page nine, you can identify my ancestor if you have all the data.
In relation to the comics, a character that is moving backward in time would appear to begin on page 100 and act backwards from everything else. It would make no sense when reading it left-to-right. You would have to start from the right and flip through backwards, like you would manga.
The character is still on the page, but its presence makes no sense because the cause/effect chain is working backwards. The character is moving back in time. This character does not need to jump out of the book and skip a bunch of pages to turn around, all he has to do is start causing actions that will move forward with time.
If, on page 77, the character was seen by a second, normal character, there would now be a cause/effect chain moving forward through the book as the second character tries to figure out where this guy suddenly appeared from.
The initial time-traveling character could "turn around" in the book at page 14 and begin traveling through the book in a normal way. On all of the pages between 14 and 100 he would exist twice on the same page but never in the same place on the same page. Why? Because no two characters can occupy the same space on a page, regardless of how we identity them.
The character never jumps out of the book and the whole thing is understandable using the dimensions of the book: 2 space, 1 time. There is no need for a hyper-time dimension and our third spacial dimension is only useful because we cannot visualize time. Everything could be graphed in 3 dimensions and we just replace the dimension of time with our third dimension when we graph it.
: (While we're talking about Xeno, yeah technically there would be an infinite
: number of frames each only infinitesimally different from the next, but
: you get it for the purposes of the analogy I think).
Right. And the turnaround on page 14 is weird in terms of continual points, and very hard to conceptualize.
: So, rewinding a bit here (ha ha) to the "change is some variation across
: an dimension" bit. Movement is change, agreed? A change in position
: over time. This is why I have trouble making sense of your notion of
: things moving through time, existing at one point in time and then
: "later" not existing at that point in time, but at a later point
: in time. In what sense do you mean "later"?
Movement is change in position over time, but that does not mean all change is over this global time. Just as we can plot change in global distance over relative distance, we can plot change in global time over relative time.
"Later" would specifically refer to relative time.
It is like hopping on a plane and traveling around the world. You end up in a different time-zone so you have to reset your watch. Imagine that these time-zones were global time and the time on your watch was relative time. If you are not traveling in a plane, your relative time is moving at the same pace as global time: you are "standing still" on a rotating Earth.
If you get travel "back" three time-zones and take four hours to do it, your relative time will now be three hours off of global time because the plane was moving against the flow of global time, landing you three hours "behind" where you were. But your watch measured four positive hours. You have experienced four hours but in reality have traveled three hours into the past.
Imagine this in terms of an actual, honest global time. We are all being pushed through this time at a constant rate and we are experiencing things at the same rate. If we find a way to hop on a plane and the plane manages to send us against the stream we will still experience things as if they were moving forward while, in reality, we are moving against the global time.
Assuming that the spacial dimensions work themselves out, we have just traveled back in time and never invoked a hyper-time.
: So I guess the point I'm trying to make it, if something is changing it's
: position in time, over what dimension is that change occurring ? A
: related question might be "how fast is it changing?" i.e. how
: many what per what?
I think I explained this in another post. The rate of change would be global time over relative time. The units are the same, so it would be something like 2 year / 1 year.
: In our Y/X graph, the change is one Y-unit per X-unit.
: In our Y/T graph (the moving slider on a number line), the change is, say,
: one Y-unit per second. But how many seconds per second are we moving
: through time? Would it make any sense to say anything other than
: "1"?
Yes, it would make sense, as long as things were defined correctly. In all of our graphs of X and Y over T, that T is actually relative time since we have no idea what global time is.
It would be like running on a treadmill. Your total distance would be 0 miles / 4 miles. For every four miles you run you go nowhere because the treadmill moves -4 miles. The actual measurement would be ((0 global miles / 4 relative miles) / 1 relative hour). If you ran on a treadmill on a plane heading backward through the time-zones you would get something like: ((0 global miles/4 relative miles) / (-3 global hours/1 relative hour)). Your actual speed works out to 0 miles per hour (not counting the distance the plane traveled). (And I have not ruthlessly tested this example yet, so bear with me.)
You are running at a speed of 4 miles per hour but the treadmill cancels you out. (The treadmill's speed is not shown in that equation, FYI.)
: And is that really a unit of change at all? I mean, if I
: told you that I was running down the road at a rate of one meter per
: meter... I might not be moving at all, for all you knew, because it is
: true in all circumstances that absolutely everything, even things that
: aren't moving, moves one meter for every meter it moves.
Nope. If you were on something that was moving the measurement would make sense. If you were running on the top of a semi-trailer that is moving down the road at 1 meter / second and you were running at 1 meter / meter your total (global) rate of change is 1 meter / second. In other words, you are standing still on the top of the semi-trailer. If you were running 2 meters / meter than your total change would be 2 meters / second.
: So in order to say that something is moving through space, you have to say
: that it is moving at some number of meters per second. So if we're moving
: through time, we've moving some number of seconds per... what?
Relative second, because consciousness seems to have a locked down speed. At least, for all of these examples it does. Changing that makes things really confusing, but I think the math still works out.
: It seems
: your own notion of movement through time implies some kind of hyper-time,
: though differently than the hyper-time which may be necessary for time
: travel in my 4D model (which is not really "my" model, but the
: standard model of modern physics). I'm not trying to say that hyper-time
: must really exist because it must exist for us to move through time; I'm
: saying that the very idea of us "moving" through time (changing
: our temporal position), when motion is a change in position OVER time, is
: very strange and doesn't make much sense at all to me.
You can measure your own movement based on the movement of those things around you. In fact, that is all we ever do when we measure things. We have no idea where the actual, honest gridlines are in the universe. We cannot say that the Earth is at (4900, 29993939, 1094). We say the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun.
If you are able to place yourself outside the 4D universe and play time-god, you would know where those lines were and could measure distance based on those lines. You do not have to have more than one dimension to show something's position in that dimension. Change is nothing more than saying, "at this point, this object moves to this point." Two dimensions show change. More than one dimension means more numbers, but no additional requirements.
Unless I missed that lecture. I could be wrong, but it makes sense in my mind. :P
Honestly, to measure distance in time, all one needs to know is something's position on the x-axis. That is it. The other 2 spacial dimensions just make things complicated. Hyper-time does not need to exist to measure changes in time. That is what space is for.

[ 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

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: Why is that a problem? But whatever. The real stuff is down below. : The problem, for me anyway, is that identity in the gross common sense does : not help when showing change. We see a rock and identify a rock, but : these are nothing more than perceptions. We, being human, are really : nothing more than pattern recognition machines. : The rock, as it moves through time, does change. We will generally ignore : this change and continue calling it the same rock. But the labels : "rock" or "my great-great-great-grandfather" are : nothing but perceptions. An easy example of why this common sensical : identification does not help when talking about the specifics of travel : would be this: if someone showed me a picture of my ancestor and asked : what it was I would say, "that is my ancestor." Obviously it is : not, but our language allows us to say that it is. : So, to ask if my ancestor existed at time X would be to ask me if I can find : something I recognize as my ancestor. : Yeah, right. That is my whole point. : I disagree. I see it as a very relevant distinction. To just make things : easier, assume that a rock is the simplest thing there is. It is a whole : thing with no subparts. In the model you are using, the rock is identified : solely by its content. In my model, it is being identified by its content : and its coordinates. As soon as anything about it changes, including its : position on any axis, it is now a different rock. In the standard model, : it is considered the same rock. : This is why, in the standard model, it would be absurd for it to suddenly : turn around and exist twice in the same time. In my model, they are : already two different rocks so no such collision occurs. : The problem with my model is attempting to dictate how one thing turns into : another thing. In my model it would seem that everything is randomly : moving around. I have a hunch that cause and effect holds some promise and : my suspicion is that the common sense identification relies on some sort : of cause/effect chain to denote what is what. : Rock caused Rock' so they both get the label "Rock". Rock' : "travels" backward causing Rock''. Rock and Rock'' are now both : labeled "Rock" and a paradox ensues. : No, it does change. It changes along the spacial axes. : Oh, wait... Okay, I think I see what you are saying. Its identity is not : changing. But this identity is nothing more than a label, which I consider : to be arbitrary. : In my model, if the rock does not change on any of the axis it would be : nothing more than a point in space/time. : Mmm... using the standard model, I can see what you mean. : Right, okay. : Okay, yeah, in the standard model that makes sense. But everything is still : changing. Even if you took all of those 2D slices and began to show them : in sequence you could see the changes. If you graphed them out and took a : 2D slice of one of the spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension you : could see the same 3D model. It would look weird, but you could do it. : The same things happens in relation to space/time. There is a 4D model and we : see 3D slices. If you switch the slice to reflect two spacial dimensions : and the temporal dimension you could still see the same 4D model. All of : the numbers are the same. : Whoa, no, that is not right. If each page depicts one point in time of a 2D : world than the comic is truly 3D: two space, one time. Time still exists : in relation to the events that happen in the comic or the movie. The : comic-time does not match our time, just as the 2D spacial world does not : match our spacial world. The "universe" is self-enclosed. We can : see the events and pages, not because of our 3D space, but because we have : all the data. : But this is where the terms get confusing. The past "exists" in the : sense that we can label it. We look at it and say, "this caused that : effect" and we see the relative changes. The past that : "exists", as we speak of it, is either referring to a point on : the time or a particular event or state. To say that my ancestor exists on : page nine is to say that, circa page nine, you can identify my ancestor if : you have all the data. : In relation to the comics, a character that is moving backward in time would : appear to begin on page 100 and act backwards from everything else. It : would make no sense when reading it left-to-right. You would have to start : from the right and flip through backwards, like you would manga. : The character is still on the page, but its presence makes no sense because : the cause/effect chain is working backwards. The character is moving back : in time. This character does not need to jump out of the book and skip a : bunch of pages to turn around, all he has to do is start causing actions : that will move forward with time. : If, on page 77, the character was seen by a second, normal character, there : would now be a cause/effect chain moving forward through the book as the : second character tries to figure out where this guy suddenly appeared : from. : The initial time-traveling character could "turn around" in the : book at page 14 and begin traveling through the book in a normal way. On : all of the pages between 14 and 100 he would exist twice on the same page : but never in the same place on the same page. Why? Because no two : characters can occupy the same space on a page, regardless of how we : identity them. : The character never jumps out of the book and the whole thing is : understandable using the dimensions of the book: 2 space, 1 time. There is : no need for a hyper-time dimension and our third spacial dimension is only : useful because we cannot visualize time. Everything could be graphed in 3 : dimensions and we just replace the dimension of time with our third : dimension when we graph it. : Right. And the turnaround on page 14 is weird in terms of continual points, : and very hard to conceptualize. : Movement is change in position over time, but that does not mean all change : is over this global time. Just as we can plot change in global distance : over relative distance, we can plot change in global time over relative : time. : "Later" would specifically refer to relative time. : It is like hopping on a plane and traveling around the world. You end up in a : different time-zone so you have to reset your watch. Imagine that these : time-zones were global time and the time on your watch was relative time. : If you are not traveling in a plane, your relative time is moving at the : same pace as global time: you are "standing still" on a rotating : Earth. : If you get travel "back" three time-zones and take four hours to do : it, your relative time will now be three hours off of global time because : the plane was moving against the flow of global time, landing you three : hours "behind" where you were. But your watch measured four : positive hours. You have experienced four hours but in reality have : traveled three hours into the past. : Imagine this in terms of an actual, honest global time. We are all being : pushed through this time at a constant rate and we are experiencing things : at the same rate. If we find a way to hop on a plane and the plane manages : to send us against the stream we will still experience things as if they : were moving forward while, in reality, we are moving against the global : time. : Assuming that the spacial dimensions work themselves out, we have just : traveled back in time and never invoked a hyper-time. : I think I explained this in another post. The rate of change would be global : time over relative time. The units are the same, so it would be something : like 2 year / 1 year. : Yes, it would make sense, as long as things were defined correctly. In all of : our graphs of X and Y over T, that T is actually relative time since we : have no idea what global time is. : It would be like running on a treadmill. Your total distance would be 0 miles : / 4 miles. For every four miles you run you go nowhere because the : treadmill moves -4 miles. The actual measurement would be ((0 global miles : / 4 relative miles) / 1 relative hour). If you ran on a treadmill on a : plane heading backward through the time-zones you would get something : like: ((0 global miles/4 relative miles) / (-3 global hours/1 relative : hour)). Your actual speed works out to 0 miles per hour (not counting the : distance the plane traveled). (And I have not ruthlessly tested this : example yet, so bear with me.) : You are running at a speed of 4 miles per hour but the treadmill cancels you : out. (The treadmill's speed is not shown in that equation, FYI.) : Nope. If you were on something that was moving the measurement would make : sense. If you were running on the top of a semi-trailer that is moving : down the road at 1 meter / second and you were running at 1 meter / meter : your total (global) rate of change is 1 meter / second. In other words, : you are standing still on the top of the semi-trailer. If you were running : 2 meters / meter than your total change would be 2 meters / second. : Relative second, because consciousness seems to have a locked down speed. At : least, for all of these examples it does. Changing that makes things : really confusing, but I think the math still works out. : You can measure your own movement based on the movement of those things : around you. In fact, that is all we ever do when we measure things. We : have no idea where the actual, honest gridlines are in the universe. We : cannot say that the Earth is at (4900, 29993939, 1094). We say the Earth : is 93 million miles from the Sun. : If you are able to place yourself outside the 4D universe and play time-god, : you would know where those lines were and could measure distance based on : those lines. You do not have to have more than one dimension to show : something's position in that dimension. Change is nothing more than : saying, "at this point, this object moves to this point." Two : dimensions show change. More than one dimension means more numbers, but no : additional requirements. : Unless I missed that lecture. I could be wrong, but it makes sense in my : mind. :P : Honestly, to measure distance in time, all one needs to know is something's : position on the x-axis. That is it. The other 2 spacial dimensions just : make things complicated. Hyper-time does not need to exist to measure : changes in time. That is what space is for.

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

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.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : Why is that a problem? But whatever. The real stuff is down below. : The problem, for me anyway, is that identity in the gross common sense does : not help when showing change. We see a rock and identify a rock, but : these are nothing more than perceptions. We, being human, are really : nothing more than pattern recognition machines. : The rock, as it moves through time, does change. We will generally ignore : this change and continue calling it the same rock. But the labels : "rock" or "my great-great-great-grandfather" are : nothing but perceptions. An easy example of why this common sensical : identification does not help when talking about the specifics of travel : would be this: if someone showed me a picture of my ancestor and asked : what it was I would say, "that is my ancestor." Obviously it is : not, but our language allows us to say that it is. : So, to ask if my ancestor existed at time X would be to ask me if I can find : something I recognize as my ancestor. : Yeah, right. That is my whole point. : I disagree. I see it as a very relevant distinction. To just make things : easier, assume that a rock is the simplest thing there is. It is a whole : thing with no subparts. In the model you are using, the rock is identified : solely by its content. In my model, it is being identified by its content : and its coordinates. As soon as anything about it changes, including its : position on any axis, it is now a different rock. In the standard model, : it is considered the same rock. : This is why, in the standard model, it would be absurd for it to suddenly : turn around and exist twice in the same time. In my model, they are : already two different rocks so no such collision occurs. : The problem with my model is attempting to dictate how one thing turns into : another thing. In my model it would seem that everything is randomly : moving around. I have a hunch that cause and effect holds some promise and : my suspicion is that the common sense identification relies on some sort : of cause/effect chain to denote what is what. : Rock caused Rock' so they both get the label "Rock". Rock' : "travels" backward causing Rock''. Rock and Rock'' are now both : labeled "Rock" and a paradox ensues. : No, it does change. It changes along the spacial axes. : Oh, wait... Okay, I think I see what you are saying. Its identity is not : changing. But this identity is nothing more than a label, which I consider : to be arbitrary. : In my model, if the rock does not change on any of the axis it would be : nothing more than a point in space/time. : Mmm... using the standard model, I can see what you mean. : Right, okay. : Okay, yeah, in the standard model that makes sense. But everything is still : changing. Even if you took all of those 2D slices and began to show them : in sequence you could see the changes. If you graphed them out and took a : 2D slice of one of the spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension you : could see the same 3D model. It would look weird, but you could do it. : The same things happens in relation to space/time. There is a 4D model and we : see 3D slices. If you switch the slice to reflect two spacial dimensions : and the temporal dimension you could still see the same 4D model. All of : the numbers are the same. : Whoa, no, that is not right. If each page depicts one point in time of a 2D : world than the comic is truly 3D: two space, one time. Time still exists : in relation to the events that happen in the comic or the movie. The : comic-time does not match our time, just as the 2D spacial world does not : match our spacial world. The "universe" is self-enclosed. We can : see the events and pages, not because of our 3D space, but because we have : all the data. : But this is where the terms get confusing. The past "exists" in the : sense that we can label it. We look at it and say, "this caused that : effect" and we see the relative changes. The past that : "exists", as we speak of it, is either referring to a point on : the time or a particular event or state. To say that my ancestor exists on : page nine is to say that, circa page nine, you can identify my ancestor if : you have all the data. : In relation to the comics, a character that is moving backward in time would : appear to begin on page 100 and act backwards from everything else. It : would make no sense when reading it left-to-right. You would have to start : from the right and flip through backwards, like you would manga. : The character is still on the page, but its presence makes no sense because : the cause/effect chain is working backwards. The character is moving back : in time. This character does not need to jump out of the book and skip a : bunch of pages to turn around, all he has to do is start causing actions : that will move forward with time. : If, on page 77, the character was seen by a second, normal character, there : would now be a cause/effect chain moving forward through the book as the : second character tries to figure out where this guy suddenly appeared : from. : The initial time-traveling character could "turn around" in the : book at page 14 and begin traveling through the book in a normal way. On : all of the pages between 14 and 100 he would exist twice on the same page : but never in the same place on the same page. Why? Because no two : characters can occupy the same space on a page, regardless of how we : identity them. : The character never jumps out of the book and the whole thing is : understandable using the dimensions of the book: 2 space, 1 time. There is : no need for a hyper-time dimension and our third spacial dimension is only : useful because we cannot visualize time. Everything could be graphed in 3 : dimensions and we just replace the dimension of time with our third : dimension when we graph it. : Right. And the turnaround on page 14 is weird in terms of continual points, : and very hard to conceptualize. : Movement is change in position over time, but that does not mean all change : is over this global time. Just as we can plot change in global distance : over relative distance, we can plot change in global time over relative : time. : "Later" would specifically refer to relative time. : It is like hopping on a plane and traveling around the world. You end up in a : different time-zone so you have to reset your watch. Imagine that these : time-zones were global time and the time on your watch was relative time. : If you are not traveling in a plane, your relative time is moving at the : same pace as global time: you are "standing still" on a rotating : Earth. : If you get travel "back" three time-zones and take four hours to do : it, your relative time will now be three hours off of global time because : the plane was moving against the flow of global time, landing you three : hours "behind" where you were. But your watch measured four : positive hours. You have experienced four hours but in reality have : traveled three hours into the past. : Imagine this in terms of an actual, honest global time. We are all being : pushed through this time at a constant rate and we are experiencing things : at the same rate. If we find a way to hop on a plane and the plane manages : to send us against the stream we will still experience things as if they : were moving forward while, in reality, we are moving against the global : time. : Assuming that the spacial dimensions work themselves out, we have just : traveled back in time and never invoked a hyper-time. : I think I explained this in another post. The rate of change would be global : time over relative time. The units are the same, so it would be something : like 2 year / 1 year. : Yes, it would make sense, as long as things were defined correctly. In all of : our graphs of X and Y over T, that T is actually relative time since we : have no idea what global time is. : It would be like running on a treadmill. Your total distance would be 0 miles : / 4 miles. For every four miles you run you go nowhere because the : treadmill moves -4 miles. The actual measurement would be ((0 global miles : / 4 relative miles) / 1 relative hour). If you ran on a treadmill on a : plane heading backward through the time-zones you would get something : like: ((0 global miles/4 relative miles) / (-3 global hours/1 relative : hour)). Your actual speed works out to 0 miles per hour (not counting the : distance the plane traveled). (And I have not ruthlessly tested this : example yet, so bear with me.) : You are running at a speed of 4 miles per hour but the treadmill cancels you : out. (The treadmill's speed is not shown in that equation, FYI.) : Nope. If you were on something that was moving the measurement would make : sense. If you were running on the top of a semi-trailer that is moving : down the road at 1 meter / second and you were running at 1 meter / meter : your total (global) rate of change is 1 meter / second. In other words, : you are standing still on the top of the semi-trailer. If you were running : 2 meters / meter than your total change would be 2 meters / second. : Relative second, because consciousness seems to have a locked down speed. At : least, for all of these examples it does. Changing that makes things : really confusing, but I think the math still works out. : You can measure your own movement based on the movement of those things : around you. In fact, that is all we ever do when we measure things. We : have no idea where the actual, honest gridlines are in the universe. We : cannot say that the Earth is at (4900, 29993939, 1094). We say the Earth : is 93 million miles from the Sun. : If you are able to place yourself outside the 4D universe and play time-god, : you would know where those lines were and could measure distance based on : those lines. You do not have to have more than one dimension to show : something's position in that dimension. Change is nothing more than : saying, "at this point, this object moves to this point." Two : dimensions show change. More than one dimension means more numbers, but no : additional requirements. : Unless I missed that lecture. I could be wrong, but it makes sense in my : mind. :P : Honestly, to measure distance in time, all one needs to know is something's : position on the x-axis. That is it. The other 2 spacial dimensions just : make things complicated. Hyper-time does not need to exist to measure : changes in time. That is what space is for.
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: