Does Distance exist without time?

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



Any whole depends on its parts. A truly seamless continuum would depend upon indivisibility. The only thing which is indivisible would be a monad (an infintesimal quanta) by virtue of it being "the smallest one can be from nothing".

But James divisablity is a sort of mental entertainment. The reality is that to apply reductionism to or in it's absolute form you will achieve your position. But this is merely reductionism from the whole and a labarynth is what you get.
If there was evidence of time segmentation in reality I would not hesitate to agree but the distinction between what we think should be and what actually is needs to be drawn somewhere.
The whole is not divisable in reality but merely a way our minds like to disect and analyse. Put it in a box and it makes sense leave it as whole and stare in wonderment. Reductionism needs to be kept in perspective other wise we are trapped in our own mind games.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

That the stars aren't where we think they are. That we are somehow deluded by the light.

That the brain has this miraculaous ability to deciipher a zillion bits of data just top maintain a steady gaze not including a moving one.

The brain is by far more clever in construction that to be so inefficient.

It does not have to construct and continue to re-construct reality as photon theory burdens medical science with.

How do you figure?

 

[Quantum Quack]

To claim alone that the universe is static with only one dimension though, you would need to explain why galaxies are rushing either away or tpwards each other. In two dimensions of real time, or imaginary space and imaginary time, or real space, one static, and the other not, would be the only way i think to allow a notion of a smooth continuous frame.

But again i stress, it is only us who experience this. Physics tells us that consciousness binds time together in a continuous set of instants, and yet in the external world of imaginary time, things are not smooth at all... strange eh?

And physics states that the photon exists as a vaccum traveller....so.....

Alternating energy polarity with an over lap that allows a base energy level means that the brain does not take snapshots at 40 odd frames per second or what ever the current thought is. How ever the brain may protect itself by filtering at 40 fps. This is all old and established thinking and set for a revamp.

Any ways I must get on with the day...
back in 6 hours

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

But James divisablity is a sort of mental entertainment. The reality is that to apply reductionism to or in it's absolute form you will achieve your position. But this is merely reductionism from the whole and a labarynth is what you get.
If there was evidence of time segmentation in reality I would not hesitate to agree but the distinction between what we think should be and what actually is needs to be drawn somewhere.
The whole is not divisable in reality but merely a way our minds like to disect and analyse. Put it in a box and it makes sense leave it as whole and stare in wonderment. Reductionism needs to be kept in perspective other wise we are trapped in our own mind games.

I'm not denying the whole, my good man, however to deny the parts is just as absurd. The reduced parts of reality are just as real as the whole. In fact, we know that the whole depends on the parts - one cannot have a triangle without the three lines. Even if the whole is more than its parts (and gives meaning to the parts), it requires all of them. As such, talking about lower and lower intervals of time and space until the infintesimal is both necessary and useful.

Time segmentation in reality is very obvious: Time flows forward. As such, we're talking about one moment after the other.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



How do you figure?

For example: The computational requirement for a person to drive a car is absolutely enourmous especially if they are using a cell phone and planning a vacation etc etc....not to mention running significant autonomic functions such as breathing heart rate, digestion, etc

The brain capacity and energy use is much more efficient than science reckons.
By working in a reflective capacity allows the brain to reserve it's computation for subjective issues such as cell phone and vacation planning....
The normal function though is purely reflective of an ongoing continuum of change around it. No need to reconstruct or even construct reality.
But then again if one accepts photon theory current thinking about the brain and body/mind problem is totally screwed IMO

 

[Reiku]

And physics states that the photon exists as a vaccum traveller....so.....

Alternating energy polarity with an over lap that allows a base energy level means that the brain does not take snapshots at 40 odd frames per second or what ever the current thought is. How ever the brain may protect itself by filtering at 40 fps. This is all old and established thinking and set for a revamp.

Any ways I must get on with the day...
back in 6 hours

It certainly travels through spacetime, when something or someone observes it. But whenever it ravels that lonely intergalactic distances of billions of light years, it never passes one second, or even know of it even experiencing any time all, and since time and space are one continuum, it cannot move through space either....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



I'm not denying the whole, my good man, however to deny the parts is just as absurd. The reduced parts of reality are just as real as the whole. In fact, we know that the whole depends on the parts - one cannot have a triangle without the three lines. Even if the whole is more than its parts (and gives meaning to the parts), it requires all of them. As such, talking about lower and lower intervals of time and space until the infintesimal is both necessary and useful.

Time segmentation in reality is very obvious: Time flows forward. As such, we're talking about one moment after the other.

Well I guess we shall have to disagree until you can provide hard evidence of time segmentation that stands alone as material [ not theory ok?] You expect me to provide evidence and I shall do so in time and I wionder why you feel I should accept time segmentation with out appropriate material evidence.

Actually a good question is:
Why do you accept time segmentation with out appropriate evidence...?

 

[Quantum Quack]

It certainly travels through spacetime, when something or someone observes it. But whenever it ravels that lonely intergalactic distances of billions of light years, it never passes one second, or even know of it even experiencing any time all, and since time and space are one continuum, it cannot move through space either....

Ahh but it is on the what we are observing that is at issue.
Are we observing a photon or are we observing a mass "resonance" event in zero space?

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

For example: The computational requirement for a person to drive a car is absolutely enourmous especially if they are using a cell phone and planning a vacation etc etc....not to mention running significant autonomic functions such as breathing heart rate, digestion, etc

The brain capacity and energy use is much more efficient than science reckons.
By working in a reflective capacity allows the brain to reserve it's computation for subjective issues such as cell phone and vacation planning....
The normal function though is purely reflective of an ongoing continuum of change around it. No need to reconstruct or even construct reality.
But then again if one accepts photon theory current thinking about the brain and body/mind problem is totally screwed IMO

I think this i srefuted by dreams. Dreams show the ability of the mind to construct an entire reality that functions in every sense. As such, we have easily that amount of computational power.

 

[Reiku]

If i understand your terminology, which seems somewhat alien but do you mean that the photon we come to measure,

wait a minute... this has stumbled me. Let me just think about this again.

 

[Reiku]

Ahh but it is on the what we are observing that is at issue.
Are we observing a photon or are we observing a mass "resonance" event in zero space?

Are you by any chance describing the photon as an ethereal mass, because that is all it is. Energy is just a diffused form of matter.

 

[Reiku]

Back in 40 mins

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

Well I guess we shall have to disagree until you can provide hard evidence of time segmentation that stands alone as material [ not theory ok?] You expect me to provide evidence and I shall do so in time and I wionder why you feel I should accept time segmentation with out appropriate material evidence.

Actually a good question is:
Why do you accept time segmentation with out appropriate evidence...?

Without appropriate evidence?

Here's evidence: We can speak of time intervals.

We can measure from one point of time to another. From an hour ago till now. From a day ago till now. As we can do so from any point of time to the present, or from the present to any point of time, we are discussing segments of time which are feasiable to segment from the whole. If it was a continuum without segmentation, we could not speak of such whatsoever.

As time relates back to spatial realities of change from one state to another, and we can refer to different states of change (water melting to liquid and then boiling to vapour over the course of a few minutes when placed into a kettle), it stands to reason that these segementations are real.

 

[Vkothii]

Sure we can speak about and measure intervals. In terms of mass, everything appears to be made up of little "mass intervals", or indivisible frames.

But in the large sense, we see a "smooth" surface, not a lot of little bumps; we don't see a "time quantum" like we see a mass quantum, not at the scale of indivisible chunks of matter with indivisible "zero-point" energies.

Waves can't be quantised either: a wave is always "more than one wave", no matter how often you divide the pieces up.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



I think this i srefuted by dreams. Dreams show the ability of the mind to construct an entire reality that functions in every sense. As such, we have easily that amount of computational power.

So what are dreams?
Do we dream in isoation?
Or as the Aboriginals of Australia reckon it is that we share dreams?
Why do we as humans underestimate just how "clever" the universe is?
Maybe because we think we are clever.
I used to say to myself as my minds functions unfolded before my eyes "If I was only 10% as Clever as that which makes up the human body I would be a genius beyond compare." [ except that which makes up the human body of course - ha]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:



Without appropriate evidence?

Here's evidence: We can speak of time intervals.

We can measure from one point of time to another. From an hour ago till now. From a day ago till now. As we can do so from any point of time to the present, or from the present to any point of time, we are discussing segments of time which are feasiable to segment from the whole. If it was a continuum without segmentation, we could not speak of such whatsoever.

As time relates back to spatial realities of change from one state to another, and we can refer to different states of change (water melting to liquid and then boiling to vapour over the course of a few minutes when placed into a kettle), it stands to reason that these segementations are real.

so it is our measurement of time that provides the segmentation? yes?
Subjectively of course!

 

[Prince_James]

Vkothii:

But in the large sense, we see a "smooth" surface, not a lot of little bumps; we don't see a "time quantum" like we see a mass quantum, not at the scale of indivisible chunks of matter with indivisible "zero-point" energies.

We do not? Keep on dividing intervals of time and you will find that it reaches inexorably to an infitesimal moment exactly linked to a static image of time, ala Zeno's Arrow.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

So what are dreams?
Do we dream in isoation?
Or as the Aboriginals of Australia reckon it is that we share dreams?
Why do we as humans underestimate just how "clever" the universe is?
Maybe because we think we are clever.
I used to say to myself as my minds functions unfolded before my eyes "If I was only 10% as Clever as that which makes up the human body I would be a genius beyond compare." [ except that which makes up the human body of course - ha]

From all considerations, we certainly seem to dream in isolation.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

so it is our measurement of time that provides the segmentation? yes?
Subjectively of course!

Any measurement of time relates back to objective spatial relations. As such, it is not subjective, but objective. Of course, we can relate it to a subjective important time event. For instance: My favourite show, Lost, is on Thursdays at 9. I thus will judge what time to eat supper beforehand based on Lost being at 9. Nonetheless, I am refering to a spatial reality.

 

[Steve100]

Sorry to say I haven't read the thread, but my thoughts are that neither can exist without the other (or at least the perception of the other).