Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA13763 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:25:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [126.96.36.199] From: "Grant Callaghan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:19:58 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <LAW2-F68IVZcg51uWT900016c82@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2002 03:19:58.0677 (UTC) FILETIME=[73BAD050:01C1CC99] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> > You've probably read my theory on dimensions in earlier posts. They are
> > merely ways of dividing up an unidivded universe within our minds in an
> > attempt to understand what our senses are reporting to us. Time is not
> > mystery, it's a measurement of motion.
>And where do we find this motion? Is it a property of space? All the
>space in the universe can't make motion. Take away time, and everything
>Time isn't just the measurement of motion. It's what motion is made of.
Relatively speaking, everything in the universe is moving. What we call
time is a comparison of the motion of one thing with the relative motion of
another. Most things are compared to the rotation of the earth. Hours,
minutes, days are all ways of comparing our own passage through life with
the turning of the earth. Years compare the same thing with the movement of
the earth around the sun. Give me an example of time that does not compare
the motion of two objects and we may be able to come to some agreement.
>Mystery is a product of time, which is why positivistic science wants to
>eliminate it. That the future is fundamentally different from the past
>means there are things we don't know, things that can't ever be dug up.
> > Time is relative because all measurements are taken from the point of
> > view of the measurer and no two measurers can occupy the same point in
> > the universe at the same time.
>You're assuming the existence of time here. If it were an illusion, there
>would be no such thing as "at the same time." Past, present, and future
>would collapse into a fourth dimension of space. The "present" would then
>be arbitrary, and "past" and "future" would be symmetrical.
No. I'm assuming a paucity of other words with which to describe the fact
that a moving point can't be seen by two observers from another same exact
point. There is only room in a point for one observer. I used the word
"time" because I couldn't think of another word at the moment, not because
it more accurately described what I was talking about. Time is the fourth
dimension of space and a dimension is a way of describing what we see, not
the thing we see. When I see the moon moving through space, I describe it
in terms of size (length, width, height) and motion (time). These features
of description exist only in my mind, not in the moon.
These features are handy because they can be reduced to a set of descriptive
relationships we categorize under the name "spacetime." They can be applied
to any object in order to compare one object with another. They are not a
property of the objects being compared. They are an algorithm used for the
purpose of comparison. Therefore, they constitute a meme. A tool of the
> > Without someone to do the measuring, there is no spacetime.
>Agreed. And without time, there would be no act of measurement and
>therefore no spacetime.
Right. Things would continue to float around in the universe but the motion
would not be called spacetime.
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 03:36:26 GMT