Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Sat Mar 16 2002 - 03:19:58 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: question about memes"

    Received: by id DAA13763 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:25:55 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    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: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2002 03:19:58.0677 (UTC) FILETIME=[73BAD050:01C1CC99]
    Precedence: bulk

    > > 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:

    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