Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA06225 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:34:33 GMT Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:30:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200201290830.g0T8UHk17425@mail12.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [126.96.36.199] From: "Joe Dees" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: neccesity of mental memes Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> "Grant Callaghan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com Re: neccesity of mental memesDate: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:51:28 -0800
>>But spacetime does nothing. It is a meme. A set of measurements
>>the motion of one thing with the motion of something else, most often
>>rotation of the earth around its axis and subdivisons thereof -- i.e.
>>minutes, seconds, nanoseconds, hertz, megahertz, etc. All of these are
>>comparisons of the earth's motion with what we are measuring. The
>>measurement itself only exists as an abstraction in our minds. Light
>>doesn't care how fast it travels compared to how fast the earth rotates.
>>The feet and miles we compare it to are comparisons with some English
>>So when you say time does this or time does that, you're confusing
>>subjective reality, which we create inside our heads, with the objects
>>are thinking about. Galaxies, stars, light waves, etc., have nothing to
>>with the earth's rotation or the king's feet. Or even the rods we
>>to define a meter because it was "more precise" and fit more easily into
>>base ten counting system.
>>This personification of time based on our experience leads to such
>>as "going back in time," as if yesterday were a place and tomorrow
>>more than just a prediction. If you could jump to where the earth,
>>traveling around the sun, which is traveling around a galaxy, which is
>>traveling with a group of galaxies toward some unknown destination, will
>>after one more rotations of the planet, it won't be there. You would
>>yourself standing in airless space. It would be the same if you jumpped
>>backwards to where earth was yesterday. You wouldn't find it. Time is
>>function of how we perceive the universe, not the universe itself.
>>measuring time in the ordinary sense here on Earth, we do percieve it as a
>>funtion of how we see the earth. But comparing spacetime frames is not the
>>same as comparing say length with length. Were i travelling at light speed
>>and you were here on the Earth, we would both have the perception that a
>>metre was a metre etc. When we sit down and compare our watches my watch
>>will be slow compared to yours. therefore whatever our perceptions of how
>>think the universe is, something measurable will have occurred.
>>With regards time travel and the earth moving and landing in empty space, i
>>think this is wrong, as you are separating time and space, and as i
>>understand it they are indivisible. One does not exist without the other.
>I was talking about the movement of earth and the rest of the universe,
>which is what time measures. I wasn't separating them. But mainly I was
>talking about how we use the concepts in coversation and refer to
>measurements as if they were objects or places. Motion would exist whether
>we measure it or not. But the measurement of motion would not exist without
>us. Space would exist whether we measure it or not. But spacetime is a way
>we invented of looking at the universe and thinking about it. It is not the
>New ways of looking at it will no doubt be invented in the future. Ways
>that will change our perceptions just as Einstein's revelation changed them.
> But our perceptions consist of what we do with the data we receive through
>our senses and how we use it to build a map of the universe inside our
>heads. When we start manipulating the map to come up with new theories, we
>shouldn't confuse our theories with what we are theorizing about. Even
>Hawking has said he doesn't yet believe in time travel, although he takes an
>agnostic position on the issue. I may be wrong, but my position is more
A universal meansurement of length could be, say, multiples of an primary particle's (say a proton's, neutron's or electron's) radius. It would certainly not be either anthropomorphic, arbitrary (since it is a building block of the universe) or changeable.
>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)
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
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 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 08:44:55 GMT