Re: neccesity of mental memes

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 08:30:17 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "Re: Do all memes die out or evolve? I think not."

    Received: by id IAA06225 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:34:33 GMT
    Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:30:17 -0800
    Message-Id: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Content-Disposition: inline
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
    X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116)
    X-Originating-Ip: []
    From: "Joe Dees" <>
    Subject: Re: neccesity of mental memes
    Precedence: bulk

    ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)

    > "Grant Callaghan" <> 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,
    >>which is
    >>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.
    >>we are
    >>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
    >universe itself.
    >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
    >definite. ;-)>
    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:
    >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! 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