Hello Hayek.

I enjoy your writings that I have found here.

I think that the phrase "relativity of simultaneity" may inherently be
flawed.
Simultaneous suggests a lack of relativity (e.g. zero difference).

If we agree that time is a paradoxical basis for classical and
relativistic physics then don't we have to go back and question
Newton's calculus?

Also, as long as we are questioning the traditional axioms then space
seems to be most troubling. Why are there three observed spatial
dimensions?

I suppose that a clean theory will derive three dimensional space with
unipolar time as we have traditionally known it.

Do you believe in unification? Would you agree that if it exists that
it would be simple like Q(z), where Q is material and z is space?

I like to think in terms of a principle of accumulation which
coincides with integration and points to the convenience of time, but
is a lower axiom.


Hayek wrote in message ...
Nonexistence of time and relativity of simultaneity.

"Barbour argues that we live in a universe which has
neither past nor future. A strange new world in
which we are alive and dead in the same instant. In
this eternal present, our sense of the passage of
time is nothing more than a giant cosmic illusion.
'There is nothing modest about my aspirations,' he
said. 'This could herald a revolution in the way we
perceive the world.'" Cosmologist Lee Smolin notes
that Barbour has presented "the most interesting and
provocative new idea about time to be proposed in
many years. If true, it will change the way we see
reality. Barbour is one of the few people who is
truly both a scientist and a philosopher."
More on:
http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195117298.html

I fully agree with the nonexistence of time,
but what do you think are the consequences of this
for relativity of simultaneity ?

Hayek.

(Timothy Golden) wrote in message . com...
Hello Hayek.

I enjoy your writings that I have found here.

I think that the phrase "relativity of simultaneity" may inherently be
flawed.
Simultaneous suggests a lack of relativity (e.g. zero difference).

If we agree that time is a paradoxical basis for classical and
relativistic physics then don't we have to go back and question
Newton's calculus?

Also, as long as we are questioning the traditional axioms then space
seems to be most troubling. Why are there three observed spatial
dimensions?

I suppose that a clean theory will derive three dimensional space with
unipolar time as we have traditionally known it.

Do you believe in unification? Would you agree that if it exists that
it would be simple like Q(z), where Q is material and z is space?

I like to think in terms of a principle of accumulation which
coincides with integration and points to the convenience of time, but
is a lower axiom.


Hayek wrote in message ...
Nonexistence of time and relativity of simultaneity.

"Barbour argues that we live in a universe which has
neither past nor future. A strange new world in
which we are alive and dead in the same instant. In
this eternal present, our sense of the passage of
time is nothing more than a giant cosmic illusion.
'There is nothing modest about my aspirations,' he
said. 'This could herald a revolution in the way we
perceive the world.'" Cosmologist Lee Smolin notes
that Barbour has presented "the most interesting and
provocative new idea about time to be proposed in
many years. If true, it will change the way we see
reality. Barbour is one of the few people who is
truly both a scientist and a philosopher."
More on:
http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195117298.html

I fully agree with the nonexistence of time,
but what do you think are the consequences of this
for relativity of simultaneity ?

Hayek.

I thought all this hash had been settled many years ago with the
publication of Russel and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" and the
ensuing work of the Vienna Circle, culminating in Reichenbach's "The
Rise of Scientific Philosophy."

Let me make this assertion: Without a contemplating intellect, the
"universe" is a mere chaos of objects and events. We humans provide
the intellect, any thing outside of us provides "reality." Here,
imagine Bishop Berkley kicking his famous rock and exclaiming, "I
prove it thus, and thus, and thus...!"

Relativity is a way of "explaining" the obvious and not-so-obvious
discrepancies
in our own intellectual construct. Here, imagine the panic and
disappointment of the Pythagorians when they discovered that NUMBER
was not devinely perfect.

Time, then, is an important part of our effort to invent? perceive?
discover?-- order in the "actuaL" CHAOS with which we are surrounded.
To help grasp this concept, I refer you once again to Bertrand Russel,
with particular attention to his work in set-theory and his paradox of
the "complete" set;i.e., the library that contains the set of all
books, but CANNOT contain the book that lists all the books in the
set! I present this latter thought only as an analogy to our own
rather bitter human position, not as any kind "proof."

You can argue forever, and probably will, so long as human beings
exist, but it's never gonna come out even, guys. Sorry. And, since
"science" is the only way we have of "predicting the future," we are
driven to practice it, whether we like it or not, and whether we are
good at it or not. Salvation or doom, take your choice.

Radlib