On Jan 5, 4:56 am, Michael Gordge wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:08 pm, Laurent wrote:

There is time because there is motion and matter can't exist without
motion.

Motion of what? Dont be silly.


This conversation first took place 3000 years ago.

It's different schools of Greek thought.

I think I've taken Greek Monism and brought it into our current
century, just as Leibniz had done in the 1700s.

Check this out:

http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

On Jan 5, 1:00 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Laurent wrote:

Reality as Process

Matter is a continuous, time dependent, self-organizing process.

[snip crap]

1) atoms
2) bull****

Matter is discontinuous - hence 230 periodic crystallographic space
groups.
Protons are forever.
Entropy.

Idiot.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

I said it is a continuous process, not whether matter itself is
continuous or not. That is answered in the lead post, but read it
before commenting. MENSO!

On Jan 5, 1:00 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Laurent wrote:

Reality as Process

Matter is a continuous, time dependent, self-organizing process.

[snip crap]

1) atoms
2) bull****

Matter is discontinuous - hence 230 periodic crystallographic space
groups.
Protons are forever.
Entropy.

Idiot.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Here MENSO, get up date.

Is spacetime primary? ----- by Basil Hiley (1999)

"I first came across this possibility from a lecture by Geoffrey Chew
(1960). He pointed out that there is no necessity to start an
explanation of quantum processes in space-time. Complementarity
shows that we could either start in space-time, or we could have
started in the energy-momentum plane, but we can never start
with both together.

This is actually an old idea stressed by Bohr (1925) in the early
days of quantum mechanics. He writes -

"I am quite prepared that the view we proposed (Bohr-Kramers-Slater
theory) on the independence of the quantum process in
widely-separated atoms should turn out to be incorrect... the
Ramsauer's results on the penetration of slow electrons through
atoms, presents difficulties for our ordinary space-time description
of nature similar to those presented by a simultaneous understanding
of interference phenomena and a coupling through radiation of the
changes of state of widely-separated atoms. I believe that these
difficulties so thoroughly rule out the retention of the ordinary
space-time description of phenomena."

Chew (1960) brought this idea out in a new and striking way by
drawing attention to the S-matrix approach to high-energy processes.
Here the energy-momentum plane is taken as basic so that we can
exploit strict energy and momentum conservation. But then the role
of the spacetime manifold has to be derived since it can no longer
be regarded as basic. This brings us to the question of the role of
space-time itself. Why is it regarded as primary and basic?

When we come to consider the problems of quantising gravity while
retaining general relativity, we face the following dilemma. As is
well known in general relativity the gravitational potential is
identified with the metric tensor. Now in any quantum field theory,
the fields themselves are subject to quantum fluctuations. Thus the
quantised gravitational field would imply fluctuations in the field
and since the gravitational potential reflects the metric properties
of the space, the space-time itself must be fluctuating. But what
then is meant by a fluctuating space-time?

The third problem in assuming that space-time is fundamental arises
from the appearance of quantum non-locality. If space-time is taken
as primary, then, ipso facto, locality is absolute. Indeed the
space-time manifold dominates classical physics because it has
locality built into it right at the beginning. If we retain the
space-time manifold, then quantum non-locality sits very
uncomfortable in such a structure.

Could it be that our insistence on taking a given space-time as
basic is at fault?

Could space-time merely be an appearance, a feature that has to be
abstracted from some deeper structure, a structure where space-time
itself is not taken as basic? If this were the case, then it would
be establishing locality that would present the problem. Could it be
that locality itself is merely a relationship? This relationship
dominates the macroscopic world, but it would not be universally
valid at the quantum level. Yes there is relativity, but does that
theory apply to the level of a single photon or only to a
statistical ensemble of photons?

The first suggestive example of showing how locality could be a
relationship appears in the hologram. Here a picture of an object is

recorded as an interference pattern. The image of the original
object can be re-created by using an appropriate light source. If
the hologram is now torn in half and the light passed through this
half, we again see the whole object, albeit with some loss of
overall definition. Clearly the local regions of the original object
are mapped into the whole of the photograph, so that locality is
being carried in a non-local way. Thus locality here is clearly
carried as a relationship. Can this idea be generalised?

Suppose locality is a relationship, could it be that quantum
phenomena are in some sense beyond space-time and are merely
projected into space-time by our macroscopic instruments? In other
words, could quantum processes be evolving in some more general
space, which for convenience we call simply 'pre-space'. This
pre-space (Hiley 1991, Hiley and Monk 1993) would then give rise to
Wheeler's (1980) pre-geometry. In this view, the space-time of the
classical world would be some statistical approximation and not all
quantum processes can be projected into this space without
producing the familiar paradoxes, including non-separability and
non-locality. In classical physics everything is local so that a
single space-time can provide a contradiction free description. If
we adopt this radical view, we can see that it is not necessary to
insist on the Cartesian division between res extensa and res
cogitans. Matter actually has its origins in a deeper structure, a
structure where space-time and hence extension is not primary. If
such an approach were viable then matter and mind need no longer
be separated by space-time constraints."


http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/BasilHiley/noncommgeobohm.pdf

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/RecentPublications.html

On Jan 5, 10:38*pm, Laurent wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:56 am, Michael Gordge wrote:

On Jan 5, 9:08 pm, Laurent wrote:

There is time because there is motion and matter can't exist without
motion.

Motion of what? Dont be silly.

MG

Time, matter and space are not fundamental because they are dynamic,
in constant change. As proven by Relativity. It is a fact.

Matter and the time it takes to for it to form are the products of
pure energy.

--
Laurent

There is no such thing as a matter-less energy, dont be silly.

MG

"Michael Gordge" wrote in message
...
On Jan 5, 10:38 pm, Laurent wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:56 am, Michael Gordge wrote:

On Jan 5, 9:08 pm, Laurent wrote:

There is time because there is motion and matter can't exist without
motion.

Motion of what? Dont be silly.

MG

Time, matter and space are not fundamental because they are dynamic,
in constant change. As proven by Relativity. It is a fact.

Matter and the time it takes to for it to form are the products of
pure energy.

--
Laurent

There is no such thing as a matter-less energy, dont be silly.


Of course there is, don't be stupid.
Oh wait, you can't help it.
Go get some matter-less sunshine, you spending too long
at the keyboard.

On Jan 5, 4:23 pm, Michael Gordge wrote:
On Jan 5, 10:38 pm, Laurent wrote:



On Jan 5, 7:56 am, Michael Gordge wrote:

On Jan 5, 9:08 pm, Laurent wrote:

There is time because there is motion and matter can't exist without
motion.

Motion of what? Dont be silly.

MG

Time, matter and space are not fundamental because they are dynamic,
in constant change. As proven by Relativity. It is a fact.

Matter and the time it takes to for it to form are the products of
pure energy.

--
Laurent

There is no such thing as a matter-less energy, dont be silly.

MG


Pure energy, which is neither hot nor bright.

--
Laurent

On 5 Jan, 21:34, Laurent wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:23 pm, Michael Gordge wrote:





On Jan 5, 10:38 pm, Laurent wrote:

On Jan 5, 7:56 am, Michael Gordge wrote:

On Jan 5, 9:08 pm, Laurent wrote:

There is time because there is motion and matter can't exist without
motion.

Motion of what? Dont be silly.

MG

Time, matter and space are not fundamental because they are dynamic,
in constant change. As proven by Relativity. It is a fact.

Matter and the time it takes to for it to form are the products of
pure energy.

--
Laurent

There is no such thing as a matter-less energy, dont be silly.

MG

Pure energy, which is neither hot nor bright.

--
Laurent- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your both right wave-particle duality of energy. Matter/mind works for
me.
Right move on to next argument please.
Were getting bored here...

Thank You.
Fessy

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:18:47 -0800 (PST), Laurent
wrote:

Could space-time merely be an appearance, a feature that has to be
abstracted from some deeper structure, a structure where space-time
itself is not taken as basic? If this were the case, then it would
be establishing locality that would present the problem. Could it be
that locality itself is merely a relationship? This relationship
dominates the macroscopic world, but it would not be universally
valid at the quantum level. Yes there is relativity, but does that
theory apply to the level of a single photon or only to a
statistical ensemble of photons?

Wow man. This is cool stuff. Were you trained as a physicist or are
you self-taught? I would be surprised to learn that you were a trained
physicist. Brainwashing is a powerful drug, something that I had to
find out the hard way.

You are absolutely correct, IMO, to question the reality of space and
time. Neither exists physically. They are abstract illusions of
perception. Only positional properties and interactions (change) need
to exist. Space and time can be *abstractly* derived from those two
things. I (and others) have been saying this for a long time.

It is easy to prove logically that neither space not time can possibly
exist.

Most people think that nothing can move without time. The astonishing
truth is that nothing can move *with* time. Why? Because changing time
is an oxymoron. A time dimension makes it impossible for anything to
move. Nothing can move in spacetime! This is the reason that Sir Karl
Popper (of falsifiability fame) called spacetime "Einstein's block
universe in which nothing happens". This gives new meaning to the
expression "frozen in time". ahahaha...

Space too is abstract. I've explained why many times before. You can
read the simple arguments for the non-existence of space he

Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space

Louis Savain

PS. Here's what Dr. Joe Rosen, the retired former physics chair of the
University of Central Arkansas had to say about time:

What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will
be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even
fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical
systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or
that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the
objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of
time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one
"way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result
of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one
might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual
disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a
change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming.

From "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?"
Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994

Rosen was a firm believer in both nontemporality and nonspatiality.
But this stuff is not new though. Leibniz was saying essentially the
same thing centuries ago. This is the kind of stuff that goes over
the heads of people like John Baez, Uncle Al and the other ass kissers
on the physics newsgroups. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Good luck in your work.

On Jan 6, 6:34*am, Laurent wrote:

Pure energy, which is neither hot nor bright.

I wasn't talking about the temperature or light, I am saying, matter-
less energy is oxymoronic Kantian inspired mystical trash.

There cant be energy / motion without a distance traveled, so why not
make distance the beginning?


MG

On Jan 4, 10:34*pm, Michael Gordge wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:22*pm, Laurent wrote:

Reality as Process

Matter is a continuous, time dependent,

Nope not even close, time is matter dependent.


Do you mean concepts of time are necessarily dependent upon other
concepts of matter? Thats like saying water is ice cube dependent, but
water is water wether, solid, liquid or gas. Matter may be frozen
energy;

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...5d1493a0a3bd06

MG