chris peck wrote: > > Hi Stephen; > > I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are provisos. > Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to freely > navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in time and it > moves onwards in a single direction without anyones consent. Furthermore, > where it possible to move around in time all sorts of paradoxes would appear > to ensue that just dont when I traverse the spatial dimensions. Id appeal > to an asymmetry between time and space, it is a dimension of sorts, but not > one that can conceptually swapped with a spatial dimension easily. I dont > think the a priori requirements for space will be necessarily the same as > those for time.
Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential pre-bias. While it is true that we can calculate negative spatial values and not identify negative temporal values easily - or at all in some cases - let me describe motion in this alternative way for you: 1. All action/motion is never a single dimension but instead, a net-vector. (be it spatially evaluated or temporally or both). therefore, it is quite possible to say that the impression of time as a positive single vector is masking its composite dimensional structure which it is really made of. 2. Negative spatial distances are calculation illusions, usable only because we can visually identify a sequence reversal and label the suquences alternatively - even though - in a relativistic universe, ALL actions and traversals of 'distance' are and can only be done ... positively. "Negative" dimension values are conditional computational handwavings. And again, even spatial traversals are net-vectors. A body in true motion through space is ALWAYS in a positive net-vector; the same as presumptively ascribed only to time. Therefore, Time can and undoubtably does have, internal dimesional structuring; contrary to the conventional view of it not. James Rose ref: "Understanding the Integral Universe" (1972;1992;1995)
