[AntonioLao]

This kind of confrontations can only happen in a universe with only 2 degrees of freedom. However, it is widely used as a good 1st order approximation to all linear interactions for microscopic elementary particles as well as interactions between stars and galaxies. Ideally, this is equivalent to all two body problems. Their solutions are deterministic, stable, and predictable in contrast to three body problems which can become nonlinear, chaotic, and probabilistic.

From a human perspective, it is called a one to one interaction exclusively between two people, two entities, or one person and one external entity or internal entity. Objectively, between an individual and nature or another person. Subjectively, between an individual and one’s internal consciousness: personal conscience, personal death, personal growth, personal intelligence, personal feelings and emotion. Therefore, without much oversimplification it can be said that binary confrontations exist both objectively in an outer reality and subjectively in an inner reality. Complexity arises when a subjective internal binary confrontation interacts with an external binary confrontation forming a much more complex four body problem.

[baudrunner]

This kind of confrontations can only happen in a universe with only 2 degrees of freedom. However, it is widely used as a good 1st order approximation to all linear interactions for microscopic elementary particles as well as interactions between stars and galaxies. Ideally, this is equivalent to all two body problems. Their solutions are deterministic, stable, and predictable in contrast to three body problems which can become nonlinear, chaotic, and probabilistic.

That's not surprising, but I would hope that that is also not any of my tailor's business.

From a human perspective, it is called a one to one interaction exclusively between two people, two entities, or one person and one external entity or internal entity. Objectively, between an individual and nature or another person. Subjectively, between an individual and one’s internal consciousness: personal conscience, personal death, personal growth, personal intelligence, personal feelings and emotion. Therefore, without much oversimplification it can be said that binary confrontations exist both objectively in an outer reality and subjectively in an inner reality. Complexity arises when a subjective internal binary confrontation interacts with an external binary confrontation forming a much more complex four body problem.

Well, Antonio, it is good to finally read that you appear to be coming down to earth. Welcome back. Granted, it is a Saturday night, so there's no telling what the next week will bring us from that overwhelming intellect of yours. Here's hoping that you will enjoy yourself tonight, though.

Cheers!

[Guille]

Antonio,

Do we then, as much as we percieve a object in relationt oa n other object (independently of size, shape, position...), do this by a 2 degrees of freedom reference, such that we measure the first automatic spatial dimension? I mean, if one is up in the sky and another in the groudn, we observe them in relation to height. If one is the to the right and the other tot he left, we observe in width. If one is far beyond and one is right in front, we observe by depth. Then, now I think of it, our spatial perception is very reduced. We think we can see 3d, and percieve it, but really not, we always have the obligation to centre on 1 main dimension, and that is very true. Maybe this can help mkirkpatrik with his idea of mind is all and all is mind...

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Antonio, Do we then, as much as we percieve a object in relationt oa n other object (independently of size, shape, position...), do this by a 2 degrees of freedom reference, such that we measure the first automatic spatial dimension? I mean, if one is up in the sky and another in the groudn, we observe them in relation to height. If one is the to the right and the other tot he left, we observe in width. If one is far beyond and one is right in front, we observe by depth. Then, now I think of it, our spatial perception is very reduced. We think we can see 3d, and percieve it, but really not, we always have the obligation to centre on 1 main dimension, and that is very true. Maybe this can help mkirkpatrik with his idea of mind is all and all is mind...

Or I think you should rather say we percieve it 3D but reduce it to 1 main dimension. Is that what you are saying.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Or I think you should rather say we percieve it 3D but reduce it to 1 main dimension. Is that what you are saying.

Yes, that is what I meant. Now I've realised, we don't choose one dimension, it is something that our happens in our subconsciousness. Does this mean that our consciouness, our conception, is always reduced from our subconsciousness, our perception? Definatelly yes. But, what about time, do we do the same, is it that maybe there are 3 time dimensions and we only "percieve" 1 of them?

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Yes, that is what I meant. Now I've realised, we don't choose one dimension, it is something that our happens in our subconsciousness. Does this mean that our consciouness, our conception, is always reduced from our subconsciousness, our perception? Definatelly yes. But, what about time, do we do the same, is it that maybe there are 3 time dimensions and we only "percieve" 1 of them?

I would like to know how you imagine it one would be forward one wuld be backward and what about the other static!!?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C I would like to know how you imagine it one would be forward one wuld be backward and what about the other static!!?

I didn't mean direction. What you define here, backwards-static-forward are simply states of motion, using Antonio's terminology, degrees of freedom. But a whole dimension always has 2 degrees of freedom. I mean time, as we know it and see it now, is 1 dimension, for you can go past and future. Like height: up and down, like width: one side or the other, like depth: forward or backwards. But what I meant is if there are two other time dimensions? Maybe yes. And we always percieve the most obvious, but as in appearance all dimensions are the same (I mean, if you are lying on the floor, for you height is depth, and width is height...), then the time dimensions look like the same 1 dimension, but in reality in each case we choose the most appropiate. It's very har dto think about it, but it does have background.

[Mohan.C]

Guille what I meant by forward backward and static was the future past and the present. Just like light cones. I think Light cones are the consequences of time dimensions or should I say they represent the time dimensions.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Guille what I meant by forward backward and static was the future past and the present. Just like light cones. I think Light cones are the consequences of time dimensions or should I say they represent the time dimensions.

I know you meant future past and present, I what I meant is that all those three terms are not a dimension, but an extension within a dimension. Time as we see it now is a dimension, it has (as all individual dimensions) two degrees of freedom, those are past and future. Static doesn't really exist for it would be no time. Now the three dimensions of time I hypothesized are three which look the same to consciousness, that is why it chooses the most obvious. I mean, there are sort of three ''past-present-future' dimensions, each with the three terms. Just like space, each of the three dimensions of space has 2 degrees of freedom.

[Mohan.C]

I think static time can exist. When the entropy is maximum and cannot increase. There is no change, that means time becomes static. I very much doubt this myself.