[Guille]

GTP: (Guille's Time Paradox) is what I present in this post, although I have mentioned in several times on the chat.

1.: Time is a property of dimensions (actually of objects in spatial dimensions).
2.: Thus, for time being a dimension:
2.1: Time must have the properties of dimensions,
2.2: Time must have time which is itself a property of dimensions.
3.: Time must have time (the paradox).

If you have any comment, solution, explenation, or arror that you find, let me know in this thread.

[Masa Hiryuu]

Originally Posted by <<>> GTP: (Guille's Time Paradox) is what I present in this post, although I have mentioned in several times on the chat. 1.: Time is a property of dimensions (actually of objects in spatial dimensions). 2.: Thus, for time being a dimension: 2.1: Time must have the properties of dimensions, 2.2: Time must have time which is itself a property of dimensions. 3.: Time must have time (the paradox). If you have any comment, solution, explenation, or arror that you find, let me know in this thread.

This Paradox is a good example of how little (I believe) the current model of euclidian geometry can understand of time and how it works.

Time should be seen more as a process rather than a dimension or a property of a dimension.

I believe Time is a product of the perception of the transfer of information between bodies. Whenever any body (any mass or massless particle/force/wave) interacts with another body there is a transfer of information between them to indicate to eachother that an interaction just took place thus causing the bodies to respond accordingly. Time is the transfer of that information and how it is percieved by the bodies involved in the interaction. This makes time simply a product of perception and relieves the need for it to exist by itsself as a seperate dimention and makes it a property of interactions percieved by bodies within dimensions NOT a dimension or a product of a dimension it self. Time it self is not needed for those interactions to take place.

[Guille]

The implications of this paradox are many, and ussually depend on the interpretations of each individual and how this one fights the problem back.

I think what you say (masa) is true. But this "transfer of information" is actually motion. No other "information" is or can be sayd to be time.

[dleviwing]

1.000 Time is a mathematical one dimensional vector used to quantify "Motion".
Relative Time is that vector being measured with a motion reference.
R2D2

[Masa Hiryuu]

Originally Posted by <<>> The implications of this paradox are many, and ussually depend on the interpretations of each individual and how this one fights the problem back. I think what you say (masa) is true. But this "transfer of information" is actually motion. No other "information" is or can be sayd to be time.

Yes Guille that is what I was trying to say when I used the word Information

Without motion there can be no time

Motion happens within spacial dimensions

Time is a property of motion or what I term "transfer of information"

time is not related to dimensions in any way except that it happens within dimensions but it is not required for dimensions to exist or function.

[dleviwing]

Masa;
I only want to comment that when you say that time is a property of motion, you are also inferring "Time is a property of matter". Only matter has physical motion. Time is not a property of anything physical. It is only a mathematical dimension used to express the physical movement of matter. Most definition references to time are to the mechanisms of time keeping by a clock.
Scientific interpretations of time are quite confusing aren't they?? Maybe we should invent a language that dose not have a word for time.

[Masa Hiryuu]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Masa; I only want to comment that when you say that time is a property of motion, you are also inferring "Time is a property of matter". Only matter has physical motion. Time is not a property of anything physical. It is only a mathematical dimension used to express the physical movement of matter. Most definition references to time are to the mechanisms of time keeping by a clock. Scientific interpretations of time are quite confusing aren't they?? Maybe we should invent a language that dose not have a word for time.

mabee I should clarify...

Time is a product of transfer of information meaning any interaction whatsoever weather it is motion or even physical or not.

not all interaction I believe requires dimensions in order to interact.

I did not mean to imply that time is a property of matter quite the contrary I believe time has nothing to do with matter whatsoever time exists because of interaction between any bodies weather physical spacial or energetic.

what I meant when I said that time is a property motion is that motion implies transfer of information (matter interacting with spacial dimensions) and thus has time, not that matter and motion have time nor is it a property of them.

sorry for the confusion I did not mean to say that time is a property of motion it all got jumbled together in my head when i was writing and came out wrong

I hope this clarifies things

[dleviwing]

Masa;
I know you didn't mean that time was a property of matter or motion. Just thought I would mention the fact. J

[subversion]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Masa; Maybe we should invent a language that dose not have a word for time.

funny you should say that, I recall that such a language does exist, and perhaps it could be a useful tool for thinking about things.

I quote "After long and careful study and analysis, the Hopi language is seen to contain no words, grammatical forms, constructions or expressions that refer directly to what we call "time." or to past, present, or future, or to enduring or lasting, or to motion as kinematic rather than dynamic (i.e. as a continuous translation in space and time rather than as an exhibition of dynamic effort in a certain process), or that even refer to space in such a way as to exclude that element of extension or existence that we call "time," and so by implication leave a residue that could be referred to as "time." Hence, the Hopi language contains no reference to "time," either explicit or implicit." (Whorf BL (1956) Language, Thought & Reality. MIT Press: Cambridge p. 57-"

Lots of other quotes from that same book can be found here http://www.humanevolution.net/a/hopi.html looks like a good read, I might have to pick it up sometime

also, some other reading which seems very pertinent to this conversation/hopi language can be found here http://www.philsoc.org/1999Fall/2107minutes.html

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion funny you should say that, I recall that such a language does exist, and perhaps it could be a useful tool for thinking about things. I quote "After long and careful study and analysis, the Hopi language is seen to contain no words, grammatical forms, constructions or expressions that refer directly to what we call "time." or to past, present, or future, or to enduring or lasting, or to motion as kinematic rather than dynamic (i.e. as a continuous translation in space and time rather than as an exhibition of dynamic effort in a certain process), or that even refer to space in such a way as to exclude that element of extension or existence that we call "time," and so by implication leave a residue that could be referred to as "time." Hence, the Hopi language contains no reference to "time," either explicit or implicit." (Whorf BL (1956) Language, Thought & Reality. MIT Press: Cambridge p. 57-" Lots of other quotes from that same book can be found here http://www.humanevolution.net/a/hopi.html looks like a good read, I might have to pick it up sometime also, some other reading which seems very pertinent to this conversation/hopi language can be found here http://www.philsoc.org/1999Fall/2107minutes.html

wow.........

But this langauge solves only one error in langueages: time. We would need a langauge to be completely perfect and logical, it should have only one name for each thing, it should have no name for un-logical things (time, nothing....), it should't have a name for to elements or two names for an element.