**Lester Zick** (*lesterzick@earthlink.net*)

*Sun, 02 May 1999 11:04:36 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 267] Re: [time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"**Previous message:**Lester Zick: "[time 265] Space-time Approaches and Considerations"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 267] Re: [time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"

Hello to All,

There are additional considerations relevant to the nature of material

time and spatial dimensionality. Space in general is not laid out on any

universal grid. The dimensionality of space is Euclidean in geometric

terms, but this circumstance is simply a categorical implication of the

ability to think and act. It is nothing more than a recognition of

geometric necessity analogous to the application of principles of plane

geometry to flat surfaces. Nor is it an exclusive aspect of conscious

being because it applies equally to all aspects of being in space

although obviously the knowledge involved is reserved to conscious

beings.

Time on the other hand is not a geometric category. Time exists because

the present cannot be what the past was, nor can the future be what the

present is. This is how we come to recognize the ideas of past and

future. Everything that ever happens happens in the present. There is no

graph of past events nor of future events waiting to happen. We only

know of the past and future not because knowledge of either exists or is

capable of existing in general but because the present cannot be as it

has been nor remain as it is. And what knowledge can be had of the past

or the future is really only knowledge of the present in the context of

various properties associated with present phenomena.

Consequently, time is not a geometric adjunct, nor is geometry the

adjunct of time. Time has no commensuration with spatial dimensionality.

The three dimensions exist as they do because each has some form of

commensuration with the others. This is the only reason we can know the

dimensions at all, because each is capable of being measured in exact

geometric terms in relation to the others. The difference between points

is a line, the difference between lines a plane, and the difference

between planes a volume. And all are mutually commensurable.

However, at the fourth dimension this is no longer true. The difference

between volumes corresponds to some form of shell and is incommensurate

with the three universal dimensions. The reason for this is that the

integrand for the ratio between differences in volumes must include the

natural logarithm of a non transcendental number, meaning there can be

no exact correspondence between the volumes of shells in geometric terms

since the natural log of a non transcendental number must itself be

transcendental.

In any event, time corresponds to no geometric dimension because it is

simply a logical construct, the necessary implication of change in the

context of a static spatial geometry. Space is Euclidean only in the

sense of being subject to Euclidean concepts applicable to geometry in

general. And that geometry can only be three dimensional in nature

because the difference between volumes corresponds to no volume exactly

for the reason stated.

Thus I submit it is incorrect to speak of space-time or of the geometry

of space-time or of time as some form of geometric concept. Whatever

time may mean in ultimate terms and however it may be measured, it

corresponds in no sense to geometric dimensionality because that

geometry necessarily exists and can only exist whereas time measures and

is measured by change.

Regards - Lester

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 267] Re: [time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"**Previous message:**Lester Zick: "[time 265] Space-time Approaches and Considerations"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 267] Re: [time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:30 JST
*