Matti Pitkanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:43:58 +0300 (EET DST)
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Bill,
> I see now that several people are discussing the concept of time. I would
> like to comment about one paragraph I have extracted from below.
> > I think that both Hitoshi and I agree with the first notion, time is
> > not a dimension; it is a subjective measure of change. Your idea of
> > "Many-Classical-Worlds" is consistent with Local System theory, since
> > each Local Systems (LS) perceives all other LSs as classical particles
> > whose apparent behavior follows classical notions.
> I certainly agree that time is not a dimension. Let me give my own
> arguments. One reason is because time-space interpretation is not
> compatible with common sense (experiments). If I am no longer allowed to
> use common sense when doing science, I will no longer do science. When we
> travel, we do not know how to make a turn in the fourth dimension.
> Furthermore, we know that when we can fill a bottle with a liquid (that
> flows naturally in all dimensions) the volume of liquid required is not
> proprotional to the forth power. It is proportionally to the third power.
> There are only three dimensions.
Alternative interpretation is that our conscious experience gives
information about small spacetime volume such that its temporal extension
is very short, say of order second as neurophysiologist argue.
The undeniable success of Special and General Relativities leave at least
to me only single option: geometric spacetime is real.
If one agrees on this one is already forced to admit that our subjective
time and geometric time are different things and the task is
to construct theory of consciousness explaining how and why the contents
of our conscious experiences are localized in time and space.
> Furthermore, a four dimensional world, as well as a "Many-Classical-Worlds"
> are new hypotheses. The Occam's razor philosophical principle teaches that
> the best model is the one requiring the minimum number of hypotheses.
> Since a three dimensional world can explain completely all the observations
> of Nature, (see my book), therefore, the four or multi-dimensional worlds
> require useless and therefore superflous hypotheses. If you are not
> convinced that three dimensions is enough to explain any observations, I
> can answer any objection.
Elementary particle physics relies crucially on Poincare invariance,
which is 4-dimensional symmetry. For instance, there would be not concept
of energy without 4-dimensional Poincare invariance. One would also lose
the concept of antiparticle: 3-dimensional spinors would represent
only fermions but not antifermions. I do not know how to reproduce
the predictions of gauge theories, in particular electrodynamics in
3-dimensional context: since Maxwell action is essentially 4-dimensional
concept (for instance, fine structure constant would have dimension of
length in 3-dimensions). Can you reproduce elementary particle physics in
> About the paragraph I have re-copied above, it is extremely interesting to
> notice that using mass-energy conservation, we can show that the advance of
> the perihelion of Mercury is now explained classically (in 3D) using the
> "Local System theory, in which each Local Systems (LS) perceives all other
> LSs as classical particles whose apparent behavior follows classical
> notions". This is exactly the principle I am using in my book.
> I wish to inform you that I have now made a direct link to: "Frequently
> Asked Questions" related to my site. If you have seen the preliminary
> questions and answers before, note that they all have been modified very
> recently. More series of questions will appear soon. The home page
> address is:
> At 01:49 AM 8/14/99 EDT, you wrote:
> >This the first response to my mention of your work. If you would
> >respond, send it to me and I will post it. If further discussion
> >develops I will keep you informed.
> >In a message dated 8/13/99 11:12:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >email@example.com writes:
> >> Hi Bill,
> >> I am reading Dr. Marmet's on-line book, interesting. He uses a
> >> mechanical paradigm that I often dislike, but I like the way his mind
> >> works!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:29 JST