Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Rr6]

It is best to think of observed time as a powering. 2^2 = 4.

We may then say that, 4 is XYZ + time ergo time is inherent to XY and Z from the get go.

But what is 2, in the initial set given above?

o______X_____a i.e. X line/trajectory-of-relationship has two terminal points ( beginning and ending )

o______Y______b i.e Y line/trajectory has two terminal points

o______Z_______c i.e.Z line/ trajectory has two terminal points

Here above with three lines/trajectories we have 6, terminal points, however, three of them occupy the same point/position in space. The three o's.

Dimensions infer XYZ coordinates in space, or of space, and are best known or exemplified by three right angles extending from a single vertex/corner. This is one corner of a cube/hexa{6}hedron, and that corner/vertex above is the three o's.

or, it can also be considered as one corner of tetra{4}hedron with three right angles and one corner/vertex shared as the three o's.

In just considering the simplest scenario of observed time, as powering generalization of dual set of terminal end points ( beginning and ending ) with only the tetra{4}hedron do we arrive at the minimal, 3D volumetric polyhedron Universe with its 4 terminal points.


2 ( dual terminal points generalization/cosmic )

^2 ---and here we recall that Einstein used c^2 and shell growth of VE uses 2nd powering { if I recall correcltlyy }

4 is 4 terminal points of 3D, volumetric tetrahedron, with three right angles and one equalateral ( or other ) triangle ( hedra/face/surface ).

If any can follow the above, then please expand your mind some more with the following,

6 lines/trajectories/chords define a tetrahedron, however, we may consider that there are only 2 vectors involved. See this link to geometric synergy first. http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f0801.html

If you visited the link then you can understand one vector as having 3 parts ergo a frequency pattern of changing direction.

\/\ as change of direction as frequency, within a single vector defined by 3 parts

/\/ a 2nd vector composed of three parts as frequency.

So here we now have a new kind of tow involving the actual line/vector of relationship, instead of the previous scenario using generlisd/cosmic duality set of two terminal points.

So we take the 2 vectors two a 2nd power and we get a resultant set of 4 triangles integrated as a 3D volumetric tetra{4}hedron.

2^2 = 4 using a differrent initial set yet same end resultant, a tetrahedron, with or without the three right angles, so this method is less specific than the previous set that used XYZ terminal points.

Observed time is at minimum a 2nd powering of 2, either cosmic set of terminal twoness, or vectorial frequency set of twoness.

r6

[Atreyu]

In actually fact, although other models might turn out to be more useful in the future, I think the most useful way to think of time that has so far been found seems to be as a single 4th dimension - as in General Relativity.

Well, when we plot the classic timeline, we are actually representing time as the fourth dimension of space. Very simple and practical.

Each point on the timeline represents our entire 3-dimensional Universe as it exists at a particular moment in time. Therefore, the line on the timeline represents the fourth dimension of space, since the line is one more dimension of space than the point (which represents 3 dimensions). 3+1 = 4.

However, without elaborating, surely you can see that this model is a bit simplistic. The classic timeline represents a deterministic Universe. The line is a fixed one, hence the past, present, and future simply are what they are and could not be any different. The only issue is where on the line the point is (what time are we referring to). And as the point moves along the timeline from left to right, there is no other way it could go other than along the line. The entire future is predetermined, as was the entire past.

A more sophisticated model would be to take our point, which represents our entire 3-dimensional Universe (3 dimensions reduced to zero dimensions), and imagine it travelling not on a line (fourth dimension), but rather travelling throughout 3-dimensional space, much like a speck of dust could float around a room. The point can now go up, down, left, right, etc. Nothing is predetermined, and we do not know what path the point will travel in the future, nor what it's path was in the past. This 3-D timeline represents time in a dynamic, unpredictable, and indeterministic Universe.

Note that in this model we now have 6 dimensions of space, or space-time. The point represents our 3-dimensional world (3 dimensions reduced to 0 dimensions) while the space through which the point travels represents 3 additional dimensions of space beyond the point (the 4th - 6th dimensions of space).

So, you see, by thinking of time as the next three dimensions of space (4th-6th), rather than just the next one (4th), we can model a much more dynamic Universe (the so called "Multiverse"), which corroborates to how most of us cognize it today.

[YIOSTHEOY]

You can think of "time" as a dimension of measurement if you like.

"Time" of itself does not exist in reality however.

It is merely a perception of human beings.

I don't think my cat is deluded by the notion of time either.

He does not care if it is today or yesterday.

He gets up every day, stretches, sharpens his claws, wakes me if I am still sleeping, greets me, licks my face and eyelids to wake me up, eats his breakfast, which he prefers to be canned seafood or fish, then goes outside to hunt bugs, moths, spiders, mice, moles, rats, squirrels, songbirds, and crows. He does not care about time.

He is a very smart cat.

[Rr6]

He is a very smart cat.

It is well documented that dogs are smarter than cats. Cats may be smarter than nematodes.

5-fold symmetry contains 4-fold symmetry in rotational sense but also actual polyhedral patterning.

The 5-fold icosa{20}hedron has 31 primary great circles, 6, 10 and 15, and those 10 define five versions of a 4-fold cubo{6]-octa{8}hedra. See link
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/Lynn/LynnS54.html

If time is considered only spin, then with three axi, we know there are six directions of spin;

roll--- left or right ---dualistically generalised 2-ness of spin

yaw--- left or right ---dualistic generalised 2-ness

pitch--- left or right ----dualistic generalise 2-ness

3 axi and 6 directions of spin, however, this does not consider forward motion trajectory. With forward trajectory we can also consider;

higher peaks \/\/\/\/

Lower troughs \/\/\/\/\

Overall a more complex spiral pattern that defines a tube-- and torus ---can also be defined, however, can we have any viable scenario, that, isolate away that overall spiral pattern from our above considerations of roll yaw and pitch spin?

r6

-- Updated May 30th, 2016, 10:11 am to add the following --

Here is link roll, yaw and pitch: http://howthingsfly.si.edu/flight-dynam ... ch-and-yaw
r6

[TimBandTech]

Mon May 30 12:21:07 EDT 2016 @722 /Internet Time/
Please consider: http://bandtech.com/PolySigned
The one-signed numbers have excellent arithmetic correspondence with time as we observe its unidirectional and zero dimensional nature.
The cleanest resolution is to realize that the real number which is treated as fundamental by both mathematicians and physicists is not so fundamental.
It can be dissected and when sign is generalized emergent spacetime is exposed as a pure math.
The next step I believe is to incorporate a new theory of electromagnetics whereby electromagnetism is fundamental to spacetime.

The treatment of space and time as inseperable can be traced further back than Einstein. For instance in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason there are passages in which space and time are always coupled together, and these are very carefully worded passages whose topic is space and time. I strongly recommend reviewing this content even if it seems difficult to absorb.

The usage of additional dimensions to help resolve systems is a common practice. Klein found it helpful to add yet another dimension and wound up in a 5D theory that supposedly has some gains. Well, let's not forget that this very terminology of 'dimension' is tied exactly to the real line and imposes a Euclidean structure upon everything that is built from its usage as a fundament.

Mathematics will eventually reform itself and come in time to treat the ray as more fundamental than the line, for the line is composed of two rays and we need not two lines composed of four rays to represent the plane but instead we need merely three symmetrically opposed rays which embody the generalization of sign
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0
where '*' is a third sign just as the line embodies the two signed numbers via two symmetrically opposed rays whereby
- 1 + 1 = 0 .
These polysign numbers expose nomenclature issues with the modern notation. For instance should values and operators take the same symbols? The idea that both addition and subtraction exist as operations may not be valid. Reality does seem to obey a superposition principle, whereby integrals and summation and superposition are sufficient to express meaningful physics.
Carrying on with the above pattern of the polysign balance we see in the one-signed numbers
- 1 = 0
which could appear as a time to call for an exception in the progression. I would agree that the one-signed numbers are so exceptional as to be time. When polysign is tied to the rendering of fundamental geometry then this relation becomes fundamental and an argument for emergent spacetime also exists, for the series progressed beyond those three signed numbers so that even four-signed numbers
- 1 + 1 * 1 # 1 = 0
exist and form the equivalent of what modernity calls three dimensional space. Whereas four rays were sufficient under tradition to build the plane in fact when those four rays are properly chosen they represent more, and they do so in a way that extends from the lasy which form the real line which is merely the two-signed numbers within this new construction.

I'm sorry I didn't read your entire post but I do like the gist and I did cover your final surmise.
Time is up for grabs still but I believe that I have found the correct formulation even though it is not yet accepted.