Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!rutgers!argos.montclair.edu!hubey
From: hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey)
Subject: Re: Predicting the Future
Message-ID: <hubey.778450744@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Sender: root@argos.montclair.edu (Operator)
Organization: SCInet @ Montclair State
References: <1994Aug29.145039.24687@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il> <33uk2d$6fp@search01.news.aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 20:19:04 GMT
Lines: 21

drewdalupa@aol.com (DrewDalupa) writes:

>In article <1994Aug29.145039.24687@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il>,
>handrei@ultra1.weizmann.ac.il (Sivachenko Andrei) writes:

>>But up to my knowledge these particles should really move back in time,
>>it's physical statement (well, very strange one) rather than
>>mathematical trick.

>This is the wrong group to delve into the subject too deeply, but what can
>it possibly mean for a particle to move backwards through time?  Time is
>not like space--we can move in any direction through space.  But a
>particle's position as it moves through space is a curve sitting in, not


The only time we can explicitly show the directionality of time is in the equations of thermodynamics.  In all the other equations of physics, there's no preferred direction for time. It behaves like a space dimension. I don't see why this has to imply that we can move backwards in time. It could simply mean that our knowledge of math & physics hasn't developed to a point in which we can describe physical phenomena with equations in which time is not symmetric.

--
						-- Mark---
....we must realize that the infinite in the sense of an infinite totality, 
where we still find it used in deductive methods, is an illusion. Hilbert,1925
