Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.consciousness,sci.physics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!epx.cis.umn.edu!jhgreve
From: jhgreve@epx.cis.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: Time is a human concept (was Re: Reality as a Hologram (Was Re: Discriminative Wisdom))
Message-ID: <CxpJBq.Co2@news.cis.umn.edu>
Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: epx.cis.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota
References: <37fea3$3vg@hpindda.cup.hp.com> <CxJnzC.2np@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <dougt-121094134909@obiwan.ccsm.uiuc.edu> <hubey.782021945@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 09:22:58 GMT
Lines: 35
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:21009 sci.physics:96471

In article <hubey.782021945@pegasus.montclair.edu>,
H. M. Hubey <hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu> wrote:
>dougt@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Doug Turnbull) writes:

>>                               The universe follows linear time. It is not
>>stunted to assert this, any more than it is stunted to assert that we are
>
>Is this true?  I thought physicists weren't decided yet if there's
>enough mass to make a closed/periodic universe ?
>Please note the cross-post to sci.physics.
>						-- Mark---

why does open/closed figure into nature of time?
I submit that it doesn't make any difference, since even if
everything big-crunched and started up a new universe,
the "current prototype" would still have been there (note 
the use of past tense).

Periodic motion, like doug was (orbit-wise) is explained
very nicely in a unidirectional unidemnsional time stream.
Isn't it? if (x,y,z) = f(t), where x,y,z are spatial coordinates,
and f(t) returns a suitable vector, and t is time represented as a
real-valued number, where does the need for non-linear time?

Going back to the subject line, "time = human concept" i suppose
you could say that "x = h.c.", where x is any perception.
"red" is a h.c., pitch.c., etc^2.

I'm curious as to the motivation of the original poster.
This seems like a useless observation, unless, perhaps,
you are into solipsism. :-)
i

		John G.
		jhgreve@epx.cis.umn.edu
